All Time Greatest Top 15

First topic message reminder :

In response to Rowleys earlier suggestion and the fact it's been a slow thought I may as well get this start, you know the jist of it by now simply give your all time top 15 then i'll collate the votes and we'll our very own definitive 606V2 all time pound for pound list

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Tunney
7. Ali
8. Duran
9. Jofre
10. B. Leonard
11. Langford
12. Pep
13. Leonard
14. Ross
15. Gans

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

rowley wrote:Winning a world title becomes so much easier if you get actually get the opportunity to fight for one.

Walcott... cough

Suitably addressed in previous post.

He's someone I don't find particularly interesting to read about so my knowledge of him isn't what it should be but I do struggle to see how he gets rated above Fitzsimmons who aside from Gans holds all the top wins between the pair.

To be honest Ghosty can see the argument for having Fitz above him because obviously winning the title at heavy for a former middle is no mean feat but think for me given his physical dimensions Bob was always perhaps a little better equipped to compete at the higher weight. Also feel while he perhaps has the better wins he did not fight with the frequency at the weight Sam did, but it is proper flip a coin stuff so won't argue it too greatly.

Ghosty, if you do want to read more about Sam Clay Moyle's book on him is outstanding and is a pretty sensible price now so would be worth the effort.

Just done a quick count up of the votes and there's going to be a few anomalies in it.

1. Robinson
2. Greb
3. Armstrong
4. Ali
5. Jofre
6. Charles
7. Duran
8. Langford
9. Fitzsimmons
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Tunney
12. Gans
13. Benny Leonard
14. Pep
15. Whitaker

You have no number 5 fists.

Amended. Forgot to put Jofre in at 5!

1. Ali
2. Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Greb
5. Jofre
6. Bob Fitzsimmons
7. Roberto Duran
8. Sugar Ray Leonard
9. Ezzad Charles
10. Joe Gans
11. Sam Langford
12. Tunney
13. Pep
14. Barney Ross
15. Bernard Hopkins

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Ali
4. Greb
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Jofre
7. Charles
8 Langford
9. Duran
10 tunney
11 whittaker
12. b leonard
13. pep
14 sr Leonard
15. monzon

better late than never ghosty

That's it today, tomorrow, all but the top 3 would probably be in a different order.

part of me thinks that the old timers should always be kept in a separate list from the 'modern fighters'. It's hard enough factoring everything in on a p4p basis without trying to imagine what say a sam langford would have achieved had the cards been dealt differently. ho hum.

In that case I look at Langford as a fighter between Lightweight and Cruiserweight where he would give anyone problems and Fitzsimmons would be between Welterweight and Cruiserweight where again he would give anyone problems.

... which is what i did ghosty and why they're there!

My point, and its a very old one obviously, is that trying to compare langford fighting monthly often against guys twice his size, winning plenty, losing some, but never having a reign as champion and taking on allcomers at a settled weight... with say a monzon, is comparing apples with oranges. Not a complaint, just i felt my list ended up being a little bit arbitrary! As it did the last time i tried it several years ago!

I see it more as series of fights rather than individual fights with the old timers and on the whole Langford proved his superiority over everyone except Wills when he was albeit past his best. It's the same reason why I think Greb gets a bit too much credit for the Tunney win when Gene proved himself to be the better light heavyweight.

Fair points ghosty. Though obviously it depends how fairly matched those fighters were in terms of age and weight. People will forgive langford, re wills given that he was a 'proper heavyweight' and their series was toward the end of Sam's career.

As for greb v Tunney, tunney certainly proved the better light heavy over the series. p4p though the factors are a little different, generally greb was giving a few pounds away against a naturally bigger man. He was only a few years older, but had been way more active than tunney, so you could argue that the playing field wasn't quite level. I guess as you have greb higher than tunney you think so too.

Shouldn't be forgotten, either, that Langford had the better of the early going in his epic series against Wills, but suffered a detached retina against Fred Fulton in 1917, leaving him blind in one eye.

The thing to remember with Sam as in terms of size and weight he was virtually never evenly matched because almost nobody in and around his natural weight which was probably about middle would even entertain the idea of fighting him, even Ketchel only did so on a no decision basis. Despite this Sam still fought something like 51 fights over a five year period and dropped only two results both of which were avenged, one on numerous occasions, staggering acheivements and staggering fighter.

Pound for pound Greb is a clear distance ahead of Tunney but evaluating his career I don't place too much emphasise on his sole victory (contentious issue I know Windy before you bite my ear off) over Tunney but taking everything into account his middleweight career far surpasses the light heavyweight career of Tunney.

I've always considered Wills head and shoulders above all the other black heavyweights around inbetween Johnson and Louis so would back him to beat Langford at any time but do agree that Sam was years past his best.

The most complicated instance of a series of fights is Pep against Saddler where one proved he was the superior boxer despite losing the series 3-1.

i'm not going down the pep saddler road ghosty.... it's a rocky and uncomfortable ride.

So Jeff. Langford v Burley, where's your money?

Draw Milky, like being asked to choose your favourite child, not that I have any.

Burley up against Langford at middleweight now that's what I call an impossible fantasy match up to call.

rowley wrote:Draw Milky, like being asked to choose your favourite child, not that I have any.

people with children do have favourites... they just don't like to admit it jeff. I'm thinking, secretly you'd like a razor thin burley decision, but wouldn't want langford crying on your lap about it afterwards.

To be honest Milky at middle I am not sure I would back anyone against Langford at middle, whilst Burley obviously has sublime defensive skills and a terrific chin Sam's power was truly staggering, was reading about Sam the other night and fighters like Fireman Jim flynn and Jeanette both commented that being hit by Sam was unlike being hit by any other fighter, when one considers these were natural heavyweights who shared a ring with the likes of McVea, Dempsey and Johnson one can only begin to imagine what affect Sam would have had landing those kind of shots on middleweights.

I'd be praying for a Burley victory myself.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Harry Greb
3.Muhammad Ali
4.Henry Armstrong
5.Willie Pep
6. Archie Moore
7.Barney Ross
8.Edir Jofre
9.Carlos Monzon
10.Mickey Walker
11.Benny Leonard
12.Jimmy Wilde
13.Sandy Saddler
14.Marvin Hagler
15.Kid Gavilan

I really wanted to include Carmen Basilio, but realised this was wishful thinking,so have edited it. Not included Gans as don't know enough to make a call on him.I have been wondering for a long while where exactly Duran fits in the great scheme of things.I just don't have the urge to include him.He's got to be not far off my fifteen however.I did consider giving Greb the number one spot, following a persuasive argument some time ago from Chris,and may regret not including Tunney and Fitzsimmons.Maybe another bias against heavyweights barging into my top fifteen!

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Gene Tunney
6. Sam Langford
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Roberto Duran
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Joe Gans
11. Muhammad Ali
12. Eder Jofre
13. Benny Leonard
14. Joe Louis
15. Willie Pep

Brutally hard to pick past the top 5 I must say. Still struggling with having to omit Wilde.

Hmm only myself and John Bloomin Wayne include him!A long career, only lost one or two clearly, nearly impossible to hit and could bang.What more can you want?I am actually a Duran admirer but he didn't have the full armoury like Wilde did.Which is why I don't include him.

I'll let this run until 6pm tomorrow so if you haven't voted and still want to that's the deadline.

rowley wrote:Herman the colour line rap is one that can be levelled at a number of fighters but Tunney is not particularly one of them. When he won his heavyweight title Wills was awarded an elimination fight which he promptly lost so he was not really a viable opponent. To the best of my knowledge there wre not many outstanding black contenders during his light heavy days but am willing to stand corrected on that if wrong.

Charles was a cracking fighter, whilst it is true on the back of an opponents death he lost some of his finishing instincts, three wins over Moore and two over Burley (both lucky I should add) as well as a more than impressive record against the bulk of the rest of the black murderers row mark him out as the best of probably the most talent rich division in the sport, add into that his heavyweight exploits and for me he more than deserves a top ten berth, and at the higher reaches.

I would say perhaps Kid Norfolk would have a strong argument in this regard as a light heavy in the 1920s who was severely handicapped by the colour line. Would favour Tunney to find the win, but certainly for a number of years in the early to mid 1920s Norfolk was a top light heavyweight. However he was a notoriously dirty fighter which didnt make things easy for him - often credited with being the one who blinded Greb and certainly his fights with Greb were by all accounts little more than illegal roughhousing.

'Would favour Tunney to find the win'



Actually I had Norfolk in mind when I raised the point.



Now pray tell us Albert, in light of no existing footage of Norfolk in action, do you draw this conclusion. I can only assume you are a genius. If anything, I'd pick Norfolk for the win.

Cheers Colonial, as they say every day's a school day

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:'Would favour Tunney to find the win'



Actually I had Norfolk in mind when I raised the point.



Now pray tell us Albert, in light of no existing footage of Norfolk in action, do you draw this conclusion. I can only assume you are a genius. If anything, I'd pick Norfolk for the win.

With respect, Herman, doesn't the ' no footage ' point cut both ways ?

If jeff believes that Tunney would win and incites a touch of ridicule from you by so doing, couldn't somebody equally argue that your picking Norfolk is also worthy of the same degree of ridicule ?

Not looking for a punch up, you understand, but rather I am curious as to why jeff must be ' a genius ' to form an opinion yet you are able to offer an opinion based on precisely the same evidence.

It was Lion who called it for Tunney Windy, although I am happy my genius has finally been acknowledged. You know where I stand on the no footage issue. I have seen very little footage of Charley Burley and even less of Harry Greb but feel fairly happy in saying at middleweight both kick Kelly Pavlik's behind from here to Timbuktoo and back, despite or perhaps because of the fact I've seen plenty of footage of Kelly in action.

rowley wrote:It was Lion who called it for Tunney Windy, although I am happy my genius has finally been acknowledged.

Apologies for the error, one and all. Takes a while for me to get the brain in gear, these days.

That's my excuse, anyway.

Not a problem Windy, suspect you saw another old vs new debate brewing and thought it was prudent to start aggresively, probably a wise tactic.

Its an interesting match up. But ultimately I am not convinced there is quite enough in Norfolks record and style (think of how Tunney fared against Greb) to convince me he would win this. Alot might come down to when the fight was made. A more experienced Norfolk could potentially have upset a greener Tunney in the very early 1920s. However the liklihood is the fight would happen in the mid 1920s in which case I would strongly favour Tunney.

Interestingly, its not really Norfolk that I would have the greatest regret of Tunney not fighting. The great Young Stribling was also in fine form in the mid 1920s and a match with Tunney would have been a fascinating tactical battle between two great thinking fighters and a genuine tough match to call. We could also have seen Tunney in with Mike McTigue or even a young Rosenbloom also.

Despite not facing Stribling, Norfolk or McTigue I dont think theres any issue of Tunney avoiding fighters as his record is packed with quality of the highest level. I think its simply testament to what was a quality division of the time. Its also worth remembering that Tunney was never considered the recognised "world" champion at the weight so the its not like he was avoiding defending his title. He had no target on his back or honus to cross the colour line the same way a champion is expected to take on so I dont really subscribe to the idea the colour line was much of an issue with Tunney.

Amazing when you look at the division now and see guys like Cloud or Cleverly holding "world titles" (and not considered fit to mount a challenge on an ancient Hopkins), that fighters of the quality of Charles, Tunney, Stribling, Gibbons, Norfolk and others never held the title at the weight.

Colonial read a biography of McTigue recently and that book certainly intimates that the Tunney fight was mooted when Mike was world champion and the failure of it to come off was very much laid at the feet of McTigue who seems to have been fairly cautious in earlier parts of his career, until he lost the title and seems almost to have been reborn as a guy willing to face anyone and everyone, even testing the waters up at heavy on a couple of occasions.

Morning Winding, merely said it to elicit a response from Albert. And a very fine one at that too Albert.


Of course I have no idea who would win such a matchup, but I think the African Americans of that period were devillishly good fighters, as were the generation that followed them, and I just wonder whether Gene knew something. Can't see any reason why this one couldn't have been made.


I look forward to being enlightened.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Morning Winding, merely said it to elicit a response from Albert. And a very fine one at that too Albert.


Of course I have no idea who would win such a matchup, but I think the African Americans of that period were devillishly good fighters, as were the generation that followed them, and I just wonder whether Gene knew something. Can't see any reason why this one couldn't have been made.


I look forward to being enlightened.

Understood, Mr Lingering.

rowley wrote:Colonial read a biography of McTigue recently and that book certainly intimates that the Tunney fight was mooted when Mike was world champion and the failure of it to come off was very much laid at the feet of McTigue who seems to have been fairly cautious in earlier parts of his career, until he lost the title and seems almost to have been reborn as a guy willing to face anyone and everyone, even testing the waters up at heavy on a couple of occasions.

Indeed yes. There is also a highly controversial bout with the previously mentioned Young Stribling. By all accounts Stribling won the title fight in good style and was declared the winner. However McTigue claimed he was injured and forced to enter the figt under duress. Bizzarely the result was changed to a draw after only a day or so and the rematch (won again by Stribling) was made a non title bout. As much I have read up on it I still havent found any real satisfying explanation for what actually happened and what the sequence of events were for that fight. Much like the mysterious Ketchel v Johnson fight it seems that there are any number of possibilities.

If I can remember correctly the potential McTigue v Tunney fight was mooted not long after Tunney had picked up the American light heavyweight title. McTigue opted for the then relatively inexperienced and heavy underdog Tommy Loughran who beat him in a big upset and that pretty much put Tunneys chances for a title shot on ice.

Took me a while to see that Windy, don't know for the life of me why I typed your name wrong. I know there's a propensity to over analyse on this forum, but there's nothing in I'm sure.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Took me a while to see that Windy, don't know for the life of me why I typed your name wrong. I know there's a propensity to over analyse on this forum, but there's nothing in I'm sure.

I didn't take any offence, Herman. Thought you were gently and light heartedly pulling my tail and I responded in similar spirit.

All good fun.

Good article here on Norfolk:-


'He was as black as Newgate's knocker, and about as ominous as the old English prison behind it. As an adult, he lived to knock heads- black, white and every hue in the middle. He was dangerous, this man who fought under the name "Kid Norfolk."
He trained at Grupp's gym on 116th street in New York and was a superior counterpuncher with a piston jab. His back was a wall, his legs stout, and he understood leverage as well as future juggernauts Marciano, Frazier, and Tyson. Despite blasting his way up to the third rung of the light heavyweight ladder, insiders knew that Gene Tunney wasn't going near him.'



http://www.thesweetscience.com/columnists/springs-toledo/7752-the-god-of-war

There is of course this footage of Norfolk:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvbJxEOnh4

Honestly don't think Tunney avoided anyone especially when you look at the level of fighter he was facing.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:There is of course this footage of Norfolk:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvbJxEOnh4

First time I've seen that, Herman, and a gem it is. Thanks very much for sharing.

You're very welcome, Windy.



Not here to denigrate Tunney you understand, but you just wonder sometimes.

Hold Up where is Floyd Mayweather JR in your lists

Not on it. Cannot comment for anyone else but personally am not a fan of putting active fighters on these lists as you cannot assess a fighters true worth until he is done. Floyd is indeed a fine fighter, however if he gets smacked around by Ortiz next time out this will hurt his ledger and standing, similarly if his next four fights are Ortiz, Manny Khan and Martinez and he wins them all without breaking sweat his legacy is vastly improved, however until he retires permanently we do not know.

If you were talking about someone else you may have to wonder but with regards to Tunney there is simply no need to question his choice of opponents.

C'mon You Irish wrote:Hold Up where is Floyd Mayweather JR in your lists

Did you vote on the original thread?