606v2 10 Greatest fighters of all time

First topic message reminder :

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

I'm not sure how anyone can say that, Az.

There's probably no way of knowing how good RJJ's chin was as he was seldom hit flush but given how hard he was to hit, it wasn't critical to his ability and is therefore moot.

Agreed with your point. But many of his detractors here use that as an excuse, forgetting that many boxers lose their punch resistance as they get older.

I was surprised to see Bob Mee, who is a boxing historian placing Moore at number 2 overall. Whatever way I cut it I just cant see how he can place above Charles, nevermind make it to number 2 overall. Perhaps its his longetitvity that is appealing but I think he was a tad fortunate in his later years to have a weaker light heavyweight division that Patterson decided to bypass as Patterson would have called time on Moore had he stayed at light heavyweight.

Find it hard to get a handle on Wildes acheivements in context as the flyweight division wasnt really established in the U.S while he was fighting. He unequivocally proved himself the best at his weight domestically but beyond that its difficult to evaluate. I dont rate his acheivements as high as many others. Not a top ten man for me.

Its also pretty hard to get a handle on many of the prominant no decision era fighters due to the nature of the no decision ruling. The rules seemed to have the effect of taking alot of the itensity out of bouts at times and winning the bouts seemed secondary to remaining injury free and avoiding being knocked out for alot of fighters.

Manos bought Boxing News top 100 boxers book the other day and they similarly have Moore above Charles, as indeed do the IBRO I think i am right in saying. Obviously these things are never quite as simple as this but as Chris as rightly said tough to have a guy above someone who he went 3-0 against, add in Charles superior acheivements at heavy and becomes even harder to understand.

rowley wrote:Manos bought Boxing News top 100 boxers book the other day and they similarly have Moore above Charles, as indeed do the IBRO I think i am right in saying. Obviously these things are never quite as simple as this but as Chris as rightly said tough to have a guy above someone who he went 3-0 against, add in Charles superior acheivements at heavy and becomes even harder to understand.

Ive always felt part of the reason is that Moore won a light heavyweight title and Charles didnt and in part because Charles is remembered a bit more for his less impressive stuff at heavyweight rather than his outstanding lightheavyweight record simply because thats where he held the title.

Another reason maybe is Moore was much more of a character, more outspoken and well known compared to the quieter Charles.

But based on the records, head to heads and round robin its almost impossible to argue against Charles being the best of that light heavyweight/middleweight kind of bracket and stepping up to win the heavyweight title is more impressive I think than Moore kind out outlasting the competition to win his light heavyweight title.

Can never get my around how Moore features higher!

alma wrote:Ah well, at least Naseem Hamed didn't make the top 100......

Have still not recovered from Fitzsimmons not making the top fifty! Heart attack time for me that one.

Dont pull your punches Truss mate ! Obviously the P4P is subjective and we all have our opinions, but I dont care if Langford never held any belts, you're clued up enough to realise why, he beat the men regardless of this. If you haven't read it yet CMoyle book is fantastic as Jeff alluded (havent read Miske one Jeff, have you ? Price was putting me off a bit)
Sam is no 1 choice He was indeed 5' 6.5'', but that was essentially the only flaw he had as a fighter.

He could out box the best boxers and out punch the best punchers on their own terms.

He could glide round the ring on his toes and switch styles in an instant.

He had superb ring inteligence and was a master strategist.

He was such an effective finisher, that people could not find anything to compare him to, until Joe Louis came allong.

Now I regard head to head match ups between eras as being totaly conjectural, but if you matched Langford against the weaker champions of the 30s and 50s, I would very much expect that he was going to beat them.

I'm not knocking Ali as no 1 but he never beat an allround fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard as Duran did, and I dont get why you're picking him on H2H basis it defeats the P4P debate. Always liked to listening to your opinions though Truss mate so get your top 10 across, beefster and Ali can clock up maximum PTS.

Manos be interested to see yours mate if you get a chance, great to see old 606 sparring partners Jeff, Super, Sean, Chris and others all debating thanks for your input and all top 10's would be welcome. (except any with Richie Woodhall in them)

Cheers

All the best
Rodders

Rodders have read the Miske book, if I am being brutally honest I prefered the Langford book but that is only because it is one of my favourite books on boxing ever, however the Miske is as good as you would expect. Apparently he has a book on Tony Zale in the pipeline as well, do love the fact he picks pretty obscure subjects rather than churning out the usual Ali guff

Cheers Jeff mate, I thought you might have read it, I'll see if I can pick up a copy somewhere along the line, really enjoyed the Langford book one of the best I'd read in a while. Didnt know anything about the Zale book in the offering, that would be fantastic dont really know a great depth about him so that would be interesting, loved his with grudge matchups with Graziano though, cheers.

All the best

Rodders

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Tunney
7. Ali
8. Duran
9. Jofre
10. B. Leonard

Rodney wrote:Dont pull your punches Truss mate ! Obviously the P4P is subjective and we all have our opinions, but I dont care if Langford never held any belts, you're clued up enough to realise why, he beat the men regardless of this. If you haven't read it yet CMoyle book is fantastic as Jeff alluded (havent read Miske one Jeff, have you ? Price was putting me off a bit)
Sam is no 1 choice He was indeed 5' 6.5'', but that was essentially the only flaw he had as a fighter.

He could out box the best boxers and out punch the best punchers on their own terms.

He could glide round the ring on his toes and switch styles in an instant.

He had superb ring inteligence and was a master strategist.

He was such an effective finisher, that people could not find anything to compare him to, until Joe Louis came allong.

Now I regard head to head match ups between eras as being totaly conjectural, but if you matched Langford against the weaker champions of the 30s and 50s, I would very much expect that he was going to beat them.

I'm not knocking Ali as no 1 but he never beat an allround fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard as Duran did, and I dont get why you're picking him on H2H basis it defeats the P4P debate. Always liked to listening to your opinions though Truss mate so get your top 10 across, beefster and Ali can clock up maximum PTS.

Manos be interested to see yours mate if you get a chance, great to see old 606 sparring partners Jeff, Super, Sean, Chris and others all debating thanks for your input and all top 10's would be welcome. (except any with Richie Woodhall in them)

Cheers

All the best
Rodders

At the moment Id go:

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Charles
4. Greb
5. Ali
6. Louis
7. Duran
8. Ray Leonard
9. Langford
10.Tunney

Ghosty, Manos nice one lads

Cheers

Rodders

I don't need a career resume Mate..

I just put greater emphasis on people winning at the highest level....

if you've never held the ultimate prize..how can you be the best ever????

as it's a different kind of pressure..

Top 10 though you may have a point...

Put another way...I'm sure in his back garden or in smaller tournaments Murray could beat Federer, Djokovic etc ...

Can't do it when it matters though huh!!!

That to me is why a guy who's never felt the ultimate pressure can be number 1....

Fairplay though........

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Bob Fitzsimmons
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Sam Langford
8. Willie Pep
9. Gene Tunney
10. Archie Moore

Reminder for top 10 picks for those who haven't yet.

Have your say

Cheers

Rodders

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

Changes all the time - top 7 stay pretty much the same - lot of it depends on people's accounts on the fighters -

I'm always amazed at how low down Tunney ends up on these lists, the second greatest light heavyweight of all time in my opinion who stepped up to beat a great heavyweight for the title.

Has quality wins all over the place- Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier, Gibbons, Smith, Delaney, Levinsky as well as good wins over the likes of Heeney, Weinert and Risko, how some leave him out all together is a mystery.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Jack Johnson
9. Gene Tunney
10. Sugar Ray Leonard

Man that isn't easy. I was thinking about doing a top 100 a couple of weeks ago but I think it would drive me mental.

Why are people putting Ali so low down their list. Personally its ridiculous to have someone like Pep and Greb above him.

Ali was fighting live opponents and not local carpenters who fancied a brawl to make ends meet.

Don't you start on Willie Pep again

Given Greb's resume, Az, that's a particularly stupid argument!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm always amazed at how low down Tunney ends up on these lists, the second greatest light heavyweight of all time in my opinion who stepped up to beat a great heavyweight for the title.

Has quality wins all over the place- Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier, Gibbons, Smith, Delaney, Levinsky as well as good wins over the likes of Heeney, Weinert and Risko, how some leave him out all together is a mystery.

Gene wouldn't miss out on my top ten by much, I wouldn't think. Perhaps something like twelfth, and I wouldn't really object to anyone such as yourself having him in there.

He's not, however, what I'd call an automatic name to be considered for a top ten spot. Not a slight against him, as his record speaks for itself. Rather, I think it just goes to show how many deserving names there are who could be considered. Take the top three all-time from each of the original divisions and, very quickly, you've already got twenty-four names in double quick time! And then you've got to take in to account the men who, while perhaps not always featuring in those top threes, managed to prosper for considerable lengths of time across more than one of those aforementioned weight classes, as well as the ones in between.

I'd say that there are perhaps more than ten who'd go ahead of him based purely on their wins, but Gene's technical virtuosity and consistency really bolster his claim. Still can't work out if I'd have him at two, three or four in the 175 lb stakes - will have to hear your argument for number two at some stage!

Gene is my boxing hero but I've never managed to find a place for him in my top 10. I'd argue all day for him to be in the top 15 though. Glad to see him feature in some top tens and wish I could do the same.

Similarly, never been able to place him ahead of Charles and Moore at light heavy and often have him just behind Spinks. Like Chris, I'd love to see the argument for putting him at 2.

Tough job sorting the Light-Heavies, isn't it Superfly? Charles has top spot sewn up, and I think (as just about everyone else does) that it can't really be anyone else other than Gene, Moore, Spinks and Foster completing the five. I tend to have Foster at the bottom of that mini group; you could make a case for him being top three in terms of sheer dominance once he got to the highest level, or on how he'd do in hypothetical head to head match ups, but in general his opposition was a level or so below what the others had to face, so fifth seems fair for him.

I'd say Moore, Tunney and Spinks are all more or less interchangeable. I used to have Tunney at # 2, but recently I've been edging ol' Archie ahead of him by a nose. Tunney and Spinks are mightily close, both at 175 lb and pound for pound, I reckon.

Can't disagree with any of that, Chris. Charles and Moore are almost locked in at one and two for me - certainly can't look past Charles as top man in the division. Then it really is a toss up between Spinks and Tunney for third spot. Spinks' utter domination of the division is what usually tips the balance ever so slightly in his favour but the better names on Tunney's record (two fellow top 10 light heavys in Loughran and Greb) make it mighty close. I could change my mind on any given day. Foster completes my top 5 but is a little further back.

If we were going on head to head match ups, I'd take Charles by a whisker from Tunney with Spinks third and Moore in fourth.

Ok here goes.

Ezzard Charles is beyond any doubt the number one at the weight, widely considered to be the best fighter during the divisions toughest era, he fought and beat them all, his 3-0 series win over the great Archie Moore cements his place.

Beyond that you have Moore, Tunney, Spinks and Foster, for me the latter two had good dominance of their divisions albeit not star studded which has them in at 4 and 5.

The big question is then which order do you place Moore and Tunney, you have the longevity and sometime patchy form of Moore compared to non champion dominance of good opponents by Tunney. What shades it for me is Tunneys sheer consistency against the best opponents out there.

If we look at the IBRO's top 20 for instance it gives an indication to their form against the very best, Tunney beat Greb, Carpentier, Levinsky and Gibbons while drawing to Loughran, you're looking at a fighter who consistently fought and beat the best ending up with a singular loss. Moore on the other hand fought Charles, Bivins and Johnson with fairly mixed results, he has the greater resume of wins overall but also has a fair few losses.

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

Duran and Louis both above Floyd and top 10 last year. Consistency isn't your strong point.

More sincerity in kim jong un.

That's the problem with these lists Rodders. People write them based in the agenda they have at the time. Mayweather has been placed as high as 3 in some lists which is obviously rubbish, but it done to make a point.

SRL on top. My view changed on the rest. I wouldn't rate Johnson other than for historical reasons.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:That's the problem with these lists Rodders. People write them based in the agenda they have at the time. Mayweather has been placed as high as 3 in some lists which is obviously rubbish, but it done to make a point.

I agree Jack mate, Mayweather at the moment is flavour of the month, when Tyson was at his pomp I remember family, friends and media posing the question is he the greatest heavy of all time ? People get carried away in the moment.

Cheers Rodders

Define greatest.

If you compare the runts lists from 2012 and today's list, it's clear that the topics for discussion at the time sway people.

He's consistently had SRL at the top. However in the 18 or so months since the last one Floyd has moved from 10 to 3... Really? Jones Jnr from 9 to 4 and both have displaced SRR who moves from second down to fifth. Armstrong and Charles also both move out of the top 5.

One further point to mention is that Louis is above Floyd in the 2012 list, sitting in 6th. This is the same Louis who Az has been blasting for the last couple of days.

Some may say he does it to provoke a reaction.

Mods watch this guy's output.

Wrong account Truss.

I'm happy for you to believe Az is me.......

But don't keep going on about it..

Well done LJ. Well and truly rumbled. Did you figure it all out by yourself or you got a gerbil to help you.

My list has stayed the same for a fair time, it's to be expected that the more you read watch someone your views change slightly.

Well done LJ. Well and truly rumbled. Did you figure it all out by yourself or you got a gerbil to help you.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:My list has stayed the same for a fair time, it's to be expected that the more you read watch someone your views change slightly.

Absolutely..............Especially the heavy list...............Sometimes Holy is top 10..........sometimes he isn't...........

Johnson is another one I probably rate too high........

Can't see how anyone can have him in a p4per though.

azania wrote:Well done LJ. Well and truly rumbled. Did you figure it all out by yourself or you got a gerbil to help you.

A gerbil? Is that your level.

How about you explain why you have wildy changed your view on you p4p list.

My heavy list is all over the place once you get past Ali and Louis, the best of the rest can place anywhere between 3 and 12.

Holmes is a strange one too Hammer....... I love Larry he was like a family constant growing up.........All the way from 8 -16 my real formative years he was ever present.....

But his opposition was somewhat lacking and he avoided Page and probably Pinklon......

Yet he's still top 5........

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:Well done LJ. Well and truly rumbled. Did you figure it all out by yourself or you got a gerbil to help you.

A gerbil? Is that your level.

How about you explain why you have wildy changed your view on you p4p list.

I doubt you will understand. But I have explained it already.

For me Truss once you get past the big two there are problems or arguments can be made against any heavy. As you have said Holmes did avoid a couple of three guys and had his problems with guys he probably should not have done. However you have to throw the avoiding accusation at Johnson, Dempsey’s opposition is not all that, Lewis got sparked twice by pretty poor guys and so on and so forth. Like others have said when it comes to the heavies I can make an argument for about five guys occupying the third spot.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:Well done LJ. Well and truly rumbled. Did you figure it all out by yourself or you got a gerbil to help you.

A gerbil? Is that your level.

How about you explain why you have wildy changed your view on you p4p list.

I doubt you will understand.  But I have explained it already.

Of course you have.

After the SRL green comment you should be forever ignored. Your opinion is a waste of cyber space.

Please ignore me.

Well done LJ. Well and truly rumbled. Did you figure it all out by yourself or you got a gerbil to help you.

Rodney wrote:

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

Duran and Louis both above Floyd and top 10 last year. Consistency isn't your strong point.

More sincerity in kim jong un.

I used to stick up for you Az..............

But this is banged to rights.

My top 3 are in my top 5. My 9 and 10 are also in my top 5. After much reflection and especially how I work out who the best is, that is my list. I employ the Bert Sugar method.

Charles and Armstrong would be in my top 10 regardless. Jack Johnson woulodn't anymore. I put him there more for historical impact as opposed to achievement as a boxer.

As for Louis, again for achievement, longevity. But on inspection, his record doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The type of scrutiny boxers nowadays have to go through.