The Greatest Fighters of each Decade

I thought I would do an article to see what peoples opinions of the best fighters in history are decade by decade. I have listed my picks below and would be interested to see other peoples opinions. I have ended at the turn of the century as I feel the dust needs to settle on the careers of those from 2000 onwards to evaluate properly and am reluctant to make the debate primarily about Mayweather and Pacquiao who I suspect would top most peoples picks. Anyway, feel free to agree or disagree with any of the choices below or add any other worthy contenders, of which there are many.

1890-1899: Bob Fitzsimmons

The great Fitzsimmons held early recognised versions of the middleweight and heavyweight titles and regularly defeated much larger men with his ferocious power. Beat fellow legends Jack Dempsey and Jim Corbett to claim his middleweight and heavyweight crowns respectively.

1900-1909: Joe Gans

The greatest ever Lightweight in my opinion and well and truly "the Old Master". He was recognised as the lightweight champion of the world for the vast majority of the decade. Perhaps the most complete fighter in history.

1910-1919: Sam Langford

Boasts a phenomenal record and in this period alone he recorded numerous knock out wins over much bigger men including Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Harry Wills, Klondike Haynes, Gunboat Smith, Fireman Jim Flynn, Battling Jim Johnson and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien.

1920-1929: Harry Greb

Despite passing away little over halfway through the decade, the Pittsburgh Windmill packed enough quality wins and acheivements into the first half of the decade that few fighters in history have matched in a lifetime. Boasts wins over Tommy Loughran, Tommy Gibbons, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Battling Levinsky, Mike McTigue, Jimmy Slattery , Kid Norfolk, Tiger Flowers and many others

1930-1939: Henry Armstrong

Held the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight titles simaltaneously during this decade, a feat which has never been matched. Possibly the most frenetic, aggressive and relentless offensive fighters in the sports history and certainly one of its greatest. One of only a handful of fighters that can lay claim to be the greatest of them all.

1940-1949: Sugar Ray Robinson

Captured both the Welterweight and Middleweight titles in this decade and amassed an incredible record of 128 wins with just one defeat in this period including being undefeated at his natural welterweight. Generally seen as the best ever.

1950-59: Archie Moore

The ageless "Old Mongoose" cemented his light heavyweight legacy during the 50s. Although I consider him a second to Charles at lightheavy overall, there can be no doubts that the 50s belonged to Moore and he held the title there for the best part of a decade.

1960-69: Muhammad Ali

Started off the decade by capturing Olympic Gold before adding the world heavyweight title just a few years later. His success stretched well into the next decade but for me he was the standout fighter of the 60s.

1970-1979: Roberto Duran

Systematically dominated the ligtweight division for the best part of the 70s before moving up to face Leonard in 1980. Suffered just one defeat in over 70 fights at lightweight which he avenged emphatically and made 12 successful defences of his title.

1980-1989: Sugar Ray Leonard

Perhaps compiled the greatest modern eras record by scoring wins over fellow all time greats Wilfredo Benitez, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler.

1990-1999: Ricardo Lopez

The undefeated and often overlooked "El Finito" dominated the small weights for the entire decade with a near perfect record. Just 1 draw as a blemish on his record which he avenged.

Good list, can't really argue too much with it.

I think Oscar would have been a dead cert for fighter of the 90s had he been correctly given the nod over Trinidad.

Some excellent picks Colonial, am a massive Langford fan but may have Wilde over him for that decade, because Sam's peak years were IMO between 1908 and 1912 so bestrided the two decades. Up to about 1915 Sam was a truly terrific fighter but his form becomes a little sketchy after that point so it could go either way but it is not so far out of left field for me to take too much issue with it.

Think Lopez may raise some eyebrows but as I agree he is criminally overlooked will let others have that argument. Good article mate

I'd have to disagree and have Ali in the 70's...Had Duran beaten leonard in the 70's I'd agree....

Norton twice, Frazier twice, Foreman and becoming the only man to win the heavy crown three times means the greatest for me...

Think his legend was made in the 70's and he went from great champion to superman..

Duran's opponents at light hardly compare..


I'm not biased in any way though

how about a 90s RJJ or Pernell Whitaker? worth a mention i think.

I'm not biased in any way though
___________________________________________________

Perish the thought Truss, am gobsmacked you didn't make the argument for Curry in the 80s

Would agree with the majority of the list but got to say I am surprised with Lopez for the 90s.

My knowledge of the minimum weight classes isnt great so I am no expert on Lopez but would have though Jones, Whitaker or even de la Hoya would have stronger arguments.

Great list. Can't argue too much with any of it.

I am ecstatic that you have Lopez in, I was banging the drum for him yesterday in my top 3 Mexican's article and think he is a truly great fighter who rarely gets the dues he deserves. For that alone, well done!

Undisputed welter champ, p4p no 1 and my favorite fighter with Holmes..

There you go!! ermm now you mention it?????

Can I also say as Leonard missed much of the 80's and lost to Duran.....

I think Spinks for me is the man for that category...

Only lost in the last year of the decade....

Completely dominated 175 for the first half...beating Muhammad, Braxton and pops Johnson amongst others......Did Holmes twice (well kind of) becoming the first reigning 175 to win the heavy title..

Makes no difference to your picks but decades run from X1 to (X+1)0

Leave it Union

ooooh......

welcome back Union....Nice to see you.

manos de piedra wrote:Would agree with the majority of the list but got to say I am surprised with Lopez for the 90s.

My knowledge of the minimum weight classes isnt great so I am no expert on Lopez but would have though Jones, Whitaker or even de la Hoya would have stronger arguments.

Manos, RJJ, Whitaker and de la Hoya would all be in contention for me, but in my opinion, Lopez dererves the nod but only just. Beautiful box/puncher, hell of a dig, dreamy footwork, never hit the deck and beat everyone he could have done. He could do the lot, and better than most.

Excellent list - think that it's impossible to split Duran and Monzon for the 70s crown - near identical longevity and dominance of their weights, and similarly respectable opposition. Have Jofre more or less level with Ali for the 60s award as well. Perhaps the Olympic medal gives Ali an edge of sorts, but taking only the professional record into account, I see almost nothing in it. The 50s are tricky...I'm ashamed to admit that I started with the premise that there must be more deserving contenders than Moore, and as I assessed the likely candidates, realised that you were almost certainly dead right!

Someone like Pernell Whitaker can be counted unlucky that his greatness was more or less equally spread over two decades. For me, excluding active boxers, he is the fighter of the last twenty-five years.

You not think that Ali was the torch bearer and the stand out of the 70's....

Young Shavers, Lyle, Foreman, Frazier twice, Young, Norton twice.......

You not think his opposition is better than the two you've mentioned Captain..

Just wonder why you omit him....from consideration..

Tend to agree with you there, Captain, though I'd likely rank Roy Jones (minus his recent needless escapades) right up there with Pernell. Both truly magnificent fighters.

Since captain carrantuohil has covered for me the issue of Jofre, I'll be content to simply applaud a wonderful list.

In many ways, he was the torch-bearer and great flame, Truss, but we also have to consider the flip-side. Losses to Frazier, Norton and Leon Spinks (Spinks, for goodness sake). Incredibly feeble performances against Young and Norton, which should also have resulted in defeats. Slightly jammy wins (not completely, but he got out of jail in a big way) against Lyle and Shavers.

His best fights and performances were compelling, historic achievements. His worst were off the chart bad. At best, he's number 3 in what was, after all, boxing's greatest ever decade (just beating the 40s), in my opinion.

Its pretty tough for Charles that he exists primarily alongside Robinson for the 40s spot.

Charles does nearly all his light heavy career in the 40s when Robinson has his welterweight career.

Quite agree, Manos, a clear number two for that decade, and we haven't even considered Pep, Saddler, Manuel Ortiz, Joe Louis, Zale or Ike Williams. What a decade the 40s was! Perhaps it should be placed with the 70s as the best of the lot.

It begs an interesting question,

If you excluded Robinsons middleweight exploits (which were primarily 50s) would his welter career alone rank him ahead of Charles?

After consideration, I think theres a very strong case for Charles.

Personally would probably have to give the edge to the 70's. Whilst the talent is clearly there in the 40's with the colour line that often denied great black fighters their shots and the years lost to war which denied us some cracking fights this probably costs the decade the top slot.

Would controversially pick Tunney over Greb

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Would agree with the majority of the list but got to say I am surprised with Lopez for the 90s.

My knowledge of the minimum weight classes isnt great so I am no expert on Lopez but would have though Jones, Whitaker or even de la Hoya would have stronger arguments.

Manos, RJJ, Whitaker and de la Hoya would all be in contention for me, but in my opinion, Lopez dererves the nod but only just. Beautiful box/puncher, hell of a dig, dreamy footwork, never hit the deck and beat everyone he could have done. He could do the lot, and better than most.

Lopez is one of those fighters which I am sad to say largely slipped under my radar in the 90s. Its basically a running theme with me when you get below bantamweight. My knowledge or following of the flyweight/minimumweight divisions just isnt there.

Appreciate hes a great fighter but I just think its hard to measure those weights and to evaluate the records there. This guy Wongjonkham seems to be the current version of it now.

But looking in terms of big wins in the division when you consider de la Hoya holds wins over two hall of famers in Chavez/Whitaker aswell as goods wins over the likes of Quartey and Ruelas (and a very questionable loss to Trinidad) or the amazing talents of Whitaker and Jones in that decade I just tend to find it easier to measure those fighters and give the nod to them.

Who would you pick 2000 to 2010? Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Calzaghe?

I would personally say Mayweather. Hopkins being a very close second.

It's not an unfair suggestion, manos. I suppose we can point to Charles' consecutive losses in 1943 as a reason to keep him behind Robbo, seeing as Robinson's sole loss in the 40s was to a future Hall of Famer who outweighed him by more than a stone. However, Charles' opposition was even stronger than Ray's. Tough call, in fact.

Dazstarr wrote:Who would you pick 2000 to 2010? Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Calzaghe?

I would personally say Mayweather. Hopkins being a very close second.

Pacquaio, Mayweather, Hopkins, in that order.

Agree with Fof. Would add that some of Mayweather's most compelling performances came in the 90s in any case, and while that's less the case for Hopkins, who seems to me to have improved this decade, Pacquiao has, with a sole exception, basically been unbeatable at a ridiculous range of weights over the past decade or so. Not a difficult choice for me.

Great article, Colonial.

I think there are a few absolute certainties for some of the decades, which you've got spot on; Fitzsimmons for 1890-1899, Armstrong for 1930-1939, Moore for 1950-1959 and Duran for 1970-1979 (although Monzon and Ali aren't a million miles behind).

Might have been tempted to give the nod to 'Barbados' Joe Walcott for 1900-1909. Consider him more or less on an even level with Gans when it comes to the all-time stakes, but then again with that in mind I can't really find fault with your pick of 'The Old Master', either.

1910-1919 is a horrible one to call. Langford obviously has a great claim, but as Rowley pointed out he'd probably started to wind down by the time the decade reached the half way point. Wilde would be the other obvious contender and, oddly enough, so would Greb for me. Obviously he's considered more of a twenties fighter, and while he'd probably be behind Langford and Wilde his 1910-1919 exploits still include almost 200 fights and wins over the likes of Dillon, McTigue and Levinsky. All in all would say that Langford probably has the best case though, so good pick.

The nineties, well there's a difficult one! No objections to your pick of Lopez, though I actually think De la Hoya and Jones might have slightly better claims.

All in all though, quality article and I think most of your picks are the right ones.

captain carrantuohil wrote:It's not an unfair suggestion, manos. I suppose we can point to Charles' consecutive losses in 1943 as a reason to keep him behind Robbo, seeing as Robinson's sole loss in the 40s was to a future Hall of Famer who outweighed him by more than a stone. However, Charles' opposition was even stronger than Ray's. Tough call, in fact.

Think I would probably plump for Charles, his two 1943 losses were in terrific company and were both avenged. Add into that his record against the BMR such as two wins over the terrific Burley and three over Archie Moore and his record solely in the 40's is unbelievable. Is cigarette paper thin, but if only to be contrary will give the nod to Charles

The nineties, well there's a difficult one! No objections to your pick of Lopez, though I actually think De la Hoya and Jones might have slightly better claims.

Don't start Chris. Been through this with you already!

I would probably have to go for Charles aswell. He fought and beat the higher level of competition and his head to head record against the other top fighters is outstanding. He also doesnt have the stigma that Robinson has to an extent over avoiding some of the murderers row as Charles basically faced and beat them all!

Robinson still has the issue of Burley overshadowing him on some level.

On balance, I think that I may actually agree with both you and manos, Jeff. Ezz was also robbed against Violent Ray in 47 and avenged that defeat as well; his opposition in the 40s is simply a who's who of light-heavy and heavyweight legends of the era. Charles for number one in the 40s is fair enough.

Could be left with the greatest fighter of all time not making the list....

True, manos. If one looks at their respective records in the 40s as being roughly even, the 50s leaves little room for doubt about the overall winner. Robinson is arguably a top 5 fighter of that decade as well, and, along with Ali, is the only fighter who could seriously have such a claim. Charles loses his heavyweight crown conclusively in 51 and, apart from his heroic stands v Marciano, is finished at the top level thereafter.

That's why he can't get higher than sixth in my overall list, while Robinson sits at the top. Entirely fair to give the Charles the palm for the 40s, though...

Was thinking Charles but it's mightily tight between him and Robinson both are among my untouchable 5 though

I'd go for Ali in the 1970s and Holmes or Hagler in the 80s. As for the 1990s, for me none better that Roy Jones.