Bert Sugar's Top 10 greatest fighters !!

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 10:24 am

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..

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:10 pm

The fight where the sale or consumption of alcohol was prohibited?

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:14 pm

Moonshine.

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:16 pm

azania wrote:Moonshine.

Sunshine, good times, boogie.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:19 pm

I still reckon Jeffries-Johnson is the biggest fight in history.......

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:23 pm

Both must be top 5 ATG

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:24 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I still reckon Jeffries-Johnson is the biggest fight in history.......

Probably true, it should have pushed the sport forward but it pushed it back by a good 20 odd years.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:27 pm

Ali frazier 1 was bigger. It was global and more significant.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm

The global factor doesn't come into it really, the significance is the last great white hope having his ass handed to him by Johnson.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm

Jackson-Johnson was more than just a Boxing fight though...........

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:32 pm

Johnson Jeffries was as global as the media of the day allowed it to be, was certainly reported outside of the States. Is a really hard question as to what is the biggest fight ever, if we are putting much stock in significance outside the ring or from a sociological context I always favour Louis Schmeling II, however Johnson Jeffries has to be right up there.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:37 pm

It's one or the other Rowley, both transcended the sport into the social consciousness of the time, the one difference I can see is that Louis and Schmeling weren't comfortable with the roles the media had assigned them.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:40 pm

Ali was the man. Even the Baka people of Congo and Cameroon knew who he was. Talking drums became like twitter. The message was spread from Bamenda to Alice Springs to West Virginia via Ouagadougou.

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:41 pm

Not too sure Jeffries was too bothered with his role to be honest HH, don’t get me wrong am by no means suggesting he was any liberal or his views on race could be construed as enlightened, but in terms of coming back as the savior of the pride of the white race do get the impression Jim would have just as happily stayed fat and retired on the farm.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:45 pm

But you do have Johnson who credit to him was taking great pleasure in dragging the fight out, his attitude to that fight is vastly different to Louis who just saw it as another fight. Jeffries did spar with quite a few black fighters did he not so was probably more liberal in his views than most.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:49 pm

Still think Johnson though a trail blazer for blacks was a bad thing......

Had he been more like Louis.........Maybe guys like Burley etc get their rightful shots..

a huge chance missed.........

by Boxtthis Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:53 pm

hazharrison wrote: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.

Well this changes things. It's a p4p head-to-head list, which is a different thing. Still not sure I agree with it at all, but such a list is even more inherently subjective than a traditional p4p list based in part on records/wins, etc (i.e. objective information). This makes it pretty much impossible - or at least pointless - to debate, particularly with some of the lunatics on here.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:58 pm

This is a very tricky subject and it is my firm belief that Johnson did absolutely nothing wrong but his actions did set black fighters back a few years. That is to the detriment of white america at the time, in hindsight it's easy to say he should have been more like Louis but he had the past to build on, Johnson did not.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 3:59 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still think Johnson though a trail blazer for blacks was a bad thing......

Had he been more like Louis.........Maybe guys like Burley etc get their rightful shots..

a huge chance missed.........

How about him just being himself like all whites were?

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:07 pm

Am with HH on this, very tricky subject. Would never castigate Johnson for acting as he saw fit because why should any bloke do otherwise if he is not breaking the law by doing so, and given the lot of black fighters and folk in general in that time thumbing your nose at white America must have been beyond tempting.

However there are times when folk find themselves rightly or wrongly representing more than just the narrow confines of their own life and whether he liked it or not the minute he leveled Burns Johnson became the most high profile black man in the world and had a real opportunity to blaze a trail for the countless black fighters and athletes who would have to follow in his path. He was not a dumb man by any means and was plenty smart enough to realise this, but he chose not to offer anything even representing an olive branch or reigning in his behavior and pretty much decided settling a few scores with those who had oppressed him and enjoying life to the full was more important to him than making things easier for those who would follow him.

As I say not a criticism of him because who am I to criticize him from the comfort of 100 years further down the line, but disappointing he did not choose to tread the other path.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:09 pm

He didn't want to be a house slave. Credit to him. Still sucked as a champion though.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:11 pm

How would black america have viewed him though Rowley, go forward 40 years to Patterson and Frazier, both being labelled uncle toms. I think ultimately you have to live your life for yourself and that's exactly what Johnson did, he could have done more for Langford, Jeannette and McVey but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:11 pm

He didn't suck as champion........

I have him top 5........

Marvin Hart's, Schmelling, Sharkey, Braddock types sucked.............much much worse.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:12 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:How would black america have viewed him though Rowley, go forward 40 years to Patterson and Frazier, both being labelled uncle toms. I think ultimately you have to live your life for yourself and that's exactly what Johnson did, he could have done more for Langford, Jeannette and McVey but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Well said.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:13 pm

azania wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:How would black america have viewed him though Rowley, go forward 40 years to Patterson and Frazier, both being labelled uncle toms. I think ultimately you have to live your life for yourself and that's exactly what Johnson did, he could have done more for Langford, Jeannette and McVey but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Well said.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:15 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He didn't suck as champion........

I have him top 5........

Marvin Hart's, Schmelling, Sharkey, Braddock types sucked.............much much worse.

He ducked the best challenges.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:17 pm

If everybody lived their life for themselves where would we be Hammer....

Come on Man.......Statement sucks and you know it...

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:19 pm

I live my life for myself and my family Truss, i'm not overly bothered by what happens to the guy round the corner I don't know.

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:21 pm

As I say HH, would never criticize him and in many ways there is much to admire in his choices. However don’t think it would have took too much to have helped fighters who followed him. Even little things like not toying with opponents and mocking them would have gone a long way.

One only has to look at Langford, all the reports are he lived one hell of a life outside the ring but was gentlemanly to a fault outside it and pretty much always played straight inside the ring, allowing for the practical consideration of him carrying a few opponents here and there, and you never hear anyone with a bad word to say about him. Unfortunate truth is White America was not petrified about having another black heavyweight champion, they were petrified about having another black heavyweight champion like Johnson.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:23 pm

Hey Man the family comes first..........But you know that personal responsibility is something everyone should have especially in the public eye...

You're not an a-hole I can tell by your posts.....

Johnson should have been more aware of the repercussions of his actions...

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:26 pm

He did what most people did.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:27 pm

I think Battling Siki was the final nail in the coffin but again I will never criticise Johnson for doing what every single white man was able to.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:27 pm

azania wrote:He did what most people did.

How do you make a statement like that ??

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:28 pm

azania wrote:He did what most people did.

He wasn't most people though was he. He was the first black heavyweight champion and most high profile black man in the world.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:30 pm

So what? His job was to fight and not be a house N like Louis was forced to be.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:30 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
azania wrote:He did what most people did.
How do you make a statement like that ??

Elaborate please.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:31 pm

Louis was Louis.........Maybe he couldn't be bothered having a chip on his shoulder and treated people of a different race how he found them..

If he was an Uncle Tom then I like Uncle Toms because life is too short for this crap.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 12 Nov 2013, 4:33 pm

Louis and Patterson lived exactly how they were told to by their mothers, it had nothing to do with the white majority.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 5:54 pm

Louis was told not to be photographed with a white woman regardless if he was sha99ing her or not. He was told not to comment on civil rights issues at the time. He had to play the game. He had no choice.

The least said about Patterson the better. A proper House N.

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 5:58 pm

I agree the less said about Patterson by you is always better. Active in the civil rights movement, consistent and unwavering in his approach to the problem irrespective of the prevailing fashions of the time and someone who insisted on venues for his fights being integrated, to a point where he had fines written into the contracts was it not the case, but none of this is enough to avoid being labeled with various offensive tags by those without the brains to know better.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 6:07 pm

Rowley wrote:I agree the less said about Patterson by you is always better. Active in the civil rights movement, consistent and unwavering in his approach to the problem irrespective of the prevailing fashions of the time and someone who insisted on venues for his fights being integrated, to a point where he had fines written into the contracts was it not the case, but none of this is enough to avoid being labeled with various offensive tags by those without the brains to know better.

The least said by you on that issue the better. I make my opinions on that era by talking to people who lived through it. They know slightly more about it than a boxing fan.

But do you want to talk boxing or US civil rights? Either way I'm game. But I believe this is a boxing forum and you are a moderator on it. Stick to boxing as your contribution on the civil rights as displayed above is lacking in context and the opinions of people who mattered at the time. And I'm not talking about Bull Connor.

by Strongback Tue 12 Nov 2013, 6:24 pm

azania wrote:
Rowley wrote:I agree the less said about Patterson by you is always better. Active in the civil rights movement, consistent and unwavering in his approach to the problem irrespective of the prevailing fashions of the time and someone who insisted on venues for his fights being integrated, to a point where he had fines written into the contracts was it not the case, but none of this is enough to avoid being labeled with various offensive tags by those without the brains to know better.
The least said by you on that issue the better. I make my opinions on that era by talking to people who lived through it. They know slightly more about it than a boxing fan.

But do you want to talk boxing or US civil rights? Either way I'm game. But I believe this is a boxing forum and you are a moderator on it. Stick to boxing as your contribution on the civil rights as displayed above is lacking in context and the opinions of people who mattered at the time. And I'm not talking about Bull Connor.

You're the single most disruptive force on the board and it's not even close. What do get out off acting the dick around here? Is it you can't help yourself?

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 6:35 pm

Strongback wrote:
azania wrote:
Rowley wrote:I agree the less said about Patterson by you is always better. Active in the civil rights movement, consistent and unwavering in his approach to the problem irrespective of the prevailing fashions of the time and someone who insisted on venues for his fights being integrated, to a point where he had fines written into the contracts was it not the case, but none of this is enough to avoid being labeled with various offensive tags by those without the brains to know better.
The least said by you on that issue the better. I make my opinions on that era by talking to people who lived through it. They know slightly more about it than a boxing fan.

But do you want to talk boxing or US civil rights? Either way I'm game. But I believe this is a boxing forum and you are a moderator on it. Stick to boxing as your contribution on the civil rights as displayed above is lacking in context and the opinions of people who mattered at the time. And I'm not talking about Bull Connor.
You're the single most disruptive force on the board and it's not even close. What do get out off acting the dick around here? Is it you can't help yourself?

Pipe down.

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 7:13 pm

azania wrote:
Rowley wrote:I agree the less said about Patterson by you is always better. Active in the civil rights movement, consistent and unwavering in his approach to the problem irrespective of the prevailing fashions of the time and someone who insisted on venues for his fights being integrated, to a point where he had fines written into the contracts was it not the case, but none of this is enough to avoid being labeled with various offensive tags by those without the brains to know better.
The least said by you on that issue the better. I make my opinions on that era by talking to people who lived through it. They know slightly more about it than a boxing fan.

But do you want to talk boxing or US civil rights? Either way I'm game. But I believe this is a boxing forum and you are a moderator on it. Stick to boxing as your contribution on the civil rights as displayed above is lacking in context and the opinions of people who mattered at the time. And I'm not talking about Bull Connor.

Don't particularly need to display my qualifications to speak on the subject to you or anyone but would guess I have read as much on the subject as most on here and am damned sure I have read more than most on Ali and Patterson. My understanding of the term you use which I won't repeat as it is beneath me is is relates to a black person that is so worried about offending white people and sensibilities that he will consciously avoid engaging in subjects that would upset whie people or will consciously toe the line on these subjects or say what he thinks they want to hear.

Given this I struggle to imagine for even a second how the term can be applied to someone as actively involved in the civil rights movement as Patterson, who attended rallies, who put money into the movement and frequently spoke out on the subject. What I personally believe is Patterson's only sin is not being supportive of the type of civil rights action you think was appropriate at the time which does not to my mind make him worthy of the contemptible tag you choose to throw at him. However to acknowledge this would be to acknowledge there are shades of grey and nuance in some topics and that not every subject can be settled with the blanket extremes you seem hell bent on trading in.

by **88Chris05** Tue 12 Nov 2013, 8:35 pm

Bit of a hit and miss list from Sugar there. The rankings for Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Ali and Duran are all reasonable enough, I suppose. Could maybe quibble that the odd name from that bunch is ever so slightly too high / low, but in general they're in the right kind of ball park, I feel.

If / when people put Pep in at the very low end of their top ten, I might raise my eyebrows a bit and let them know that I disagree, but I can stomach it all the same. But as high as three?

So that leaves Louis, Dempsey and Johnson, and amongst that lot it's only Louis who I can be bothered to delve in to, because the idea that Dempsey and Johnson are top ten pound for pounders is a bit of a shocker, in my eyes!

Tricky to place Louis; aside from the men who held the title in that golden era of the seventies, there are precious few Heavyweight champions who can really big-time boast about their level of opposition beaten. If you're in the midst of a lousy Welterweight division, then you can move up to Light-Middle or Middle (or down, in less common cases). No such luck if your peak pre-dates the Cruiserweight division (which has generally been lacking in real class anyway) and your best fighting weight is around the 200 lb mark.

One thing I am sure of, however, is that I couldn't in all good conscience put Louis inside my own top ten. And I'll stress that when I say that, I'm not considering cultural impact, how big the gates were that they generated, if they were considered a pioneer in one aspect or another. I'm talking purely about ranking fighters on who they've beaten, how much they achieved in comparison to their contemporaries, how much talent they had etc irrespective of weight.

Now in fairness, consistency does become a bit more important when ranking the Heavies as their options are a bit more limited than the smaller guys in terms of who they can fight. And of course, Louis' consistency was top-notch. It should also be noted that, by the historical standards of the Heavyweight class, Louis' era was actually one of the better ones, despite that 'Bum of the Month' line he coined.

But nevertheless, there's just no way that the competition Louis faced can be put in the same bracket as the men someone like Barney Ross, almost a contemporary of Louis, was fighting in order to establish his credentials. Ditto for Tony Canzoneri, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy McLarnin etc. All of them peaked close to Louis' peak on different sides, but their list of victims is choc full of names who still to this day rank highly in the all-time run at Feather-Light in Canzoneri's case, Middle to Light-Heavy in Charles' and even Fly to Welter in McLarnin's.

And yet, these three men are basically always ranked lower than Louis when it comes to the foremost 'experts' or historians of modern times.

I also don't think that Louis' technical skills entitle him to an automatic top ten spot, and I don't think it's a given that he was one of the ten most complete fighters of all time from that point of view either. What do I know about boxing compared to Freddie Roach? Slightly less than the square root of sod all, sure. And I know that, as well as Roach's opinion on Louis from a technical point of view, the Brown Bomber's die hard fans will have more glowing appraisals from much more qualified commentators than me.

But what people, even well-respected boxing figures, think on a certain subject (or even what they think you should think!) should never actually be more important to you than what you think yourself. I take in to account what Roach et al say about Louis' skills, and there's definitely a fair amount of truth in it which I can see and appreciate with my own eyes. I can see Louis' tremendously accurate punching, his hand speed, his fantastic jab, his powers of recovery once he was buzzed and his balance.

But I can also see him repeatedly getting nailed with the right hand for twelve rounds against Schmeling without making the necessary adjustment during the fight, being made to look slow and cumbersome on his feet by Conn for long periods, getting hurt and shaken up a few more times than he really should have been etc.

By rights, Louis really shouldn't have been having as much trouble as he did with the likes of Conn, Godoy, Schmeling (although he trounced them all in rematches) and Galento, even if some of them were only struggles rather than real panic station moments. Don't get me wrong, you can forgive absolutely any fighter having the odd uncharacteristic off-night or having a harder time than expected against an opponent they were supposed to outclass, but it did happen a little more often with Louis than it did with some others, even in his prime years.

As Heavyweights go, based on his record, longevity, skill set (as I said, please don't think I'm trying to take that one away from him, because I'm not) etc, then he's without doubt second in line to only Ali in my opinion, but in a division which lags behind Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight for me. Those divisions have seen scores of men with just as much, and sometimes more, pure ability and talent than Louis prosper against a better level of competition, and in some cases they've spanned more than one of those aforementioned classes. As such, I really couldn't find room for Louis in my own personal top ten, and probably not even a top twenty, either.

I don't know, maybe something like number twenty-five, pound for pound?

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 8:46 pm

Without wanting to veer off topic too much, I'll tell you why Floyd was wrong. If he felt that way about Ali and his religion, for a supposed conscious and intelligent man looking to enhance the civil rights of blacks in America, he should have kept his mouth shut. But to call it a menace to America when the real menace to America were a large number of whites who opposed civil rights insulting. Dr King never insulted Malcolm X even though they were diametrically opposed as to how to achieve similar goals. Ali never insulted Patterson's religion or beliefs.

You may have read books on the issue. But it is very different to talking to people who actually went on the marches and talking to them about certain individuals in the era. Patterson fell into the old game of divide and rule because he was a fool. Ali called Frazier the same thing because Frazier went to Nixon and told him he should stop the Ali problem. Frazier was even poorer and more oppressed than Ali in that he grew up in abject poverty whilst Ali didn't. He again should have kept his mouth shut and quite being the House N as he was when he went to Nixon.

For me there are no shades of gray when fighting for civil rights and freedom. None. I stand by that. Oppression is wrong. Several ways to fight it with unity being the utmost importance. Floyd went native. But thanks for your contribution. Interesting stuff about Floyd which I already knew but doen't detract from him playing the House N card very well. Ali called him what he was when he said what he said. That is the reason Ali called him that and that is the reason many blacks applauded Ali when he gave him a good beating. He didn't call Ali's religion a menace after that.

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 9:00 pm

Louis consistency may have been top notch, but so is Wlad's. The term "bum of the month" was not coined for no good reason. Undoubtedly Louis was a terrific fighter. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But he fought zero people of any real ability (like Wlad). He cannot be rated anywhere near Ali who beat people who would have eaten up Louis' opponents with ease. And Ali fought them regularly. I would pick Frazier, Liston and Foreman to beat Louis. That is not a slight on Louis either as those guys were the best of the best the HW division had produced.

by Rowley Tue 12 Nov 2013, 9:03 pm

Fair enough az. As you know I don't agree but at least you have argued your case with articulacy and without resorting to bluster which is nice. My own view of Patterson is he was consistent and true to himself and his beliefs. He though peace and integration was the way forward and did not waiver when such an approach was considered old hat.

As for his comments about Ali and the NOI he was inevitably going to be asked as a rival and he answered honestly and in line with his own beliefs. To me no more should be expected of him or anyone else, a fact you acknowledged yourself in relation to Johnson.

by hazharrison Tue 12 Nov 2013, 9:06 pm

My goodness that's a long post.

I'm not sure what more Louis could have done. A single loss in his prime - emphatically avenged (Joe had been boxing less than two years - some guts taking on Schmeling that soon). In addition, he possibly looked clueless as he professed to having no memory of the fight after Schmeling buzzed him early on.

To rule a division that long, cramming in that many title defences and winning in such style is incredible.

Superb in rematches, a technical master -- perhaps the greatest puncher of all time. Missed no-one. Slew a series of former champs - overcame adversity, got off the canvas to win.

For me, Louis is a top ten untouchable.

Do you rate Mayweather and Jones higher? If so, why?

by azania Tue 12 Nov 2013, 9:11 pm

I always respond in kind. Insult me and expect a response. Provide an articulate response and I will respond in kind. No rocket science about that.

Yes they were his vies.But sometimes it's best to keep it shut for the sake of the greater good. There are times when the collective is more iportant than the individual and especially when the issue can be side stepped or answered differently ie by saying he disagrees with the way forward but not the end goal. But to call it a "menace" was deserving of what he got. A lesson he learned that hard way.

by hazharrison Tue 12 Nov 2013, 9:12 pm

azania wrote:Louis consistency may have been top notch, but so is Wlad's. The term "bum of the month" was not coined for no good reason. Undoubtedly Louis was a terrific fighter. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But he fought zero people of any real ability (like Wlad). He cannot be rated anywhere near Ali who beat people who would have eaten up Louis' opponents with ease. And Ali fought them regularly. I would pick Frazier, Liston and Foreman to beat Louis. That is not a slight on Louis either as those guys were the best of the best the HW division had produced.

Walcott, Conn, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Lewis, Braddock, Bivens. No real ability.

Dear me lad.

by Sponsored content