Bert Sugar's Top 10 greatest fighters !!

First topic message reminder :

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..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Welcome to Haz world.......

Where Mayweather is kept down because he didn't fight Manny.....

and Jack Johnson is top 10........

I no longer have Johnson top ten. But yes, Manny and anyone else with a chance of beating him post-lightweight (like the tough old welterweight division he retired from).

Poor old Jacky boy has been excluded from your latest list.......

I take it back...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Poor old Jacky boy has been excluded from your latest list.......

I take it back...

Rowley pointed out my folly and convinced me otherwise (until I can read up on it).

Rowley isn't an expert.........Glad to see you're coming around..

Seriously though Walcott is Louis best win/wins............

But when you consider he admitted he lost the first and was behind in the second when he landed a payoff shot......it's hardly his finest hour.......

Was he better than Walcott ?

If taking on the hardest challenge means fighting floating turd, how on earth is that risky?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rowley isn't an expert.........Glad to see you're coming around..

Seriously though Walcott is Louis best win/wins............

But when you consider he admitted he lost the first and was behind in the second when he landed a payoff shot......it's hardly his finest hour.......

Was he better than Walcott ?

Walcott is really underrated -- he was a marvel who was unlucky enough to be around with Louis, Marciano and Charles.But yes, Louis was better than him (Louis had slipped by the time he met Walcott).

Schmeling is Joe's standout win.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rowley isn't an expert.........Glad to see you're coming around..

Next to you he's Bob Mee.

It's his standout defeat also.......

Hence the problem........Would schmelling have ever of had a prayer of beating a young Ali.........Be honest..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's his standout defeat also.......

Hence the problem........Would schmelling have ever of had a prayer of beating a young  Ali.........Be honest..

Ali 18 months in? When he was fighting Billy Daniels and Alejandro Lavorante? Yes. Cooper had him all over the place a year later -- Schmeling was better than Henry.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rowley isn't an expert

How dare you.

Ali beat Cooper..........Only him pratting about got him caught......

Schmelling demolished Louis.........

It's not a very good example

Not only did Max beat Joe, he thoroughly schooled him from start to finish. Henry scored a flash kd where Ali closed the show the next round.

An amateur Ali would have beaten any version Max.

Didn't know whether to post on this one or the one about Louis' standing, but I'd make two observations; Firstly that when there's a lack of consensus surrounding what qualities we are actually rating when compiling these P4P and ATG lists, it's no wonder that there so much debate. The second is that with regard to their respective records and quality of opposition in particular, I'm wondering if we tend to slightly underrate the quality of Louis' oppostion, and dare I say it over rate that of Ali?
I'm not saying that Ali's isn't better- it is, but when we talk about his opposition the same names are usually mentioned- Liston, Foreman, Frazier & Norton, and yes they are all top flight, but even the most ardent Ali fan would have to concde that there's a huge asterisk by the Liston win- to suggest that Liston was anywhere near is best against him is rubbish- whether his performance were so bad due to age or by design,he was a shell of his former self in those fights.
My issue with Frazier and Norton, is that by and large their own standings are directly as a result of their fights with Ali himself, which makes objective rating a bit harder-Ali was the greatest, they took him to the limit ergo they are great- certainly this works in Nortons favour- if he were rated on his record against Foreman, Holmes and Cooney he would be rated considerably lower in most fans eyes, and let's not forget, most of us have him being their series winner, not Ali.
Frazier beat the best version of Ali that he faced, and again the life and death struggles that Ali had with him don't stack up well compared to Foremans results against Joe, and in the imaginary head-to head fights we like to discuss Joe there's little concensus regarding his chances of victory against other ATGS.
Then there's George.. I know that most of you have him right up there in your heavy weight rankings, and that my (perhaps not entirely rational) belief that he is one of the most overrated HWs is not widespread, but if you were to share my opinion that George basically just ran out of steam in Zaire, and that Ali's tactics were born less of genius, and more of fighting the only possible fight available to him (what else was he going to do- dance around him??, out jab him from the centre of ring??) then you may concede that whilst the names are bigger, and better known to us, there is less between the records of Joe and Mo than is usually credited?

Fairplay......but even with huge asterisks they are still a level over anything Louis beat.......

I cannot see anybody perhaps Walcott apart withstanding a Foreman blitz......and even then I'd pick Foreman to beat him......

Walcott 1-1 Louis......

So to boost Louis's standing you resort to denigrating the best group of hw fighters who ever lived.

Frazier and George would beat Louis in double quickly time. His poor footwork was made for them.

You're tad harsh on Louis.......He was probably more talented than Frazier and Foreman........Problem is I can't see him taking care of them early which means the chances of one of them landing is high.......

and with his whiskers.........When they land it's over.........

Louis had ponderous footwork.....like Bruno. Great offensive fighter but when they slip the jab and the howitzers start to zero in, its good night Vienna.

azania wrote:Not only did Max beat Joe,  he thoroughly schooled him from start to finish.  Henry scored a flash kd where Ali closed the show the next round.

An amateur Ali would have beaten any version Max.

Nonsense as normal from you , Louis was fighting top 10 opposition in the first 18 months of his career (when he lost to Schmeling ) Ali was fighting tomato cans and getting floored off a blown up light heavy in Doug Jones, you have no guarentee Ali would've done a number on Schmeling at that point in his career.

Cheers Rodders

But it takes a complete stretch to suggest Schmelling ever beats Ali.......

I mean come on........

Needed a foul to beat Sharkey........

Dunce. You have no guarantee that Funso Banjo wouldn't ko Ali or Louis. But Max was never that good in the first place. Ali immediately after the Olympics would have beaten him.

I forgot I was speaking to the oracle of pre world war boxing. Schmeling was lineal champion in a period where the numbers of boxers far surpassed today's numbers.

You're speaking out your backend as normal with your pathetic analysis of rating fighters based on a head to head analysis.

Put it this way Mayweather wouldn't have handled the 30s and 40s

Cheers Rodders

I forgot I was speaking to the oracle of pre world war boxing. Schmeling was lineal champion in a period where the numbers of boxers far surpassed today's numbers.

You're speaking out your backend as normal with your pathetic analysis of rating fighters based on a head to head analysis.

Put it this way Mayweather wouldn't have handled the 30s and 40s

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:I forgot I was speaking to the oracle of pre world war boxing. Schmeling was lineal champion in a period where the numbers of boxers far surpassed today's numbers.

You're speaking out your backend as normal with your pathetic analysis of rating fighters based on a head to head analysis.

Put it this way Mayweather wouldn't have handled the 30s and 40s

Cheers Rodders

Interestingly that is how B R Sugar rates his top 10. Those 30 & 40s guys were supermen who were dragged out of pubs to perform superhuman feats.

Carry on.

And big deal if there were more active boxers then. It simply means there was more crud around for guys to fight for food more regularly. Which they did.

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:I forgot I was speaking to the oracle of pre world war boxing. Schmeling was lineal champion in a period where the numbers of boxers far surpassed today's numbers.

You're speaking out your backend as normal with your pathetic analysis of rating fighters based on a head to head analysis.

Put it this way Mayweather wouldn't have handled the 30s and 40s

Cheers Rodders

Interestingly that is how B R Sugar rates his top 10. Those 30 & 40s guys were supermen who were dragged out of pubs to perform superhuman feats.

Carry on.

Those 30's and 40's guys like Louis fought at least 4 time a year in their prime is what Rodder's is getting at.  Mayweather is now being heralded for fighting twice a year instead of once.  No cherry picking and a very active schedule could have spelled trouble for Floyd.

He could have got trashed like Louis against schmelling you're right.

Just imagine the pitfalls for Mayweather having to defend against Johnny Paychek types four times a year......

Look at the flak he's coping just with the Khan fight being mooted.

Not only that Strongback, but add to the fact Mayweather wouldn't be wearing those large grant gloves to protect his hands and chin, he would be wearing small gloves and wouldn't be able to fight in his normal defensive manner, if he did the punishment he'd take would be detrimental. Add to the fact he wouldn't have the super injections he has to protect the knuckles.

Cheers Rodders

Floyd is exceptionally accurate. With smaller gloves he would find the target with greater regularity. Better for him.

azania wrote:So to boost Louis's standing you resort to denigrating the best group of hw fighters who ever lived.

Frazier and George would beat Louis in double quickly time. His poor footwork was made for them.

Az, as per normal you seem to miss my point, I'm not denigrating anyone, (except may be George) I am merely suggesting that whilst Ali's list is better, It's not as far removed as some think. Walcott for example is of equal standing to Norton is my eyes, and he bettered Ali twice. Fraxier also beat Ali when closest to their respective peaks- how is that denigrating them?

Walcott is not equal to Norton. Not in this realm anyway.

No your right, Walcott actually won his title rather than was given it.

By fighting crud.

Ezzard Charles crud? Really Az?

Charles was a great lhw. An average hw.

What is an average heavyweight ??

Anyone who isn't Ali apparently...

Someone who was very beatable.