Bert Sugar's Top 10 greatest fighters !!

1. Robbo
2. Armstrong
3. Pep ??
4. Louis ???
5. Greb
6. B Leonard
7. Ali ???
8. Duran
9  Dempsey ??
10 Johnson ??

He's an expert by the way.................Guess beating Benitez, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Kalule pales into insignificance compared to Firpo, Carpentier types........

Consensus tends to have Duran close to top 10 or in it so I didn't question that....You know how I stand on that one..........

Louis three spaces above Ali............

Personally have Ali number 1 but am happy enough to have Robbo and Armstrong up there.......Pep is never a number 3........

Just clarifies for me all this Expert bullcrap..

Heavy wise he has..........Tunney at 5 and Holmes at 10..........interesting..No sign of Lennox..........or Holy or Tyson..

I'd agree with most of the names there -- in a different order. Dempsey and Johnson were giants of the sport -- so it depends what criteria he's adhered to.

Based purely on their fighting record, those two are perhaps too high.

Giants of the sport........So what ??

"Greatest fighters"

This guy is happy to have Dempsey in a top 10 list and say's Mayweather's never fought anybody..

Geez...Give me strength.....What a joke.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:This guy is happy to have Dempsey in a top 10 list and say's Mayweather's never fought anybody..

Geez...Give me strength.....What a joke.

What was his criteria? Or have you not looked?

His greatest fighters of alltime..........p4p..

self explanatory.............Record, skills and achievements........

Like any other p4p criteria.

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree with most of the names there -- in a different order. Dempsey and Johnson were giants of the sport.

Is Mayweather a giant of the sport ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree with most of the names there -- in a different order. Dempsey and Johnson were giants of the sport.

Is Mayweather a giant of the sport ??

This is a fair point. Mayweather is the only real name in boxing these days. He holds all the big records. He will go down as a 'giant of the sport'. It's not a criterion that I use for a p4p list. Sugar's list is one of the worst 'expert' lists I've ever seen.

I agree Boxxy.........

Bernstein has Hagler and Johnson top 7.......

If these are experts you can keep them.

There's no Ezzard Charles so you can quite quickly realise it's a load of crap and no Fitzsimmons either.

But he's an expert..........

A thread designed to try and discredit all expert opinon -- because it's those pesky interlopers that keep Floyd down the pecking order.

THIS IS SUGAR'S CRITERIA:

In "Boxing's Greatest Fighters", the former editor of "The Ring" magazine not only tells us who the greatest fighters are, but tells us the order of their greatness. Could Sugar Ray Robinson have beaten Sonny Liston? The answer, most experts agree, would be 'no'. But what if, as Bert Sugar has done here, one were to take all the boxers and 'reduce them in the mind's eye to the same height, the same weight, the same ring conditions?'

THAT'S PLAINLY DIFFERENT THAN JUDGING A FIGHTER ON THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS.

A thread about Bet sugar's top 10 and the folly of believing everything you read....

Bernstein is an expert according to you........and he has Johnson and hagler at 7..8

What's the point of an expert like that ??..

You need to open your eyes..........

I think my record player is broken.

Just thinking we haven't had enough quality posters on here...

I'm still waitin..

Is he an expert just based on the fact he is an old man who has watched boxing all his life....

If thats the case then we will all be "experts" in our golden years.

I prefer to listen to fighters giving their lists. Tyson being a prime example. He's probably one of the most knowledgable.

If they were all the same height and weight I think I would have Armstrong or Langford at No.1.


The OP seems to be misrepresenting Bert Sugar intentions with this list. The OP has imposed his own criteria on the list.

Make good points.........

Every list is biased to a certain extent........Everyone has their favorites.........

30/35 have Mayweather top 10 on here..........Doesn't mean he is.........But If we are supposed to bow to Bernstein, Sugar types who have Dempsey and Hagler in theirs......Then I'll stand up thankyou very much....

Strongback wrote:If they were all the same height and weight I think I would have Armstrong or Langford at No.1.


The OP seems to be misrepresenting Bert Sugar intentions with this list. The OP has imposed his own criteria on the list.

I'm like Eddie I misrepresent all the time...

Remember this..

"I've never written a Boxnation article"....................."Look at your posting history"

"How did you get on there!!!"

You're an angel..

Bert Sugar attended fights and wrote about them for 5 or 6 decades. I have listened to Sugar interviewed on many occasions and found him to erudite and honest when speaking about boxing.

He wasn't some paper pusher who attended a mediocre college and then spends his career sitting in an office all day shooting thoughtlessly from the hip. Sugar won't have lasted and been as respected as he was if his newspaper opinions were useless.

His job was to hang out in gyms and get to know the fighters and the back story. He sat through hundreds of thousands of rounds of boxing being very close to the action.

All this makes his opinions worthy of at least a correct reading and representation. He doesn't deserve to be treated shoddily.

I thought all these p4p lists took into account being the same height and weight hence why we compare across various divisions all the time.

Changed my mind after that post........I have Dempsey at 9..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Changed my mind after that post........I have Dempsey at 9..

Mini Dempsey v Mayweather at welterweight????

Nat Fleischer had Dempsey knocking out Ali.........Probably wrote more articles than Berty boy.

Who the f has seen Langford fight to have that mofo as the best ever? Jaysus H Christ.

azania wrote:Who the f has seen Langford fight to have that mofo as the best ever? Jaysus H Christ.

How many military historians have served with Napolean?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nat Fleischer had Dempsey knocking out Ali.........Probably wrote more articles than Berty boy.

Can't say I know who wrote more articles, Sugar wrote for newspapers and magazines.


As we all know Nat died in 1972 and so did not see all of Ali's career. He was also roughly 127 years old when Ali came on the scene.

I know plenty that drink Brandy.... 

I like dempsey. Huge fan of his. But Floyd murders him everyday and digs up the cadavar twice on Sunday.

RJJ would be the best ever using berties criteria. The oldies didn't know how to duck as they saw it as cowardice.

He saw enough of his career to know a guy that struggles with Tunney would struggle with a guy that dominated the scene from 64 - Nam-gate..

The thread is throwing up these questions for me:

At what age should boxing writers and historians stop making ATG lists?

When does the past become too tinged with nostalgia?

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:Who the f has seen Langford fight to have that mofo as the best ever? Jaysus H Christ.

How many military historians have served with Napolean?

The taliban; routed in a day by usa would destroy any army in the1800s regardless of who was leading them.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nat Fleischer had Dempsey knocking out Ali.........Probably wrote more articles than Berty boy.

Can't say I know who wrote more articles, Sugar wrote for newspapers and magazines.


As we all know Nat died in 1972 and so did not see all of Ali's career.  He was also roughly 127 years old when Ali came on the scene.

Ali was better prior to 1972.

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:Who the f has seen Langford fight to have that mofo as the best ever? Jaysus H Christ.

How many military historians have served with Napolean?

The taliban; routed in a day by usa would destroy any army in the1800s regardless of who was leading them.

What ????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He saw enough of his career to know a guy that struggles with Tunney would struggle with a guy that dominated the scene from 64 - Nam-gate..

Keep it in context. Dempsey had joined the Hollywood set when he fought Tunney and you know it. A young Dempsey would have torn Tunney apart.

In 1964 Nat was a very only man. His critical thinking faculties were most likely shot. Frankly that's the only excuse he has for some of the bad calls he made in his twilight years.

Are we using Terminator time travel rules Az? Because if you send them back without their guns the taliban are probably going to lose.

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nat Fleischer had Dempsey knocking out Ali.........Probably wrote more articles than Berty boy.

Can't say I know who wrote more articles, Sugar wrote for newspapers and magazines.


As we all know Nat died in 1972 and so did not see all of Ali's career.  He was also roughly 127 years old when Ali came on the scene.

Ali was better prior to 1972.

Ditch the other guy did you?

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nat Fleischer had Dempsey knocking out Ali.........Probably wrote more articles than Berty boy.

Can't say I know who wrote more articles, Sugar wrote for newspapers and magazines.


As we all know Nat died in 1972 and so did not see all of Ali's career.  He was also roughly 127 years old when Ali came on the scene.

Ali was better prior to 1972.

Very true and I'm sure he demolishes him......Thing is If you look at Dempsey's victories unlike Jeffries who gets a rough deal in comparison...

There is no JUICE!!!!.........

If you're going to say Mayweather never beat anybody then you can't advocate this guy getting in at a Charles or Moore's expense...

Best win was a sucker punch..........

Smart people question authority......

joeyjojo618 wrote:Are we using Terminator time travel rules Az? Because if you send them back without their guns the taliban are probably going to lose.

So the modern fighter would be forced to use whiskey as part of their training diet and literally jump rope and get befuddled by the speed bag?

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nat Fleischer had Dempsey knocking out Ali.........Probably wrote more articles than Berty boy.

Can't say I know who wrote more articles, Sugar wrote for newspapers and magazines.


As we all know Nat died in 1972 and so did not see all of Ali's career.  He was also roughly 127 years old when Ali came on the scene.

Ali was better prior to 1972.

Ditch the other guy did you?

Yes. But Floyd O'Mayweather is the best ever. His dad Seamus isn't far behind.

Who are these fighters who used to train on Whiskey?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who are these fighters who used to train on Whiskey?

There aren't any but we tend not to let such trifling details get in the way of the argument. You really should not bite though, it is beneath you.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He saw enough of his career to know a guy that struggles with Tunney would struggle with a guy that dominated the scene from 64 - Nam-gate..

Keep it in context.  Dempsey had joined the Hollywood set when he fought Tunney and you know it.  A young Dempsey would have torn Tunney apart.

In 1964 Nat was a very only man.  His critical thinking faculties were most likely shot. Frankly that's the only excuse he has for some of the bad calls he made in his twilight years.

Bernstein's faculties must be shot If he has Hagler top 10.............

Excuses excuses..........He was a rose tinter who hated youth...........end of.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who are these fighters who used to train on Whiskey?

Jim jeffries, galento and some other bloke who was fed whisky between rounds to toughen him up.

They were glorified pub fighters.

Do you think Floyd (for example) could match the records of the old timers if he had to do what they did Az? Would he just clean up if you sent him back 70-100 years?

What fights of Jeffries were they then Az?

His Johnson fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He saw enough of his career to know a guy that struggles with Tunney would struggle with a guy that dominated the scene from 64 - Nam-gate..

Keep it in context.  Dempsey had joined the Hollywood set when he fought Tunney and you know it.  A young Dempsey would have torn Tunney apart.

In 1964 Nat was a very only man.  His critical thinking faculties were most likely shot. Frankly that's the only excuse he has for some of the bad calls he made in his twilight years.

Bernstein's faculties must be shot If he has Hagler top 10.............

Excuses excuses..........He was a rose tinter who hated youth...........end of.

Emm........that's pretty much what I said.


Just imagine back to your youth and Curry hadn't lost to the Ragginmuffin man and McCallum then going on to to beat other top fighters. We'd never hear the end of it from you. That's what Hagler is to Bernstein.

You're boring.....you have nothing to say...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're boring.....you have nothing to say...

Don't be a baby.

I was just trying to provide some prospective.