You base it off accomplishments AND skill. To judge skill accurately you have to watch them and make up your own opinion not take someone elses opinion.
No. If that were the case I would have Mayweather in my top 10, and that's not reasonable. I keep skills and resumes seperate lists.
Are you a COMPLETE idiot? Does resume mean NOTHING to you? If someone had beaten prime Ali and prime Frazier, but there was no film of him, wouldn't you still think he was a world beater? The level of stupidity of some ESB posters is beyond redardation.atsch
First - thanks for sharing, but I think we have a misunderstanding of the phrase "First hand personal experience" which could be my fault. First hand experience - like you said, your own. Now you seem a knowledgabe fan and you have what I consider to be a good and defendable list. You took time to research and evaluate it, it isn't random and contains a mix of ancient and modern fighters, it seems fair minded to me. But you do know we have no film of a prime Langford don't you. Certainly his high ranking isn't based on your interperation of 1920's vintage film which is Charlie Chaplin like... I seriously doubt you SAW Sam with your own eyes. Even I'm not that old. IF you didn't see Sam first hand how did you even know to "look" for him on film? Were you influenced by what "others" thought or said? Did they program you to have certain expecctations? Do you see why this line of argument has no appeal to me, what if you found a fighter that there was no film of who won a series with a near prime langford? Do you dismiss out of hand this fighter or do you begin to look at his record to see if there are other great fighters he fought. Are any of them on film? How do you evaluate their skills, can you envision what it would take to beat them? Could a taxi driver do it or would it take world class skills and speed and stamana? Do you research to see how the boxing experts of his day evaluated him? You can't get away from being inluenced by others thoughts and opinions or your list is extremly limited to just what you saw. It is your own opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. My opinion is that you are selling your own analytical abilities and several great fighters short buy setting the impossible goal of "viewing" them to be considered in your list. Thanks for the discussion and for the list!
Charles, definitely! I have the same kind of issue with Hearns though, being as he's one of the greatest fighters I've ever seen. His physical dimensions at 147/154 are wholly unique, and the boxing ability he blends with neck snapping power is on the highest level. Not too many I'd pick to beat him at either weight.
Very interesting series written by Springs Toledo (Stonehands89) with a chapter on each: 01. Harry Greb 02. Ray Robinson 03. Henry Armstrong 04. Ezzard Charles 05. Roberto Duran 06. Archie Moore 07. Mickey Walker 08. Benny Leonard 09. Willie Pep 10. Charley Burley http://www.606v2.com/t15470-the-gods-of-war