With respect to your discourse; I was responding to the list that was being discussed on this forum; this list is so fouled up; I wouldn't want to offend others by providing my "own" list. I just pointed out small examples of other legends who in any era would dominate, irregardless, of weight class.
Actually it's a very good list. The few names you threw out expose a certain.........oh, let's call it lack of scope but no, by all means; offend away. Let's see the list.
Let me ask you a question; why are you so "attached" to this list being discussed on the forum? For brevity sake, I don't have the time and patience to draft my own list, nor do I feel the need to do it, so you can criticize with no actual theoretical basis behind it. "Lack of scope" shows you know very little about my vast array of sports history and knowledge with many given sports; especially boxing....Have a terrific day.
I'm not particularly interested in the list, at least right now. I just like to call bullsh/tters on their crap is all. You fly in here completely unknown and trash a very well thought out and researched piece, and expose your own lack of knowledge in so doing. No one minds someone perhaps knowing a little less than others, and needing to learn. That's why we're here I guess. But the combination of lack of knowledge and conceit and high-mindedness is something no one wants to see. That answer your question, Slim?
I agree with all of your observations, that are fundamentally sound in all respects; but I do believe at different points in his career, based on weight class, Floyd would have lost to Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, a trim and fit Roberto Duran, Aaron Pryor, and Alexis Arguello; to name a few who dominated multiple weight classes....
I'd find room for Benny Lynch and Joey Archer in that top 100. Outside of Jimmy Wilde, Lynch could beat any other flyweight. Archer with his silky skills could have given quite a few in that top 100 a boxing lesson
I have a problem with this. It's not useful to lump together the entire lineage of a sport then determine the best of all time, other than for shits or giggles. This ignores the evolution (or devolution in some cases) of a sport over time. As sports grow and develop they change, rules are refined, standards are generally improved, goalposts are changed. If the sport becomes more popular then the overal level of competition increases, which in itself usually raises the bar. For example, there's just no way to say with any real conviction that Bob Fitzsimmons or Sam Langford are 'likely the two biggest punchers ever.' It's just an opinion and I could counter by saying that Jackson or Hearns are bigger punchers P4P. Who is right? They fought in different eras with different rulesets and mentalities. I think it's better to say that all 4 are among the hardest punchers P4P of all time. It's like in football - can you really say who was better between Pele, Maradona or Messi? I can't and I would argue that no-one really can. it's all just opinions at the end of the day.
Was just perusing through McGrain's top 100 heavyweights, broken down into 10 chapters. Good stuff McGrain.
For me today's heavyweights would be to big and dangerous for the likes of Marxian and co, but what do I know just a thought
I love reading this thread from time to time and go over how it got to this point. In recently doing so again, I was just curious on the discussions and reasoning behind Hagler and Monzon being listed where they are, for example, say above Holyfield? I thought p4p implied, no matter the size, this man could get the job done. All the fighters in the top ten, and many more throughout the listed, showed those very qualities. Hagler and Monzon, basically fought in the same division their entire career, and never moved up in weight to see if this p4p theory is true. What's more, if there were fighters who moved down in weight to challenge them, we'd at least have that, even though it was still fought at their same weight. Instead, we see nothing like that with either, but instead, it was fighters moving up not down, and were generally smaller than Hagler and Monzon. So I was just curious what the extrapolation was here that got us to having them ranked higher than some who actually did meet guys across various weights, and often times being the smaller guy?
