606v2 10 Greatest fighters of all time

Good Evening

From those who knew me from the old 606 knew I enjoyed some may say self aggrandising lists. Just watched Ringside and the debate on the 100 greatest boxers, and gave me the idea to ask what the members of 606v2 what would they choose as the 10 greatest fighters of all time.

I havent been around the forum much, so please tell me if this has done before and we can soon put this to bed, but If it hasnt I thought I'd leave the thread open until the 30th June and publish official rankings at the end (if approval from the admin and mod team) using a points system, similar to what Union has done with the current rankings.

I'll include my picks and please feel free if you wish to, to justify your places.

Here we go

1) Sam Langford (No belts, but reading Clay's book puts a firm believer he was No 1)
2) Sugar Ray Robinson
3) Harry Greb
4) Bob Fitzsimmons
5) Henry Armstrong
6) Ezzard Charles
7) Eder Jofre
8) Muhammad Ali
9) Joe Louis
10) Roberto Duran

Awful to compile leaving the likes of Burley, Leonard out, Pep, Moore, Sandy Saddler another fave of mine.

But I'll stick with that as long as no one jibes me.

All the best

Rodders

No jibes from me, Rodders. Great to see you posting regularly again, fella.

1) Henry Armstrong
2) Ray Robinson
3) Harry Greb
4) Ezzard Charles
5) Muhammad Ali
6) Bob Fitzsimmons
7) Sam Langford
8) Benny Leonard
9) Roberto Duran
10) Pernell Whitaker

Thought I'd better get mine in quickly, as I chop and change just about every day!

I can never make my mind up on things like this- too many variables and the game has changed so much over the last hundred years that I find that comparsion between fighters in the 25+round era,to our modern greats almost impossible, also watching the scratchy old films of that era , I find it really hard to judge how good or otherwise the fighter miight have been. But for some unknown reason I can never bring myself to rate Fitzsimmons highly, despite knowing his achievements, but other than that I can't see too many that I wouldn't agree with in Chris's list, and I'm pleased to see room for Whitaker on there- for me the stand out boxer of the last 25 years. That said there have been so many great fighter that you could probably list at least 50 for whom a place in the top ten could be warranted

Rodders this hasn't been done for a while and it truly is a pleasure to have one of the old 606 legends back on the board. Let us self aggrandize!!! Just give me a minute or two to make a list.

1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Henry Armstrong
3) Harry Greb
4) Muhammad Ali
5) Sam Langford
6) Sugar Ray Leonard
7) Ezzard Charles
8) Bob Fitzsimmons
9) Benny Leonard
10) Roberto Duran

Ask me tomorrow Rodders and I'm fairly sure i'll give you a different list, glad you enjoyed the Langford book mate, it is a big favourite of mine

This usually gives me a headache but here we go..

Sugar Ray Robinson
Muhammad Ali
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzimmons
Eder Jofre
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran
Joe Gans

Hate leaving out the 2 Leonards, Pep and Joe Louis but cest la vie..

Always love these types of threads - last did a top 10 about 2 years ago and this one is probably a little bit different.

1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Harry Greb
3) Henry Armstrong
4) Ezzard Charles
5) Muhammad Ali
6) Roberto Duran
7) Eder Jofre
8) Sugar Ray Leonard
9) Sam Langford
10) Benny Leonard

On any other day I might include Fitzsimmons, Tunney, Moore, Whitaker or Pep. Floyd Mayweather Jnr is also knocking pretty heavily on the door.

Oh this always gives me such a headache......

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Sam Langford
7. Sugar Ray Leonard
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Willie Pep
10. Jack Johnson

Sugar Ray Leonard
Robinson
Ali
Armstrong
E Charles
Louis
Duran
Jack Johnson
Roy Jones Jnr
Floyd

Not tempted to include the Rock, Az?

superflyweight wrote:Not tempted to include the Rock, Az?

Might edit my list to put him in, revenge for people putting Johnson on their lists.

superflyweight wrote:Not tempted to include the Rock, Az?

I gave it serious consideration.

azania wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard
Robinson
Ali
Armstrong
E Charles
Louis
Duran
Jack Johnson
Duran
Floyd

You got Duran twice. He is good though.

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Duran
Charles
Leonard
Langford
Pep
Whittaker
Ali

Like you Roddy and all that but your list is a joke....

Rewarding a guy that never reached the pinnacle of his sport with the number 1 slot....(politics or not) Is wrong!!!

Politics kept Ted Kennedy from winning the white house but we'll put him above Lincoln and roosevelt anyway right??

For me Muhammad Ali will always be number 1.........

1. Boxing's biggest name and transender..

2. Beat great opposition...longevity wise....16 years at the top!!!.....

3. Only lost three times..avenging two of the defeats.......

4. and most importantly in a fight beats everybody you have in your top 10 list...regardless of weight..which for me makes him the best boxer...

Tough If everybody is shorter and weighs less!!

As for it being all oldtimers well that's beyond contempt.....

No Leonard etc..........

Sorry but just plain rubbish..........time to throw the rose tinted glasses in the bin..

Ali
Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Jofre
Charles
Langford
Fitzsimmons
Duran
Ray Leonard

Edited, placing Ali atop the tree. Too many reasons why he is the greatest. Thanks to Truss for the reminder!

rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Not tempted to include the Rock, Az?

Might edit my list to put him in, revenge for people putting Johnson on their lists.

I trust you note the inclusion of Langford in my list, jeff. I seem to recall that his exclusion from past lists I've done caused some consternation on your part.

Trussy, just edited one of your choice words there, take it easy fella!

Your points are enough to get your argument across! Hard to argue with Ali, he isn't my number one but perhaps I am a tad harsh placing him 5th...when you take in to account his emergence, re-emergence, beating of fearsome heavyweights in the fiercest era of them all for that division, success in adversity, ability to alter his style according to opponent and age factors, he really is the greatest.

Perhaps I've just persuaded myself to change my list..

It is reassuring to see Superfly, I would say I would push you to bump him up a few places but would not wish to move you into Truss' crosshairs, seems like the beefster is a little grumpy this morning.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like you Roddy and all that but your list is a joke....

Rewarding a guy that never reached the pinnacle of his sport with the number 1 slot....(politics or not) Is wrong!!!

Politics kept Ted Kennedy from winning the white house but we'll put him above Lincoln and roosevelt anyway right??

For me Muhammad Ali will always be number 1.........

1. Boxing's biggest name and transender..

2. Beat great opposition...longevity wise....16 years at the top!!!.....

3. Only lost three times..avenging two of the defeats.......

4. and most importantly in a fight beats everybody you have in your top 10 list...regardless of weight..which for me makes him the best boxer...

Tough If everybody is shorter and weighs less!!

As for it being all oldtimers well that's beyond contempt.....

No Leonard etc..........

Sorry but just plain rubbish..........time to throw the rose tinted glasses in the bin..

Joe Calzaghe could tick a few of those boxes...................

Ali won the biggest prize..was the biggest name..had longevity at the highest level.....

But we'll stick a fighter with no of these qualities at no 1.....

ok..

Winning nothing fights is different to winning majors....whole new ball game and pressure!!

Am I right Colin Montgomerie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.Ray Robinson
2.Muhammad Ali
3.Henry Armstrong
4.Willie Pep
5.Harry Greb
6.Benny Leonard
7.Jimmy Wilde
8.Gene Tunney
9.Bob Fitzimmons
10.Stanley Ketchel

The only problem with your argument Truss is if we take it to its logical conclusion we would have to place a guy like Joey Maxim above Ezzard Charles at light heavy given he won the biggest prize in the division and did it when the pressure was on, not a position I am particularly aease with.

Am I Colin Montgomerie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

You have his figure.

I'm talking p4p greats.......The criteria comes down for individual weights..

I have a Tiger woods figure at home as well.........

Anyway Charles was proven at the highest level..he was a bonafide world heavy champion....

Ottke was a bonafide world champion, not sure having him above guys like Burley, Bivins or Langford sits too well with me, but each to their own these things are largely subjective.

If you're going to be silly..it's pointless debating with you...Ottke was an alphabet champ in an alphabet age...

To anybody else I find it sad that it seems cool to denigrate Ali in these lists...

Can't imagine Robbo and the like beating Foreman, Frazier or Tyson....

But for the grace of weight divisions the poor guy would've had to have tried!!!

Record, legend, achievement, skill, longevity........hard to look past Muhammad for me..

But If someone wants to act like "fightnews" it's a free world..and fairplay!!

So truss why bother with p4p lists, just have a heavyweight list replacing it altogether?

fightnews, now there is a blast from the past. A rather unpleasant blast, too.

Ali has as good a claim as any to being the king, Truss. As does Robinson, though, so it is very much subjective.

Good idea Ghosty.....Let's have Tubbs at 4 yeah!!!

Robbo has a good claim Fisty!!!!

But not a guy who's never reached the pinnacle of his sport!!! and who's never been seen by anybody on here in close up!!

Montgomerie won probably five times more tournaments than Seve...beating the same guys a long the way or better guys...

However one of them was a proven "Major" winner!!

Think we all know who's higher in the atg lists don't we...

Swap Seve for Faldo..........

Am not trying to be silly Truss but the whole idea of p4p is to make allowances for difference in weight so having guys like Robbo above Ali is possible, reality is Jimmy Wilde would get pancaked by Max Baer, do you have him above him? With regard to the title thing I genuinely don't get your position. Are you saying if a guy has not won a world title they should not be included on these lists then fair enough but Primo Carnera was the undisputed world champion and at heavyweight so under such a system he ranks above Langford Burley and Bivins amongst countless others he cannot hold a candle to.

However if we are going to only apply the world title criteria to certain fighters we are into the world of the subjective and so someone choosing to apply less importance to it than you do yourself seems reasonable to me.

There are fighters who are beyond world titles with Driscoll, burley and Langford being among them, many accounts have Sam beating Walcott comfortably for the welterweight title.

There is all kinds of measures and that's for sure but we are deciding on the best fighter and we have to take into acccount build. size etc too....

Ali was better built for a fighter and has advantages over Robbo in that he wins everytime had they fought...

Of course I consider everything.....which is why Robbo is 2nd and not Holmes etc....

But as to my golfing analogy...I cannot have Charles no 1 at 175!! although he warrants top 3 and I cannot have Langford top because he never past the ultimate test...

I have Leonard at 4 and Mayweather top 10 as is Jones jr.......now they are not heavyweights...

I may make snide comments but I do respect your opinion as with Ghosty..Super and fists....

I do however see it as a present trait to forget how great Ali was, how long he remained at the top and to forget how intimidating Liston, Foreman, Frazier etc etc were...as well as his all round package!!!

I apologise for the fightnews stuff......

You're more of a sweetdeano

I don't really see anyone denigrating Ali, Truss. He's made every list so far and is probably averaging out at about 4th or 5th place.

Given the subjective nature of this exercise and the sheer quality of the fighters we're looking at, I don't think anyone can complain if there favourite doesn't appear where they expect him to.

You seem to be saying that Ali is number one because he beats the rest head to head (as he's the biggest) and that only he could beat Foreman, Frazier and Tyson on a non-pound for pound basis. However, at the same time you're also rubbishing any claims that this should only be a heavyweight list.

It's a bit of a muddled argument.

I don't think it gets forgotten at all, he is routinely top 5 in every list I've seen, for longevity and breadth of record he doesn't quite trump Robinson. For me gavilan was a better welterweight than any heavyweight Ali beat for instance although you have to judge the big men slightly differently. Armstrong and Charles have to be above him too just for the sheer volume of quality they beat, anyone who dominates burley, Moore and bivins to an extent has to be special.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
You're more of a sweetdeano

Ha, am not sure if that is a promotion or demotion. I actually agree to a degree that there has been something of a trend to downplay Ali's ability over recent years. My own view is it has happened since the turn of the century, there were a lot of greatest sportsmen of the century polls around then which Ali tended to win and even as a fan some of the tributes made me want to puke, they made him sound like a frigging saint outside the ring and bullet proof inside it, my own opinion is the criticism has been a bit of a counter balance to this.

Who would Robbo have beaten that would have carried the same intimidating characteristics of a foreman / liston/ frazier......who's opponents were generally scared stiff...

However I respect Robbo highly..............You not think though it's a bit hypocritical to moan about Holy screwing his legacy when Robbo had his butt handed to him by stiffs also???

I know it's a seperate point.....and all....

Have no probs with Robbo at no 1....it's close...but no one else..

Have no probs with Robbo at no 1....it's close...but no one else...

I can see your point without necessarily agreeing. I think in terms of opponents faced and beaten, only Robinson, Charles, Armstrong and Greb can compete (possibly SRL as well when I think about it). I have no problems with anyone putting Ali at number 1 but equally, Greb, Armstrong and Charles have strong claims.

Where's your list truss? Or is criticising everyone else's going to be your only contribution to the thread?

fearlessBamber wrote:

azania wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard
Robinson
Ali
Armstrong
E Charles
Louis
Duran
Jack Johnson
Duran
Floyd

You got Duran twice. He is good though.

Never did like Duran Duran.

He likes Duran...

Why have soup and ice cream...when you can have Curry three times!!!

Sugar Ray Robinson
Muhammad Ali
Henry Armstrong
Sugar Ray Leonard
Harry Greb
Carlos Monzon
Roberto Duran
Joe Louis
Willie Pep
Archie Moore

Think Ali has to unmatched in what he did Not quite the longevity of Robinson - but all of his best work came after he'd severely lost his speed and reflexes - I dont think he would have lost to frazier and norton and he did that without having anything like robbos fantastic punching power relative to respective weights.

Sorry, trying to type while wearing a weight vest and between sets - almost incoherent that post.

Lamotta....That wasn't a past it Robbo though was it???

I think it's worth noting that even Ali himself, who was never one to sell himself short, rated Robinson ahead of him in a pound for pound sense, and acknowledged that Ray could do things as a fighter which he himself simply couldn't.

Ali is certainly my number one Heavyweight by a big enough margin, but I do think that putting him at number one across all weights is a little fanciful, particularly if, like me, you strip away the whole pop culture, political icon and transcending of the sport business, and concentrate purely on what they did in the ring.

As Ghosty alluded to, Gavilan is a better Welterweight than Frazier and Liston were Heavyweights, you'd think, and probably Foreman, too. Even at Middleweight, Fullmer would be comparable across the spectrum to those men.

While I have Armstrong number one based mostly on his incredible, jaw-dropping accomplishments (for me, nobody actually achieved more than him), I don't think there's quite been anyone to match Robinson's incredible all-round skill set, Ali included. The single punch knockout of Fullmer is a prime example. Robinson, mid thirties, above his best weight and facing a probable top ten Middleweight of all time who, let's not forget, had never previously been stopped - and he turned his lights out with one, single punch.

Ali top of the Heavyweight pile for me, and nailed on for a top ten spot, but not quite a contender to be the greatest of the lot pound for pound, at least in my opinion.

We are not going down this road are we Chris!!!

He rated Louis above himself too............and we all know he trashes Louis..

Means he's being a gentleman...

Like I say though have no real qualms with Robbo higher but do find it interesting how many on here thinks it "legacy hurting" Holy being trashed by garbage...

when the same fate was shared by Robbo!!

Like I say though have no real qualms with Robbo higher but do find it interesting how many on here thinks it "legacy hurting" Holy being trashed by garbage...

I'm not sure anyone sensible would say that Holyfield's recent career tarnishes what he achieved at cruiser and earlier in his heavyweight career. Anything past Lewis II probably has to be discounted! The concern is that it tarnishes how we remember him. The same goes for RJJ.

superflyweight wrote:

Like I say though have no real qualms with Robbo higher but do find it interesting how many on here thinks it "legacy hurting" Holy being trashed by garbage...

I'm not sure anyone sensible would say that Holyfield's recent career tarnishes what he achieved at cruiser and earlier in his heavyweight career. Anything past Lewis II probably has to be discounted! The concern is that it tarnishes how we remember him. The same goes for RJJ.

People are using the same thing to put down RJJ. Now many are saying he didn't have much of a chin in the first place.