GOAT Boxer

[Lebron23]

[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]

Manny Pac = modern day version of Armstrong

[RedBlackAttack]

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.

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]

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]

Roy Jones Jr. in his prime

[-primetime-]

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.

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.

[COLOR="Red"]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.[/COLOR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[RedBlackAttack]

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]

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]

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.

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-]

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...



btw...on a side note, I believe (could be wrong) that both Holyfield and Bowe are still boxing NOW!!!

That should be illegal given the fact that they are both completely brain dead...

[Dasher]

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.