Top 10 Greatest fighters of alltime as of September 2013

Kind of a carry on from the Mayweather thread...........

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Ray Robinson
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Harry Greb
5. Floyd Mayweather
6. Ray Leonard
7. Sam Langford (7. Because he never won a world title...)
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Charles Burley (re. no 7)

Note that I don't blame Burley and Langford it's politics........But as Montgomerie and Westwood have shown in golf..the Ultimate prize sometimes brings the ultimate pressure..........

Like a bloody disease, I must inflict my opinion on you on this one - it has changed a little over the past year or so.

1) Robinson 2) Armstrong 3) Greb) 4) Ali 5) Charles 6) Langford 7) Jofre 8) Fitzsimmons 9) Mayweather 10) Benny Leonard

Would want my top 20 to include Whitaker, RJJ, Monzon, Pep, Saddler, Tunney, SRL, Duran and two of Chavez, Pacquiao, Arguello, Ross and Moore, but the precise order is difficult. Probably couldn't have Joe Louis any higher than 25, such is the competition.

More than welcome it is too ..If not as good as mine...  

Jofre at 7 is the obvious surprise...Chris will be pleased !!!

Will state my ignorance and suggest I know not a great deal about him........

Burley's absence may intrigue Rowley.......out of your top 20...

1 Robinson
2 Armstrong
3 Greb
4 Ali
5 Langford
6 Fitzsimmons
7 Charles
8 Leonard (Ray)
9 Gans
10 Benny Leonard

Or maybe not.... 

Glad to see Duran is missing guys........

Don't mind him in a top 20.........But no top 10er gets owned like he did!!

1a) Robinson
1b) Armstrong
3) Greb
4) Charles
5) Fitzsimmons
6) Langford
7) Ali
8) Ray Leonard
9) Benny Leonard
10) Whitaker

The top eight would always be in there, for me. Places 9 to 12 are more or less tied for me (Benny, Pea, Floyd and Duran) and a bit trickier - and if you asked me tomorrow I could easily switch any of those names around. But there's only ten places so that'll have to do for me just now.

I knew Whittaker would be in there...

and Armstrong number 1..........Ali at 7 !!!!!

Fair enough..........

Ali seems to be suffering with the connoisseurs.......

I'll stick to being rough and ready !!  

Think he was a marvel, Jofre, the best of all the lower weights fighters, for me, bolstered by the greatest comeback in boxing history. There are one or two especially good articles on him around - think Windy may have put the odd one into the vault here.

Think Burley may be much higher than I'm actually ranking him (perhaps top 35 all-time), but can only speculate what he would have done had he been granted the opportunities he deserved. As it is, mighty impressive, but can't ignore entirely the fact that he was comprehensively bested by Ezz and stands no better than even with Holman Williams over a long series. Would be lovely to do real justice to the whole BMR  - Chase, Lytell, Wade and all the rest of them, at some stage. Unsure that Burley should be too much higher than Bivins, at all events, so I can't place Charley in my Ten, much as I admire him.

Think the debate over Bivins and Burley is largely one on which you value the greater, longevity or a short but blistering peak. At no stage in his career did Charley put together a run akin to the one Jimmy did in the war years, although to be fair you’d probably have to say few fighters ever have matched such a run. However Jimmy’s fall away from that ridiculous peak was pretty dramatic and whilst to cast him as a journey man would do him a disservice he was a good way removed from contender status pretty quickly. Even towards the end of his career Charley was capable of competing with and beating good fighters so certainly has the edge on consistency and longevity, so take your pick.

The more I learn about Bivins the more convinced I become that the gap between him and Charley for the status of top dog amongst the BMR is pretty narrow, if indeed there is one.

I don't think Ali at seven is an injustice, Truss. I've had him top five a lot in the past and will probably end up putting him back there next time this question comes up, knowing me. I find it a bit harder to rate the Heavyweights in a pound for pound context.

I tend to have Ray Leonard at about number eight, for instance. To me, while Ali had greater longevity, more 'good' wins to his name and made Heavyweight his own more than Leonard did at Welter, I have to also consider that I don't think he was as good as Leonard in pure boxing / fighting terms and that Leonard's best wins are definitely better than his. Hence I thought if I was going to have Ali higher, it couldn't be by much.

I don't put much emphasis on skill Chris..........If you did you wouldn't have Armstrong at 1..

Not a pop Mate........

Curry was far more talented than Mccallum............But not nearly as high on my list...

Thing is Ali managed to produce great performances over a sustainable period sometimes against great odds......Beating an old Hagler isn't the same as Liston and George..

Must have been 6/1 against at least twice......

Also though it doesn't wash with you guys I put much on the fact he is the best of alltime because he beats everyone in history..........regardless of weight.

Skill definitely plays a much smaller part than opposition, records and achievement Truss, agree there. But when there's hardly anything between two fighters I don't mind taking it in to consideration to some extent. A bit more relevant with regards to Leonard because, truly, he was one of the most incredible all-round fighting specimens we've ever seen in the sport.

Anyway, don't lose sight of the fact that I still have Ali higher than Leonard despite all of that!

Hey look ....Your opinion is your opinion and it's more than welcome....

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Ali
7. Tunney
8. Duran
9. Mayweather
10. Langford

Fitz above Ali huh..

Robinson
Armstrong
Ali
Greb
Leonard (Ray)
Pep
Langford
Duran
Leonard (Benny)
Charles

I forgot Pep...........I'll swap him for Burley..

Duran at 8..no way..........in my opinion..

What i don't understand is that a lot of people would put Louis as #2 heavyweight yet for some reason he's so far behind Ali in these lists. Is the gulf in class really that big?

Fair enough i can see the case for and against Duran but i rated him very highly.
Pep is always the forgotten man on these lists and he comfortably sits with any great fighter in history. I remember seeing a talk with Angelo Dundee and Carmen Basillo and they both said Pep was the best boxer they ever saw.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:What i don't understand is that a lot of people would put Louis as #2 heavyweight yet for some reason he's so far behind Ali in these lists. Is the gulf in class really that big?

It's a case of the heavy division being pretty weak in regards to other divisions..

Louis also never really beat anybody.......

Always sadden me that Salvadore Sanchez never makes these lists one of my real favourite fighters who was on his way to being a true great before his premature death.

Thing is that if we have Pep in the top 10 (and I would agree that he's pretty close) then we must have Saddler no more than an eyelash behind him. In title fights, only lost the once, to Willie, and has a 3-1 edge in that head-to-head. Tend to think that it's Saddler who is really the forgotten man in these lists - both he and Pep right out of the top drawer by any measure.

I've been crucified for saying this in the past, but Pep ain't a top ten merchant for me, or even a real contender to be. That does put me in a bit of a minority, mind you!

Great, great boxer. One of the most natural movers in the history of the sport and he had that little bit of magic about him, too. By rights, he should never have been the only man to ever legitimately stop someone like Bartolo, for instance, but he was.

But his fights with Saddler throw his top ten credentials in to doubt, for me. Sandy was a beast of a Featherweight and a real "head to head monster" as they say, who arguably comes out on top over any other 126 pounder in a series of fights, so there's no shame in being 1-3 against him, especially considering that 2-2 might have been a bit of a fairer reflection. But on that basis I can't understand how Pep always seems to be such an overwhelming choice to be the best Featherweight of all time, and how he always seems to be in or around the top ten whereas Saddler often has a hard time cracking a top twenty - and that's not to mention that Saddler added the 130 lb world title, too.

Getting mangled so badly first time out against Sandy and flopping out meekly in their fourth (he was magnificent in the second and unfortunate in the third to even that up) mean that he loses ground on the likes of Duran, Benny, the Sugar Rays, Monzon etc, none of whom had that happen to them at their best weight and in their prime / championship years. I know that many will argue that Willie lost a little something from that plane crash, but the more I read in to that the more it appears that the severity of his injuries sustained have grown in to a bit of a myth. I believe he was boxing again within five months and in the interests of fairness you'd have to note that Saddler II, his finest hour, as well as some of his other real high points (De Marco, Famechon etc) came after the crash.

Ran off some incredible statistics and took care of some very fine fighters, but again I think his competition was maybe a notch below some of the others discussed here.

Wonderful fighter but a top twenty man for me, rather than top ten.

agree with JabMachine in that I always feel heavyweights get harshly treated in these lists, possibly due to the fact they can't win titles at different weights. On the top 10 from 83-13 thread there's not one list with an out and out heavy on it. Harsh IMO...

I agree to a point but it has to be remembered that Peps first loss to Saddler came in his 137th fight 8 years into a hard career and he still had enough in the tank to come back and regain the title. 8 years and 137 fights was like 30 years and 350 fights in terms of rounds because of his lack of power he went the distance a very unhealthy amount of times. As said above Saddler was a beast of a featherweight and for me is not to far away from making any list of great fighters as well.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:agree with JabMachine in that I always feel heavyweights get harshly treated in these lists, possibly due to the fact they can't win titles at different weights. On the top 10 from 83-13 thread there's not one list with an out and out heavy on it. Harsh IMO...

Well, it's not known as the greatest Heavyweight era, and I'd competing with 16 other divisions, understandable.

Well, Holyfield does fly the flag quite well for the big guys, MfC. The time period goes against Larry Holmes, who had done a lot of his major work pre-82. The only other possible contenders are Tyson, Lewis and the Klitschkos and I'd have no problem with the consensus ten that have been picked ahead of them.

In direct contrast with your view, I believe that heavyweights frequently get too much credit for their size alone and hence for the idea that they would accordingly beat any of the smaller guys if they ever happened to share the same ring. I think that there have been far fewer great heavies throughout history than great middles, light-heavies, welters and lightweights, to name only four of the seven other classic weight divisions. Someone like Hopkins or de la Hoya would always eclipse Tyson or Lewis in any pound for pound list that I might put together.

hogey wrote:I agree to a point but it has to be remembered that Peps first loss to Saddler came in his 137th fight 8 years into a hard career and he still had enough in the tank to come back and regain the title. 8 years and 137 fights was like 30 years and 350 fights in terms of rounds because of his lack of power he went the distance a very unhealthy amount of times. As said above Saddler was a beast of a featherweight and for me is not to far away from making any list of great fighters as well.

Fair points, Hogey. Pep's bigger fans such as yourself and PBK when he was still around do always put forward a well-made case for him. I suppose Willie is just one of those fighters who I see that little bit differently from others.

Having watched as much of the Pep/Saddler fights as possible, one thing stood out to me and that was Pep was a far better boxer who was beaten by the era more than his opponent. If they fight today then Pep wins almost every round on the way to an easy decision win, an era where he can't be rough housed, have his arm ripped from his socket, low blowed, headbutted and elbowed non-stop. Come the fourth fight Pep tried giving as good as he got but when your reach is that much smaller it's more difficult. I'm not a huge fan of Saddler, can't stand his style and think with a strict referee he's always vulnerable to a boxer, the guy could punch that's for certain.

You'd like to bring Pep to the stricter modern era...........and I'd like to send Whittaker and Nunn back to the old era..

Where they would have to fight.....and see how they all get on..

Nunn v Barkley and Nunn v starling were disgraces..

be interesting to see if the board agreed with a "Catch Era" Stipulation

think 606V2 may implode

If they had weighins on the day of the fight...wouldn't need catchweight..

Blame Duk koo kim.

1.Robinson
2.Armstrong
3.Greb
4.Langford
5.Charles
6.Fitzsimmons
7.Louis
7.Ali
9.Duran
10.B.Leonard

Louis above Ali..............say no more..

You actually managed to reply to Strongback's list even quicker than I thought you would, Truss, which is saying something!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis above Ali..............say no more..

Have them level.

88Chris05 wrote:You actually managed to reply to Strongback's list even quicker than I thought you would, Truss, which is saying something!

Probably a joke chris..

Mayweather doesn't make my Top 20 btw.

I don't care...Frampton is probably 17........

You could do with Jimmy Stuart returning, Strongback. Along with Rowley he was THE go-to man when it comes to the Heavyweights and he knew the division and just about everything about it from top to bottom and back to front. He always had Louis above Ali so, while I disagree with you wholeheartedly, you'd be in good company all the same.

Better wins........Better record..........longevity...........More skill.............

Apart from that Louis wins hands down.........

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Ali
4. Louis
5. Greb
6. Duran
7. Pep
8. Leonard (Ray)
9. Charles
10. Leonard (Benny)

I'm sure this changes every time I do one -- I'd need to really sit down and think about it to come up with a definitive top ten.

Mayweather isn't anywhere near -- which I'm sure is probably the point of this thread?!!

Louis' skills are sublime every bit as good as RJJ, Ray Leonard or Floyd in my view. He was punching perfection and he changed game the in terms of what was possible particularly for a big man. Revolutionaries should always rank higher, same with Dempsey.

His skills certainly dazzled the 170 pound Conn and Schmelling......Galento and Braddock decked him...

lost to the best heavies he fought too........

But hey...You think he belongs with Ali and you're entitled to your opinion...

No problem  

88Chris05 wrote:You could do with Jimmy Stuart returning, Strongback. Along with Rowley he was THE go-to man when it comes to the Heavyweights and he knew the division and just about everything about it from top to bottom and back to front. He always had Louis above Ali so, while I disagree with you wholeheartedly, you'd be in good company all the same.

I had a few chats with Jimmy about Louis alright. I don't know if you remember The Fight Doctor who posted on the old board. He was a trainer and had a lot of technical knowledge. He studied Louis in depth and said even to this day it is hard to find a better technical puncher that Louis.

The Fight Doctor wasn't really into the history side of things in a big way but he grew up with 80's boxing and schooled Truss on that subject regularly. It's all there on the old board.

Louis tends to be horribly underrated on these boards.

The second greatest heavyweight of all time (the only man who could possibly vie with Ali for top spot) he boasts the greatest championship reign of all time. He'd also rate highly pound for pound (hate that term) among the greatest punchers of all time. Only one loss in his prime, emphatically avenged.

I agree ref: skills. Joe's technique was understated but highly effective.

Who did he beat Haz................

and why don't you rate Mayweather higher If it's longevity you like..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:His skills certainly dazzled the 170 pound Conn and Schmelling......Galento and Braddock decked him...

lost to the best heavies he fought too........

But hey...You think he belongs with Ali and you're entitled to your opinion...

No problem  

He wasn't afraid to take on all comers!

Only lost one fight in his prime which was avenged emphatically. .

Big men punch hard. Ali hit the deck 4 times.

Get some new material, you're threading water.

Threading water....I'm a talented guy !!

Liston, Frazier, Foreman are enough reasons...............