who is the greatest of all time? vote.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by goat15

thanks for your feedback. i thought about including duran, but i really didn't want this to just be a popularity contest, so i tried to include fighters who would not only attract votes but for whom a real case could be made for the number one slot.

duran is one of my favourite fighters to watch, and i'd have him in a top ten. but come on, how could you argue that he's the greatest of all time? what did he do that no one else did? as far as i was concerned, moore's longevity and ko record were unique achievements that i thought at least someone would vote for.

i essentially looked at my top ten, took out duran, benny leonard and ross, and put in ali and moore. now i'm thinking i maybe should have included joe louis (title defences) or benny leonard (dominated a truly great era) instead though. have no regrets about leaving out duran.

That's perfectly fine, G. After all, it's your poll. That you were astute enough to contemplate Ross speaks well for your selection process. Again, that Ali has done so well would be a revelation to many.

You are curious as to who is getting the most votes for 'Other,' and among my primary suspects would have been Gans (who Langford would have voted for), Benny Leonard, Louis, Duran, and SRL (who I don't like and would never vote for, but many might). While I'm partial to the Manassa Mauler like Burt, I suspect that Louis would have garnered by far the most votes among the heavyweights you left out.

Personally, I have the Duran of DeJesus III, Palomino and Montreal as my top pick since 1950, but he didn't have the incredible record that Moore generated after turning 35 in December 1951, and I would never select him as my GOAT. (Beyond that age milestone, only Marciano, Patterson, Rinaldi and young Clay beat Arch. He avenged Rinaldi over the championship distance for his final title win.)

[goat15]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

You are curious as to who is getting the most votes for 'Other,' and among my primary suspects would have been Gans (who Langford would have voted for), Benny Leonard, Louis, Duran, and SRL (who I don't like and would never vote for, but many might). While I'm partial to the Manassa Mauler like Burt, I suspect that Louis would have garnered by far the most votes among the heavyweights you left out.

i'm of the opinion that benny leonard fought in a toughter era than joe gans, and that leonard is the greatest lightweight of all time. good cases could be made for both, though. at this level all of these fighters are special. i agree that joe louis could have been included, and that a fair few have voted for him. i just felt that more would vote for ali as the greatest heavyweight, and so more would vote for him as the greatest pound for pound too.

in conclusion then, gans, b. leonard or louis may have been better choices than moore. ideally, there would have been fifteen poll options! that would have made this much easier. thanks again for your comments

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Way too many votes for Ali. He's beating Langford in the poll.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Fitzsimmons should not be getting votes either, no surprise on who voted for him there (I get Boilermaker but Mendoza had to vote for the white guy, and not even Greb?).

Fitzsimmons is almost as great as Langford... Defeated Dempsey and Corbett, won the middle, heavy and then lightheavy title. Held his own with serious, dangerous heavies while being a lightheavy. Pound for Pound perhaps the hardest puncher who ever lived. He is rightfully in the argument of greatest of all time.

[McGrain]

I agree that Fitz is right in the argument, no question.

Ali, I guess people just love to be blown away. A lot of people don't give a shit about resume and all that there and why would they? Lots of guys just like to be amazed, and Ali is pretty amazing.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Fitzsimmons is almost as great as Langford... Defeated Dempsey and Corbett, won the middle, heavy and then lightheavy title. Held his own with serious, dangerous heavies while being a lightheavy. Pound for Pound perhaps the hardest puncher who ever lived. He is rightfully in the argument of greatest of all time.

Longevity should also be acknowledged when considering Fitz. As hard as he hit, he won his third title at age 40 in a strange new way, by going over six rounds longer than he had ever gone before to win a 20 round decision. (Is he the oldest to ever win a title fight over that distance?) His last great win was a monster.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

Longevity should also be acknowledged when considering Fitz. As hard as he hit, he won his third title at age 40 in a strange new way, by going over six rounds longer than he had ever gone before to win a 20 round decision. (Is he the oldest to ever win a title fight over that distance?) His last great win was a monster.

Good post.

Janitor has it nailed as far as Fitz goes. The more you dig, the deeper the rabbit hole goes. I think he's right in the mix.

[Abdullah]

Sugar Ray Robinson, followed closely by Harry Greb.

[eslubin]

Fitz was the early version of Archie Moore

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgyiLLaLXcY[/ame]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Bill Butcher]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

He wasnt consistent at middleweight, that was a major problem throughout his middleweight career. It is understandable, because he was the greatest welterweight ever (probably) but not the greatest middleweight ever, although still probably one of the 10 greatest ever. Hagler had the better middleweight career adn probably would have beaten Robinson, quite possibly by stoppage.

La motta wasnt anywhere near as good as Hagler, imo, and neither were any of the fighters who beat Robinson, with the possible exception of Joey Maxim whose weight and size may have posed Hagler problems because of the unknown factor, but probably wouldnt have.

Robinson was a great fighter, but as a middleweight it is pretty clear that he wasnt the greatest ever.

Whats wrong with you ?... seriously

Wtf does consistency have to do with anything in a 1 off fight at their MW best ?

Im talking both at their best, on top form, respecting the opponent & coming in 100%.

Since we are on the subject, Robinson never showed any inconsistency until the Turpin fight, his 1 loss in over 120 odd fights came vs a MW Lamotta when Ray was a WW, Ray won the series 5-1 & stopped Lamotta in their last & most important fight for the MW title... that version of Robinson beats any version of Hagler because he was just outright better, thats what Im saying.

Please tell me Ive been clear this time ?

[Bill Butcher]

fuckoff

[Bill Butcher]

delete

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by Bill Butcher

Whats wrong with you ?... seriously

Wtf does consistency have to do with anything in a 1 off fight at their MW best ?

Im talking both at their best, on top form, respecting the opponent & coming in 100%.

Since we are on the subject, Robinson never showed any inconsistency until the Turpin fight, his 1 loss in over 120 odd fights came vs a MW Lamotta when Ray was a WW, Ray won the series 5-1 & stopped Lamotta in their last & most important fight for the MW title... that version of Robinson beats any version of Hagler because he was just outright better, thats what Im saying.

Please tell me Ive been clear this time ?

So you are saying that you are picking your greatest fighter of all time, based on what they did (or were capable of doing on their very best night?).

Okay, that is a different proposition to what I have thought, so yes this time you may have been clearer. To be clear, Buster Douglas rates much higher under this system. Jimmy Braddock, i presume, also comes right up into calculations on a pound for pound basis on your list. Still, irrelevant, but i guess we have the criteria you are talking about right.

I agree that Ray vs Hagler is a close pick them fight. I have said this, even though i think Hagler will knock him out. In fact, Hagler vs Turpin, Lamotta possibly even Servo or Levine might also be close fights where Hagler certainly isnt 100% guaranteed to win. (Same with Duran, Hearns etc by the way). Hagler has the better record at middleweight. He is the stronger fighter, has the better proven chin, is naturally bigger, while i havent checked, i assume he does better on tale of the tape and reach but coudl be wrong. In fairness, Sugar has probably an advantage in technique and in speed certainly.

As i stated with regards to inconsistency, i am talking only in the company of all time greats. Ray was not inconsistent compared to mere mortals or even lower top 10 middleweights. By inconsistent, i am also talking in delivering results also, not necessarilly performances, since (like for example Ali in fight of the century) Rays "inconsistent" performances were actually still very good performances that most fighters would not be capable of putting in.

My problem with Ray is not that he wasnt great, because he clearly was. It is just that he wasnt as outstandingly great compared to other great fighters as many people think. Strangely enough, i think that a lot (though definitely not all) of this has to do with the media and his promotion in it as the greatest of all time. His wonderful welterweight record (which again doesnt suggest that he outclasses every other welter that ever lived, though he very well might) helps his middleweight record immensely when it perhaps should not . As a middleweight, he was the best fighter of his time but he was nowhere near as dominant compared to say Monzon, Greb, Fitzsimmons or Hagler in each's own time. If you want to say he is greater than these then you have to rely on your own vision, favourtism and instincts and invent critera such as i think he would beat these guys on his best night.

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Janitor has it nailed as far as Fitz goes. The more you dig, the deeper the rabbit hole goes. I think he's right in the mix.

Janitor is 100% right. It isnt that long ago, that i doubt i would have even considered putting Fitz in the top 10, and i now drive everyone mad about his greatness. And i dont know anybody at all, who has started to dig a bit deeper on him who hasnt had to stop and admit that there ranking of him has to improve considerably.

While jumping into the rabbit hole, here is something that most people (not necessarilly you) will not have realised, but it is right in front of you. Under modern rules, Fitz did more damage to Jeffries than Lennox Lewis did to Vitali Klitchsko. Therefore, under modern rules, he almost certainly has two wins over the giant sized Jim Jeffries, as a light heavyweight. Wins which would probably go down as the greatest light heavyweight and possibly pound for pound win ever. His resume doesnt stand on it, of course, but those 2 performances is probably as impressive a performance from anyone who is old and past prime, as has ever been fought.

[goat15]

according to the votes, the following have the best claim to being number one:

1. robinson
2. greb
3. ali
4. langford
5. armstrong
6. fitzsimmons
6. pep
8. charles

twenty votes for others.

ali seems to be the main 'surprise'. it would be good if some of the thirteen who voted for him could present their cases for ali being the pound for pound greatest.

[lufcrazy]

Robinson. What he achieved in terms of polished skill set, resume, titles and recognition was just amazing.