GOAT Boxer [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 02:48 AM

You know how many people feel when posters jump into the main forum on this site and say things like "Kobe/LeBron is the best ever"? Well... that is how true fans of the sweet science feel when misinformed and ignorant people throw out Tyson as the best fighter ever. It is an absolutely laughable assertion. Actually, much worse than comparing LeBron/Kobe to the greatest to ever play basketball... much, much worse. Tyson isn't in the Top 100 pound-for-pound.

People need to realize that, in the early to mid-80s, the heavyweight division was a barren waste land... sort of like it is now... except even worse. Trevor Berbick was the f#cking champ, for god's sake... Berbick.

Tyson took the division by storm and, predictably, destroyed his competition in a horrible division. However, he was never the perfect fighter that some of you are making him out to be. He was just fighting relative bums. What is Tyson's biggest win? A 45-year old Larry Holmes? Michael Spinks, who was a glorified light heavy? Trevor f#cking Berbick? Mitch Green?

Please...

Tyson not only lost every big fight with a great fighter of his own era that he was in, he got demolished in them. Any version of Lennox Lewis or Evander Holyfield beats any version of Tyson. The same goes for Riddick Bowe. Hell... Tyson was the 4th or 5th best heavyweight of his own f#cking generation. Best fighter ever? :oldlol:

Boxing is a very old sport with a lot of great roots that go back to the 19th century.

Your Top 5 should look something like this...

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

If your Top 5 looks like this...

1. Mike Tyson
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Floyd Mayweather
4. Roy Jones Jr.
5. Oscar DeLaHoya

....you should probably exit this thread immediately and never attempt to have a historical discussion about boxing again.... ever.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 05:04 AM

Decent top 10 list with lots of video footage of each fighter:

http://www.squidoo.com/poundforpound

Tyson isn't in the Top 100 pound-for-pound.
I don't know about all that...

I don't think Tyson is top 10 and if I really got into this and did some research he might not make top 20 or 30...

But I find it very hard to say the youngest heavyweight champ and "maybe" the greatest knock out artist ever doesn't belong in the top 100...

If your Top 5 looks like this...

1. Mike Tyson
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Floyd Mayweather
4. Roy Jones Jr.
5. Oscar DeLaHoya

....you should probably exit this thread immediately and never attempt to have a historical discussion about boxing again.... ever.
RJJ "was" amazing to say the least

I am not boxing expert but I have no problem with anyone who has them in thier top 5 list...

iamgine

12-09-2008, 05:27 AM

Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 05:35 AM

^^^ yeah you can't really argue against 179 wins

that is just plain crazy...I can't even really comprehend it

was he boxing every Saturday night or something???...seriously WTF???

George Foreman was heavy weight champ at the age of 45 and only has 76 wins...

Parade

12-09-2008, 05:47 AM

His grandmom is the GOAT trainer as well.

"Chaaalay, geeve me bratvarsnoft now! Now chaaalay!"
:roll:

bratvarsnoft?? :oldlol:

Lebron23

12-09-2008, 05:53 AM

[QUOTE=iamgine]Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest.

Boogaloo

12-09-2008, 05:55 AM

Manny Pac = modern day version of Armstrong

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 04:12 PM

Decent top 10 list with lots of video footage of each fighter:

http://www.squidoo.com/poundforpound
Ali is way too high on that list. I guess there could be an argument for Leonard. Roy Jones Jr. does not belong in the Top 10. No Harry Greb? He belongs in everyone's Top 5 and, if he isn't in this guy's Top 10, it makes me question the entire list.

When Greb retired in 1926, his record was 259-21-14. :eek:

I don't know about all that...

I don't think Tyson is top 10 and if I really got into this and did some research he might not make top 20 or 30...

But I find it very hard to say the youngest heavyweight champ and "maybe" the greatest knock out artist ever doesn't belong in the top 100...
Here is something to think about...

Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, and Riddick Bowe would certainly rank above Tyson in any pound-for-pound discussion. Those guys just have too many more quality wins than Tyson for him to be ranked above him.

Lewis, Bowe, and Holyfield all beat great fighters from their own generation... Tyson never did.

So, if you figure that Tyson is the No. 4 heavyweight of his own generation, that certainly would not rank him in the Top 10 heavyweights of all-time (not even close). Now, factor in how many weight classes there are. Currently, there are 17 weight classes.

So, if you put the absolute four or five BEST in each of those divisions in front of Tyson (which they would deserve to be), you are going to be out of the Top 70 of all-time. Now, there were less weight classes back in the day. There were eight in the days of Willie Pep and Harry Greb.

But, we are talking about probably the oldest sport in America. Tyson's accomplishments just don't warrant his placement on any pound-for-pound lists. He never beat another great fighter in their prime, which should be a perquisite for these lists. Even a heavyweight like Ken Norton had A LOT more quality wins than Tyson.

The fact that Tyson was the youngest HW to ever win the title really has no bearing in this discussion. Yeah... he was fighting his best at a young age, but he never really improved (in fact, he regressed). These lists take entire careers into account.

On top of all of that, heavyweights, in general, normally don't rank very high on pound-for-pound lists. These kinds of lists are made to list the greatest boxers ever, regardless of division. Most of the time, people are hesitant to include a lot of HWs, because they generally aren't the most skilled boxers.

RJJ "was" amazing to say the least

I am not boxing expert but I have no problem with anyone who has them in thier top 5 list...

First, let me say that I was/am a huge RJJ fan. He had absolutely incredible talent and COULD have been a Top 5 pound-for-pound fighter. The problem was that over his decade of dominance from middleweight through light heavyweight, he only fought a couple of really quality opponents (Hopkins and Toney). When you are talking about all-time pound-for-pound discussions, those are really the only two wins that even warrant being brought up... and they were both early in his career.

Jones avoided difficult fights for a good portion of his prime, which is a real shame, because he had the talent to be an all-timer. Wins like Derrick Harmon and Glen Kelly aren't going to get it done, though.

Then, when he finally took the challenge of another good (not great, but good) fighter in the form of Antonio Tarver, he narrowly won the first fight and got destroyed in the second and third fights.

Jones was not in his prime anymore, but don't be fooled into thinking that a prime RJJ would have rolled over Tarver. Antonio knocked Jones down in Olympic qualifying... and the result was Tarver calling out Jones for YEARS and YEARS before Jones finally took the challenge... and we aren't talking about an all-time great, here... we're talking about Antonio Tarver.

I would love to put Jones high on my all-time list, but to have him alongside Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Pep, and Duran just doesn't make any sense when you look at what those guys accomplished as compared to RJJ.

Roy might slip into my Top 30 all-time, but I'd have to invest serious time and effort into compiling such a list and I'm really not feeling that at the moment.

One thing is for sure, though... You should always be able to defend your p4p rankings and not just have a guy up there because he looked really good for an extended period of time. When you take RJJ's record and opponents, it just doesn't justify his placement in the Top 20 all-time... let alone the Top 5.

lefthook00

12-09-2008, 05:11 PM

GOAT is Sugar Ray Robinson. RJJ is a top 5 athlete in boxing,
but not in top 10 in boxing greatness. Tyson is a top 10 athlete in boxing, but not top 10 in boxing greatness. Someone like Lennox Lewis has a HUGE chance of f*cking up Ali in a boxing match.

P.S. - Pernell "Sweat Pea" Whitaker > Floyd "Money" Mayweather.

SLY

12-09-2008, 05:12 PM

Roy Jones Jr. in his prime

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 05:12 PM

Ali is way too high on that list. I guess there could be an argument for Leonard. Roy Jones Jr. does not belong in the Top 10. No Harry Greb? He belongs in everyone's Top 5 and, if he isn't in this guy's Top 10, it makes me question the entire list.

When Greb retired in 1926, his record was 259-21-14. :eek:
that is 294 fights...

I just don't understand that...was he literally fighting once a week?

boxers of today just could not do that and even though I have no idea who Greb is or have seen any footage of him I almost feel as though one has to disregard a record like that for the simple fact that in boxing today even half of that wouldn't even be possible...

But like I said, the only thing I know about that guy is what you just typed out, so for all I know he may have been the greatest ever, or maybe that inflated record is just a reflection of the way the sport was run back then...

Here is something to think about...

Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, and Riddick Bowe would certainly rank above Tyson in any pound-for-pound discussion. Those guys just have too many more quality wins than Tyson for him to be ranked above him.

Lewis, Bowe, and Holyfield all beat great fighters from their own generation... Tyson never did.

So, if you figure that Tyson is the No. 4 heavyweight of his own generation, that certainly would not rank him in the Top 10 heavyweights of all-time (not even close). Now, factor in how many weight classes there are. Currently, there are 17 weight classes.

So, if you put the absolute four or five BEST in each of those divisions in front of Tyson (which they would deserve to be), you are going to be out of the Top 70 of all-time. Now, there were less weight classes back in the day. There were eight in the days of Willie Pep and Harry Greb.

But, we are talking about probably the oldest sport in America. Tyson's accomplishments just don't warrant his placement on any pound-for-pound lists. He never beat another great fighter in their prime, which should be a perquisite for these lists. Even a heavyweight like Ken Norton had A LOT more quality wins than Tyson.

The fact that Tyson was the youngest HW to ever win the title really has no bearing in this discussion. Yeah... he was fighting his best at a young age, but he never really improved (in fact, he regressed). These lists take entire careers into account.

On top of all of that, heavyweights, in general, normally don't rank very high on pound-for-pound lists. These kinds of lists are made to list the greatest boxers ever, regardless of division. Most of the time, people are hesitant to include a lot of HWs, because they generally aren't the most skilled boxers.
Ok, that was a good read...

When you break down the math the way you just did it suddenly doesn't sound so crazy to say Tyson isn't in the top 100...

On the other hand though I almost feel as though he is warrented a big spot just for the attention he brought to boxing alone. Who he was and what he did for the sport could be considered a reason to have him at least top 50. that is probably why Ali makes it so high on every list...

In fact I think Sports Illustrated labeled Ali the greatest "ATHLETE" ever in a top 100 list of ALL sports...

But that would be throwing skill aside and adding popularity into the mix...IDK

BTW, I am no Tyson fan by any means. I was when he started and I NEVER missed one of his fights but he quickly turned into a boxer that I rooted against...I just think that being "THE YOUNGEST HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP EVER" should probably warrent some kind of reward...like you have said numerous times, boxing is very old sport.

First, let me say that I was/am a huge RJJ fan. He had absolutely incredible talent and COULD have been a Top 5 pound-for-pound fighter. The problem was that over his decade of dominance from middleweight through light heavyweight, he only fought a couple of really quality opponents (Hopkins and Toney). When you are talking about all-time pound-for-pound discussions, those are really the only two wins that even warrant being brought up... and they were both early in his career.

Jones avoided difficult fights for a good portion of his prime, which is a real shame, because he had the talent to be an all-timer. Wins like Derrick Harmon and Glen Kelly aren't going to get it done, though.

Then, when he finally took the challenge of another good (not great, but good) fighter in the form of Antonio Tarver, he narrowly won the first fight and got destroyed in the second and third fights.

Jones was not in his prime anymore, but don't be fooled into thinking that a prime RJJ would have rolled over Tarver. Antonio knocked Jones down in Olympic qualifying... and the result was Tarver calling out Jones for YEARS and YEARS before Jones finally took the challenge... and we aren't talking about an all-time great, here... we're talking about Antonio Tarver.

I would love to put Jones high on my all-time list, but to have him alongside Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Pep, and Duran just doesn't make any sense when you look at what those guys accomplished as compared to RJJ.

Roy might slip into my Top 30 all-time, but I'd have to invest serious time and effort into compiling such a list and I'm really not feeling that at the moment.

One thing is for sure, though... You should always be able to defend your p4p rankings and not just have a guy up there because he looked really good for an extended period of time. When you take RJJ's record and opponents, it just doesn't justify his placement in the Top 20 all-time... let alone the Top 5.
You are starting to convince me that he doesn't belong in the top 10 at all and tht perhaps tarver has always had his number.

IDK, I think maybe he may be a case where you have to throw numbers out the window and just look at how amazing he was when he was in his prime...He seems very difficult to rank to me

____________________

Also, don't you have to take time/era into account here???

think of the changes in training/diet/technology/ect...

let me ask you this:

IF WE THREW HARRY GREB AND RJJ IN A RING RIGHT NOW (both in thier prime) WHO WOULD YOU HAVE YOUR MONEY ON???

I know nothing of Greb or even what weight class he was but I find it hard to believe a great boxer of today wouldn't just dominate a boxer of the 1920's...

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 05:44 PM

that is 294 fights...

I just don't understand that...was he literally fighting once a week?

boxers of today just could not do that and even though I have no idea who Greb is or have seen any footage of him I almost feel as though one has to disregard a record like that for the simple fact that in boxing today even half of that wouldn't even be possible...

But like I said, the only thing I know about that guy is what you just typed out, so for all I know he may have been the greatest ever, or maybe that inflated record is just a reflection of the way the sport was run back then...
Greb fought mainly in the middleweight and light heavyweight divisions over the course of his career. Think about this... In 1917, Greb fought 37 times and was 34-3. That is a career for most boxers today... He did it in one year.

And, all btw, during that run in 1917, he beat Willie Meehan, who was coming off of a win over Jack Dempsey. Greb beat several all-timers, including a destruction of Gene Tunney (who would have to rank in anyone's all-time p4p Top 20).

Video footage on some of these early guys is a bit rare, so we have to rely a lot on records and written accounts of what transpired. In fact, there is no actual video of any of Greb's fights. To my knowledge, they don't exist.

I can tell you, though... Greb beat the crap out of Tunney from every account I have read. I've seen Tunney's victories over Dempsey and he was WAY ahead of his time.... a great, great fighter. If Greb beat him up so viciously, I can only imagine how great he was.

You are starting to convince me that he doesn't belong in the top 10 at all and tht perhaps tarver has always had his number.

IDK, I think maybe he may be a case where you have to throw numbers out the window and just look at how amazing he was when he was in his prime...He seems very difficult to rank to me
The problem with that philosophy is that video footage of some of the early greats is so sparse, it gives modern day fighters a major advantage if you are going to rank a guy highly on the all-time list just by how they looked. That is why all respectable p4p lists are about feats, records, accomplishments, and opponents.

Willie Pep was as flashy a boxer as has ever lived. He even won a round without throwing a punch once (the only boxer in recorded history to do so). That is how quick he was and how he would embarrass opponents with his defense. But, so little video footage exists, we can't be overwhelmed by simply watching him.

This is why a lot of flawed lists are heavily weighted in favor of modern fighters. With 50 camera angles, HD quality video, etc., how can you even compare how the fighters actually look?

If you compare videos of Roy Jones Jr. to the grainy, black-and-white videos of Sugar Ray Robinson, you will likely come away more impressed with Jones. But, if we had HD, 50 cameras, etc. in the days of Robinson, it would make his skill level even that more impressive.

The truth is, a real boxing aficionado should be able to rank fighters without having ever seen them fight... In some cases, they have to.

Also, don't you have to take time/era into account here???

think of the changes in training/diet/technology/ect...
Eras do have to be taken into account... absolutely. For instance, you have to know whether a division was 'up' or 'down' when a fighter is dominating. Rocky Marciano retired as undefeated champion, but I would not place him in my Top 5 heavyweights of all-time.

The reason is because he fell squarely in between the Joe Louis era and the Sonny Liston/Floyd Patterson/Clay-Ali era. The division was really down when Marciano ruled over it, but I would have favored a lot of fighters before and after him, if they were to have fought in their primes.

Generational differences like training, diet, number of fights, etc. also has to be taken into account. Just like when evaluating basketball, you can't directly compare modern day athletes with guys that helped make the sport what it is today.

Hell... LeBron would have a significant size advantage on Bill Russell. But, Russell is still an all-time great because of the way he helped revolutionize the sport and he helped make it what it is today.

In the same way, you have to evaluate fighters on how they performed in their eras and against their contemporary great fighters.

IF WE THREW HARRY GREB AND RJJ IN A RING RIGHT NOW (both in thier prime) WHO WOULD YOU HAVE YOUR MONEY ON???

I know nothing of Greb or even what weight class he was but I find it hard to believe a great boxer of today wouldn't just dominate a boxer of the 1920's...

It is really not a fair question. Not only is there no video footage of Greb, even if there was, the guy was fighting just about every damn week. What would have happened if he had five months to train for one fight? What if he was making the millions that the star of today are making and he could afford the best nutritionist and training that money could buy? We will never know...

At the same time, what if you threw Roy Jones Jr. into the mix during the 10s and 20s and he had to fight every two weeks? How would he look then?

That said, I do think that RJJ in his prime at 160 or 168 would have been tough for ANY fighter in the history of boxing to defeat because of his incredible quickness and power. Like I said... that is what makes his avoidance to take part in big fights a tragedy for the sport.

big baller

12-09-2008, 05:48 PM

Your Top 5 should look something like this...

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

did u really put #2-5 over ali? wow.....

lefthook00

12-09-2008, 05:48 PM

Sugar Ray Leonard is to Sugar Ray Robinson as Kobe Bryant is to Michael Jordan.

It's funny b/c boxing is the only sport where generation gaps aren't as big of a deal b/c first of all its a FIGHT, and the rules have been the same for so damn long(the knockdown/tko rules have changed a bit...)...boxing is ancient. When you think about it, the boxers of the past are way harder than the newer ones. Fighting 1/2 times a month(or more) none of this 2/3 fights a year sh*t, trained just as hard or harder, fought for less for money and more for pride, knockdown rules were different(didn't even have a 10 count before), more rounds in a fight(they used to not even have "decisions," the only way a boxer won is when the other one couldn't continue), went up in weight to challenge others like it was nothing...

You can't say that about any other sport. The NFL players of today would beast on players from the 60's...same with basketball. Etc, etc.

SLY

12-09-2008, 05:48 PM

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/34736817_163e7857c9.jpg?v=0

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxing_images2/Pacquiao_DiazSMPC80623_002a.jpg

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 05:50 PM

did u really put #2-5 over ali? wow.....
You are out of your depth, big baller.

I would rank Ali the third best HW of all-time behind Joe Louis and Jack Johnson, for the record.

lefthook00

12-09-2008, 05:56 PM

Greb fought mainly in the middleweight and light heavyweight divisions over the course of his career. Think about this... In 1917, Greb fought 37 times and was 34-3. That is a career for most boxers today... He did it in one year.

And, all btw, during that run in 1917, he beat Willie Meehan, who was coming off of a win over Jack Dempsey. Greb beat several all-timers, including a destruction of Gene Tunney (who would have to rank in anyone's all-time p4p Top 20).

Video footage on some of these early guys is a bit rare, so we have to rely a lot on records and written accounts of what transpired. In fact, there is no actual video of any of Greb's fights. To my knowledge, they don't exist.

I can tell you, though... Greb beat the crap out of Tunney from every account I have read. I've seen Tunney's victories over Dempsey and he was WAY ahead of his time.... a great, great fighter. If Greb beat him up so viciously, I can only imagine how great he was.

The problem with that philosophy is that video footage of some of the early greats is so sparse, it gives modern day fighters a major advantage if you are going to rank a guy highly on the all-time list just by how they looked. That is why all respectable p4p lists are about feats, records, accomplishments, and opponents.

Willie Pep was as flashy a boxer as has ever lived. He even won a round without throwing a punch once (the only boxer in recorded history to do so). That is how quick he was and how he would embarrass opponents with his defense. But, so little video footage exists, we can't be overwhelmed by simply watching him.

This is why a lot of flawed lists are heavily weighted in favor of modern fighters. With 50 camera angles, HD quality video, etc., how can you even compare how the fighters actually look?

If you compare videos of Roy Jones Jr. to the grainy, black-and-white videos of Sugar Ray Robinson, you will likely come away more impressed with Jones. But, if we had HD, 50 cameras, etc. in the days of Robinson, it would make his skill level even that more impressive.

The truth is, a real boxing aficionado should be able to rank fighters without having ever seen them fight... In some cases, they have to.

Eras do have to be taken into account... absolutely. For instance, you have to know whether a division was 'up' or 'down' when a fighter is dominating. Rocky Marciano retired as undefeated champion, but I would not place him in my Top 5 heavyweights of all-time.

The reason is because he fell squarely in between the Joe Louis era and the Sonny Liston/Floyd Patterson/Clay-Ali era. The division was really down when Marciano ruled over it, but I would have favored a lot of fighters before and after him, if they were to have fought in their primes.

Generational differences like training, diet, number of fights, etc. also has to be taken into account. Just like when evaluating basketball, you can't directly compare modern day athletes with guys that helped make the sport what it is today.

Hell... LeBron would have a significant size advantage on Bill Russell. But, Russell is still an all-time great because of the way he helped revolutionize the sport and he helped make it what it is today.

In the same way, you have to evaluate fighters on how they performed in their eras and against their contemporary great fighters.

It is really not a fair question. Not only is there no video footage of Greb, even if there was, the guy was fighting just about every damn week. What would have happened if he had five months to train for one fight? What if he was making the millions that the star of today are making and he could afford the best nutritionist and training that money could buy? We will never know...

At the same time, what if you threw Roy Jones Jr. into the mix during the 10s and 20s and he had to fight every two weeks? How would he look then?

That said, I do think that RJJ in his prime at 160 or 168 would have been tough for ANY fighter in the history of boxing to defeat because of his incredible quickness and power. Like I said... that is what makes his avoidance to take part in big fights a tragedy for the sport.

Too bad RJJ didn't fight GERALD "THE G-MAN" McCLELLAN(one of my top 3 favorite boxers). I think G-Man could have chin checked RJJ early on and put an interesting twist on his career waaaay before Tarver did.

big baller

12-09-2008, 06:02 PM

You are out of your depth, big baller.

I would rank Ali the third best HW of all-time behind Joe Louis and Jack Johnson, for the record.
:oldlol: i agree sugar > ali, but ali is the best heavy weight ever.

EDIT: hell no i don't agree with this, i don't know y i posted this...ali was the best boxer ever, period.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 06:03 PM

Dasher

12-09-2008, 06:04 PM

:oldlol: i agree sugar > ali, but ali is the best heavy weight ever.
Ali was great, but his cultural importance has led to the overrating of his in ring accomplishments.

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 06:05 PM

Too bad RJJ didn't fight GERALD "THE G-MAN" McCLELLAN(one of my top 3 favorite boxers). I think G-Man could have chin checked RJJ early on and put an interesting twist on his career waaaay before Tarver did.
Not only is it too bad that this fight didn't happen, but I personally believe that what happened to Gerald had a significant impact on Roy. RJJ never ducked fighters and they were working their way toward that potential fight. When McClellan was maimed in the ring, Jones Jr. never picked his opponents the same way.

Those two were friends and Roy, imo, saw every boxers worst fears come to life in McClellan-Benn. He didn't want to go down that road and the result was 5-6 years of fighting guys that he knew he could beat.

McClellan-Jones Jr. would have been a modern day Leonard-Hearns... Maybe even better, because both RJJ and the G-Man had great power. There would have been fireworks... that is for sure. I'm not even sure who I would have favored in that potential fight.

For those of you that have never seen McClellan fight, take a look... :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRfR3iy20wA

The guy he is toolboxing starting at around the 2:30 mark is Julian Jackson, one of the greatest knockout artists of all-time. The G-Man made him look like a chump.

He was easily one of the best fighters to come along in my lifetime.

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 06:14 PM

First off like I said I am no boxing expert but seeing ridiculous records like that right away give me the impression that the sport was just throwing these guys any scrub they could find off the street once a week to get some cash...out of 294 fights how many of those were really worth a damn???...You named ONE.

the name Peter McNeilly comes to mind right away here...

think if during Holyfield's/Foreman's career or even Tyson if promoters were just constantly throwing these guys a bunch of Peter McNeillys every two weeks....they would build up thier record to over be in the 100s no problem...

That is just an assumption on my part but I have seen Cinderella Man and if that movie was near the truth then it doesn't seem to hard for some scrub off the street to fight a couple fights and the suddenly he is fighting the champ...
:oldlol:

Hell nah you couldn't be some chump off of the streets and be fighting for a HW championship after a few good fights. The real Cinderella Man (Jim Braddock) was a great fighter that ran into several consecutive losses during the middle part of his career. Most people thought he was done, but he had been a great fighter before that and had built up a very nice resume.

He put things back together toward the end of his career and beat a string of very good/great opponents. He was certainly no chump off of the street.

As for Greb's record being filled with nobodies... He fought EVERY great middleweight and light heavyweight of his generation. I only threw Tunney out there because it is a name that is instantly recognizable, whereas some others may not be to the general sports fan.

Take a look at his resume... Not too many chumps on there...

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9019&cat=boxer

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 06:32 PM

:oldlol:

Hell nah you couldn't be some chump off of the streets and be fighting for a HW championship after a few good fights. The real Cinderella Man (Jim Braddock) was a great fighter that ran into several consecutive losses during the middle part of his career. Most people thought he was done, but he had been a great fighter before that and had built up a very nice resume.

He put things back together toward the end of his career and beat a string of very good/great opponents. He was certainly no chump off of the street.

As for Greb's record being filled with nobodies... He fought EVERY great middleweight and light heavyweight of his generation. I only threw Tunney out there because it is a name that is instantly recognizable, whereas some others may not be to the general sports fan.

Take a look at his resume... Not too many chumps on there...

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9019&cat=boxer
I am not saying your wrong...I am no boxing historian

In fact just looking at the first page of that list real quick I don't think I know any of those names...

I just find it hard to believe that this guy was fighting every two weeks against GOOD fighters, that's all.

That implies there were 200+ great fighters around during his time...and that math just doesn't seem right to me...that's all.

As for the mentioning of that movie, yes he did have a big name and did go through alot of fighters...but he BROKE HIS HAND and at the time was considered to be a scrub after that...it didn't take him but a few fights to get right back on the top...if that wa due to his already known name then OK, I can buy that...but at the same time it kinda shows me that these guys were desperate to find someone to throw in the ring...so they had to go back to a past champion....yes/no???

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 06:45 PM

I am not saying your wrong...I am no boxing historian

In fact just looking at the first page of that list real quick I don't think I know any of those names...
Unless you are a boxing historian, you are not going to recognize any of those names. Don't focus on the names, focus on the records of his opponents and how many belts he fought for over the years.

Sure... there is an occasional scrub mixed in there now and again, but Greb fought and beat EVERYONE that was anyone in his era.

You also need to keep in mind that in the early-1900s, boxing was absolutely huge. It was the biggest sport in the US with nothing even a close second. Baseball was still in its infancy.

Thus, almost all great athletes of that time went into boxing. These weight divisions were absolutely stacked.

When you keep in mind that boxing wasn't battling baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc. for great athletes, it isn't as hard to believe that Greb could fight 200+ quality opponents. You also need to consider that he fought some really great guys five and six times.

As for the mentioning of that movie, yes he did have a big name and did go through alot of fighters...but he BROKE HIS HAND and at the time was considered to be a scrub after that...it didn't take him but a few fights to get right back on the top...if that wa due to his already known name then OK, I can buy that...but at the same time it kinda shows me that these guys were desperate to find someone to throw in the ring...so they had to go back to a past champion....yes/no???
Yes and no.

First of all, the whole idea that those in power of boxing at the time of Braddock were AGAINST him is laughable. That was thrown into the movie just for effect. In fact, he probably got pushed to the top of the contender list in the latter part of his career because he was such a great story and the public loved him.

That movie really didn't draw an accurate depiction of the real story, there.

Secondly, Braddock defeated a lot of guys at the top of the contender list to earn that shot at Baer. John Henry Lewis, Art Lasky, Corn Griffin... Those were all top-notch guys.

Just put it this way... If a fighter today beat three guys in the Top 5 of his division, would it warrant a shot at the title? Probably so. That is what Braddock did prior to getting his shot at Baer.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 06:52 PM

So what is it that makes this statement false?

Greb > Robinson

sunsfan1357

12-09-2008, 07:16 PM

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 07:22 PM

So what is it that makes this statement false?

Greb > Robinson

There is nothing that makes that statement wrong. In fact, you might be able to make a case for Greb (but a better case can be made for Henry Armstrong).

But, consider this...

At his peak, Robinson's record was 128-1-2. After winning his first 40 professional fights, he lost his first professional bout to Jake LaMotta. AFter that loss, he won 91 consecutive fights, a streak that lasted EIGHT YEARS.

Also, consider that Robinson was a natural lightweight. He moved up to welterweight and then middleweight (where LaMotta was) because he had no competition in the other weight classes. LaMotta outweighted Robinson by a good 20 pounds... and SRR still went 5-1 against him.

Robinson defeated TEN Hall of Fame fighters in his career...

Jake Lamotta, Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Rocky Graziano, Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio

...I can keep going. :oldlol:

3.2.1.

12-09-2008, 07:24 PM

Someone answer these questions...

Is Ali really that overrated?

Is Tyson really that overrated?

How come Holyfield hasn't got one recongnition in this whole thread?

big baller

12-09-2008, 07:26 PM

Someone answer these questions...

Is Ali really that overrated?

Is Tyson really that overrated?

How come Holyfield hasn't got one recongnition in this whole thread?

Ali not at all, tyson...well he might be. holyfield is not one of the top 10 so he dont get recognized.

lefthook00

12-09-2008, 07:27 PM

Not only is it too bad that this fight didn't happen, but I personally believe that what happened to Gerald had a significant impact on Roy. RJJ never ducked fighters and they were working their way toward that potential fight. When McClellan was maimed in the ring, Jones Jr. never picked his opponents the same way.

Those two were friends and Roy, imo, saw every boxers worst fears come to life in McClellan-Benn. He didn't want to go down that road and the result was 5-6 years of fighting guys that he knew he could beat.

McClellan-Jones Jr. would have been a modern day Leonard-Hearns... Maybe even better, because both RJJ and the G-Man had great power. There would have been fireworks... that is for sure. I'm not even sure who I would have favored in that potential fight.

For those of you that have never seen McClellan fight, take a look... :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRfR3iy20wA

The guy he is toolboxing starting at around the 2:30 mark is Julian Jackson, one of the greatest knockout artists of all-time. The G-Man made him look like a chump.

He was easily one of the best fighters to come along in my lifetime.

I think G-Man could have wrecked RJJ. He was the only one that had the length, speed, punching power, physical power, discipline, technique, and JAW to hang with RJJ. I think RJJ would have f*cked other great middleweight fighters like Benn and Eubank up...I think the diff. in the RJJ/G-Man fight would be Geralds jaw..his was better than a young RJJs jaw imo.

Dasher

12-09-2008, 07:29 PM

Is Ali really that overrated?
I like to call it the "Lil Wayne Effect", if you say that you are the greatest, loud enough and for long enough, people will start to believe it.

Is Tyson really that overrated?
Yes

How come Holyfield hasn't got one recongnition in this whole thread?He has no claim to being in anyone's top ten. In my eyes he lost the first two fights with Bowe. To me it is Bowe 2, Holyfield 1. Evander is a great fighter, and a HOFamer, but he is not a pantheon level fighter.

RedBlackAttack

12-09-2008, 07:32 PM

RBA I'm not boxing historian as well, but I love reading up on the history of boxing and try to learn more when I can so I got a question. You have Duran in your top five? Just looking at this list of fights it seems he lost most of his fights against the bigger names in his day like Camacho, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns. Does he still get kudos for these fights because he was a natural lightweight and fought these guys at middleweight?
Duran was the closest thing to unbeatable when he was a lightweight as any fighter in boxing history. Furthermore, he started at featherweight and is regarded as easily the greatest featherweight to ever live.

People tend to only remember the Duran of the 80s, but he was at his absolute peak in the late-70s, destroying everyone at lightweight.

Then, he moved up to welterweight because of lack of competition and he embarrassed Sugar Ray Leonard in their first fight. Keep in mind that Duran was already probably a little out of his prime by then... and he beat up one of the greatest fighters ever.

He would go on to win titles at welterweight and middleweight. He is one of a very short list of guys that have won titles at featherweight, lightweight, welterweight, and middleweight.

He came very close to beating Hagler at 160 and he was WAY out of his prime at the time.

Duran was listed by Ring Magazine as one of the Top 5 pound-for-pound fighters of all-time, so it certainly isn't a stretch to have him there. Most people only focus on his fights with Leonard, Hearns and Hagler, but he was out of his prime by then.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 07:36 PM

There is nothing that makes that statement wrong. In fact, you might be able to make a case for Greb (but a better case can be made for Henry Armstrong).

But, consider this...

At his peak, Robinson's record was 128-1-2. After winning his first 40 professional fights, he lost his first professional bout to Jake LaMotta. AFter that loss, he won 91 consecutive fights, a streak that last EIGHT YEARS.

Also, consider that Robinson was a natural lightweight. He moved up to welterweight and then middleweight (where LaMotta was) because he had no competition in the other weight classes. LaMotta outweighted Robinson by a good 20 pounds... and SRR still went 5-1 against him.

Robinson defeated TEN Hall of Fame fighters in his career...

Jake Lamotta, Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Rocky Graziano, Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio

...I can keep going. :oldlol:
just...wow

that is all I have to say about that...

wow :eek:

3.2.1.

12-09-2008, 07:39 PM

I like to call it the "Lil Wayne Effect", if you say that you are the greatest, loud enough and for long enough, people will start to believe it.

Yes

He has no claim to being in anyone's top ten. In my eyes he lost the first two fights with Bowe. To me it is Bowe 2, Holyfield 1. Evander is a great fighter, and a HOFamer, but he is not a pantheon level fighter.
Thanks for the insight Dashman.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 07:47 PM

RBA..

why is it also that you don't regard any of things that these guys did for the sport that didn't include the fighter's actual fighting?

part of what makes Ali so great was the simple fact that he brought so much attention to himself and spoke it LOUD...people fell in love with him for that

part of what makes Tyson so great was just his bulldog intimidation "I WILL EAT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ALIVE" type image that he gave off...

do these intangables get no extra points when ranking these guys overall???

you made a fanastic arguement for why Tyson isn't even a top 100 fighter (wow) but it seems to me that he should get some recongnition just for the mear fact he brought so attention to boxing alone...

Dasher

12-09-2008, 07:59 PM

XxNeXuSxX

12-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Tyson's intimidation factor is not unique, and neither is the attention he brought to boxing. Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, and George Foreman easily match his intimidation. Boxing was in America's top 3 sports popularity wise all the way up to the 90's, so the attention that Mike brought was not special in any way. In the past, there would be 100,000 people at championship fights.

Well said. Tyson, in terms of actually intimidating people in fights fails once you get persecuted by Buster Douglas. Foreman was the true king of intimidation and actually got fighters to back down many times throughout his career in fear he would kill them. Hard to picture seeing as he's turned his life around 100% and become the most jolly guy can imagine.

Ali=Jack Johnson in terms of self-aggrandizing , media attention, and persecution from the law. As much as I love Ali, Jack Johnson was the blue print for the establishment rattling boxer. He was marrying white women in the 1900's, and had a law passed to stop him from frollicking with the snowbunnies.
Eh, let's not compare him to Jack Johnson. That guy encouraged race riots after his fights; something Ali would be strictly opposed to.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 08:17 PM

Tyson's intimidation factor is not unique, and neither is the attention he brought to boxing. Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, and George Foreman easily match his intimidation. Boxing was in America's top 3 sports popularity wise all the way up to the 90's, so the attention that Mike brought was not special in any way. In the past, there would be 100,000 people at championship fights.

sure other fighters brought a ton of attention to the sport, but like RBA said the HW division was completely dead until Tyson came along and took in by storm...and he brought a WHOLE bunch of attention with him. (along with one of the greatest video games ever :D )

as far as the intimidation factor goes I guess I am just talking about the type of intimidation...Tyson came off as a crazed animal and even literally bit a fighters ears off...the stuff he said in and out of the ring is just...wow

he is very unique in that aspect it seems...

IDK, as a pure fighter I can see how he isn't considered top 100

but as one of the most well know boxing personalities he has to be ranked high...

plus there is that whole "youngest HW in the history of boxing" thing as well...

btw...I hope I am not coming off as a Tyson fan here, I am far from it, I am just having alot of trouble not putting him in a TOP 100 list here...that just seems wrong to me even though I can see the logic behind it.

Dasher

12-09-2008, 08:25 PM

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 08:37 PM

Divisions are all dead at some point. Tyson electrified the division, but Ali had already done the same thing a decade before. Ali did it twice in fact, once as Cassius Clay and later as Muhammad Ali. The Heavyweight division is electrified once a decade. The only reason it hasn't been this decade is that American fans are xenophobic when it comes to heavyweight boxers and refused to really support Lennox Lewis.
I hope that is true because right now it is...:sleeping

Boxing is full of over the top personalities. Is Tyson really more colorful than Don King, Ali, Burt Sugar, The Mayweather Clan. Tyson is more of a sideshow than the aforementioned cats, but boxing is the one sport where the athletes are not robots and can say whatever they want to say, so being over the to isn't that big of a deal. C'mon boxing gave us "The Fan Man Incident". Bland boxing personalities are a bit of a rarity in the Sweet Science when you think about it.
Sure it is full of personalities, I am just saying that Tyson's was very unique when compared to others...I don't think "colorful" really describes it...more of the lack of color, complete darkness and evil.

Plenty of fighters walk into the ring doing a back flip and dance around claiming to be the greatest ever.

Tyson walked in with a cut open towel, didn't say a word, just stared into the other guys eyes, and everyone watching on pay-per-view is thinking "oh no, that guy is about to get his head ripped off".

Like I said, I can see how he isn't a TOP 100 but at the same time I just can't quite bring myself to agree with it...Tyson was too big of a deal it seems to leave him off a TOP 100 list to me, it just doesn't feel right.

Dasher

12-09-2008, 08:46 PM

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 08:59 PM

Tyson was fighting cans. He is an overhyped combination of Ricardo Mayorga(Over the top sideshow personality), RJJ(Fought Cans during his prime), De La Hoya(Got big time fights past his prime because of his name).

Mike was a product of great marketing. When you look at the fighters that. The fighters that Miker were eating were bums. Iron Mike was all an act, and his exposure by Buster Douglas completely stripped him of his aura fairly early during his career.

Mike did not do much for the last decade of his career, but get smacked around. Imagine if he had not ducked a prime Riddick Bowe, by saying he did not want to fight him because he had a son. It would have been ugly.

It can be argued that Sugar Ray Leonard was just as big.
Hey I have already admitted that as a fighter he may not even be top 100...Leonard is miles ahead of him

I am just talking about the "hype" that you speak of that came from knocking the heads off of cans.

That tremendous "hype" should get some consideration...

as well as the fact that he is the youngest HW Champ in the history of boxing which keeps getting ignored for some reason...

man it is hard to stick up for this guy, but TOP 100?...he can't slip in at #98 or something???...:D

Odomize

12-09-2008, 09:05 PM

Iron Mike was perhaps the most exciting boxer for casual fans during the 80's and 90s. He was like the Michael Jordan of boxing. I was not a big boxing fan but anytime I heard Mike Tyson gonna fight I just got to watch it. Any other boxer, not so much.

Too bad his personal life destroyed his career. Perfect example of self destructing behaviors.

Boxing need another heavyweight golden boy.

Dasher

12-09-2008, 09:10 PM

98 is too high for him. In his generation he is barely a top 4 heavyweight.

Fighters from classes of his era who I would rate ahead of him:
Bowe
Holyfield
Lewis
RJJ
Mohammad Qwai
Sweetpea
Hector Comacho
Sugar Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Hitman Hearns
Sweetpea
Julio Ceasar Chavez
B-Hop

I didn't even go into other eras. The list of boxers greater than Mike starts to grow quickly if I do that.

PBF
Felix Trinidad
Pacman
Joe Calzhage
DLH

Have arguments now, and Chad Dawson, Paul Williams, and Antonio Margarito will have arguments in the future if they keep up the good work.

Aside from hype what puts him over Zab Judah?

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 09:19 PM

98 is too high for him. In his generation he is barely a top 4 heavyweight.

Fighters from classes of his era who I would rate ahead of him:
Bowe
Holyfield
Lewis
RJJ
Mohammad Qwai
Sweetpea
Hector Comacho
Sugar Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Hitman Hearns
Sweetpea
Julio Ceasar Chavez
B-Hop

I didn't even go into other eras. The list of boxers greater than Mike starts to grow quickly if I do that.
not in his era and I fail to see how this proves he can't squeeze in at #98...

Aside from hype what puts him over Zab Judah?
Zab Judah???

how about the fact that he was the youngest heavyweight in the history of

boxing...EVER!!!...in it's LONG LONG history...

why does that continue to be ignored here?

d_white089

12-09-2008, 09:20 PM

Had Mike Tyson had a decent head on his shoulders, and a work ethic comparable to even modern day fighters like Pavlik or Pacquaio, he COULD have been among the 2 or 3 greatest of all time. The skills he displayed early on in his career have rarely been seen in the history of the sport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozA0KrTY0A&feature=related

Also, Roberto Duran should be getting a lot more love in the discussion.

d_white089

12-09-2008, 09:22 PM

You are out of your depth, big baller.

I would rank Ali the third best HW of all-time behind Joe Louis and Jack Johnson, for the record.

How many Jack Johnson fights have you viewed?

Dasher

12-09-2008, 09:24 PM

Tyson's era straddles Sugar Ray's, his peak was during the 80s. Mike was fairly garbage from then on.

The youngest champ gets short shrift because it is an accident of birth issue. During the olden days, young fighters had to cut their teeth more in amateur fights, and they did not get title shots as quickly as they do now. Cats are getting shots at titles after 15 fights now. Then you had to have 40 to 50 wins before you got a shot. it would have been impressive if he had had to go through a great class of heavyweights to get the strap, but he did not. As things got real Mike disappeared, the great heavies of his era completely outclass Mike.

EDIT:Take Archie Moore, he was a successful fighter for 16 years before he got a title shot. Let that marinate before you come with the youngest ever factoid again.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 09:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozA0KrTY0A&feature=related

wow...I was just about to post that same vid until I saw that you had...:D

I challenge anyone to honestly watch that video all the way through and tell me that Tyson doesn't belong on a top 100 list.

Sure they were all "cans"...but just because he constantly destroyed these "cans" doesn't make him a "can" himself.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 09:39 PM

found this...seems somewhat knowleable

All-time top 100 boxers, end of 2007

The newest members of the International Boxing Hall of Fame were announced this week and since my ranking depends on who is in the Hall, the new inductees -- especially Larry Holmes -- shake up the rankings a bit.

That plus the fact the next major fight is not until Jan. 19 when Felix Trinidad and Roy Jones Jr. try to recapture their youth against other and I've decided to publish my all-time 100 top boxers in history a couple of weeks early.

That allows me to concentrate on finishing my next project. The greatest pro football players of all time. The offensive players should be ready by Jan. 1 but defense is going to take me well into the spring.

Back to boxing. Below is the updated list with an additional category -- how much a fighter rose or dropped in the ranking. I made two significant revisions to the list this year -- adding a bonus category for defeating all-time greats and a unified champion category for fighters after 1983 with more points -- so there was a lot of shuffling. Way more than what will happen in the coming years.

The top 10 were unchanged:

1. Muhammad Ali, 1960-81, U.S., 84.955, +0
2. Joe Louis, 1934-51, U.S., 84.312, +0
3. Henry Armstrong, 1931-45, U.S., 79.434, +0
4. Sugar Ray Robinson, 1940-65, U.S., 75.299, +0
5. Rocky Marciano, 1947-55, U.S., 62.776, +0
6. Wilfredo Gomez, 1974-89, Puerto Rico, 62.665, +0
7. Carlos Monzon, 1963-77, Argentina, 61.514, +0
8. Joe Gans, 1891-09, U.S., 60.829, +0
9. Alexis Arguello, 1968-95, Nicaragua, 60.008, +0
10. Larry Holmes, 1973-02, U.S., 60.004, +0

There were some real climbers at 11 through 19.

11. Archie Moore, 1936-63, U.S., 59.812, +4
12. Aaron Pryor, 1976-90, U.S., 59.526, +0
13. Marvin Hagler, 1973-87, U.S., 59.440, +5
14. Ezzard Charles, 1940-59, U.S., 59.078, -3
15. Manuel Ortiz, 1938-55, U.S., 59.017, -2
16. Carlos Ortiz, 1955-72, Puerto Rico, 58.838, -2
17. Roy Jones Jr., 1989-07, U.S., 58.473, +8
18. Barney Ross, 1929-38, U.S., 57.821, -2
19. Michael Spinks, 1977-88, U.S., 57.381, +11

Hagler and Jones benefitted from the unified champion category as did Spinks. Spinks also gained a lot of points with Holmes' induction into the Hall of Fame courtesy of his two controversial decisions that ended Larry's unbeaten streak.

20. Willie Pep, 1940-66, U.S., 57.220, -3
21. Jose Napoles, 1958-75, Cuba, 56.234, +1
22. Salvador Sanchez, 1975-82, Mexico, 56.016, -3
23. Ricardo Lopez, 1985-01, Mexico, 55.570, -3
24. Bernard Hopkins, 1988-07, U.S., 55.444, +21
25. Eder Jofre, 1957-76, Brazil, 55.341, -4
26. Felix Trinidad, 1990-05, Puerto Rico, 54.589, +0
27. Julio Cesar Chavez, 1980-05, Mexico, 54.110, -3
28. Roberto Duran, 1968-01, Panama, 54.076, -5
29. Thomas Hearns, 1977-06, U.S., 53.432, -2

30. Abe Attell, 1900-17, U.S., 53.115, +1
31. Khaosai Galaxy, 1980-91, Thailand, 53.056, +3
32. Sandy Saddler, 1944-56, U.S., 53.025, +1
33. Sugar Ray Leonard, 1977-97, U.S., 52.986, +2
34. George Foreman, 1969-97, U.S., 52.962, -6
35. Antonio Cervantes, 1964-83, Colombia, 52.905, +3
36. Tommy Ryan, 1887-07, U.S., 52.803, +0
37. Carlos Zarate, 1970-88, Mexico, 52.574, +1
38. Azumah Nelson, 1979-98, Ghana, 52.548, +2
39. Mike Tyson, 1985-05, U.S., 52.547, +27

Tyson had a remarkable year without actually winning a fight. Adding the unified title fight category really added a lot of points. He also gained points on the Holmes Hall of Fame induction and even picked up some bonus points because of the rapid rise of Michael Spinks, whom Tyson destroyed in about 1 minute.

40. James Jeffries, 1896-10, U.S., 52.475, +1
41. Gene Tunney, 1915-28, U.S., 52.352, -2
42. Joe Frazier, 1965-81, U.S., 52.302, -13
43. Floyd Mayweather Jr., 1996-07, U.S., 52.236, +5
44. Terry McGovern, 1897-08, U.S., 52.224, -2
45. Yoko Gushiken, 1974-81, Japan, 52.167, -2
46. Eusebio Pedroza, 1973-92, Panama, 52.145, -2
47. Evander Holyfield, 1984-07, U.S., 52.053, +20
48. Jack Johnson, 1897-28, U.S., 51.430, -11
49. Flash Elorde, 1951-71, Phillippines, 51.315, -2

50. Jimmy McLarnin, 1923-36, U.S., 51.251, -4
51. Stanley Ketchel, 1904-10, U.S., 51.021, +4
52. Oscar De La Hoya, 1992-07, U.S., 50.954, +6
53. Pascual Perez, 1952-64, Argentina, 50.932, -4
54. Lennox Lewis, 1989-03, United Kingdom, 50.711, +16
55. Bob Foster, 1961-78, U.S., 50.704, -5
56. Floyd Patterson, 1952-72, U.S., 50.664, -3
57. Vicente Saldivar, 1961-73, Mexico, 50.623, -5
58. Kostya Tszyu, 1992-05, Australia, 50.605, +5
59. Benny Leonard, 1911-32, U.S., 50.579, -8

Lennox Lewis is going to climb quite a bit in the coming years. He has wins over both Holyfield and Tyson, sure Hall of Famers, and even may gain from Vitali Klitschko, if he somehow sneaks in. Eventually, he'll end up higher than Tyson and Holyfield.

60. Tony Canzoneri, 1925-39, U.S., 50.429, -6
61. Harry Greb, 1913-26, U.S., 50.428, -5
62. Joe Calzaghe, 1993-07, United Kingdom, 50.083, +14
63. Duilio Loi, 1948-62, Italy, 49.893, -3
64. Emile Griffith, 1958-77, U.S., 49.476, -5
65. Naseem Hamed, 1992-02, United Kingdom, 49.407, +7
66. Chiquita Gonzalez, 1984-95, Mexico, 49.112, -9
67. Dariusz Michalczewski, 1991-05, Poland, 49.014, NR
68. Miguel Angel Cotto, 2001-07, Puerto Rico, 48.936, +16
69. Sam Langford, 1902-26, U.S., 48.890, -8

I simply hadn't rated Michalczewski before. He's a sure Hall of Famer. Cotto flew up the charts with the win over Mosley. I'm hoping a Cotto/Mayweather fight comes in 2008. Calzaghe jumped with the win over Kessler, but he also needs some more big name wins.

70. Michael Carbajal, 1989-99, Canada, 48.883, -6
71. Erik Morales, 1993-07, Mexico, 48.733, -5
72. Nino Benvenuti, 1961-71, Italy, 48.617, -7
73. Jackie Kid Berg, 1924-45, U.S., 48.427, -5
74. Marcel Cerdan, 1934-49, France, 48.376, +6
75. Pernell Whitaker, 1984-01, U.S., 48.308, NR
76. Hector Camacho, 1980-05, Puerto Rico, 48.191, -7
77. Sugar Shane Mosley, 1993-07, U.S., 48.178, -15
78. Ike Williams, 1940-55, U.S., 48.142, -8
79. Juan Carlos Gomez, 1995-07, Cuba, 48.011, -6

Mosley took a tumble because of the Cotto loss. Whitaker's initial ranking was why I added the unified title fight category. He ranked No. 102 because of his low rate of knockouts. But he dominated his weight class for five years and deserved more points.

80. John Henry Lewis, 1928-39, U.S., 47.995, -6
81. Jack Dempsey, 1914-27, U.S., 47.989, -7
82. Panama Al Brown, 1922-42, Panama, 47.827, -7
83. James Toney, 1988-07, U.S., 47.797, -4
84. Marco Antonio Barrera, 1989-07, Mexico, 47.350, +3
85. Fabrice Tiozzo, 1988-06, France, 47.326, NR
86. Wilfredo Benitez, 1973-90, Puerto Rico, 47.300, -5
87. Jorge Arce, 1996-07, Mexico, 47.260, +5
88. Freddie Welsh, 1905-22, United Kingdom, 47.195, -5
89. Maxie Rosenbloom, 1923-39, U.S., 47.071, -4

Tiozzo is another fighter I didn't rank until just recently.

90. Myung Woo Yuh, 1982-93, South Korea, 46.932, -4
91. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam, 1994-07, Thailand, 46.803, -3
92. William Joppy, 1993-07, U.S., 46.681, -2
93. Bob Montgomery, 1938-50, U.S., 46.653, -4
94. Lou Ambers, 1932-41, U.S., 46.542, -3
95. Sven Ottke, 1997-04, Germany, 46.465, -1
96. Arthur Abraham, 2003-07, Germany, 46.436, NR
97. Victor Galindez, 1969-80, Argentina, 46.395, -2
98. Mickey Walker, 1919-35, U.S., 46.395, -3
99. Orlando Canizales, 1984-99, U.S., 46.371, -2

100. Jimmy Wilde, 1910-23, United Kingdom, 46.333, -2

Ottke retired as an undefeated champ but didn't fight anyone of note. Abraham hopefully will start fighting some better competition -- Kelly Pavlik? William Joppy seems high but he held various titles for nine years.

http://whosbest.blogspot.com/2007/12/all-time-top-100-boxers-end-of-2007.html

Dasher

12-09-2008, 09:44 PM

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 09:46 PM

TBH any list with Ali at the top instead of Sugar Ray Robinson should be disregarded. RJJ should not be in the top 20. Can you provide a link? There is no way that Tyson should be ahead of Demsey. There are so many problems with that list that it is laughable.
yeah...

nevermind that list is complete trash now that I look at it

they have Tyson ahead of Holyfield who destroyed him twice...

pretend I didn't just post that...:oldlol:

Greb is at #61

link at the bottom of that post btw...

Odomize

12-09-2008, 09:51 PM

of course Tyson is a top 100. He single handedly made boxing relevant again. Plus he KOed half his opponents in the first round.

Dasher

12-09-2008, 09:55 PM

of course Tyson is a top 100. He single handedly made boxing relevant again. Plus he KOed half his opponents in the first round.
Boxing was already relevant. Sugar Ray Leonard carried the sport after Ali retired.

GOBB

12-09-2008, 09:56 PM

Like I said... that is what makes his avoidance to take part in big fights a tragedy for the sport.

He came at a time where there were no big fights, difficult boxers out there. Run off a list of guys who RJJ should have stepped in a ring with/fought.

GOBB

12-09-2008, 10:06 PM

Not only is it too bad that this fight didn't happen, but I personally believe that what happened to Gerald had a significant impact on Roy.

The impact it had in my eyes was what led me to stop being a big fan. He lost the killer instinct. He used to anihilate opponents and go for the kill. Since then? He kicked guys ass but toyed with them like a cat does a mouse. A cat can easily kill the mouse but it smacks it around a few times for fun. Seemed like he looked at boxing like he wanted to beat his opponent soundly but didnt want to physically damage, hurt or put them on a stretcher.

RJJ just came at a time where his skill level was far superior then anyone. He made it look too easy and I just dont see any fighter he didnt fight that would give him a fight. The only guy was Bernard Hopkins and neither could ever agree on terms because of ego/pride. Outside of that? Pfft, imo closest thing to Sugar Ray Robinson the sport has seen.

big baller

12-09-2008, 10:07 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

wow, u guys r funny and pathetic...sugar ray> ali? :oldlol:

very funny thread right here.

Odomize

12-09-2008, 10:09 PM

Boxing was already relevant. Sugar Ray Leonard carried the sport after Ali retired.
no he didn't

GOBB

12-09-2008, 10:14 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

wow, u guys r funny and pathetic...sugar ray> ali? :oldlol:

very funny thread right here.

We're funny and pathetic? You never saw Sugar Ray Robinson box in your life. All you know of Ali is his famous soundbites "I'm the greatest!". I mean how much of Ali the boxer have you honestly seen? I'm talkin full fights. Not clips. Not still photos.

Matter of fact notice how RedBlackAttack broke down his views/opinions? Notice they were in depth? I'd like for you to show the board how Sugar Ray Robinson > Ali is funny and pathetic. Do not reply in a childish manner. You either show us how we are funny and pathetic or save face because "I was jokin".

Dasher

12-09-2008, 10:15 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

wow, u guys r funny and pathetic...sugar ray> ali? :oldlol:

very funny thread right here.
Ali admits that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest P4P fighter of all time.

no he didn't
Sugar Ray Leonard and his rivalries electrified the sporting world during the 80s. He was on of the biggest stars in the world of sports. He had MJ-like endorsements.Tyson fights were a spectacle, but Sugar Ray vs Hagler/Hearns/Duran were epic. Tyson fights did not come close to being as anticipated. When it came to Tyson you were wondering how long the can would last.

XxNeXuSxX

12-09-2008, 10:18 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

wow, u guys r funny and pathetic...sugar ray> ali? :oldlol:

very funny thread right here.
And again big baller is completely out of the loop. Do you even know who Sugar Ray was?

iamgine

12-09-2008, 10:23 PM

Sugar Ray Leonard was to De La Hoya as Mike Tyson was to Muhammad Ali.

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 10:26 PM

Sugar Ray Leonard and his rivalries electrified the sporting world during the 80s. He was on of the biggest stars in the world of sports. He had MJ-like endorsements.Tyson fights were a spectacle, but Sugar Ray vs Hagler/Hearns/Duran were epic. Tyson fights did not come close to being as anticipated. When it came to Tyson you were wondering how long the can would last.
Top Pay-Per-View Boxing Events

These are the top 6 grossing pay-per-view bouts in boxing history. The 2007 De La Hoya versus Mayweather made the top of the list. I guess all that marketing by HBO payed off.

1. De La Hoya-Mayweather - on 5/5/2007 - 2.15 million total buys - $120 million gross revenue
2. Lewis-Tyson - on 6/8/2002 - 1.95 million total buys - $112 million gross revenue
3. Holyfield-Tyson II - on 6/28/1997 - 1.99 million total buys - $100.2 million gross revenue
4. Holyfield-Tyson I - on 11/9/1996 - 1.59 million total buys - $77.9 million gross revenue
5. Tyson-McNeeley - on 8/19/1995 - 1.55 million total buys - $67.1 million gross revenue
6. Trinidad-De La Hoya - on 9/18/1999 - 1.25 million total buys - $64.0 million gross revenue

http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/6829/TV/Top+PayPerView+Boxing+Events.aspx

I know Leonard wasn't really fighting when pay-per-view came around but millions of people were not dishing out $50 a piece to watch Leonard fight like they were with Tyson...

I am sure they would have but the fact that Tyson owns 4 spots on the top 5 list shows enough to me...(one of them with a complete scrub nobody)

the guy was a big deal...that's all I'm sayin

Dasher

12-09-2008, 10:32 PM

I know Leonard wasn't really fighting when pay-per-view came around but millions of people were not dishing out $50 a piece to watch Leonard fight like they were with Tyson...
There is your answer. Leonard was a Madison Ave. darling, and one of the biggest stars of the 80s period. His fights were primarily on broadcast television, and his missed pay-per-view and cable penetration by a few years. Leonard-Duran I, II would have easily been in the top ten had pay-per-view had been what it was when Mike was getting paid.

sunsfan1357

12-09-2008, 10:40 PM

anyone know what PPV results were for Pac/DLH?

-primetime-

12-09-2008, 10:41 PM

There is your answer. Leonard was a Madison Ave. darling, and one of the biggest stars of the 80s period. His fights were primarily on broadcast television, and his missed pay-per-view and cable penetration by a few years. Leonard-Duran I, II would have easily been in the top ten had pay-per-view had been what it was when Mike was getting paid.
I can remember a sudden and amazing boxing craze when Tyson came into the picture though that was unlike that of Leonard/Hagler/Herns...

Sure those fights would have draw huge ratings but you have to understand what happened when Tyson came into the picture...he was just WAY more of an attraction...

btw I grew up in the 80s...I can clearly remember the "Tyson boom"

magic chiongson

12-09-2008, 11:46 PM

i've seen 2 sugar ray robinson - jake lamotta fights on espn classic and all i can say is that jake lamotta can really take punches and has a very good chin ;p

anyway i agree that sugar ray robinson is goat

big baller

12-10-2008, 12:11 AM

We're funny and pathetic? You never saw Sugar Ray Robinson box in your life. All you know of Ali is his famous soundbites "I'm the greatest!". I mean how much of Ali the boxer have you honestly seen? I'm talkin full fights. Not clips. Not still photos.

Matter of fact notice how RedBlackAttack broke down his views/opinions? Notice they were in depth? I'd like for you to show the board how Sugar Ray Robinson > Ali is funny and pathetic. Do not reply in a childish manner. You either show us how we are funny and pathetic or save face because "I was jokin".

yes i have watched full matches of ali, back in the day my dad always had friends come over to watch diff ali fights, and i got to see all 28 tapes he's got. it just amuses me cuz u guys r the only people i have ever heard say "ali<sugar" and wuts even more amusing is tht some people don't even have ali in thr top 5. and yes nexus, i know who sugar is,am not a dumba$$. than again we all have opinions, so u guys go ahead and keep posting sugar>ali. and dasher, sure ali says sugar is the best, lebron says the same thing about Kobe. and im not saying sugar was not good, he was gr8, him and Brown Bomber would be fighting for the number 2 spot on my list.

sunsfan1357

12-10-2008, 12:30 AM

yes i have watched full matches of ali, back in the day my dad always had friends come over to watch diff ali fights, and i got to see all 28 tapes he's got. it just amuses me cuz u guys r the only people i have ever heard say "ali<sugar" and wuts even more amusing is tht some people don't even have ali in thr top 5. and yes nexus, i know who sugar is,am not a dumba$$. than again we all have opinions, so u guys go ahead and keep posting sugar>ali. and dasher, sure ali says sugar is the best, lebron says the same thing about Kobe. and im not saying sugar was not good, he was gr8, him and Brown Bomber would be fighting for the number 2 spot on my list.

pretty much every publication has sugar ray robinson ahead of ali.

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 12:37 AM

RedBlackAttack

12-10-2008, 12:53 AM

Top Pay-Per-View Boxing Events

These are the top 6 grossing pay-per-view bouts in boxing history. The 2007 De La Hoya versus Mayweather made the top of the list. I guess all that marketing by HBO payed off.

1. De La Hoya-Mayweather - on 5/5/2007 - 2.15 million total buys - $120 million gross revenue
2. Lewis-Tyson - on 6/8/2002 - 1.95 million total buys - $112 million gross revenue
3. Holyfield-Tyson II - on 6/28/1997 - 1.99 million total buys - $100.2 million gross revenue
4. Holyfield-Tyson I - on 11/9/1996 - 1.59 million total buys - $77.9 million gross revenue
5. Tyson-McNeeley - on 8/19/1995 - 1.55 million total buys - $67.1 million gross revenue
6. Trinidad-De La Hoya - on 9/18/1999 - 1.25 million total buys - $64.0 million gross revenue

http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/6829/TV/Top+PayPerView+Boxing+Events.aspx

I know Leonard wasn't really fighting when pay-per-view came around but millions of people were not dishing out $50 a piece to watch Leonard fight like they were with Tyson...

I am sure they would have but the fact that Tyson owns 4 spots on the top 5 list shows enough to me...(one of them with a complete scrub nobody)

the guy was a big deal...that's all I'm sayin
I fail to see what these PPV numbers have to do with the best boxers of all-time. I will use the basketball analogy again. Kobe Bryant has, far and away, the most devoted fan base of any individual basketball player that I have ever seen.

Do we 'take that into consideration' when ranking him historically? Hell no... I hope not, at least. It is about skill, accomplishments, etc. Popularity has NOTHING to do with it.

yes i have watched full matches of ali, back in the day my dad always had friends come over to watch diff ali fights, and i got to see all 28 tapes he's got. it just amuses me cuz u guys r the only people i have ever heard say "ali<sugar" and wuts even more amusing is tht some people don't even have ali in thr top 5. and yes nexus, i know who sugar is,am not a dumba$$. than again we all have opinions, so u guys go ahead and keep posting sugar>ali. and dasher, sure ali says sugar is the best, lebron says the same thing about Kobe. and im not saying sugar was not good, he was gr8, him and Brown Bomber would be fighting for the number 2 spot on my list.

Do you even know how ridiculous you sound? We're the only people that you've ever seen rank Robinson in front of Ali? That just shows that you don't know much about the history of the sport.

I don't always agree with Burt Sugar, but I recognize his vast knowledge of the sport and find his thoughts interesting, at least.

Here is his Top 10 all-time pound-for-pound fighters, which he compiled in 2006:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Demsey
10. Jack Johnson

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?t=17 (8th post down)

Now, I have some serious problems with this list. I believe that he would have been better off switching Louis and Duran. I also think that he has Dempsey too high. Four heavyweights in the Top 10 p4p, I don't agree with.

That said, you can see even the most recognizable boxing journalist ranks Ali no higher than No. 7... And, for me, that is too high. I would have him between 10-20.

How many Jack Johnson fights have you viewed?
Several.

But, since I already explained that a boxing historian shouldn't need to actually watch the fights to make a ranking like this, I don't see how that is pertinent to the conversation.

There is no video footage of any Harry Greb fights. Does that mean that all that he accomplishments and all of his great wins get thrown into the gutter? Hell no... He was too great for that.

Sports go back farther than video cameras. You have to actually study (ie: read) if you are going to be a boxing historian. The sport is too old to rely solely and completely on video evidence.

He came at a time where there were no big fights, difficult boxers out there. Run off a list of guys who RJJ should have stepped in a ring with/fought.

It doesn't matter if I think RJJ would have won against some guys that he didn't fight. When you are comparing the greatest of the greats, you have to look at resumes.

Yes... RJJ came along at a weak time for the super middleweight/light heavyweight divisions. Unfortunately, that is something that is going to get held against him. In order to be compared with the likes of Robinson, Duran, and even Leonard, you have to fight great fighters and win.

RJJ has two really noteworthy wins on his resume (Toney and Hopkins). Fights that could have helped his legacy? Let's start with Dariusz Michalczewski. Yes... DM pretty much refused to fight in the US, but great fighters accept the challenge and go overseas for that fight... and I don't care how RJJ was treated in the Olympics... You can't be compared to the likes of Robinson, Greb, Benny Leonard, Roberto Duran, etc. if you don't take extreme challenges with possible negative consequences.

RJJ also avoided Tarver for a very long time. It is almost as though he WAITED for his skills to begin to slip a little, so he could use that as an excuse when he actually fought Antonio. Tarver had been calling out Roy for a long time before RJJ stepped up to the plate.

In the meantime, he was doing stupid gimmicks like playing basketball early in the morning and then fighting police officers later that same day (he actually did that... a part-time boxer and police officer fought a prime RJJ).

There are others, too. He could have given Glen Johnson a shot instead of someone like Derrick Harmon.

Roy just didn't take enough risks during the course of his career for me to put him up there with the greatest of the greats. Trust me, I would like to... I'm a big fan of Roy's.

But, ultimately, he came up short when taken into consideration his talent level.

pete's montreux

12-10-2008, 12:54 AM

I know nothing about boxing, but I applaud this thread. Great discussion all around and incredibly informative.

Why can't the NBA forum be more like this thread?

RedBlackAttack

12-10-2008, 01:00 AM

Does seem as though the majority of the lists I have seen on the net have SRR as the GOAT but at the same time there are alot that have Ali as the GOAT...

He is not at all alone in thinking Ali is the greatest ever...

ALSO...it is VERY difficult to find a list that doesn't have Ali in the top 5...

Him saying that Ali is the greatest is a view shared by many, no quesion about it...
Not by anyone whose opinion I value. I would be anxious to see any REAL boxing historian/journalist that has Ali as the No. 1 p4p fighter of all-time. If you can find one, please post a link. I'll be sure to cross that historian off of the list of guys whose opinion I find noteworthy.

also I think he is correct when saying that when it comes down to it, this really is just a matter of opinion...there is no real way to tell
Of course it is all opinions. Someone COULD have the opinion that Arturo Gatti is the best p4p fighter ever. Now, I would think that person is mentally challenged, but it would still be an 'opinion.'

The question we are searching for, here, is that whose opinion is valued more? Someone who watched a few Ali fights or the boxing historians, at large, who all rank SRR the greatest fighter to ever live and most do not have Ali in the Top 5 (they really don't). Take a look at Burt Sugar's entire list.

Also note that Mike Tyson comes in at No. 100, according to Burt Sugar. :oldlol:

big baller

12-10-2008, 01:00 AM

Do you even know how ridiculous you sound? We're the only people that you've ever seen rank Robinson in front of Ali? That just shows that you don't know much about the history of the sport.

I don't always agree with Burt Sugar, but I recognize his vast knowledge of the sport and find his thoughts interesting, at least.

Here is his Top 10 all-time pound-for-pound fighters, which he compiled in 2006:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Demsey
10. Jack Johnson

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?t=17 (8th post down)

Now, I have some serious problems with this list. I believe that he would have been better off switching Louis and Duran. I also think that he has Dempsey too high. Four heavyweights in the Top 10 p4p, I don't agree with.

That said, you can see even the most recognizable boxing journalist ranks Ali no higher than No. 7... And, for me, that is too high. I would have him between 10-20.

i can see u know alot more on boxing than i do, but ali deserves more than #7, he should never be ranked any lower than 3. i still have him on my #1 spot, and wut i meant was u were the only people (not journalists) tht had sugar over ali, and my friends/family r crazy about boxing. but i respect your opinion.

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 01:09 AM

I fail to see what these PPV numbers have to do with the best boxers of all-time. I will use the basketball analogy again. Kobe Bryant has, far and away, the most devoted fan base of any individual basketball player that I have ever seen.
1. There is no way that Kobe had a bigger fan base than Jordan...who is for the most part considered the GOAT...this isn't b-ball though so enough of that talk...just sayin, MJ 's fan base was pretty much the entire country, everyone watched him and tried to be like him.

Do we 'take that into consideration' when ranking him historically? Hell no... I hope not, at least. It is about skill, accomplishments, etc. Popularity has NOTHING to do with it.
I can see that point of view but at the same time I can see another point of view that does take into account what the fighter did for the sport and the crowd that came with them...

again...this might be me in total denial right now, but saying tyson isn't a top 100 boxer just doesn't seem logical at all...regardless of who he beat, he was beating heavyweight fighters, just like SRR was on a weekly basis...

this may be something that I just have to accept, but it is just....wow

I would love to see your own personal top 10 HW list btw...

Do you even know how ridiculous you sound? We're the only people that you've ever seen rank Robinson in front of Ali? That just shows that you don't know much about the history of the sport.

Alot of people say Ali is the GOAT...he isn't really that far out of the norm...

that being said, I am sure alot of people are wrong, but still, it is pretty normal.

XxNeXuSxX

12-10-2008, 01:09 AM

Not by anyone whose opinion I value. I would be anxious to see any REAL boxing historian/journalist that has Ali as the No. 1 p4p fighter of all-time. If you can find one, please post a link. I'll be sure to cross that historian off of the list of guys whose opinion I find noteworthy.

Of course it is all opinions. Someone COULD have the opinion that Arturo Gatti is the best p4p fighter ever. Now, I would think that person is mentally challenged, but it would still be an 'opinion.'

The question we are searching for, here, is that whose opinion is valued more? Someone who watched a few Ali fights or the boxing historians, at large, who all rank SRR the greatest fighter to ever live and most do not have Ali in the Top 5 (they really don't). Take a look at Burt Sugar's entire list.

Also note that Mike Tyson comes in at No. 100, according to Burt Sugar. :oldlol:

This is why RBA is our resident boxing expert. This is not the same as arguing which movies are best (simply because everyone bases them on their own set of standards of what makes a film "good"), yet you prove here boxing just really is much more cut and dry. To me it's personally ridiculous to have Tyson as a top 25 boxer yet I'm believing more and more that you guys are right-- he shouldn't be top 100 :oldlol:

People who put Ali at#1 put his cultural impact over his physical boxing skills. He was a very great boxer, but pound for pound did not have the ability of Sugar Ray.

XxNeXuSxX

12-10-2008, 01:12 AM

Alot of people say Ali is the GOAT...he isn't really that far out of the norm...

that being said, I am sure alot of people are wrong, but still, it is pretty normal.
Those "people" aren't rating his fighting ability but rather what he's done for the sport. He impacted the sport the most but that doesn't make him the greatest fighter. There's an argument he could be the greatest heavyweight, but it absolutely stops there.

GOBB

12-10-2008, 01:17 AM

i can see u know alot more on boxing than i do, but ali deserves more than #7, he should never be ranked any lower than 3. i still have him on my #1 spot, and wut i meant was u were the only people (not journalists) tht had sugar over ali, and my friends/family r crazy about boxing. but i respect your opinion.

You just didnt do your homework here tho. You can easily reserarch Sugar Ray Robinson place in respect to Ali. Also you said in your post you ave Sugar Ray Robinson 2nd tied with the Bronx Bomber on your all time list behind Ali. Yet somewhere people ranking Sugar > Ali = pathetic and funny?

I dont have an issue with people ranking Ali as the best p4p. Alot of times his social influence outside the ring is factored in. Top p4p lists will always vary. Good arguments can be made. Its not funny and pathetic because Sugar Ray Robinson was a flawless boxer in my book. If you sat down and designed the ultimate boxer? He was it. Its no slap in the face to Ali at all.

canadianballer

12-10-2008, 01:19 AM

ahhhhhhhhhh, the lame event that is boxing :violin:

ali's the man

dware94

12-10-2008, 01:21 AM

ahhhhhhhhhh, the lame event that is boxing :violin:

ali's the man

agreed... ali wins this, hands down.. literally

GOBB

12-10-2008, 01:27 AM

It doesn't matter if I think RJJ would have won against some guys that he didn't fight. When you are comparing the greatest of the greats, you have to look at resumes.

Yes... RJJ came along at a weak time for the super middleweight/light heavyweight divisions. Unfortunately, that is something that is going to get held against him. In order to be compared with the likes of Robinson, Duran, and even Leonard, you have to fight great fighters and win.

RJJ has two really noteworthy wins on his resume (Toney and Hopkins). Fights that could have helped his legacy? Let's start with Dariusz Michalczewski. Yes... DM pretty much refused to fight in the US, but great fighters accept the challenge and go overseas for that fight... and I don't care how RJJ was treated in the Olympics... You can't be compared to the likes of Robinson, Greb, Benny Leonard, Roberto Duran, etc. if you don't take extreme challenges with possible negative consequences.

RJJ also avoided Tarver for a very long time. It is almost as though he WAITED for his skills to begin to slip a little, so he could use that as an excuse when he actually fought Antonio. Tarver had been calling out Roy for a long time before RJJ stepped up to the plate.

In the meantime, he was doing stupid gimmicks like playing basketball early in the morning and then fighting police officers later that same day (he actually did that... a part-time boxer and police officer fought a prime RJJ).

There are others, too. He could have given Glen Johnson a shot instead of someone like Derrick Harmon.

Roy just didn't take enough risks during the course of his career for me to put him up there with the greatest of the greats. Trust me, I would like to... I'm a big fan of Roy's.

But, ultimately, he came up short when taken into consideration his talent level

I hear you but I dont place that much value in terms of who he didnt fight while I place more value on his actual boxing skills. Those guys he didnt take on? RJJ was far superior a boxer in my mind that it doesnt hurt/hinder his legacy. If those guys rivaled his skills or were really relevant in the sport of boxing? Then ok. But I honestly dont think if he were to have taken them on? It would sway many peoples opinion on his career one way or the other. He simply came at a time where there werent many threatening dudes around.

Thats how I pretty much rank RJJ. While Toney/Hopkins may be the "marquee" names so to speak. He fights them other dudes? Me and you probably arent placing those names on Toney/Hopkins level no way.

Say a highly skilled Heavyweight existed today. Who in the Heavyweight division would give him the credibility to be ranked among the Heavyweight all time greats? I mean the last 5yrs who was in the Heavyweight division noteworthy? Klits? It would absolutely suck if a great Heavyweight were around today because the competition is a joke. Yet it would go against him when we rank him among his peers.

Kinda how I view RJ and his record. Now his competition wasnt THAT bad in comparison to the Heavyweight division. But my point is I dont think it was strong enough had he took everyone on people said he didnt because we'd still question his "Who did u beat" record. Eh, agree to disagree. But thats my stance on RJJ in a brief post.

Boogaloo

12-10-2008, 01:29 AM

No Manny Pac in any of the list? Top 10? Not even Top 20? He's Armsrtong's modern day equivalent.

If the Mayweather fight goes and he beats him would he be considered top 5?

VCMVP1551

12-10-2008, 01:29 AM

Spider Rico

Close....but his opponent in this fight looked a little tougher.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/8b/200px-Drago.PNG

"Whatever he hits, he destroys!"

big baller

12-10-2008, 01:30 AM

You just didnt do your homework here tho. You can easily reserarch Sugar Ray Robinson place in respect to Ali. Also you said in your post you ave Sugar Ray Robinson 2nd tied with the Bronx Bomber on your all time list behind Ali. Yet somewhere people ranking Sugar > Ali = pathetic and funny?

I dont have an issue with people ranking Ali as the best p4p. Alot of times his social influence outside the ring is factored in. Top p4p lists will always vary. Good arguments can be made. Its not funny and pathetic because Sugar Ray Robinson was a flawless boxer in my book. If you sat down and designed the ultimate boxer? He was it. Its no slap in the face to Ali at all.

could u post me ur top 5 all time boxers? i just wanna see ur opinion.

RedBlackAttack

12-10-2008, 01:41 AM

This is why RBA is our resident boxing expert. This is not the same as arguing which movies are best (simply because everyone bases them on their own set of standards of what makes a film "good"), yet you prove here boxing just really is much more cut and dry. To me it's personally ridiculous to have Tyson as a top 25 boxer yet I'm believing more and more that you guys are right-- he shouldn't be top 100 :oldlol:

People who put Ali at#1 put his cultural impact over his physical boxing skills. He was a very great boxer, but pound for pound did not have the ability of Sugar Ray.
I don't want it to seem like I don't respect Ali. I have him as my third greatest heavyweight that ever lived, in a virtual dead-heat with Jack Johnson for No. 2. But, when you are going up against the 'greatest of the greats,' very few can stack up. There are a few fighters that simply separate themselves from everyone in terms of actual accomplishments (even separating from the great Ali).

I've already given a very small portion of Robinson's resume, but it is worth repeating...

Ray Robinson

At his peak, Robinson's record was 128-1-2. After winning his first 40 professional fights, he lost his first professional bout to Jake LaMotta. AFter that loss, he won 91 consecutive fights, a streak that last EIGHT YEARS.

Also, consider that Robinson was a natural lightweight. He moved up to welterweight and then middleweight (where LaMotta was) because he had no competition in the other weight classes. LaMotta outweighted Robinson by a good 20 pounds... and SRR still went 5-1 against him.

Robinson defeated TEN Hall of Fame fighters in his career...

Jake Lamotta, Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Rocky Graziano, Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio

Robinson won the middleweight championship FIVE different times.

Henry Armstrong

In his prime years, he amassed a record of 59-1-1 with 51 knockouts, all against the absolute best fighters in the sport. During that run, he won the featherweight, lightweight, and welterweight world championships, all within a span of a few short years.

In one run between 1937-38, Armstrong knocked out 27 consecutive opponents.

He made an amazing 20 defenses of his welterweight title.

Armstrong is also the only boxer in history to hold three world championships in three different weight divisions SIMULTANEOUSLY. This was when there was only eight weight divisions... Armstrong held titles in three of the eight... at the same time... think about that.

Harry Greb

Fought an incredible 18 world champions and beat every one of them. Keep in mind that this the time when there were eight weight divisions with one world champion per division. He beat 18 of them!

He defeated five world middleweight champions, seven world light-heavyweight champions and one future heavyweight champion. They include, Mike McTigue, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Tiger Flowers, Tommy Loughran, Tommy Gibbons Jimmy Slattery, Maxie Rosenbloom, Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney.... That is every great fighter of his generation... and he beat them all... most of them handily.

He retired with that unthinkable 259-21-14 record.

Willie Pep

He retired with a record of 229-11-1, including beginning his career with a record of 61-0. The only knock on Pep is that he mainly stuck to the featherweight division and didn't move up like other greats. Then again, he was a very small guy.

I've already gone over Duran's amazing career. These, to me, are the Top 5. Then, you can get into some others like Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Charlie Burley, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, etc. After that tier is where I would put Ali.

That is not a slight to Ali. His record and accomplishments just can't stack up to my Top 5.

canadianballer

12-10-2008, 01:45 AM

i think i could take all of them but SRR ne day

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 01:46 AM

Not by anyone whose opinion I value. I would be anxious to see any REAL boxing historian/journalist that has Ali as the No. 1 p4p fighter of all-time. If you can find one, please post a link. I'll be sure to cross that historian off of the list of guys whose opinion I find noteworthy.
Could you show me a list by someone you consider a real historian of the sport that doesn't have Ali in thier top 10?

Of course it is all opinions. Someone COULD have the opinion that Arturo Gatti is the best p4p fighter ever. Now, I would think that person is mentally challenged, but it would still be an 'opinion.'

The question we are searching for, here, is that whose opinion is valued more? Someone who watched a few Ali fights or the boxing historians, at large, who all rank SRR the greatest fighter to ever live and most do not have Ali in the Top 5 (they really don't). Take a look at Burt Sugar's entire list.
Would you think that person was mentally challenged if half the lists on the net thought the same?

As for whose opinion I value the most, I guess as of right now it would be your own...did you watch all the fighters in your top 10 list?

Also note that Mike Tyson comes in at No. 100, according to Burt Sugar. :oldlol:
I understand the logic behind I am just having trouble coming to terms with it I guess...:oldlol:

I am in Mike Tyson denial...

I just don't understand how ANYONE could watch a highlight reel of Mike Tyson and then say:

"Oh there are a HUNDRED guys better than that chump"

and not be exagerating...

not top 30???...okay, understood

not top 100...huh???...Iron Mike???...for real???

RedBlackAttack

12-10-2008, 01:58 AM

Could you show me a list by someone you consider a real historian of the sport that doesn't have Ali in thier top 10?
Sure can... The boxing historian whom I probably respect the most is Tracy Callis. A legend among boxing circles, Callis has a wealth of knowledge that surpasses even the likes of Burt Sugar. Tracy is revered in the boxing community and has written several books about boxing.

Here is Callis' take on the all-time pound-for-pound debate (no mention of Ali):

http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/lodge/6525/Article-Pound-For-Pound.htm

Ultimately, though, a lot of the best boxing historians don't have top p4p rankings available... Or at least I can't find them. I've found two, though (Callis and Sugar) and both seem to align pretty tightly with my views of such a list.

pete's montreux

12-10-2008, 02:01 AM

Close....but his opponent in this fight looked a little tougher.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/8b/200px-Drago.PNG

"Whatever he hits, he destroys!"

I didn't think anyone would catch that.

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 02:31 AM

Sure can... The boxing historian whom I probably respect the most is Tracy Callis. A legend among boxing circles, Callis has a wealth of knowledge that surpasses even the likes of Burt Sugar. Tracy is revered in the boxing community and has written several books about boxing.

Here is Callis' take on the all-time pound-for-pound debate (no mention of Ali):

http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/lodge/6525/Article-Pound-For-Pound.htm

Ultimately, though, a lot of the best boxing historians don't have top p4p rankings available... Or at least I can't find them. I've found two, though (Callis and Sugar) and both seem to align pretty tightly with my views of such a list.

wow...

Do you have any idea how hard is for a non-boxing historian such as myself to look at the old pictures of white, uncut, boxers with tiny little little gloves and think they should be ranked above today's greats?

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/22/65922-004-E8B342F2.jpg VS http://im.sify.com/sifycmsimg/jun2007/Sports/14472357_2.jpg

WHO YOU GOT?

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 02:37 AM

btw Tyson is huge now...

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f7/holy-hell-mike-tyson-got-fat-pics-782352/

d_white089

12-10-2008, 02:42 AM

anyone know what PPV results were for Pac/DLH?

De La Hoya quit after the 8th..:(.the fight was never in doubt for Pacquiao.

Boogaloo

12-10-2008, 02:47 AM

De La Hoya quit after the 8th..:(.the fight was never in doubt for Pacquiao.

NO MAS

d_white089

12-10-2008, 02:59 AM

NO MAS

lol. the fight you are referring to was quite interesting.

sunsfan1357

12-10-2008, 03:30 AM

De La Hoya quit after the 8th..:(.the fight was never in doubt for Pacquiao.

Sorry I should've been more clear, I actually watched the fight I was just wondering how it did in terms of PPV buys.

d_white089

12-10-2008, 04:01 AM

Sorry I should've been more clear, I actually watched the fight I was just wondering how it did in terms of PPV buys.

ohhh lol...i googled it but couldn't find any specifics, but i imagine it did pretty well..probably would be in or near that top 10 list.

Odomize

12-10-2008, 04:12 AM

wow...

Do you have any idea how hard is for a non-boxing historian such as myself to look at the old pictures of white, uncut, boxers with tiny little little gloves and think they should be ranked above today's greats?

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/22/65922-004-E8B342F2.jpg VS http://im.sify.com/sifycmsimg/jun2007/Sports/14472357_2.jpg

WHO YOU GOT?
just like ball players today would destroy those 1950s players, any ranked boxer today would absolutely destroy any black n white photo champions.

which is why we can only compare them with peeps from the same era. Scientist like Newton and Galileo would be an idiot by today's standard.

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 04:46 AM

sunsfan1357

12-10-2008, 04:48 AM

SCREWstonRockets

12-10-2008, 04:56 AM

I remember old ass folks always telling me that lots of fights were rigged back then.

AllenIverson3

12-10-2008, 10:43 AM

Mike Tyson, Roy Jones Jr, The Klitschko brothers

sunsfan1357

12-10-2008, 02:15 PM

[QUOTE]Indications are that the pay-per-view result will be around 1.5 million buys, which is a phenomenal number. It

RedBlackAttack

12-10-2008, 04:41 PM

just like ball players today would destroy those 1950s players, any ranked boxer today would absolutely destroy any black n white photo champions.

which is why we can only compare them with peeps from the same era. Scientist like Newton and Galileo would be an idiot by today's standard.
That isn't necessarily true. You can't look at a picture and gauge the ability of a boxer from it. You can't tell anything from a picture, in fact.

Who would ever think that this guy is maybe the greatest knockout artist to ever live...

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6081/180pxhearnstul7.jpg

Thomas Hearns was tall and as skinny as a toothpick. But, what he lacked in muscle tone, he made up for in footwork and leverage to get off absolutely huge shots.

Like this...

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r102/RedBlack_Attack/duran-hearns.gif?t=1228940332

:eek:

Those guys back in the day could fight. Boxing is not a complicated sport. You try to hit and not be hit. Of course, training, nutrition, less fights, etc. have a positive impact on today's fighters, but don't dismiss guys simply because the photos are black and white.

I've seen almost every Sugar Ray Robinson fight (all in black and white) and he would absolutely annihilate any lightweight, welterweight, or middleweight in the sport today. Forget training, nutrition or any of that stuff... He was that great.

Now, look at a picture of him...

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3787/robinson1nu1.jpg

He doesn't have a very big physical presence... at all. This is the kind of guy you might see on the street and say, "I could take him..."

I believe the picture that -pt- posted is of Harry Greb. He was a middleweight. Of course Mike Tyson is going to look like a monster next to him, considering Tyson had about 70 pounds on him.

Tyson is actually one of the few fighters whose muscles and intimidating physical presence translated into great knockout power. Usually, the guys that 'look' weak are the ones that will put you to sleep and the big, rocked up guys are the ones being put to sleep.

Take a look at these two guys:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7933/lacyjeffpesajerdl1it1.jpg

vs.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4082/joe5682x400473039avp4.jpg

Who ya got?

Guess what?

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3867/sp20060307a2aft3.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7087/41404596boxaf4.jpg

Joe Calzaghe brutally beat Jeff Lacy in what was one of the bloodiest, one-sided title fights I have ever seen. Lacy's face looked like hamburger.

Moral of the story... Don't base anything on a picture... especially when it comes to boxing.

GOBB

12-10-2008, 04:50 PM

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/liston-sonny-66.jpg

Black and white photo of Sonny Liston. Yeah Tyson would DESTROY him.

/end sarasm

F*ck outta here. This was the Mike Tyson back in the day.

GOBB

12-10-2008, 04:50 PM

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 05:03 PM

RedBlackAttack

12-10-2008, 10:24 PM

I have to admitt one thing from looking at those old photos...

Fighters with 150+ wins look even more amazing now to me due to the fact that they were wearing gloves that look as though they provide very little padding...

Today's boxing gloves are look like huge pillows wrapped over a fighter's fists and those guys look like they were just wearing workers gloves or something...:eek:
Yep... and many of the old greats for the early-1900s took part in bare knuckle fights. I doubt there would be many guys in today's boxing world that would risk their health in such a manner.

Way back then, they had to do what they had to do to survive. There were none of these million dollar paydays, obviously. Guys could make a good living if they reached the status of a Greb, Jack Johnson, or Willy Pep, but, for the most part, these guys were struggling to make ends meat.

Something that you have to also keep in mind when looking at these greats from the past...

In this day and age, if we see a sport that has no african americans partaking, we have a tendency to dismiss the sport. What people may fail to realize is that these 'white' guys that were boxing in the early-1900s were mostly coming from immigrant families (Irish, Italian, etc) and they were also prejudiced against... More than a lot of people today realize.

For many of these guys, boxing was the only way out of the immigrant slums. These weren't your '21st century' version of what has become the cliched 'white America.' These people lived as hard of lives as almost anyone in this country and they were really looked down upon by the establishment.

also SRR and Liston aren't really from the era I was saying is difficult for me to take seriously...

I was looking at the pics from the top ten list of that historian and I am talking about fighters that were fighting back in 1900-1920...they just do not look like they could hang with today's boxers...in fact some of them don't even look in shape of any kind at all, even Hearns had muscle tone as thin as he was...
Come on, -pt-...

Not in shape? These guys were fighting top notch competition on a WEEKLY basis. Can you imagine the kind of endurance they had to have? Hell... Jack Johnson fought 40 and 50 round fights.

Just because they may not 'look' in shape by today's standards does not mean that they weren't finely tuned athletes. It was just different. Endurance was the name of the game back then. When you are fighting 20+ rounds against great competition once a week, your body is not going to be hugely muscular and cut, but more lean.

Further more, if you go back in the history of the game (as I explained above), the best guys don't always 'look' like the best. Hell... Larry Holmes was sort of flabby and 'looked' out of shape, but he was anything but. It was just his body type.

That said, check out this picture of Jack Johnson, circa 1906...

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1449/johnson42222rn2.jpg

Think about him with today's nutrition, training, legal supplements, etc...

-primetime-

12-10-2008, 10:41 PM

Yep... and many of the old greats for the early-1900s took part in bare knuckle fights. I doubt there would be many guys in today's boxing world that would risk their health in such a manner.

Way back then, they had to do what they had to do to survive. There were none of these million dollar paydays, obviously. Guys could make a good living if they reached the status of a Greb, Jack Johnson, or Willy Pep, but, for the most part, these guys were struggling to make ends meat.

Something that you have to also keep in mind when looking at these greats from the past...

In this day and age, if we see a sport that has no african americans partaking, we have a tendency to dismiss the sport. What people may fail to realize is that these 'white' guys that were boxing in the early-1900s were mostly coming from immigrant families (Irish, Italian, etc) and they were also prejudiced against... More than a lot of people today realize.

For many of these guys, boxing was the only way out of the immigrant slums. These weren't your '21st century' version of what has become the cliched 'white America.' These people lived as hard of lives as almost anyone in this country and they were really looked down upon by the establishment.
but they were still allowed to fight as where I am thinking that it was much harder for blacks to get into the ring (just an assumption on my part, I fully admitt that I could be wrong)

Also one could say that knocking someone out with today's huge gloves is more impressive than what looks to be very close to nothing...

That being said, I think that fighting 150+ fights with small gloves is much more impressive than fighting 3 times a year with huge gloves...but is that maybe a reflection on athletes in the sport getting better and causing more damage???

Come on, -pt-...

Not in shape? These guys were fighting top notch competition on a WEEKLY basis. Can you imagine the kind of endurance they had to have? Hell... Jack Johnson fought 40 and 50 round fights.

Just because they may not 'look' in shape by today's standards does not mean that they weren't finely tuned athletes. It was just different. Endurance was the name of the game back then. When you are fighting 20+ rounds against great competition once a week, your body is not going to be hugely muscular and cut, but more lean.

Further more, if you go back in the history of the game (as I explained above), the best guys don't always 'look' like the best. Hell... Larry Holmes was sort of flabby and 'looked' out of shape, but he was anything but. It was just his body type.

That said, check out this picture of Jack Johnson, circa 1906...

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1449/johnson42222rn2.jpg

Think about him with today's nutrition, training, legal supplements, etc...
psshhh...

you got me there, that dude looks like he is in the same shape as today's boxers already...In today's boxing there is no question he would "LOOK" amazing...(not claiming that looks mean that much like you said)

and 40-50 round fights is just shocking to me...:eek:

were those 1 minute rounds or something???....that seems like it would last hours.

magic chiongson

12-10-2008, 10:54 PM

ohhh lol...i googled it but couldn't find any specifics, but i imagine it did pretty well..probably would be in or near that top 10 list.

heard rumors from doghouseboxing that it was almost 2M buys

Odomize

12-11-2008, 01:10 AM

That isn't necessarily true. You can't look at a picture and gauge the ability of a boxer from it. You can't tell anything from a picture, in fact.

Who would ever think that this guy is maybe the greatest knockout artist to ever live...

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6081/180pxhearnstul7.jpg

Thomas Hearns was tall and as skinny as a toothpick. But, what he lacked in muscle tone, he made up for in footwork and leverage to get off absolutely huge shots.

Like this...

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r102/RedBlack_Attack/duran-hearns.gif?t=1228940332

:eek:

Those guys back in the day could fight. Boxing is not a complicated sport. You try to hit and not be hit. Of course, training, nutrition, less fights, etc. have a positive impact on today's fighters, but don't dismiss guys simply because the photos are black and white.

I've seen almost every Sugar Ray Robinson fight (all in black and white) and he would absolutely annihilate any lightweight, welterweight, or middleweight in the sport today. Forget training, nutrition or any of that stuff... He was that great.

Now, look at a picture of him...

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3787/robinson1nu1.jpg

He doesn't have a very big physical presence... at all. This is the kind of guy you might see on the street and say, "I could take him..."

I believe the picture that -pt- posted is of Harry Greb. He was a middleweight. Of course Mike Tyson is going to look like a monster next to him, considering Tyson had about 70 pounds on him.

Tyson is actually one of the few fighters whose muscles and intimidating physical presence translated into great knockout power. Usually, the guys that 'look' weak are the ones that will put you to sleep and the big, rocked up guys are the ones being put to sleep.

Take a look at these two guys:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7933/lacyjeffpesajerdl1it1.jpg

vs.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4082/joe5682x400473039avp4.jpg

Who ya got?

Guess what?

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3867/sp20060307a2aft3.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7087/41404596boxaf4.jpg

Joe Calzaghe brutally beat Jeff Lacy in what was one of the bloodiest, one-sided title fights I have ever seen. Lacy's face looked like hamburger.

Moral of the story... Don't base anything on a picture... especially when it comes to boxing.
Boxing is not simple. There're tactics, training, moves, counters, jabs, eyes, reaction time, diets, knowledges, mental, mind etc. A guy with no training shouldn't be able to beat a boxer no matter how big the untrained person is.

One thing i know is old time boxers fight more rounds, more often, with less padding. But I have no doubt in my mind that today's boxers are much better. Just watched Jack Dempsey vs Jess Willard and then compare it with Tyson vs Holyfield or Pacquiao vs De la hoya.

I think Jess was 20 pounds heavier than Tyson. CMIIW. Seriously, if a guy like Jess Willard could become world champion, there's not much to say about old boxers except they are far inferior to today's boxers. At least in speed, techniques, strength, knowledge, training, etc. Which is why I said we cannot compare peeps from different era because it's unfair. We wouldn't have 'dempsey roll' or that 'hook punch' Dempsey made if not because of him. All the improvement today is brought by the old boxers so it's really unfair to compare them. Come on, both you and I know SRR won't beat today's top boxers. But he's still the best. The same way as Newton, Einstein and Galileo are still the best scientists despite they would be an idiot today.

Please refer to these videos on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKvOvpGNT4s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MY3RtJUrD8

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 01:37 AM

Boxing is not simple. There're tactics, training, moves, counters, jabs, eyes, reaction time, diets, knowledges, mental, mind etc. A guy with no training shouldn't be able to beat a boxer no matter how big the untrained person is.

One thing i know is old time boxers fight more rounds, more often, with less padding. But I have no doubt in my mind that today's boxers are much better. Just watched Jack Dempsey vs Jess Willard and then compare it with Tyson vs Holyfield or Pacquiao vs De la hoya.

I think Jess was 20 pounds heavier than Tyson. CMIIW. Seriously, if a guy like Jess Willard could become world champion, there's not much to say about old boxers except they are far inferior to today's boxers. At least in speed, techniques, strength, knowledge, training, etc. Which is why I said we cannot compare peeps from different era because it's unfair. We wouldn't have 'dempsey roll' or that 'hook punch' Dempsey made if not because of him. All the improvement today is brought by the old boxers so it's really unfair to compare them. Come on, both you and I know SRR won't beat today's top boxers. But he's still the best. The same way as Newton, Einstein and Galileo are still the best scientists despite they would be an idiot today.

Please refer to these videos on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKvOvpGNT4s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MY3RtJUrD8
First of all, I believe you are completely incorrect about SRR. It is hard for me to compare a guy like Harry Greb, if an actual fight were to happen, between he and a modern day boxer, because no film footage exists of him.

But, SRR has a vast library of fights, most of which I have seen. He had no discernible weakness. Incredible handspeed, unbelievable power in both hands, impeccable footwork, great stamina, an unmatched chin, an ability to adjust during the fight...

He was the total package. Not only would he beat all of the top welterweights today, he would embarrass them. Let's not even bring up the lightweight division, which was his natural weight.

You are acting as though boxing was in its infancy in the 1950s and 1960s. This isn't basketball we are talking about. Boxing is an ancient sport, relatively speaking. While you can have the opinion that guys like Greb and Pep were ahead of their time and influential, but couldn't compete today, this was not the case in SRR's era.

In fact, I would argue that the welterweight and middleweight divisions were much stronger in those days than they are now. The heavyweight division DEFINITELY is. Sonny Liston would run roughshod over this current crop of losers.

Try to forget the fact that you are watching grainy video that doesn't have many closeups or slow-motion replays and watch some SRR fights. If his fights were broadcast in HD from 50 different angles, we would all be hailing him even more than we already do.

The sport had already evolved into a science before SRR came along.

Secondly, I think it is unfair of you to judge an entire era of fighters based on Jess f#cking Willard. The guy was 25-5 going into this fight. He had held the title for two fights before Dempsey came along and destroyed him.

He was not a 'great' of the early-1900s. He was a pretty average, gangly HW who took advantage of a title shot. Think of him as an old school John Ruiz.

Check out Jack Johnson for a truly great early HW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixrHvT1jkU&feature=related

Your premise that fighters are better today than in the 'black-and-white' era is greatly flawed. If this was the case, how could a nearly 50-year old George Foreman win a HW title against young champion Michael Moorer?

Just imagine what a 1974 version of Foreman would have done. Foreman started his career about five years after SRR had retired. It isn't like SRR was fighting in 1899.

-primetime-

12-11-2008, 01:57 AM

Check out Jack Johnson for a truly great early HW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixrHvT1jkU&feature=related

WOW...

that was funny hearing tyson talk comintate those clips...:oldlol:

I wonder where Tyson ranks himself???...probably the greatest ever

Odomize

12-11-2008, 03:11 AM

First of all, I believe you are completely incorrect about SRR. It is hard for me to compare a guy like Harry Greb, if an actual fight were to happen, between he and a modern day boxer, because no film footage exists of him.

But, SRR has a vast library of fights, most of which I have seen. He had no discernible weakness. Incredible handspeed, unbelievable power in both hands, impeccable footwork, great stamina, an unmatched chin, an ability to adjust during the fight...

He was the total package. Not only would he beat all of the top welterweights today, he would embarrass them. Let's not even bring up the lightweight division, which was his natural weight.

You are acting as though boxing was in its infancy in the 1950s and 1960s. This isn't basketball we are talking about. Boxing is an ancient sport, relatively speaking. While you can have the opinion that guys like Greb and Pep were ahead of their time and influential, but couldn't compete today, this was not the case in SRR's era.

In fact, I would argue that the welterweight and middleweight divisions were much stronger in those days than they are now. The heavyweight division DEFINITELY is. Sonny Liston would run roughshod over this current crop of losers.

Try to forget the fact that you are watching grainy video that doesn't have many closeups or slow-motion replays and watch some SRR fights. If his fights were broadcast in HD from 50 different angles, we would all be hailing him even more than we already do.

The sport had already evolved into a science before SRR came along.

Secondly, I think it is unfair of you to judge an entire era of fighters based on Jess f#cking Willard. The guy was 25-5 going into this fight. He had held the title for two fights before Dempsey came along and destroyed him.

He was not a 'great' of the early-1900s. He was a pretty average, gangly HW who took advantage of a title shot. Think of him as an old school John Ruiz.

Check out Jack Johnson for a truly great early HW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixrHvT1jkU&feature=related

Your premise that fighters are better today than in the 'black-and-white' era is greatly flawed. If this was the case, how could a nearly 50-year old George Foreman win a HW title against young champion Michael Moorer?

Just imagine what a 1974 version of Foreman would have done. Foreman started his career about five years after SRR had retired. It isn't like SRR was fighting in 1899.
First, you don't need old videos to compare henry greb. Logic will say that he can't win against today's boxers due to natural progression of the sport. in fact, just look at old fights from around 1920 or before. Look how bad it was technique-wise.

Second, George Foreman beat Moorer defies logic. It is the exception, not the rule. No one expect him to win, but he landed a great punch. caught off guard. a fluke if you must. If the fight is repeated many times I'm sure people would still take Moorer everytime.

Third, i can see you're an SRR fan and we can differ in opinion. I'll still bet for top today's boxer. No point going back and forth. I think he's the greatest but today's top boxers will beat him. No question about it.

Logic will tell you that as sport progresses, the quality of fighters will improve. Food, training, technology, health, knowledge, coaches, etc; all of these have improved dramatically from 1950 till now. Although, what the old does (like the guy who ran 4 minutes mile) are far more impressive than the guys who ran 3 minutes 50 seconds today.

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 03:46 AM

First, you don't need old videos to compare henry greb. Logic will say that he can't win against today's boxers due to natural progression of the sport. in fact, just look at old fights from around 1920 or before. Look how bad it was technique-wise.

Second, George Foreman beat Moorer defies logic. It is the exception, not the rule. No one expect him to win, but he landed a great punch. caught off guard. a fluke if you must. If the fight is repeated many times I'm sure people would still take Moorer everytime.

Third, i can see you're an SRR fan and we can differ in opinion. I'll still bet for top today's boxer. No point going back and forth. I think he's the greatest but today's top boxers will beat him. No question about it.

Logic will tell you that as sport progresses, the quality of fighters will improve. Food, training, technology, health, knowledge, coaches, etc; all of these have improved dramatically from 1950 till now. Although, what the old does (like the guy who ran 4 minutes mile) are far more impressive than the guys who ran 3 minutes 50 seconds today.
Regarding Harry Greb or any fighter of the early-1900s, I find your overall premise that 'you don't need to see them... you just know' to be be presumptuous and mildly insulting to great fighters of yesteryear.

As for George Foreman... He was almost 50 years old, fat, and could barely move. Contrast that with a YOUNG George Foreman (circa '74). He would have decapitated anyone in this division. The fact that he was able to beat Moorer at 50, regardless of whether or not it was 'lucky', says something about the level of competition in the early-70s in the heavyweight division.

It certainly flies in the face of your theory that newer is automatically better.

I understand the viewpoint that you are taking and I can even see it being applied to fighters of the early-00s, but not someone who fought in the 50s, 60s, or 70s. If you are telling me that SRR, Ali, Floyd Patterson, Jake LaMotta, Roberto Duran, etc. all had sh!tty technique, I would ask you to do some more research on the topic.

We shouldn't be comparing eras for obvious reasons, anyway, but to take a stance that 'new' means 'better' is pretty demeaning to some of the greatest athletes (not just boxers, but athletes) to ever live.

Sure... diets, training, coaching, etc. have all improved as time has gone on. So, put SRR in today's era. Give him the nutrition, a great trainer, and five months to prepare for one fight.... It would be brutal.

20 years from now, are people going to be saying that a prime Michael Jordan couldn't compete in the current NBA?

Some athletes are just superior... in any era.

Odomize

12-11-2008, 04:13 AM

Regarding Harry Greb or any fighter of the early-1900s, I find your overall premise that 'you don't need to see them... you just know' to be be presumptuous and mildly insulting to great fighters of yesteryear.

As for George Foreman... He was almost 50 years old, fat, and could barely move. Contrast that with a YOUNG George Foreman (circa '74). He would have decapitated anyone in this division. The fact that he was able to beat Moorer at 50, regardless of whether or not it was 'lucky', says something about the level of competition in the early-70s in the heavyweight division.

It certainly flies in the face of your theory that newer is automatically better.

I understand the viewpoint that you are taking and I can even see it being applied to fighters of the early-00s, but not someone who fought in the 50s, 60s, or 70s. If you are telling me that SRR, Ali, Floyd Patterson, Jake LaMotta, Roberto Duran, etc. all had sh!tty technique, I would ask you to do some more research on the topic.

We shouldn't be comparing eras for obvious reasons, anyway, but to take a stance that 'new' means 'better' is pretty demeaning to some of the greatest athletes (not just boxers, but athletes) to ever live.

Sure... diets, training, coaching, etc. have all improved as time has gone on. So, put SRR in today's era. Give him the nutrition, a great trainer, and five months to prepare for one fight.... It would be brutal.

20 years from now, are people going to be saying that a prime Michael Jordan couldn't compete in the current NBA?

Some athletes are just superior... in any era.
well it may be insulting, but it's fact based on logic. They're still the greatest fighters though.

Regarding Moorer-foreman, anyone can beat anyone through luck punch. If Tyson let me punch his chin, I'd beat him too. The 45 yrs old foreman was totally controlled by moorer, but moorer let his guard go for a sec and foreman got lucky, good for him.

Not ****ty. Inferior might be the word for it.

of course if you give him the techniques and the training of today's fighter he might be better. That's all the argument one can make for how they can be better than today's fighter.

It's inevitable that someone better than Jordan gonna come along, in 20 years, maybe there'll be 2 - 3 players better than Jordan. Sure prime Jordan would still compete, he'll just not be the best anymore. It's just progression of sport.

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 05:31 AM

Regarding Moorer-foreman, anyone can beat anyone through luck punch. If Tyson let me punch his chin, I'd beat him too. The 45 yrs old foreman was totally controlled by moorer, but moorer let his guard go for a sec and foreman got lucky, good for him.
He was 45-years old and out-of-shape. Just think for a minute... Whether it was a lucky punch or not (it wasn't... he saw an opening and drilled Moorer with a short, nasty KO punch), he was 45.

Think if Moorer would have been fighting the 25-year old version of Foreman. The Big George that knocked out Joe Frazier (twice). It would have been a brutal beating.

Moorer tried to come back a few years ago and failed miserably... and he was only in his late-30s in a terrible HW division.

Again... think of a 25-year old Foreman against Moorer. Mike wouldn't have been able to get out of the first round.

of course if you give him the techniques and the training of today's fighter he might be better. That's all the argument one can make for how they can be better than today's fighter.
No, it isn't the only argument that can be made. Robinson would likely be fighting at 140 if he were somehow to be transported, in his prime, to today. Do you think Ricky Hatton (current champ at 140) could beat Robinson?

LaMotta was 100x better than Hatton ever was (and a similar style fighter), except Jake was a middleweight (160 pounds)... Robinson went 5-1 against him.

So... not only are you saying Hatton > LaMotta (ludicrous), you are saying Hatton > Robinson. :oldlol:

My god, man. Any boxing historian would say :wtf: to that argument.

It's inevitable that someone better than Jordan gonna come along, in 20 years, maybe there'll be 2 - 3 players better than Jordan. Sure prime Jordan would still compete, he'll just not be the best anymore. It's just progression of sport.
It isn't 'inevitable' that someone will come along 'better' than Jordan. He was the SRR of basketball (about as perfect as humanly possible). But, there is a chance that it could happen at some point in the future.

Still, that wasn't the argument that you were making. You didn't say, "there might be 1 or 2 guys that have come along that I could see beating Robinson."

You have said that all fighters in the "days of black-and-white" are inherently inferior. You also said that you know that SRR would and could never beat today's 'top boxers.' By that, I'm assuming you think Ricky Hatton, Antonio Margarito, Miguel Cotto, and Paul Williams are better fighters than Robinson?

I enjoy debating boxing, but I just can't understand that line of thinking. What is it about the techniques of Hatton, Margarito, Cotto, and Williams that make them superior to Robinson, from your perspective?

I'm really curious. Hatton is a wild slap puncher that tries to maul his opponents and wrestle them into submission. He has very little in the way of actual 'technique.'

Margarito is a tall, big welterweight that is a volume puncher. His goal is to try to wear down fighters by throwing a lot of punches (as he did with Cotto). He sacrifices power for volume and hopes that accumulation of punishment will eventually make his opponent wilt. Comparing his technique to SRR, though? Laughable.

Paul Williams... see Margarito. They are pretty much the same fighter.

Miguel Cotto is a hard-hitting slugger with a bit of a china chin and pretty bad stamina.

You say that Robinson would get beaten by all of the top boxers. Tell me why each of these guys would beat him.

You may want to brush up on your SRR in the process. Here are a couple of short highlight clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fK2Cc2mxNA&feature=related (OMG)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gG2_JUqZE

Note the incredible power, speed, footwork, and combinations... perfect.

Younggrease

12-11-2008, 05:45 AM

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 05:51 AM

My man Joe Louis got to be in the convo.. My grand-dad was telling me stories about his 6 inch punches that mess people up..

Here is vid of the Subtle Skills of Joe Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws
I have Joe Louis as No. 1 on my list of all-time heavyweights. He would definitely be in my Top 10, pound-for-pound. Great, great fighter.

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 06:05 AM

I love youtube.

Here are more SRR highlights. I can't get enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60GuoYpmbJo&feature=related

:eek: :bowdown: :eek: :bowdown: :eek:

kentatm

12-11-2008, 06:07 AM

i can't believe that it took until the 5th page in this thread for just a passing mention and until this final one for Forman to get any respect.

CLEARLY there are a lot of guys that know zilch about boxing. I'm not going to claim to know much before the late 50s (and not even a great knowledge, mostly average i'd say) but as for heavyweights from the 60s on, Big George is up there. Everyone remembers the Ali rope a dope win (which you could actually call LUCK b/c that fight was more about Forman punching himself out of it) but they dont remember how he crushed Frazier (and thumped him a second time), knocked out Ken Norton in 2 (the guy who beat Ali and broke his jaw before the Rumble) and just crushed a ton of other guys. Never mind he was able to go to a 12 round decision vs early prime Holyfield at age 42.

Prime Forman would have squashed Tyson like a bug. I mean, Tyson got taken down by friggin Buster Douglas. Tyson's legacy gets aided by his going to jail ironically b/c it shielded him for 6 years from getting his ass handed to him by Holyfield.

Though for pre 50's I do know about Max Schmeling (the saying "We was robbed" comes from one of his fights) and Joe Lewis, two other guys I think aren't getting the (if any) respect they deserve in this thread.

RedBlack, what do you think of this Chris Arreola cat? Clearly he isn't at any kind of level any of the guys discussed in here are (well, maybe he could take on Buster) and I was a little underwhelmed by the bad shape he was in vs Travis Walker but he did put him on his ass once he got his head in the game. Think he could develop into anything that could mildly excite US fans?

Also, did any of ya'll see the Luis Abregu vs David Estrada fight? That thing was a prime example of why boxing has lost its foothold as a legit sport. I had it as a draw and at worst he lost 98-96 with like a 6-4 edge in rounds but the judges had it as 98-92, 98-91 Abregu, 96-94 Estrada. I mean, that was just dumbfounding. A decision like that makes you not want to watch.

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 06:55 AM

RedBlack, what do you think of this Chris Arreola cat? Clearly he isn't at any kind of level any of the guys discussed in here are (well, maybe he could take on Buster) and I was a little underwhelmed by the bad shape he was in vs Travis Walker but he did put him on his ass once he got his head in the game. Think he could develop into anything that could mildly excite US fans?
Arreola definitely has some skill, especially for a big guy, and he has some upside. Whether he alone is the kind of figure that could re-ignite interest in the HW division? I don't know if I consider him that kind of fighter.

I watched him smack around Israel Carlos Garcia a couple of months ago. I was impressed. I also saw him lumber through his bout with Walker. I was less impressed, but he may have just had an off night.

I think the guy that really could draw a ton of interest back into the HW division is David Haye. He is the kind of guy that people will drop what they're doing to see. He is far from a perfect fighter, but he has serious power, is very flashy, and has a huge personality.

Also, did any of ya'll see the Luis Abregu vs David Estrada fight? That thing was a prime example of why boxing has lost its foothold as a legit sport. I had it as a draw and at worst he lost 98-96 with like a 6-4 edge in rounds but the judges had it as 98-92, 98-91 Abregu, 96-94 Estrada. I mean, that was just dumbfounding. A decision like that makes you not want to watch.
I didn't see it, but I heard about it. You are going to occasionally have terrible decisions like that one when you are dealing with a judging system that is as arbitrary as that used by boxing.

I remember watching Emanuel Augustus-Courtney Burton a few years ago. Augustus dominated Burton in front of his home fans. The judges gave Burton a majority decision with two of the judges giving Burton something like 8 of the 10 rounds.

It was on Friday Night Fights and Teddy Atlas basically lost his mind, saying it was the worst decision ever and that everyone watching should be sick.

Boxing history is full of shady decisions.

Holyfield's draw against Lennox Lewis in their first fight was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. Lewis won that fight easily.

Odomize

12-11-2008, 07:00 AM

He was 45-years old and out-of-shape. Just think for a minute... Whether it was a lucky punch or not (it wasn't... he saw an opening and drilled Moorer with a short, nasty KO punch), he was 45.

Think if Moorer would have been fighting the 25-year old version of Foreman. The Big George that knocked out Joe Frazier (twice). It would have been a brutal beating.

Moorer tried to come back a few years ago and failed miserably... and he was only in his late-30s in a terrible HW division.

Again... think of a 25-year old Foreman against Moorer. Mike wouldn't have been able to get out of the first round.

No, it isn't the only argument that can be made. Robinson would likely be fighting at 140 if he were somehow to be transported, in his prime, to today. Do you think Ricky Hatton (current champ at 140) could beat Robinson?

LaMotta was 100x better than Hatton ever was (and a similar style fighter), except Jake was a middleweight (160 pounds)... Robinson went 5-1 against him.

So... not only are you saying Hatton > LaMotta (ludicrous), you are saying Hatton > Robinson. :oldlol:

My god, man. Any boxing historian would say :wtf: to that argument.

It isn't 'inevitable' that someone will come along 'better' than Jordan. He was the SRR of basketball (about as perfect as humanly possible). But, there is a chance that it could happen at some point in the future.

Still, that wasn't the argument that you were making. You didn't say, "there might be 1 or 2 guys that have come along that I could see beating Robinson."

You have said that all fighters in the "days of black-and-white" are inherently inferior. You also said that you know that SRR would and could never beat today's 'top boxers.' By that, I'm assuming you think Ricky Hatton, Antonio Margarito, Miguel Cotto, and Paul Williams are better fighters than Robinson?

I enjoy debating boxing, but I just can't understand that line of thinking. What is it about the techniques of Hatton, Margarito, Cotto, and Williams that make them superior to Robinson, from your perspective?

I'm really curious. Hatton is a wild slap puncher that tries to maul his opponents and wrestle them into submission. He has very little in the way of actual 'technique.'

Margarito is a tall, big welterweight that is a volume puncher. His goal is to try to wear down fighters by throwing a lot of punches (as he did with Cotto). He sacrifices power for volume and hopes that accumulation of punishment will eventually make his opponent wilt. Comparing his technique to SRR, though? Laughable.

Paul Williams... see Margarito. They are pretty much the same fighter.

Miguel Cotto is a hard-hitting slugger with a bit of a china chin and pretty bad stamina.

You say that Robinson would get beaten by all of the top boxers. Tell me why each of these guys would beat him.

You may want to brush up on your SRR in the process. Here are a couple of short highlight clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fK2Cc2mxNA&feature=related (OMG)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gG2_JUqZE

Note the incredible power, speed, footwork, and combinations... perfect.
First, Moorer was off guard for a second after 10 rounds controlling the fight completely. it happens.

second, the top boxers like floyd mayweather, roy jones, de la hoya, even Ricky Hatton would beat SRR. Floyd would beat SRR badly. Boxing historian tend to be bias towards old guys and underrate the new guys, just like basketball historian. They don't follow common logic.

Dasher

12-11-2008, 11:28 AM

Demsey used his footwork to take away the height and reach advantage of the bigger man.

Compare Dempsey's timeless tactics to another ring master Dwight Braxton/Mohammad Qwai. Qwai is the smaller man, and he uses his footwork and head movement to get inside of the bigger man and busts him up inside. Qwai eventually completely breaks his opponent down and thrashes him.

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDuaQIp4L0&feature=related)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJNmW1FgWdE&feature=related)

Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uls1Zh61ql8&feature=related)

Qwai vs Leon Spinks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9t8hYfkcQg&feature=related)

GOBB

12-11-2008, 07:26 PM

Prime Forman would have squashed Tyson like a bug. I mean, Tyson got taken down by friggin Buster Douglas. Tyson's legacy gets aided by his going to jail ironically b/c it shielded him for 6 years from getting his ass handed to him by Holyfield.

A prime Tyson vs Prime Foreman would have been a nice fight to see.

Buster didnt beat a prime Tyson and neither did Holyfield.

GOBB

12-11-2008, 07:30 PM

First, Moorer was off guard for a second after 10 rounds controlling the fight completely. it happens.

second, the top boxers like floyd mayweather, roy jones, de la hoya, even Ricky Hatton would beat SRR. Floyd would beat SRR badly. Boxing historian tend to be bias towards old guys and underrate the new guys, just like basketball historian. They don't follow common logic.

Credibility has been flushed down the toilet. A Prime RJJ vs SRR would have been a treat to watch. Because to me RJJ was about as close as you're gonna get to SRR. And I dont mean he was equal, a duplicate. I say it in terms of Jason Kidd being the closest to Magic.

Oscar? Hatton? Floyd Jr? None of them BELONG in the ring with SRR. Are you just typing this nonsense because it seems RBA is in depth with his responses to you? Like you're doing this out of spite more than actually buying what you type? What credible boxin historian would even cosign that? Ridiculous.

-primetime-

12-11-2008, 08:44 PM

another big tragedy for boxing was Tyson's jail time...

and that is for the simple fact that later on it was almost proven that Tyson never raped that girl...

King had his own personal lawyer take the case and the guy apparently didn't know what he was doing...

The girl that had accused Tyson of rape has been shown to have done the same thing to another guy in the past...

Tyson still seemed to be somewhat humble before he went to jail...he came out a crazed lost soul who didn't know how to act.

his jail time could have ruined something special but we will never know...

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 08:53 PM

Credibility has been flushed down the toilet. A Prime RJJ vs SRR would have been a treat to watch. Because to me RJJ was about as close as you're gonna get to SRR. And I dont mean he was equal, a duplicate. I say it in terms of Jason Kidd being the closest to Magic.

Oscar? Hatton? Floyd Jr? None of them BELONG in the ring with SRR. Are you just typing this nonsense because it seems RBA is in depth with his responses to you? Like you're doing this out of spite more than actually buying what you type? What credible boxin historian would even cosign that? Ridiculous.
I've pretty much given up, GOBB. I would suggest that you do the same. Anyone that claims to have boxing knowledge and says something like Hatton and DLH would beat SRR doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

I appreciate that there are others on this site who will at least engage in a conversation about boxing, so I'm not going to call anyone out. I will just slowly back out of that conversation.

As for a RJJ-SRR fight...

The real question I would have would be where does this fight happen? SRR was a natural lightweight that fought welterweight and middleweight only because he had no competition in the lower weight classes.

RJJ didn't spend much time at either middleweight or even super middleweight, for that matter. He spent most of his career as a light heavyweight.

RJJ would have a SIGNIFICANT size advantage in that potential fight. Still... when you are talking about the greatest of the great in his prime, size may not be that much of an issue.

Both had superior hand speed, power, and reflexes. Where SRR separates from RJJ is in his boxing fundamentals and chin.

RJJ, in his prime, broke every rule in boxing. He would put his hands down, go straight back after throwing combinations, and jump in and out of exchanges, relying solely on his incredible reflexes to get him out of trouble.

Those things are what made a prime RJJ so fun to watch. He was unique because he used his athleticism to break fundamental rules and the result was some spectacular, almost super-human looking moments.

However, matched against a guy that is just as athletic, but uses great fundamentals and also has an iron chin, it would be a tough task for RJJ. There is no way that he would be able to control the pace of the fight by pot-shotting and jumping in and out of danger.

SRR was too sound for that and his hands and footwork were too good.

It would be a spectacular fight to watch between the two most athletically gifted boxers the sport has ever seen (imo). But, it would ultimately end with SRR catching RJJ going straight back with his hands down. SRR's power was unreal and we all know that RJJ doesn't have the best chin on the planet.

I'd love to see it, though.

GOBB

12-11-2008, 08:56 PM

I agree RBA and i appreciate you dropping some really really good posts about boxing in this thread bro. Very good reading.

RedBlackAttack

12-11-2008, 09:12 PM

I agree RBA and i appreciate you dropping some really really good posts about boxing in this thread bro. Very good reading.
:cheers:

-primetime-

12-11-2008, 09:19 PM

I've pretty much given up, GOBB. I would suggest that you do the same. Anyone that claims to have boxing knowledge and says something like Hatton and DLH would beat SRR doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

I appreciate that there are others on this site who will at least engage in a conversation about boxing, so I'm not going to call anyone out. I will just slowly back out of that conversation.

As for a RJJ-SRR fight...

The real question I would have would be where does this fight happen? SRR was a natural lightweight that fought welterweight and middleweight only because he had no competition in the lower weight classes.

RJJ didn't spend much time at either middleweight or even super middleweight, for that matter. He spent most of his career as a light heavyweight.

RJJ would have a SIGNIFICANT size advantage in that potential fight. Still... when you are talking about the greatest of the great in his prime, size may not be that much of an issue.

Both had superior hand speed, power, and reflexes. Where SRR separates from RJJ is in his boxing fundamentals and chin.

RJJ, in his prime, broke every rule in boxing. He would put his hands down, go straight back after throwing combinations, and jump in and out of exchanges, relying solely on his incredible reflexes to get him out of trouble.

Those things are what made a prime RJJ so fun to watch. He was unique because he used his athleticism to break fundamental rules and the result was some spectacular, almost super-human looking moments.

However, matched against a guy that is just as athletic, but uses great fundamentals and also has an iron chin, it would be a tough task for RJJ. There is no way that he would be able to control the pace of the fight by pot-shotting and jumping in and out of danger.

SRR was too sound for that and his hands and footwork were too good.

It would be a spectacular fight to watch between the two most athletically gifted boxers the sport has ever seen (imo). But, it would ultimately end with SRR catching RJJ going straight back with his hands down. SRR's power was unreal and we all know that RJJ doesn't have the best chin on the planet.

I'd love to see it, though.
there is something wrong in your logic here...(it seems)

SRR/RJJ would be a fantastic fight regadless of who's era they grew up in according to you...

also according to you SRR is the GOAT and RJJ doesn't belong in the top 10 and if he is in your top 5 you should leave the thread and never come back (you may have even said he shouldn't be top 20, can't remember)

that math doesn't add up...

now, before you tell me that it is a tragedy for the sport that RJJ never faced anyone worth a damn...please explain to me why that should factor in at all here if you truely believe that RJJ was on the same level...

That might be a decend reason to have SRR over RJJ but not good enough to say RJJ doesn't belong in a top 10 list...

just an observation

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 12:51 AM

SRR/RJJ would be a fantastic fight regadless of who's era they grew up in according to you...
I said it is a fight that I would love to see. I also explained why I would pick SRR by knockout.

also according to you SRR is the GOAT and RJJ doesn't belong in the top 10 and if he is in your top 5 you should leave the thread and never come back (you may have even said he shouldn't be top 20, can't remember)

that math doesn't add up...
He definitely wouldn't be in my Top 20, but that is not for lack of talent. He just doesn't have the resume to stack up. I think that is the overall point you are missing, here.

The pound-for-pound list should be largely based on career accomplishments, since there are many great fighters that we don't even have film footage of. RJJ 'looked' like an all-time great for the majority of his career, but when you lay his resume down, side-by-side, with other great fighters, it doesn't warrant him being in the Top 20, all-time.

That doesn't mean that I think that a prime RJJ would lose to all of the fighters that I do have in my Top 20. The old saying in boxing is that styles make fights.

Seeing SRR matched up with a guy that can match him, athletically, would be a real treat, because no one ever came close to his physical talent during the course of his career.

If I had to rank RJJ, I'd probably put him somewhere between 25-50 in the all-time p4p rankings. He would probably be around the same area as Jake LaMotta.

LaMotta was the first person to ever beat SRR. That doesn't mean that LaMotta is better p4p than SRR. It just means that he matched up extremely well with him (although SRR finished his career with a 5-1 record against the Raging Bull).

Also remember that SRR was a natural lightweight (135), while Jones is a natural super middleweight (168) or light heavyweight (175). That is a huge weight disparity that COULD play a role (but I don't think that it would ultimately decide the potential match).

I guess my point is, a p4p list isn't so perfect that you can match any fighter in the Top 10 with any fighter at 20 or lower and assume that the higher ranked fighter will always win. There are a lot of variables in boxing.

Would I rank Antonio Tarver in front of RJJ in the all-time p4p rankings just because I think that Tarver would have always given Roy trouble? Hell no... It is the nature of boxing... Styles make fights.

That said, I DID predict an SRR victory by KO... That is saying something considering he would be facing a Top 50 all-time fighter. That is STILL very high.

Odomize

12-12-2008, 01:19 AM

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 01:24 AM

at least watch the fights without bias. and actually use some logic.
I think you need to take your own advise. I enjoy bantering back-and-forth on any topic related to boxing, but your utter lack of respect for the giants of the sport is a bit unnerving.

I wasn't alive in the 50s or 60s. I would love to say that my boxing idols (Pernell Whitaker, RJJ, PBF, etc.) are the best to ever live. But, it is exactly the term that you used (logic) that prevents me from doing so.

I will leave it at that because, clearly, we are not going to come to any kind of resolution on this matter.

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 01:40 AM

I am not taking sides here but obviously fighters of today have studied and learned from fighters in the past...

I think athletes of ANY sport evolve to be better over time...

XxNeXuSxX

12-12-2008, 01:55 AM

I am not taking sides here but obviously fighters of today have studied and learned from fighters in the past...

I think athletes of ANY sport evolve to be better over time...
And some were so dominant that fighters still have not caught up to them. SRR is that example. It's retarded to say Hatton would be SRR. Retarded.

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 01:59 AM

I am not taking sides here but obviously fighters of today have studied and learned from fighters in the past...

I think athletes of ANY sport evolve to be better over time...
If anyone can breakdown the styles of SRR in contrast to Hatton, DLH, PBF, or anyone else, I would be interested in hearing about an argument as to why those guys could beat him.

Don't just give me some nonsense about our generation being naturally better and an overall evolution of the sport. If anything, there has been a DE-evolution as of late.

Watch those clips I posted of SRR. Better yet, watch a whole SRR fight (they are on youtube). If you or anyone else can actually breakdown his fighting style and holes in his game that a guy like DLH or Hatton or PBF could expose, this is an argument worth having.

If you (not you, -pt-) are going to just keep repeating that fighters today are 'better' without supplying evidence as to why, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I've already broken down the top 140 and 147-pounders and discussed their strengths and weaknesses... and I've said why SRR would dominate any and all of them.

I don't see an attempt to refute my points, other than guys just being 'better' today. That is a very vain way of looking at things. You may WANT your generation to 'just be better,' but it isn't so.

Odomize

12-12-2008, 02:36 AM

If anyone can breakdown the styles of SRR in contrast to Hatton, DLH, PBF, or anyone else, I would be interested in hearing about an argument as to why those guys could beat him.

Don't just give me some nonsense about our generation being naturally better and an overall evolution of the sport. If anything, there has been a DE-evolution as of late.

Watch those clips I posted of SRR. Better yet, watch a whole SRR fight (they are on youtube). If you or anyone else can actually breakdown his fighting style and holes in his game that a guy like DLH or Hatton or PBF could expose, this is an argument worth having.

If you (not you, -pt-) are going to just keep repeating that fighters today are 'better' without supplying evidence as to why, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I've already broken down the top 140 and 147-pounders and discussed their strengths and weaknesses... and I've said why SRR would dominate any and all of them.

I don't see an attempt to refute my points, other than guys just being 'better' today. That is a very vain way of looking at things. You may WANT your generation to 'just be better,' but it isn't so.
umm, it's your generation too, since you live today.

All youve said is SRR are a guy with no weakness and a lot of upside. Why, I can easily said today's fighters are better, stronger, faster, more intelligent, etc based on common sense and logic that sports, nutrition, knowledge and technology evolve over time, creating better and better fighters. 1950 and today are very different. The improvement are enormous. Tyson had many holes at his game, but he's stronger than everyone else he overpowers em. Just like Lebron kills opponents despite him having glaring holes at his game.

take greb for example, how do you beat a guy who win countless fights? 2 hundred something isn't it? This guy has no weakness! but surely everyone think any good, experienced boxer today will beat him. Same with SRR, although the margin are smaller with him.

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 02:45 AM

umm, it's your generation too, since you live today.

All youve said is SRR are a guy with no weakness and a lot of upside. Why, I can easily said today's fighters are better, stronger, faster, more intelligent, etc based on common sense and logic that sports, nutrition, knowledge and technology evolve over time, creating better and better fighters. 1950 and today are very different. The improvement are enormous. Tyson had many holes at his game, but he's stronger than everyone else he overpowers em. Just like Lebron kills opponents despite him having glaring holes at his game.

take greb for example, how do you beat a guy who win countless fights? 2 hundred something isn't it? This guy has no weakness! but surely everyone think any good, experienced boxer today will beat him. Same with SRR, although the margin are smaller with him.
It IS my generation, since I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I have no connection to the 40s, 50s, and 60s other than my studying of the sport.

If you see weaknesses in SRR's game, let us all know. If you see ways in which DLH, PBF, and Hatton could exploit SRR's weakness, let me know.

The difference between Robinson and Greb is that we have a plethora of video evidence to study SRR, whereas no known video exists of a Greb fight.

So... use those SRR videos and tell me why and how today's fighters beat him. I need specifics. If you can't supply them, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 02:52 AM

Also, where does this supposed transformation by great fighters to virtual nothings when compared to 'modern' elites take place? Was it the mid-70s that saw this sudden change? The mid-80s? The 90s? Is this just a recent upswing that saw modern technique dwarf that of SRR's era?

Would Hatton beat Hearns, Hagler, and SRL? How about Pernell Whitaker? Was he also in an era that doesn't compare to the 'modern' one?

When, exactly, does this shift from technically inferior fighters to modern unbeatables occur, exactly?

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 03:05 AM

If anyone can breakdown the styles of SRR in contrast to Hatton, DLH, PBF, or anyone else, I would be interested in hearing about an argument as to why those guys could beat him.

Don't just give me some nonsense about our generation being naturally better and an overall evolution of the sport. If anything, there has been a DE-evolution as of late.

Watch those clips I posted of SRR. Better yet, watch a whole SRR fight (they are on youtube). If you or anyone else can actually breakdown his fighting style and holes in his game that a guy like DLH or Hatton or PBF could expose, this is an argument worth having.

If you (not you, -pt-) are going to just keep repeating that fighters today are 'better' without supplying evidence as to why, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I've already broken down the top 140 and 147-pounders and discussed their strengths and weaknesses... and I've said why SRR would dominate any and all of them.

I don't see an attempt to refute my points, other than guys just being 'better' today. That is a very vain way of looking at things. You may WANT your generation to 'just be better,' but it isn't so.
Sports and the athletes in the sport do evolve to be better...it isn't because of actual "nature"...it is because of alot of things. One of those things is studying what made the athletes before them so great.

the 1966 Green Bay Packers (Super Bowl 1 Champs) would get killed by the 2008 Lions (who are about to go 0-16)

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 03:08 AM

Why can't I find a web site that breaks down stats round per round???

I would like to see how many punches these fighters in the past were throwing and landing compared to fighters today...

as well as KO %...did they even have TKOs back then???...when did judges come into play???

I need to see just how drastically this sport has changed

kentatm

12-12-2008, 03:10 AM

Sports and the athletes in the sport do evolve to be better...it isn't because of actual "nature"...it is because of alot of things. One of those things is studying what made the athletes before them so great.

the 1966 Green Bay Packers (Super Bowl 1 Champs) would get killed by the 2008 Lions (who are about to go 0-16)

thats a terrible comparison. the rules and playing style have changed enough that there is no way you could conceivably field that game.

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 03:15 AM

thats a terrible comparison. the rules and playing style have changed enough that there is no way you could conceivably field that game.
maybe that is an extreme example...

but my point was still made...every sport advances over long periods of time...and the athletes with it do as well (not by nature)

kentatm

12-12-2008, 03:20 AM

maybe that is an extreme example...

but my point was still made...every sport advances over long periods of time...and the athletes with it do as well (not by nature)

please. billy badass baseball players from the 30s would still be great today. especially the concerning batting b/c they would get the lowered mound which makes it much easier to hit.

in fact, i would bet that football teams from now wouldnt be able to compete with old school rules b/c it would be way too brutal for them to handle.

Odomize

12-12-2008, 03:24 AM

RBA you dont need specifics. What you need is a little more logic and a little less bias.

How anyone can ever beat the SRR in your mind? Not even in another 1000 years since he's the perfect boxer in your mind. No weakness, fast as hell, very strong, etc.

and the transformation is a gradual process. Doesn't happen overnight.

just face it, today's top boxers are better, stronger, faster, more intelligent, etc.

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 03:26 AM

please. billy badass baseball players from the 30s would still be great today. especially the concerning batting b/c they would get the lowered mound which makes it much easier to hit.
Babe Ruth would not be a duel hitting/pitching threat in today's MLB...

in fact, i would bet that football teams from now wouldnt be able to compete with old school rules b/c it would be way too brutal for them to handle.
too brutal?

I doubt that would be a problem for them seeing as how they are probably an average of 30 lbs bigger...

Today's players hit really hard...Ray Lewis would eat up an entire offense for lunch back in those days...

kentatm

12-12-2008, 03:39 AM

Babe Ruth would not be a duel hitting/pitching threat in today's MLB...

probably not b/c he would have never even been allowed to pitch with his hitting skills. He would still crush the ball though, especially in the tiny ass fields of today.

too brutal?

I doubt that would be a problem for them seeing as how they are probably an average of 30 lbs bigger...

Today's players hit really hard...Ray Lewis would eat up an entire offense for lunch back in those days...

Lewis would break his shoulder trying to hit as hard as he could with the pads they had then much like howa Rugby player can't hit a dude as hard as he wants now w/o severely hurting himself. The current guys wouldnt be used to the pounding either and would be dropping like flys. Just b/c you are bigger does not make you tougher. If we are playing by the old rules, they dont get the tech from today so they cant have all the little things like the shots and sports medicine throughout the game. These guys were used to getting the hell kicked out of them. The current ones would wilt.

Its all old school. Hell, until 1980 you were allowed to club a dude in the face. You could roll block and cut block WRs until 74. You could could hit them down field until the ball was thrown till 78 so there go all the timing routes they run now. Head slaps, clipping and all forms of hands to the face were fine until 77. The play clock was only 30 seconds until 80 and that would screw guys like Romo and Manning would take their sweet ass time getting the plays off. in 79 the changes prohibited players on the receiving team from blocking below the waist during kickoffs, punts, and field-goal attempts; prohibited the wearing of torn or altered equipment and exposed pads that could be hazardous; extended the zone in which there could be no crackback blocks; and instructed officials to quickly whistle a play dead when a quarterback was clearly in the grasp of a tackler. Most of todays Qbs would be crying to their mamas from actually getting hit for once in their life.

I'm sorry but you drop any team from now into that era and say play them straight up by their rules, they would be physically demoralized by the 3rd by all the dirty stuff that was allowed.

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 03:56 AM

Lewis would break his shoulder trying to hit as hard as he could with the pads they had then much like howa Rugby player can't hit a dude as hard as he wants now w/o severely hurting himself. The current guys wouldnt be used to the pounding either and would be dropping like flys. Just b/c you are bigger does not make you tougher. If we are playing by the old rules, they dont get the tech from today so they cant have all the little things like the shots and sports medicine throughout the game. These guys were used to getting the hell kicked out of them. The current ones would wilt.

Its all old school. Hell, until 1980 you were allowed to club a dude in the face. You could roll block and cut block WRs until 74. You could could hit them down field until the ball was thrown till 78 so there go all the timing routes they run now. Head slaps, clipping and all forms of hands to the face were fine until 77. The play clock was only 30 seconds until 80 and that would screw guys like Romo and Manning would take their sweet ass time getting the plays off. in 79 the changes prohibited players on the receiving team from blocking below the waist during kickoffs, punts, and field-goal attempts; prohibited the wearing of torn or altered equipment and exposed pads that could be hazardous; extended the zone in which there could be no crackback blocks; and instructed officials to quickly whistle a play dead when a quarterback was clearly in the grasp of a tackler. Most of todays Qbs would be crying to their mamas from actually getting hit for once in their life.

I'm sorry but you drop any team from now into that era and say play them straight up by their rules, they would be physically demoralized by the 3rd by all the dirty stuff that was allowed.
I can see can see your point but I think the problem for them would come at the line...

They are just so much bigger today than they were back then that I don't think any QB would even get touched...

You are also making the assumption that todays players aren't capable of being nasty like that themselves...I can't even imagine what a guy like T.O. or Moss would do to slow, white, old school CBs back then.

Dick Lane and maybe a couple others might frustrate them but the majority would not be able to handle WRs like that...

also imagine today's CBs against those slow, white, old school WRs...

and would the QBs back then even have time to pass against the overwhelling size advantage of a defensive lineman and LBers today???

imagine what DeMarcus Ware would do to people back then...he would rape them

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 04:10 AM

It is just plain stupid to compare football in the 60s to boxing in the 60s. Professional football was in its absolute infancy back then.

Boxing had become a science long before SRR's era.

Plus, an athlete's weight would absolutely have an impact on the NFL of the 60s as compared to today. There were no 300 pound offensive lineman back in the early days of the NFL. Today, they are ALL at least 300 pounds.

Boxing has WEIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS, so it doesn't matter how much 'bigger' people are today. They still have to fight other guys their size.

There are so many flaws in comparing football to boxing that it really isn't worth the time.

I have a strange feeling -pt- is just playing devil's advocate. I don't mind it.... I just don't really think he actually believes half of the stuff he has said in the last few pages.

Why can't I find a web site that breaks down stats round per round???

I would like to see how many punches these fighters in the past were throwing and landing compared to fighters today...
Compubox began keeping track of round-by-round statistics in 1985. You will be hard-pressed to find any punch stats prior to the invention of the compubox system.

as well as KO %...did they even have TKOs back then???
Whose knockout percentage are you looking for? SRR finished his career with a record of 173-19-1 with an amazing 108 knockouts. He fought a total of 1,403 rounds and had a KO% of 54.

Robinson himself was never knocked out. He did lose one fight via TKO, but that is because in a fight against Joey Maxim, he couldn't answer the bell after Round 13. The fight was held in Yankee Stadium in June and the temperature was over 100 degrees. Robinson was suffering from heat prostration. He was winning the fight easily.

That was the only time that Robinson was given a loss that he didn't, at the very least, hear the final bell... and he fought 200 times.

And, yes... TKOs have been around for a very, very long time.

...when did judges come into play???

I need to see just how drastically this sport has changed

There have been judges since before the time of Jack Johnson... So, that stretches before 1906. I'm not sure exactly when they were instituted, but they have been around nearly as long as there has been professional boxing.

Btw, Jack Johnson had a KO% of 38.4.

kentatm

12-12-2008, 04:20 AM

I can see can see your point but I think the problem for them would come at the line...

They are just so much bigger today than they were back then that I don't think any QB would even get touched...

You are also making the assumption that todays players aren't capable of being nasty like that themselves...I can't even imagine what a guy like T.O. or Moss would do to slow, white, old school CBs back then.

Dick Lane and maybe a couple others might frustrate them but the majority would not be able to handle WRs like that...

also imagine today's CBs against those slow, white, old school WRs...

and would the QBs back then even have time to pass against the overwhelling size advantage of a defensive lineman and LBers today???

imagine what DeMarcus Ware would do to people back then...he would rape them

man TO can barely get off on his routes when he is jammed in todays game. He wouldnt be able to do a damn thing if guys were allowed to hit him the whole way and whenever they wanted. Plus they were ALL used to jamming guys. Its not like now where only a few are good at it. Ware would be taken out in seconds with a low clip to the knees. Guys now with an ankle tweak will sit out the rest of the game when then they would rub some spit on it, take a greenie and off they went. Hell, Hollywood Henderson was practically mainlining coke on the sidelines when he played.

of course a few of our era guys could be nasty too. its just that the game has been sanitized SO much that I really doubt that a whole team would be able to catch up to all the dirty stuff they did then.

as for getting to the QB? come on. you can always catch a guy with a speed rush off the end. thats not a new thing. But if ole Brady was driven to the turf like they did then? Man, he starts coming apart with the hits he gets now let alone the punch to the face he would most assuredly get.

The only option a team would have would be to try to run them to death but with how weak RBs have become I don't think the guys would be able to take the pounding over the course of the game. People love the way Barber plays now but talk to old guys and they see him as a throw back to when many RBs would look to hit YOU instead of the other way. Defenses from now would also be extremely befuddled by simple things such as GASP actually using fullbacks. Its almost become strange to see a double iso run in todays game.

i just think the game has changed enough to where only a few of todays guys could last just as only a few of their guys would make it now.

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 04:35 AM

It is just plain stupid to compare football in the 60s to boxing in the 60s. Professional football was in its absolute infancy back then.

Boxing had become a science long before SRR's era.

Plus, an athlete's weight would absolutely have an impact on the NFL of the 60s as compared to today. There were no 300 pound offensive lineman back in the early days of the NFL. Today, they are ALL at least 300 pounds.

Boxing has WEIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS, so it doesn't matter how much 'bigger' people are today. They still have to fight other guys their size.

There are so many flaws in comparing football to boxing that it really isn't worth the time.

I have a strange feeling -pt- is just playing devil's advocate. I don't mind it.... I just don't really think he actually believes half of the stuff he has said in the last few pages.

I wasn't trying to compare...I was trying to make a point of how sports progress...not regress

I guess I failed at making that point...:D

___________________

What exactly have I said that you don't think I believe? I have basically been asking you questions this entire thread while admitting to not being a boxing expert. I have made a few claims that I still do belive...

-I don't think Tyson should be left off a top 100 list...really, I don't

-I truely believe that sports and athletes advance rather than get worse

-I am not really sure RJJ isn't a top 20 all time

____________________

what the other poster said about the way you think DOES have a major problem, and that is the fact that your way of thinking will NEVER EVER EVER see a boxer knock down SRR from being the GOAT...It is IMPOSSIBLE...no matter what a boxer does today you can just say "179 wins, 50-1, fast and as strong as they come, with today's tech he would kill everyone, ect"....no boxer today can match that....EVER.

that is a problem...admitt it

as much as I come may come off as someone who is in favor of a later era you come off the exact opposite...almost as though you refuse to accept today's fighters....they are nothing to the guys old in your eyes. (the way it kinda looks)

all that being said I hope that i am not coming off as though I think I know more than you in boxing...I am just posting what I see as of now.

-primetime-

12-12-2008, 04:45 AM

man TO can barely get off on his routes when he is jammed in todays game. He wouldnt be able to do a damn thing if guys were allowed to hit him the whole way and whenever they wanted. Plus they were ALL used to jamming guys. Its not like now where only a few are good at it. Ware would be taken out in seconds with a low clip to the knees. Guys now with an ankle tweak will sit out the rest of the game when then they would rub some spit on it, take a greenie and off they went. Hell, Hollywood Henderson was practically mainlining coke on the sidelines when he played.

of course a few of our era guys could be nasty too. its just that the game has been sanitized SO much that I really doubt that a whole team would be able to catch up to all the dirty stuff they did then.

as for getting to the QB? come on. you can always catch a guy with a speed rush off the end. thats not a new thing. But if ole Brady was driven to the turf like they did then? Man, he starts coming apart with the hits he gets now let alone the punch to the face he would most assuredly get.

The only option a team would have would be to try to run them to death but with how weak RBs have become I don't think the guys would be able to take the pounding over the course of the game. People love the way Barber plays now but talk to old guys and they see him as a throw back to when many RBs would look to hit YOU instead of the other way. Defenses from now would also be extremely befuddled by simple things such as GASP actually using fullbacks. Its almost become strange to see a double iso run in todays game.

i just think the game has changed enough to where only a few of todays guys could last just as only a few of their guys would make it now.

okay I can agree with that...kinda

I truely think that if you took the 90s Cowboys and threw them out there with the old pads, rules. ect. that they would still win though...

if they are givin enough time to train and catch up so that they actualy understand what the rules are and have had a few practices to catch up.

I can't say the same with the teams of old...they would get murdered

RedBlackAttack

12-12-2008, 05:11 AM

-I don't think Tyson should be left off a top 100 list...really, I don't
It is arguable. Burt Sugar had him at No. 100. I've not compiled a Top 100 all-time pound-for-pound list, so I was only speculating that he wouldn't be on it. I would have to put in a significant amount of work to verify Tyson's place or lack thereof.

That said, even if he were to sneak in, it would be very low (like Sugar's list).

-I truely believe that sports and athletes advance rather than get worse
It depends on what sport you are talking about. I tend to agree with that line of thinking when it comes to football and basketball. Boxing is an exception.

Anyone that would argue that today's heavyweights are better than the era of greats in the 60s and 70s is nuts.

I do see a regression in the average boxer's technique. Maybe that is due to kids growing up and idolizing RJJ, someone who ignored boxing fundamentals. I'm not saying that every fighter of today is inferior to those of yesteryear.

I just think that, technically, the sport (as a whole) was better in eras past.

-I am not really sure RJJ isn't a top 20 all time
These are subjective things. He probably wouldn't be in MY Top 20 all-time list, but he would likely be in the Top 40. There wouldn't be a whole lot separating No. 20 and No. 35.

what the other poster said about the way you think DOES have a major problem
Wrong... HE has the problem because he is saying that a fighter of a different era, no matter how great, cannot be compared to fighters of today. It is a ridiculous assertion. I'm not the one making blanket statements, here.

and that is the fact that your way of thinking will NEVER EVER EVER see a boxer knock down SRR from being the GOAT...It is IMPOSSIBLE...no matter what a boxer does today you can just say "179 wins, 50-1, fast and as strong as they come, with today's tech he would kill everyone, ect"....no boxer today can match that....EVER.
Wrong. I NEVER said that it would be impossible for a fighter to knock SRR from the top of the all-time p4p rankings. I would never say such a thing. I am always keeping an open mind when evaluating fighters.

If I see a guy that has all of the skills, athleticism, and intangibles as SRR, I'll gladly admit it and relish the opportunity to watch such a fighter.

I feel the same way about SRR as I do about Michael Jordan. It is hard to imagine a player coming along and being better and more dominant than Jordan was, but I hope the day comes so that I could watch that guy play/box.

As of yet, no boxer approaches SRR that I have seen. I have never said that it couldn't happen, though. You are putting words in my mouth.

that is a problem...admitt it
Nope... not a problem.

almost as though you refuse to accept today's fighters....they are nothing to the guys old in your eyes. (the way it kinda looks)
That is just completely false. You will not find a bigger PBF fan on this board than me. I want badly to rank him among the greatest of the great (Top 10, pound-for-pound), but he needs to add to his resume before I do so.

The problem with a lot of great boxers today is that they seem unwilling to take risks. There is good reason. You saw what happened to Kelly Pavlik when he took an unnecessary risk (in my estimation) by taking on Bernard Hopkins. As a result, Pavlik will have to fight long and hard to restore his reputation.

One of the downsides to the top fighters only having a couple of bouts a year is that, if you lose, you have a long time to wait before you can redeem yourself.

Because of this, you see a lot of top guys taking fights that they think they have the best chance of winning and looking good in the process, to increase the chance of a big payday (preferably against a top tier guy that they know they can beat).

It just wasn't like that in the 50s and 60s. Robinson was fighting future HOFers almost every bout. In the rare occurrence of a loss to one of them, he had very little time to wait to get a rematch. It should also be noted that, of his 19 losses, Robinson defeated the man whom defeated him 18 times in the rematches of those few losses.

The only time that he was unable to do so was his last fight ever against Joey Archer in 1965.

I have nothing against today's fighters. I want them to succeed. I want them to take the biggest fights and the biggest risks. Without risks, the reward is not going to be as big.

If I ever see a fighter better than SRR was, I'll be screaming his name from the rooftops... happily.

XxNeXuSxX

12-12-2008, 10:50 AM

RBA you dont need specifics. What you need is a little more logic and a little less bias.

So basically you lose for defying both. Nice.

Odomize

12-12-2008, 11:43 AM

So basically you lose for defying both. Nice.
sure, kid. run along now.

RBA, you cant really compare srr with mj cause mj is only 10 years removed. Then again, we are already seeing another unstoppable force in Lebron even with all his glaring flaws. try 50 years later. I don't know why historians like to bias towards the past so much. These old legends get too much credit for their skills and strength which in actuality is inferior to today's top boxers.

surely people like greb, dempsey and ali should be on top of the pedestal for their achievements but not because their skills can even begin to compare with today's boxers.

XxNeXuSxX

12-12-2008, 11:51 AM

sure, kid. run along now.
:oldlol: Continue your hypocrisy youngin'. No 15 year olds have the authority to call anyone else a kid. The fact of the matter is you can't point out how these random guys you are listing to stand in the ring with Sugar Ray. You just say, "because". It's stupid to think they're aren't exceptions where timeless athletes could compete in any era. And especially because you've repeated the same vague statements five times in a row, it's safe to say you don't know he would lose. But since everyone else is biased (besides you, of course), he would lose. Let me tell you something; it's this logic that angers people. Would Shakespeare be a "mediocre" author if he lived today? Would Edison suddenly become an "average" innovator? Things are not cut and dry like you want them to be.

Smarten up kid.

Odomize

12-12-2008, 12:04 PM

:oldlol: Continue your hypocrisy youngin'. No 15 year olds have the authority to call anyone else a kid. The fact of the matter is you can't point out how these random guys you are listing to stand in the ring with Sugar Ray. You just say, "because". It's stupid to think they're aren't exceptions where timeless athletes could compete in any era. And especially because you've repeated the same vague statements five times in a row, it's safe to say you don't know he would lose. But since everyone else is biased (besides you, of course), he would lose. Let me tell you something; it's this logic that angers people. Would Shakespeare be a "mediocre" author if he lived today? Would Edison suddenly become an "average" innovator? Things are not cut and dry like you want them to be.

Like I said: sure, kid. i agree with you. run along now.

XxNeXuSxX

12-12-2008, 12:08 PM

What's up with the influx of idiots on this forum? Dware and Odomize. 14 year olds running rampant. :rolleyes:

Lebron23

12-13-2008, 04:05 AM

Sorry I should've been more clear, I actually watched the fight I was just wondering how it did in terms of PPV buys.

Top 10 North American PPV buy rates, 2008

1. Boxing: Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao, Dec. 6, 1,250,000

2. UFC: Brock Lesnar vs. Randy Couture, Nov. 15, 1,010,000

3. Wrestling: WrestleMania, Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Paul

RedBlackAttack

12-24-2008, 06:36 PM

Never heard a response from -pt-, so I figured I would send this back to the top. This thread is too good to let die.

KeylessEntry

12-24-2008, 06:41 PM

http://clatterymachinery.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/muhammad-ali.jpg

RedBlackAttack

12-24-2008, 06:47 PM

image
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3787/robinson1nu1.jpg
:pimp:

-primetime-

12-24-2008, 06:52 PM

It is arguable. Burt Sugar had him at No. 100. I've not compiled a Top 100 all-time pound-for-pound list, so I was only speculating that he wouldn't be on it. I would have to put in a significant amount of work to verify Tyson's place or lack thereof.

That said, even if he were to sneak in, it would be very low (like Sugar's list).
Okay...

sounds good to me

A top 100 list without Tyson seems just wrong

You listed acomplishments as a factor in ranking fighters....well being the youngest HW champ is a pretty big one.

It depends on what sport you are talking about. I tend to agree with that line of thinking when it comes to football and basketball. Boxing is an exception.

Anyone that would argue that today's heavyweights are better than the era of greats in the 60s and 70s is nuts.

I do see a regression in the average boxer's technique. Maybe that is due to kids growing up and idolizing RJJ, someone who ignored boxing fundamentals. I'm not saying that every fighter of today is inferior to those of yesteryear.

I just think that, technically, the sport (as a whole) was better in eras past.
60's and 70's I can see very little change

but in the 20's when boxers used to hold their fists up like the fighting irish icon...no way, I don't buy it...technique and training has got to have leaped forward a ton...alot of it due to watching those fighters from the past and improving upon their technique.

http://www.irishmax.com/images/Img11.gif

These are subjective things. He probably wouldn't be in MY Top 20 all-time list, but he would likely be in the Top 40. There wouldn't be a whole lot separating No. 20 and No. 35.
yeah I could see that...

It would be really cool to see you make just a top 20 list...

Wrong... HE has the problem because he is saying that a fighter of a different era, no matter how great, cannot be compared to fighters of today. It is a ridiculous assertion. I'm not the one making blanket statements, here.
okay...that is wrong of him

but I think in general I agree with him in saying that the average boxing star today is more "skilled" than the average star of the 20's

Wrong. I NEVER said that it would be impossible for a fighter to knock SRR from the top of the all-time p4p rankings. I would never say such a thing. I am always keeping an open mind when evaluating fighters.

If I see a guy that has all of the skills, athleticism, and intangibles as SRR, I'll gladly admit it and relish the opportunity to watch such a fighter.

I feel the same way about SRR as I do about Michael Jordan. It is hard to imagine a player coming along and being better and more dominant than Jordan was, but I hope the day comes so that I could watch that guy play/box.

As of yet, no boxer approaches SRR that I have seen. I have never said that it couldn't happen, though. You are putting words in my mouth.
you never did say it...

but based on the way you rank fighter I just don't see how it could possibly happen...

at some point in time stats and records have to be ignored because if they aren't then no boxer today has a shot in hell.

That is just completely false. You will not find a bigger PBF fan on this board than me. I want badly to rank him among the greatest of the great (Top 10, pound-for-pound), but he needs to add to his resume before I do so.

The problem with a lot of great boxers today is that they seem unwilling to take risks. There is good reason. You saw what happened to Kelly Pavlik when he took an unnecessary risk (in my estimation) by taking on Bernard Hopkins. As a result, Pavlik will have to fight long and hard to restore his reputation.

One of the downsides to the top fighters only having a couple of bouts a year is that, if you lose, you have a long time to wait before you can redeem yourself.

Because of this, you see a lot of top guys taking fights that they think they have the best chance of winning and looking good in the process, to increase the chance of a big payday (preferably against a top tier guy that they know they can beat).

It just wasn't like that in the 50s and 60s. Robinson was fighting future HOFers almost every bout. In the rare occurrence of a loss to one of them, he had very little time to wait to get a rematch. It should also be noted that, of his 19 losses, Robinson defeated the man whom defeated him 18 times in the rematches of those few losses.

The only time that he was unable to do so was his last fight ever against Joey Archer in 1965.

I have nothing against today's fighters. I want them to succeed. I want them to take the biggest fights and the biggest risks. Without risks, the reward is not going to be as big.

If I ever see a fighter better than SRR was, I'll be screaming his name from the rooftops... happily.
so does floyd have a shot at you screaming his name???

RedBlackAttack

12-24-2008, 07:13 PM

Okay...

sounds good to me

A top 100 list without Tyson seems just wrong

You listed acomplishments as a factor in ranking fighters....well being the youngest HW champ is a pretty big one.

Eh... I look at his competition during that period and it was pretty weak. His biggest wins on the road to becoming the youngest HW champion were against Trevor Berbick (an average fighter), Michael Spinks (a glorified light HW), and a very old Larry Holmes.

Against the best guys that Tyson faced in his career... The other great HWs of his era, he was destroyed. The guy wasn't just beaten, he was destroyed by Lewis and Holyfield. That is a huge stain on his legacy.

The fact of the matter is, Tyson doesn't have the quality wins to warrant his place on a pound-for-pound list. They just aren't there...

I already explained how Tyson could be left off of a Top 100 list. You think of all of the weight classes and all of the great fighters in each of those weight classes. Then, think about where Tyson ranks in his division.

Hell... He has to be behind Holyfield and Lewis (and I would also put Bowe in front of him)... and those are just guys in his own era.

When you really think about the math, it makes sense why Tyson might not make the cut.

60's and 70's I can see very little change

but in the 20's when boxers used to hold their fists up like the fighting irish icon...no way, I don't buy it...technique and training has got to have leaped forward a ton...alot of it due to watching those fighters from the past and improving upon their technique.

http://www.irishmax.com/images/Img11.gif
Guys didn't fight like that in the 20's and 30's. You have to go back to the 1800s to find the 'Notre Dame stance'... That is some John L. Sullivan type sh!t.

Boxing has been perfected since those days... there is no doubt. But, it really hasn't come THAT far. Watch some Billy Conn, for example.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9007&cat=boxer

The guy was a great technical fighter and he goes all the way back to the early-30's.

yeah I could see that...

It would be really cool to see you make just a top 20 list...
Now that I have a little bit of time off of work, I'll try to put together a Top 30 p4p list. It will take some time, though.

but I think in general I agree with him in saying that the average boxing star today is more "skilled" than the average star of the 20's
There were great boxers in that era. Don't be so quick to dismiss them. That was a GREAT period in boxing history.

but based on the way you rank fighter I just don't see how it could possibly happen...
It would be very difficult, obviously. It could happen, but it would take an extraordinary fighter and an extraordinary career. It isn't impossible, but highly unlikely.

SRR beat 20 HOFers over the course of his career. That is just insane.

at some point in time stats and records have to be ignored because if they aren't then no boxer today has a shot in hell.
How can you ignore a guy's resume, though? That is what helps you evaluate guys. You can't just look at a fighter and say he 'looks' like the best. His competition is going to help define how great that fighter is... It just cannot be ignored.

so does floyd have a shot at you screaming his name???
He is probably too far into his career to reach No. 1 pound-for-pound. He could, however, find himself in the Top 10. A win over Pacquaio would do wonders for his legacy.

If he were to finish his career with multiple victories over future HOFers like Pac and others, I would have no problem putting him in my Top 10.

Lebron23

12-24-2008, 07:17 PM

It's Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, and Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali.

3.2.1.

12-24-2008, 08:36 PM

So what have we accomplished in this thread... who is the GoAt boxer?

lefthook00

12-24-2008, 10:17 PM

So what have we accomplished in this thread... who is the GoAt boxer?

Sugar Ray Robinson is like Michael Jordan. Some people will say Magic etc. is the best but most think MJ is. Same thing with SRR.

-primetime-

12-24-2008, 11:55 PM

Eh... I look at his competition during that period and it was pretty weak. His biggest wins on the road to becoming the youngest HW champion were against Trevor Berbick (an average fighter), Michael Spinks (a glorified light HW), and a very old Larry Holmes.

Against the best guys that Tyson faced in his career... The other great HWs of his era, he was destroyed. The guy wasn't just beaten, he was destroyed by Lewis and Holyfield. That is a huge stain on his legacy.

The fact of the matter is, Tyson doesn't have the quality wins to warrant his place on a pound-for-pound list. They just aren't there...

I already explained how Tyson could be left off of a Top 100 list. You think of all of the weight classes and all of the great fighters in each of those weight classes. Then, think about where Tyson ranks in his division.

Hell... He has to be behind Holyfield and Lewis (and I would also put Bowe in front of him)... and those are just guys in his own era.

When you really think about the math, it makes sense why Tyson might not make the cut.

Guys didn't fight like that in the 20's and 30's. You have to go back to the 1800s to find the 'Notre Dame stance'... That is some John L. Sullivan type sh!t.

Boxing has been perfected since those days... there is no doubt. But, it really hasn't come THAT far. Watch some Billy Conn, for example.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9007&cat=boxer

The guy was a great technical fighter and he goes all the way back to the early-30's.

Now that I have a little bit of time off of work, I'll try to put together a Top 30 p4p list. It will take some time, though.

There were great boxers in that era. Don't be so quick to dismiss them. That was a GREAT period in boxing history.

It would be very difficult, obviously. It could happen, but it would take an extraordinary fighter and an extraordinary career. It isn't impossible, but highly unlikely.

SRR beat 20 HOFers over the course of his career. That is just insane.

How can you ignore a guy's resume, though? That is what helps you evaluate guys. You can't just look at a fighter and say he 'looks' like the best. His competition is going to help define how great that fighter is... It just cannot be ignored.

He is probably too far into his career to reach No. 1 pound-for-pound. He could, however, find himself in the Top 10. A win over Pacquaio would do wonders for his legacy.

If he were to finish his career with multiple victories over future HOFers like Pac and others, I would have no problem putting him in my Top 10.
So as far as competition goes tyson is kinda in the same boat as RJJ then...

_______________

How bout this...we will both make a top 20 list of HW boxers from the year 1950+

that shouldn't take to long I wouldn't think...

i wouldn't mind seeing just how far off or ridiculous my list is compared to yours...

give me a little time, maybe a couple days due to x-mas, I will put something together...

unless you want to go ahead and throw one up here, which is fine with me as well, and I will tell you what a boxing simpleton such as myself thinks looks strange about it.

RedBlackAttack

12-25-2008, 05:05 AM

So as far as competition goes tyson is kinda in the same boat as RJJ then...

_______________

How bout this...we will both make a top 20 list of HW boxers from the year 1950+

that shouldn't take to long I wouldn't think...

i wouldn't mind seeing just how far off or ridiculous my list is compared to yours...

give me a little time, maybe a couple days due to x-mas, I will put something together...

unless you want to go ahead and throw one up here, which is fine with me as well, and I will tell you what a boxing simpleton such as myself thinks looks strange about it.
Fine by me. I'll give you some time to compile your list, then I'll do mine. I should be able to throw that together relatively quickly.

tontoz

12-25-2008, 01:00 PM

RedBlackAttack

12-25-2008, 06:19 PM

Duran was nasty. I was too young to see that much of him in his prime but he was just a vicious fighter.
Duran was a monster. His viciousness is legendary and it is one of the main things that separated him from everyone else.

It wasn't false bravado with a soft inside, like Tyson and Liston. Duran was a hard individual.

He absolutely hated his opponent and it wasn't in a fake way to try to psyche himself up. He had a very real hate for anyone that stepped in the ring with him.

In his first fight with Leonard in which he pretty much dominated Sugar Ray (Leonard's first loss ever), Duran treated SRL like he wanted to rip his head off. After the final bell rang, there was no hugging or congratulations like you see in other fights. Duran pushed SRL as the bell rang and talked smack on him in the post-fight interview.

Duran was a very mean, very arrogant guy and there was nothing fake or contrived about it.

I wouldn't be so tough on RJJ though. His big problem in his prime is that he couldn't find anyone really good to fight. He didn't have a other guys (like the Leonard, Hearns, Hagler era) to really challenge him. He was very unorthodox but incredibly talented.
I am a huge RJJ fan. I grew up watching him dominate everyone in the mid-90s. Like I said earlier, RJJ had the natural skill to be a Top 10 or even a Top 5 boxer of all-time. The two things that hold him back from that lofty status is his relatively weak resume and the fact that he spent too little time working on his craft and mastering boxing fundamentals.

That is the reason that, when his reflexes began to slip slightly, he became a normal fighter. Other guys, like Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather Jr. for example, can afford to slip a little from their athletic prime and still be dominant, because those guys are boxing masters to go along with their athletic talent.

One of the things that made RJJ so unique was his unorthodox style, as he broke every fundamental boxing rule. He could get away with that when his reflexes were sharp and he could slip every punch. When age started catching up with him, he had nothing to fall back on. It is what made him such an exciting fighter to watch in his prime, but it was also his downfall, in the end.

Still... I would put RJJ in my Top 50 all-time, for sure. That is still very high for an all-time pound-for-pound list. The unfortunate thing is, though, that RJJ had the physical gifts to be up there with SRR, Greb, and Duran. He just never fully realized his potential.

Part of it was something that he couldn't control. He just didn't have any other great fighters in his weight class at the time that he was dominating. Gerald McClellan was that other great fighter that would have really challenged RJJ, but we all know what happened, there.

I would love nothing more than to rank RJJ in my Top 10 all-time. Unfortunately, his record doesn't warrant a spot like that when you look at some of the other names on the list.

I watched the Buster Douglas-Tyson fight for the first time in full maybe a year ago. Tyson was in his prime then and the most feared boxer that i can remember. Douglas flat out whooped his ass from the word go. Tyson got in a good punch and knocked Buster down. You could see Buster was pissed more than hurt. he got up and whooped on Tyson some more. Tyson was completely dominated by a nobody.
This is something that Tyson apologists like to conveniently forget. They say, "he wasn't ready to fight" and "his corner screwed up." I don't think it would have mattered one bit.

Douglas' mother had just died and he fought the fight of his life in her honor. Douglas always had the physical tools to be an elite fighter. He just didn't have the discipline and the work ethic. For the Tyson fight, he trained like a man that wanted to be world champion.

He wasn't scared of Tyson at all. That was an @ss whooping of the highest order. The fight was never close. Douglas was absolutely blistering Tyson with the hardest, straightest punches you will ever see. People like to think of that last combination by Douglas when they think of this fight (which was absolutely perfect, btw), but what they don't remember is the nine rounds before that... Douglas destroyed Tyson... Absolute annihilation.

It was actually a beautiful thing to watch. To see a guy that everyone thought was unbeatable get dismantled that badly... Buster hit Mike with everything but the kitchen sink in that fight.

west_tip

12-25-2008, 10:45 PM

Odomize

12-25-2008, 11:55 PM

These historians are a joke. If they even watch one fight from the 1920s, they'd know that today's fighter will absolutely annihilate those old guys.

Tyson in his prime was an absolute monster. The fight with James Douglas, Tyson really was on his steep decline, which was well documented after Cus died and the firing of trainer Rooney. Then he goes to jail, when he gets out, he wasn't the same monster. His prime wasn't very long, but anyone who watched him know he's one of the great.

The GOAT boxer is the original Sugar Ray

RedBlackAttack

12-26-2008, 12:25 AM

red black attack your opinions cant have that much credibilty though since im sure you yourself did not personally watch a lot of those fighters that you cite.

if an old timer can vouch for those fighters thats different but im skeptical about listening to opinions of people who base them off of grainy footage and books.

basically its hearsay.
This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. You only value the opinions of people that actually attend sporting events? Forums like insidehoops would not and could not exist if people didn't discuss games that they either watch on television or read about in newspapers or the internet.

Your viewpoint is that you don't respect the opinions of anyone who don't actually attend sporting events? That is honestly your stance? :oldlol:

Lebron23

12-26-2008, 12:48 AM

Marvelous Marvin Hagler is still the best Middleweight Champion of all time, and during his prime he defeated Duran, Hearns, and John Mugabi.

He was also ranked as one of the most vicious boxer during his prime, and this man was also the undisputed Middleweight Champion from 1980-1987.

http://www.geocities.com/toosharp34_1/boxing/images/hagler.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZHIo5ylQA8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbK_y25NW90&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ3wAhBgWXk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYPrYXcb3Co&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703pQZPcMRw

Boxing Record

62 wins
52 by KO
3 losses
2 Draws

http://www.kocosports.com/mmatn/sugarrayleonard.jpg

But on his last fight he was defeated by Sugar Ray Leonard, whom boxing historian ranked as a top 15 fighters of all time.

Ray Leonard also defeated several great boxers in the late 1970's and 1980's. ( Duran, Hearns, Hagler, and Wilfred Benitez)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GC70st9y80&feature=channel_page

-primetime-

12-26-2008, 01:29 AM

RedBlackAttack

12-26-2008, 02:20 AM

ok I am trying to make this list...

the boxers prime years have to be after 1950...

Joe Louis doesn't count

I am not sure about Rocky Marciano though...

how should we do this???

the boxer had to have at least fought until 1960 or something???
You create the parameters and I'll follow suit. I honestly don't care what kind of criteria you want to make for the rankings.

You may want to say any heavyweight champions after Joe Louis... or after Rocky Marciano...

-primetime-

12-26-2008, 02:30 AM

You create the parameters and I'll follow suit. I honestly don't care what kind of criteria you want to make for the rankings.

You may want to say any heavyweight champions after Joe Louis... or after Rocky Marciano...
alrighty...

I will just say that that you have to rank them based on how good they were after the year 1949...

if their prime years were pre-1950 then those years shouldn't be taken into consideration

lefthook00

12-26-2008, 03:04 AM

RedBlackAttack, so you're a huge Duran fan? You must like Aaron Pryor too then...SRL ducked him his whole career and he admitted it :oldlol:

For those of you guys that don't know who Aaron Pryor is...

HAWK TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-UVkCcMDg

Too bad drugs ruined him...
...And yes thats Tommy Hearns he is beating on...

-primetime-

12-26-2008, 03:20 AM

Top 20 Heavy Weight Boxers post 1950

1. Muhammad Ali (56-5-0)
2. George Foreman (76-5-0)
3. Rocky Marciano (49-0-0)
4. Larry Holmes (69-6-0)
5. Sonny Liston (50-4-0)
6. Evander Holyfield (43-10-2)
7. Lennox Lewis (42-2-1)
8. Joe Frazier (32-4-1)
9. Riddick Bowe (43-1-0)
10. Mike Tyson (50-6-0)
11. Michael Spinks (31-1-0)
12. Ezzard Charles (96-25-1) *
13. Wladimir Klitschko (52-3-0)
14. Michael Moorer (52-4-1)
15. Vitali Klitschko (36-2-0)
16. Floyd Patterson (55-8-1)
17. Ingemar Johansson (26-2-0)
18. Leon Spinks (26-17-3)
19. John Ruiz (43-8-1)
20. Hasim Rahman (45-7-2)

* prime years were before 1950

that was harder than I thought and I am sure there are plenty of problems with this list...it takes a long time to go through it all...

anyway...feel free to rip it apart

my own issues here:

-is Bowe the most underrated boxer there is...he only lost 1 time!!!...I never knew that...maybe I should have him way higher

-obviosly Ezzard was really hard to place due to the fact that I just don't really know how great he was after 49...I kinda just had to guess

-Should Leon Spinks even be on this list???

-I don't know how to place the Klitschko brothers...it is hard to tell how they would stand up against others...

edit: I f*cked this up bad...Marciano's prime was after 1950...he should probably be top 5 (gonna move him around)

RedBlackAttack

12-26-2008, 10:38 PM

There are some pretty large omissions on your list, but I give you an 'A' for effort. Your list is likely better than 99% of general sports fans.

Here are my rankings...

1. Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay
2. George Foreman
3. Larry Holmes
4. Sonny Liston
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Joe Frazier
9. Floyd Patterson
10. Riddick Bowe
11. Ken Norton
12. Ingemar Johansson
13. Mike Tyson
14. Ray Mercer
15. Michael Moorer
16. Ron Lyle
17. Earnie Shavers
18. Wlad Klitschko
19. Leon Spinks
20. Vitali Klitschko

It pains me to even put the Klits on this list, because they are both pretty average. I just couldn't think of anyone else to put in front of them. Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore, and others really belong on the list, but they just missed the cutoff with their respective primes.... all of those guys would probably be in the Top 10.

-primetime-

12-27-2008, 07:04 PM

There are some pretty large omissions on your list, but I give you an 'A' for effort. Your list is likely better than 99% of general sports fans.

Here are my rankings...

1. Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay
2. George Foreman
3. Larry Holmes
4. Sonny Liston
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Rocky Marciano (why so low?, his prime was after 1950 and he never lost)
7. Evander Holyfield (should be a current champ right now at the age of 46)
8. Joe Frazier
9. Floyd Patterson
10. Riddick Bowe
11. Ken Norton (I overlooked him)
12. Ingemar Johansson
13. Mike Tyson
14. Ray Mercer
15. Michael Moorer
16. Ron Lyle (was he ever even a belt holder?)
17. Earnie Shavers (I don't think this dude ever won a belt either)
18. Wlad Klitschko
19. Leon Spinks
20. Vitali Klitschko

It pains me to even put the Klits on this list, because they are both pretty average. I just couldn't think of anyone else to put in front of them. Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore, and others really belong on the list, but they just missed the cutoff with their respective primes.... all of those guys would probably be in the Top 10.

(no Ruiz or Rahman???)

...

RedBlackAttack

12-27-2008, 07:40 PM

Shavers and Lyle fought in probably the greatest, deepest era in heavyweight boxing history. Shavers went toe-to-toe with Ali, Holmes, Norton, Quarry, and other greats. He lost a narrow decision to Ali in the mid-70s and knocked out Ken Norton.

Lyle falls into the same category of Shavers. Neither ever reached the apex of the division, but that is only because the strength of the division when they were around. He went against Foreman, Ali, Shavers, Bonavena, Quarry, etc. and was widely considered one of the great fighters of the 70s who was close to the top, but could never quite get over the hump.

I'm sorry, but I value guys that helped make the 70s the greatest era for the heavyweight division over guys like Ruiz and Rahman that have helped make the HW division a barren waste land in recent years.

Lyle and Shavers both have more quality wins than Ruiz and Rahman was a one-hit wonder... and he was annihilated in the rematch. I can't justify having those guys in my Top 20.

If you are going to do a list of the best HWs of the last 50 years, it has to be heavily weighted for the 70s, because this really was the golden age for the division. It wasn't just the guys at the top like Ali, Foreman, and Frazier that made it so great... It was the depth in the division provided by guys like Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Quarry, etc.

I have Marciano at No. 7 because his quality wins don't match the guys in front of him. He fought in a very weak era for HWs. He fell directly in between the Joe Louis era and the Sonny Liston/Floyd Patterson era. Any of those guys in their primes would have cleaned Marciano's clock, in my estimation.

The HW division when Marciano was ruling it was about as weak as it is right now.

-primetime-

12-27-2008, 07:49 PM

I just noticed you have no Mike Spinks...

RedBlackAttack

12-27-2008, 07:56 PM

I just noticed you have no Mike Spinks...
Spinks was a great, great light heavyweight... One of the best ever. His heavyweight career was less impressive. He came along at the right time and beat a clearly over-the-hill Larry Holmes for the title.

Spinks only fought a handful of times as a HW.... and he retired for good after the Tyson fight. I think he only fought five times as a HW.

-primetime-

12-27-2008, 08:01 PM

Also...Marciano beat Ezzard, Jersey Joe, Archie Moore, and an older Joe Louis...

http://www.antekprizering.com/marcianolastarzaffpostpic.jpeg

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/marciano-walcott.jpg

RedBlackAttack

12-27-2008, 08:11 PM

Also...Marciano beat Ezzard, Jersey Joe, Archie Moore, and an older Joe Louis...
All of whom were out of their primes, which is why none of the four are included in my list and Marciano is. Ezzard Charles was in his mid-30s and had fought nearly 100 times when Marciano faced him. Charles had also lost 2 of his last 4 coming into the Marciano fight.

Walcott was CLEARLY done as a fighter when Marciano barely beat him in 1952. In fact, Walcott had basically dominated Marciano for 13 rounds before Rocky landed a knockout punch. Walcott's two fights against Marciano were the last times that he would step into the ring. He had also lost 2 of his last 4 before fighting Marciano.

Archie Moore had fought over 150 times when Marciano finally faced him. It was the last fight for Marciano. Both guys were clearly old and out of their primes. Moore was almost 40 years old.

I've seen interviews with Marciano about the Joe Louis fight and he said it was the most difficult thing that he had ever had to do. Louis should have never been in a ring and was forced to fight by the IRS.

Marciano never fought another great fighter in their prime, which is why he slipped out of my Top 5.

-primetime-

12-27-2008, 08:21 PM

Marciano never fought another great fighter in their prime, which is why he slipped out of my Top 5.
One could use this reasoning with not only Rocky but other fighters and say that this is why they are "underrated" you know...

This is not something that fighters can help...(unless they aviod it on purpose)

had Tyson not been around maybe Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock would be viewed as great heavyweight champs...

Could it be that both Marciano and Tyson beat guys that are a whole lot better than we give them credit for???

RedBlackAttack

12-27-2008, 08:39 PM

One could use this reasoning with not only Rocky but other fighters and say that this is why they are "underrated" you know...

This is not something that fighters can help...(unless they aviod it on purpose)

had Tyson not been around maybe Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock would be viewed as great heavyweight champs...

Could it be that both Marciano and Tyson beat guys that are a whole lot better than we give them credit for???
No... It can't be. The fact that an old Walcott pushed Marciano to the brink of defeat tells me that a young Walcott in his prime would have likely beaten Rocky handily.

It is no secret that the division was in a state of flux during Marciano's reign and the same holds true for Tyson's early years. Mike was not old when he got his clock cleaned by Holyfield and Douglas. People like to have selective memory when it comes to Tyson. "Oh... he was never the same after Cus died" and "He peaked at a young age and was never the same fighter". Bullsh#t.

The only thing that changed for Tyson after the Douglas fight was that his aura of invisibility was shattered. After he was released from jail, he went back to destroying below average fighters and, once again, his fanboys came out of the woodwork and talked about how he was going to take over the division. You look at Tyson right out of jail and compare him to the early Tyson... he was just as dominant.

The difference is that he decided to take a fight against a guy that wasn't scared of him and could actually fight back (Holyfield). Once again, he was embarrassed.

No... Ruddock and Bruno were never great fighters and you can check out their career records and see that.

-primetime-

12-27-2008, 08:59 PM

No... It can't be. The fact that an old Walcott pushed Marciano to the brink of defeat tells me that a young Walcott in his prime would have likely beaten Rocky handily.

It is no secret that the division was in a state of flux during Marciano's reign and the same holds true for Tyson's early years. Mike was not old when he got his clock cleaned by Holyfield and Douglas. People like to have selective memory when it comes to Tyson. "Oh... he was never the same after Cus died" and "He peaked at a young age and was never the same fighter". Bullsh#t.

The only thing that changed for Tyson after the Douglas fight was that his aura of invisibility was shattered. After he was released from jail, he went back to destroying below average fighters and, once again, his fanboys came out of the woodwork and talked about how he was going to take over the division. You look at Tyson right out of jail and compare him to the early Tyson... he was just as dominant.

The difference is that he decided to take a fight against a guy that wasn't scared of him and could actually fight back (Holyfield). Once again, he was embarrassed.

No... Ruddock and Bruno were never great fighters and you can check out their career records and see that.
Can't argue with that...

wow...so Marciano is pretty overrated even though he is the only Heavyweight Champ to never lose a fight...that doesn't seem right, but I guess it is.

I am thinking that a prime Evander or Bowe would have cleaned up on him now...

speaking of Bowe...why is he not considered one of the greatest ever???...I am guessing just because he didn't face many greats??? he did beat Evander though and the only fight he lost was to Evander who barely won...

RedBlackAttack

12-27-2008, 09:07 PM

Can't argue with that...

wow...so Marciano is pretty overrated even though he is the only Heavyweight Champ to never lose a fight...that doesn't seem right, but I guess it is.

I am thinking that a prime Evander or Bowe would have cleaned up on him now...
Marciano had two things going for him that helped him reach legendary status. He retired undefeated and he was white. Also, he was a great knockout puncher, which people always flock to.

However, if you study the division at the time that Marciano was winning and look at the guys he faced, his career was less impressive than people tend to think when just looking at his record.

speaking of Bowe...why is he not considered one of the greatest ever???...I am guessing just because he didn't face many greats??? he did beat Evander though and the only fight he lost was to Evander who barely won...
Bowe's prime was so incredibly short, that is why he is not higher on these lists. He was an incredible flash of greatness, but it quickly burned out.

I remember back when Bowe and Evander were going at it in one of the great heavyweight trilogies of all-time... Most people thought that Evander would be the guy who wasn't the same after that. He had the problems with his heart and it seemed like he might be nearing the end of the road.

In truth, it was Bowe who was left worse for wear. Bowe went on to have pretty severe mental problems, kidnapping his wife and kid and entering the army (for 24 hours)... Many people, including myself, believe that his mental instability was a result of the punishment he took against Holyfield.

Meanwhile, Holyfield went on to defeat Tyson and he had some significant wins left in him.

That is really what separates Holyfield from Bowe. Both guys were great at their heights, but Holyfield's peak last a lot longer than Bowe's and he had a lot more quality wins.

-primetime-

12-27-2008, 09:23 PM

Marciano had two things going for him that helped him reach legendary status. He retired undefeated and he was white. Also, he was a great knockout puncher, which people always flock to.

However, if you study the division at the time that Marciano was winning and look at the guys he faced, his career was less impressive than people tend to think when just looking at his record.

Bowe's prime was so incredibly short, that is why he is not higher on these lists. He was an incredible flash of greatness, but it quickly burned out.

I remember back when Bowe and Evander were going at it in one of the great heavyweight trilogies of all-time... Most people thought that Evander would be the guy who wasn't the same after that. He had the problems with his heart and it seemed like he might be nearing the end of the road.

In truth, it was Bowe who was left worse for wear. Bowe went on to have pretty severe mental problems, kidnapping his wife and kid and entering the army (for 24 hours)... Many people, including myself, believe that his mental instability was a result of the punishment he took against Holyfield.

Meanwhile, Holyfield went on to defeat Tyson and he had some significant wins left in him.

That is really what separates Holyfield from Bowe. Both guys were great at their heights, but Holyfield's peak last a lot longer than Bowe's and he had a lot more quality wins.

Yeah I remember seeing an HBO special on that some years back...sad story

Both him and Evander are beyond punch drunk...

thank you for your input here btw...I feel like I have learned alot...:rockon:

also, what is your opinion on having some form of cut-off rule for how long you can fight???....they have been talking about it forever now, do we have to witness one of these dudes die in the ring or come out with severe brain damage before someone says enough is enough...:(

RedBlackAttack

12-27-2008, 09:58 PM

also, what is your opinion on having some form of cut-off rule for how long you can fight???....they have been talking about it forever now, do we have to witness one of these dudes die in the ring or come out with severe brain damage before someone says enough is enough...:(
It should always be a case-by-case basis. If someone is physically and mentally fit to fight, it shouldn't matter their age. This is where boxing commissions need to step in, though. Holyfield should not be sanctioned to fight. The commissions need to do a better job of evaluating these fighters from bout to bout and they need to be more cautious when sanctioning fights.

The fact that Muhammad Ali was allowed to fight when it was clear that his Parkinson's had already begun to take effect is a terrible black eye on the sport. You would have thought that they would have learned something from that situation, but it doesn't appear that the commissions have.

There are guys that are sanctioned that clearly are suffering from brain trauma. Unfortunately, it may take a tragedy to reverse this trend.

Lebron23

01-13-2009, 11:41 AM

All i want to see is Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao - winner of the match will be crown as the Fighter of the Decade, and the best pound for pound King.

2009 Biggest Fight of the Year

Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather.

Redblackattack, Where do you rank Pacman and Pretty Boy on the All time Lists?

Dasher

03-03-2009, 02:35 PM

Bumped because of the constant Ali mentions in this thread:

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122949

Boxing noobs get enlightened.

halffttime

03-03-2009, 02:38 PM

Bumped because of the constant Ali mentions in this thread:

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122949

Boxing noobs get enlightened.

alot of the lists ive seen puts sugar ray robinson over ali.. 1>2

RedBlackAttack

03-03-2009, 05:47 PM

alot of the lists ive seen puts sugar ray robinson over ali.. 1>2
Most respectable lists do not have Ali in the Top 5.

dyna

03-03-2009, 06:43 PM

Sugar Ray Robinson

The end.
:cheers:

dyna

03-03-2009, 06:44 PM

Floyd "money" Maywether(I think I spelled his name wrong)
:wtf:

He's not even top 10:hammerhead:

He din't even want to fight Cotto or Pachiao because he know he going to be in trouble..

intrinsic

03-03-2009, 08:19 PM

Terp in LA

03-03-2009, 08:32 PM

I'm a diehard Tyson guy, but anybody who really knows boxing knows that you can never anoint him the GOAT--he was a specimen that destroyed opponents, but the body of work isn't there.

I have to go with Ali. Body of work and legacy off the meters. Boxing GOAT, and possibly GOAT athlete, in my opinion.

RedBlackAttack

03-04-2009, 05:09 AM

Question: Why do you like Floyd above Bowe?
I'm primarily asking b/c I have seen next to nothing of Patterson footage while I know Bowe fairly well.
First, Patterson's prime was much, much longer than Bowe's. While Bowe was spectacular in his few years at the top of the division, he doesn't have the body of work to compare to Patterson.

Patterson was the first fighter to ever regain a HW title. He has wins on his resume that include greats Archie Moore and Ingemar Johansson. His stints as HW champion were from 1956-59 and from 1960-62.

The level of competition that he fought over the course of his career was just insane... Ali, Liston, Moore, Johansson, Maxim, Ellis, Cooper... He fought every great HW of his era and beat some of the biggest names in the history of the sport.

Bowe, while great, has only a handful of notable fights to his name. He had the skill, but not the longevity.

RedBlackAttack

03-04-2009, 05:10 AM

I have to go with Ali. Body of work and legacy off the meters. Boxing GOAT, and possibly GOAT athlete, in my opinion.
GOAT entertainer? Without a doubt. GOAT boxer? Definitely not. GOAT athlete? Come on, now.

Read the last 10 or so pages.

Undisputed

03-04-2009, 05:16 AM

The GOAT boxer, my vote would have to be Sugar Ray Robinson. Every boxing enthusiast needs to do their homework on Sugar Ray.

RedBlackAttack

03-04-2009, 05:24 AM

The GOAT boxer, my vote would have to be Sugar Ray Robinson. Every boxing enthusiast needs to do their homework on Sugar Ray.
There really isn't even a debate (and if there is one, Ali isn't in the conversation). Ali himself has called SRR the greatest boxer to ever live. I posted my Top 5 p4p earlier in the thread.

YAWN

03-04-2009, 06:54 AM

Andrew Hartley

AllenIverson3

03-04-2009, 10:15 AM

Mike Tyson or Roy Jones Jr. :rockon:

Reef

03-04-2009, 11:36 AM

halffttime

03-04-2009, 12:36 PM

I have to say this is one of the best threads I've read on ISH thanks to RedBlack.

Do you see any present or upcoming fighter that has the potential to be a top 10 or 20 P4P when it's all said and done?

-PBF could've been if he didn't retire and fought Pacman, Cotto, Paul Williams, Margarito?
-Pacman, but he did lose to Marquez.
-BHOP, if he didn't lose to Calzaghe or Taylor? Also, where would BHOP rank with Hagler, Hearns, SRL, Duran?
-Chad Dawson, James Kirkland, Paul Williams?

pacquiaos lost to marquez then eventually beating him could be what pushes him to legend status.. just like the way ali lost to frasier but beat him eventually... if pacquiao beats mayweathah then thats anotha star on his resume..

RedBlackAttack

03-04-2009, 05:49 PM

pacquiaos lost to marquez then eventually beating him could be what pushes him to legend status.. just like the way ali lost to frasier but beat him eventually... if pacquiao beats mayweathah then thats anotha star on his resume..
Marquez never beat Pacquiao. In their first fight in '04, Pac knocked JMM down three times in the first round, but JMM came back and earned a draw. In their second fight, Pac knocked him down a couple of times and earned a SD victory. Pac is 1-0-1 against JMM.

Pac lost to Erik Morales about a year after his first JMM fight. He came back to destroy Morales twice after that, one by TKO and one by KO.

I have to say this is one of the best threads I've read on ISH thanks to RedBlack.

Do you see any present or upcoming fighter that has the potential to be a top 10 or 20 P4P when it's all said and done?

-PBF could've been if he didn't retire and fought Pacman, Cotto, Paul Williams, Margarito?
-Pacman, but he did lose to Marquez.
-BHOP, if he didn't lose to Calzaghe or Taylor? Also, where would BHOP rank with Hagler, Hearns, SRL, Duran?
-Chad Dawson, James Kirkland, Paul Williams?

The Top 10 would be tough. The only current guys that I see with a legitimate shot at this stage in their careers would be Mayweather Jr. and Pacquiao. If PBF comes out of retirement, fights Pac, and wins (which is what I think will happen), he would likely be in my Top 30 all-time... Maybe even Top 25.

If he were to continue to fight big names, he could make his way into the Top 20. I'm not sure Top 10 is attainable for him, at this point. He would have to do something crazy and move up to 160 and fight the best competition there, like Duran did.

Pacquiao may have a better chance, only because it looks like he is going to be fighting for a good while longer. Still, he needs a win over Mayweather Jr., imo, to approach Top 10 status. If that fight were to come off, I just don't see Pac beating him, but I've been wrong before. If Pac were to beat Hatton and PBF in his next two fights, I think he would have to be considered a sure-fire Top 20 all-time and approaching the Top 10.

If Hopkins hadn't of lost to Pavlik and Calzaghe, he would definitely be Top 20 all-time. The problem that he would have being in the Top 10, though, is that Jones Jr. beat him relatively handily when both fighters were on the verge of dominating their respective weight classes. BHop never initiated a rematch with RJJ while Jones was still in his prime, but rather stayed at 160 and fought relatively weak competition until his bout with Trinidad.

Hopkins is already an all-timer. To be perfectly honest, I don't think his losses to Taylor and his loss to Calzaghe did much of anything to change his position. He is one of the great middleweights of all-time and both of those losses came when he was clearly out of his prime.

I would put Hopkins and Jones Jr. in the Top 40 all-time, for sure... maybe Top 30. I don't know... I'd have to make a list to know for sure. They are definitely in the neighborhood of Tommy Hearns (maybe even above him). I don't think I'd have either above Hagler, SRL, or Duran, though.

Duran is Top 5 all-time. SRL is Top 15... Hagler probably in the Top 25.

Dawson, Kirkland, and Williams? They are all three exciting prospects, but all three have some fundamental flaws that I don't think will allow them to reach the level of PBF, Pac, RJJ, or Hops. That is just my personal opinion. They are all young fighters with plenty of time to prove me wrong.

Undisputed

03-04-2009, 05:59 PM

The Top 10 would be tough. The only current guys that I see with a legitimate shot at this stage in their careers would be Mayweather Jr. and Pacquiao. If PBF comes out of retirement, fights Pac, and wins (which is what I think will happen), he would likely be in my Top 30 all-time... Maybe even Top 25.

Pacquiao may have a better chance, only because it looks like he is going to be fighting for a good while longer. Still, he needs a win over Mayweather Jr., imo, to approach Top 10 status. If that fight were to come off, I just don't see Pac beating him, but I've been wrong before. If Pac were to beat Hatton and PBF in his next two fights, I think he would have to be considered a sure-fire Top 20 all-time and approaching the Top 10.

If Hopkins hadn't of lost to Pavlik and Calzaghe, he would definitely be Top 20 all-time. The problem that he would have being in the Top 10, though, is that Jones Jr. beat him relatively handily when both fighters were on the verge of dominating their respective weight classes. BHop never initiated a rematch with RJJ while Jones was still in his prime, but rather stayed at 160 and fought relatively weak competition until his bout with Trinidad.

Hopkins is already an all-timer. To be perfectly honest, I don't think his losses to Taylor and his loss to Calzaghe did much of anything to change his position. He is one of the great middleweights of all-time and both of those losses came when he was clearly out of his prime.

I would put Hopkins and Jones Jr. in the Top 40 all-time, for sure... maybe Top 30. I don't know... I'd have to make a list to know for sure. They are definitely in the neighborhood of Tommy Hearns (maybe even above him). I don't think I'd have either above Hagler, SRL, or Duran, though.

These paragraphs are the truth. B-Hop, Jones Jr., Pac-Man, and PBF are the no brainer greats of our time.

One thing I have to say, no one in our time makes fighters look worse than Hopkins and Pacquiao.

A Mayweather-Pacquiao fight would be a dream come true. I feel that Money will take him out, but I've learned to never doubt the Pac-Man.