The Ring Magazine Eighty

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

Another pound for pound list but this time an old list written by the most reputable of sources the Ring Magazine which lead me to consider a few things

1. Who seems too and who seems too low?
2. Who is left out altogether?
3. Why a 80 year cut off, why not make it 100 fighters of the past 100 years?
4. Who since 2002 would now be included and at the expense of who?
5. Who holds the best wins over fellow fighters included?
6. Do you feel it's again too heavily weighted towards the big men of the Heavyweight division?

The Mighty Atom wrote:http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

Another pound for pound list but this time an old list written by the most reputable of sources the Ring Magazine which lead me to consider a few things

1. Who seems too and who seems too low?
2. Who is left out altogether?
3. Why a 80 year cut off, why not make it 100 fighters of the past 100 years?
4. Who since 2002 would now be included and at the expense of who?
5. Who holds the best wins over fellow fighters included?
6. Do you feel it's again too heavily weighted towards the big men of the Heavyweight division?

Where to start ?

Dreadful list, in my opinion, but rather than go into detail I'll just be satisfied by saying that Greb, Charles and Jofre are criminally low and Holyfield, even given his exploits at cruiser, too high.

When you actually look at it, it's a pretty appalling order

Charles and Moore behind Monzon, is that even possible?

It does seem slightly biased towards the Heavyweights (but then against, just about every list seems to), but not to the extent that some other publications have been guilty of; Jesus, has anyone else seen ESPN's absolutely dire list!?

Literally, I'd be here a long, long time - as we all would - if I went through everything that I agreed / disagreed with on it, but there are a few who are way too low for my liking; Carlos Zarate, Thomas Hearns, Carlos Ortiz, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker and Eder Jofre, most notably. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I find some of the rankings bestowed upon them nigh on outrageous!

On the other hand, the likes of Marciano, Dempsey, Holyfield, Williams, Tiger, Frazier, Brown, La Motta and Miller are a lot higher than I'd have them, and on top of that there are a few selections which just seem totally random and inexplicable. For instance, what is Cervantes doing on the list at all? Great fighter, don't get me wrong - but better than McCallum or Saldivar? Better than Locche, who somehow has been ignored totally? Never in a million years for me!

Along with Locche, I'd say some notable names missing would be Young Stribling, Maxie Rosenbloom, Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins, all of whom I'd have included personally. Since 2002, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Barrera and Morales would obviously have been added, Marquez too perhaps. So if we're going with the role of judge, to make way for them I'd get rid of Cervantes, Tyson, Lynch (sorry everyone!), Montgomery, La Motta and possibly Brown. Maybe a bit harsh on one or two there, but any list is always going to be now and then.

Some bits to be applauded on that list, I reckon, but a fair few bits that don't quite sit right as well.

1. The whole order could be disputed really. Would agre that most of the right names are there (if you take the 80 year period) but the order is very haphazard. Holyfield and Marciano immediately jump out as being next to impossible to justify and theres a whle host of others that have been given generous placings - Brown, Pryor,Whitaker,Miller e.g

3. Probably easier to answer this before Q2. My guess is the cut off point is when the RIng Magazine came into circulation and part of the criteria used to complie the list depended upon issues/ratings in the magazine.

2. Outside the time period you woud think Wilde (interesting they include Villa), Fitzsimmons, Ketchell, Langford, J Johnson, J Jeffries, NP J Dempsey would be automatics from before the cut off.

4. Pacquiao and Mayweather are certs. Arguments for the smaller Mexicans and maybe guys like Wright.

5. Charles, Ray Leonard, Ray Robinson, Ali at first glance seem to hold the most wins over the other contempories on the list.

6. Big time

Trinidad ahead of McCallum, Hearns...and a whole host of other fighters.

Worst pound for pound number one ever......Christ.....ridiculous..

I have seen the list the before and to be honest I almost discount it straight away on the basis of not including pre 1920s fighter.

What kind of list dismisses, in my opinion:

Wilde (greatest ever flyweight)
Gans (greatest ever lightweight)
Ketchel (top five middleweight)
Langford (top ten of all time)
Fitzsimmons (top ten of all time)

to name but a few.

Completely undermines the list whatever way they try to justify it.

Lennox Lewis above Tommy Hearns...

Pile of trash the whole list..

Jake LaMotta is boderline top 250 not 53. lewis ahead of marciano who him self is too high at 12.

The order seems a bit strange and flung together.

I would Pep dispute being in 6th behind Louis and Duran he is the greatest executor of his style.

Benny Lynch 63 behind Lennox Lewis for example. Why leave out post 1920 fighters a poor list.

Duran was the best executor of his as well though and would have him above Pep every day of the week

Also tend to think that Lennox Lewis is too low and Lynch is fairly lucky to be on the list at all

Personally I prefer Pep his style is what I prefer. Would have Pep in 4th and Duran 5th.

I do think Lynch should be top 50 but to be fair to Lewis I would have him above La Motta.

Looks a poor list few to many big guys on it for my liking I've always been more of a fan of the smaller weights.