I know traditionally people rank on resume and achievements and I don't wanna get into a debate about types of ranking. What I'm interested in is the following proposition: Given these 3 criteria, what would your rankings look like - how good the fighter looks in their filmed performances, how good the opponent was, any +/- due to size advantage/disadvantage. Atm I have it something like Robinson Whittaker Jones Armstrong Duran R Leonard Napoles B Leonard Kalambay Mayweather Lopez Jofre Pep Ali Louis Gomez Hagler Monzon Harada Chang M Johnson Charles Chavez Locche Hearns Interested in seeing other lists :good
would you say the Baer fight or the schmelling fight? But yeah I'm tempted to drop pep and replace him with Louis.
I am interested, What do you think is Robinson and Armstrong's very best filmed performance under the above three criteria? I am not so sure they make it so high with these criteria, great as Robinson in particular looks on film. It is also interesting how highly Ali and Jones rank solely on film, given that fundamentally they are not that perfect. I suppose speed is the one thing that doesnt lie with those two guys. I am not sure who would be on my list, but Joe Louis would have to be close to making any list. As a roughie, from memory Delahoya has always looked good to me on the above three criteria. And Tyson's KO ability in particular is something which really stands out on film from what i notice. Not so sure that his level of opponent necessarily stacks up on a pound for pound level. I think this is an excellent question.
On first instinct, I would have Duran higher. Charles should also be on there. Pep is very much deserving of a place.
Robinson stopping la motta. Armstrong stopping Ross. Jones beating Toney Whittaker beating Nelson Ali beating Foreman. Heavyweights can do very well in this criteria with the destructive force of their victories. Yeah tbh mate since joining this forum (classic not esb) about 3 years ago I've done nothing but study boxers in terms of records, achievements and all the usual atg stuff to the point where I have a very detailed database of about 400 different boxers. I'm near completed that now aside from a few old timers in the hof. It is much more fun to watch a fighter and discuss his merits in comparison with others.
His outings against Reynolds and Satterfield stood out as particularly destructive. I'm partial to the Walcott films, myself, for most skills displayed. The second fight with Marshall is also a spectacular jumping-off point on the subject of Charles. It gets tricky with Pep. I guess by the criteria you laid out, one can only go by the bouts with Famechon and Saddler.
I'm stuck between Marshall and Walcott 2 for Charles. Looks excellent in both. Although I'm sure he suffered a flash knockdown against Marshall. Yes that is my problem with Pep. Famechon is probably the best victory we have film of but famechon wasn't as good as some others. So pep gets points for looking damn near pefect but loses points for quality of opposition.
Tyson - Spinks Liston - Patterson Foreman - Frazier All excellent performances. I'm not sure I'd argue with anyone saying they're amongst the 3 greatest offensive fighters in filmed history.
Ezz-Marshall 2. Robinson looks much better at welter. Pep-Ralph Walton worth a look - pre-plane crash prime Pep.