Boxing News: The 100 greatest boxers

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by GazOC

There are 2 or 3 other options than Robinson for #1 IMHO but I think there can be an element of some people looking too hard to find another option for the reason Rob has mentioned.

Absolutely true - but for saying it's just because someone's being a smartass is maybe a bit short-sighted. But Robinson is an excellent choice.

Originally Posted by pathmanc1986

smartass

[Legend X]

I can't understand why people think there should be such a consensus on who the greatest fighter ever is.
There have been thousands of world-class fighters, and hundreds (at least) of great ones.

There's no logical reason to believe that one or two or three guys ONLY were clearly greater than the rest.
That's the power of hype.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Legend X

I can't understand why people think there should be such a consensus on who the greatest fighter ever is.
There have been thousands of world-class fighters, and hundreds (at least) of great ones.

There's no logical reason to believe that one or two or three guys ONLY were clearly greater than the rest.
That's the power of hype.

There are a few guys, like Robinson and Duran who really stand out. That's why they tend to creep to the top of lists, but visibility and hype will always carry the day. It's why some consider Floyd to be the GOAT - because he keeps saying it and his idiotic fans keep parroting it.

Same as Kanye West saying he's a genius. He kept saying it, people started repeating it, but no one actually listened to his crappy, derivative musiic.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Legend X

I can't understand why people think there should be such a consensus on who the greatest fighter ever is.
There have been thousands of world-class fighters, and hundreds (at least) of great ones.

There's no logical reason to believe that one or two or three guys ONLY were clearly greater than the rest.
That's the power of hype.

I think if it is believed there is hundreds of Great fighters; the word Great means very little, and thus fighters are tarnished not lifted by the term.

There should be no more than 50 great fighters, and greatness should continue to evolve upwards as time goes on, as there is in theory a greater amount of talent to pick from.

I do not think two or three fighters were clearly better than everyone else. But five or six fighters do tend to be in most peoples top 20 all time best fighters. So that gives them the edge.

[Vano-Irons]

I actually think Robinson is taking the easy way out, especially if resume plays a major role in your rankings.

[HMSTempleGarden]

Originally Posted by Vano-Irons

Yeah it's out on the 26th April. It's certainly worth a read. The pictures are second to none. The writing isn't bad either I suppose

They have also asked fighters of the past and present to name their top 10 boxers of all time, and there are some interesting inclusions.

As for the list itself. Do I agree with it in its entirety? No. But most, if not all, of the right names are there. Certainly worth getting, especially if you are not overly clued up in boxers from the past

where did they have Duran?

[Vano-Irons]

I'm really not at liberty to give any of the positions away

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by TBooze

I think if it is believed there is hundreds of Great fighters; the word Great means very little, and thus fighters are tarnished not lifted by the term.

There should be no more than 50 great fighters, and greatness should continue to evolve upwards as time goes on, as there is in theory a greater amount of talent to pick from.

I do not think two or three fighters were clearly better than everyone else. But five or six fighters do tend to be in most peoples top 20 all time best fighters. So that gives them the edge.

So, a fighter who would be 50th on the greatness list, is destined to be among the "non great" fighters when someone new gets proclaimed great ?
Even if he's been GREAT for several decades ?

I don't agree with the premise that the word Great gets de-valued in that way.
It's like a GREAT pair of tits. It doesn't matter how many great pairs of tits you've seen, they were all truly great

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Legend X

So, a fighter who would be 50th on the greatness list, is destined to be among the "non great" fighters when someone new gets proclaimed great ?
Even if he's been GREAT for several decades ?

I don't agree with the premise that the word Great gets de-valued in that way.
It's like a GREAT pair of tits. It doesn't matter how many great pairs of tits you've seen, they were all truly great

But to use your analogy a great pair tits in 1950 may not be a great pair of tits in 2012; figuratively and literally!

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

There are a few guys, like Robinson and Duran who really stand out. That's why they tend to creep to the top of lists, but visibility and hype will always carry the day. It's why some consider Floyd to be the GOAT - because he keeps saying it and his idiotic fans keep parroting it.

Same as Kanye West saying he's a genius. He kept saying it, people started repeating it, but no one actually listened to his crappy, derivative musiic.

I think there's been so much written about guys like Robinson that everyone with any interest in boxers of the past cannot help but be influenced by that.
For example, I 'knew' he was the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, before I knew anything much else about him.
So, straight off, there's that prejudice.
If you attempt any list there's the pressure to call him #1, or the self-doubt about any possible motivation to 'find' an alternative.
There may be 1 or 2 'acceptable alternatives' among boxing historian crowd, but beyond that you face charges of being a crack-pot.

I'd probably prefer to read lists of favourite fighters, rather than greatest fighters.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by TBooze

But to use your analogy a great pair tits in 1950 may not be a great pair of tits in 2012; figuratively and literally!

Of course, after 62 years a great pair of tits will be well and truly washed-up.



But still, could these ever not be great ?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li...sbnoo1_500.jpg

[GazOC]

Originally Posted by Vano-Irons

I actually think Robinson is taking the easy way out, especially if resume plays a major role in your rankings.

His record is superb. Undefeated welterweight champ for how many years (in a decent era) who only started picking up the odd loss when when came out of retirement to fight middleweight champions.

If Duran is ahead of Robinson on record alone then they can stick the magazine up their arse.

[Vano-Irons]

I can comfortably say that Greb, Charles, Langford and probably Armstrong have a better resume than Robbo. Duran also has a better single win as well (Leonard). Even tho I think Robinson's resume is greater than Duran's

[Jimjom]

Originally Posted by GazOC

His record is superb. Undefeated welterweight champ for how many years (in a decent era) who only started picking up the odd loss when when came out of retirement to fight middleweight champions.

If Duran is ahead of Robinson on record alone then they can stick the magazine up their arse.

Agreed, I find it hard to put Duran at 1 personally, just can't justify it

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

If Ray Robinson is not number 1 your just trying to be different for the sake of it and look like a smart ass.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, please fuck off and stick to threads about the last ten years. If these crappy black and white fighters are so shit why are you bothered. FUCK OFF.