My next 10 (top-20); please critique!

I appreciate your respect but I'm not much more than an Archie Moore salesman. Senya could give some reason to a high Gans/McFarland placement if he wasn't such a phallic symbol.

I see no problem in Leonard being as low as twenty. Great wins but few fights.

Up to you mate. I'm with you on Wilde.

 

It has been out there for 2.5 years. I didn't reconsider my list since then.
http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=244125#post7444355

I'm rarely posting anything nowadays, and reading maybe 1 thread out of every 10 or 15 that are started in this section (not evening visiting other sections), because: 1) I've lost much interest in boxing; 2) would rather spend my spare time for other things.

 

I'll have to abstain for the reasons I've stated. There are two books on Gans out there, not that I'm of very high opinion about either, but they are good enough for a start. And yes, I admit I'm biased to a degree, ranking him at #1, but he was one of the most perfect boxers in history (skills, ring generalship, punch, stamina, etc) and he has got a great resume.

 

Nice one for actually replying this time.

I like Gans at number one. It is just about arguable and very refreshing.

Nice to see Benny Leonard that high. I rate him fourth.

Still, the list is utter dog shite unless you title it 'my favourites.'

I thought a poster of your knowledge could at least cobble together a few names in a respectable order.

 

I'm not seeking to gain anyone's respect compiling lists like that. They are only for fun. I'm always ready to answer simple questions, like regarding particular fight or something, but anything more complex, which would require some or much time to come up with a well-reasoned answer, including exact quotes and facts - I don't have time for that, not even for fighters I think I know more about than anybody else. I don't want to lose the little interest I still have in boxing, and doing time-consuming and kinda boring things like that would reduce it even more. I'm already switching back and forth between fighters and epochs so that not to get too bored with this or that fighter, by spending too much time researching him.

 

Fair enough, Gans is too low to my taste though

 

I think perhaps you need a different sport if this one is such labour on your enjoyment.

Still, no excuses for a list like that.

 

Put up a different list and you'll find plenty of people who'll think it is awful. There's no other way.

 

Since it's half-way H2H based, I think you're wrong. You might as well be flipping coins with some of the best fighters when it comes to ranking on a H2H basis. It's our deceit and arrogance that allows us to think we can compile something so subjectively intricate as if it lent itself to the basis of some truth. Ranking fighters based on greatness (Achievements, record, etc) is fine. But any step beyond that is like ranking the greatest movies or artwork. It's musing and imaginative, but there's nothing inherent to base it on. I mean, really. To say suggest Duran is superior to Napoles P4P H2H is mere subjectivity. The very concept of P4P is kind of lame, silly, and childish. Now we're matching fighters up at arbitrarily equal weights when they're totally unique to their weight within their own physicality. It just seems like guesswork to me. And yes, I've been guilty of it as well. Probably will be of it in the future, too.

 

You're missing the fact that my opinion in itself is also subjective.

Maybe that's the way some people do it. In my head it simply equates to 'how good was he for his time/at his weight.' Never would I think about Henry Armstrong being bigger and boxing Michael Spinks.

 

argument either way. tony was considered the best in the world for a time, same as louis. louis defended and won more consistently but canzoneri beat a better group of guys p4p. i would lean towards tony myself but it depends on how highly you rate louis' reign