My Top 100

I think there's some guys, like Tommy Burns, who's success at higher weights is beyond their ability at their natural weight, and it makes them pretty tricky to rank, especially for someone like me who tends to give a lot of credit for going up weight. But being dangerous or having success at multiple weights, isn't really the same as dominating multiple weights.

For me Hearns's better competition sets him above Ward, but I can see a case for not putting too much stock into assessments about the qualities of divisions/eras, because it really does open you to bias.

I think if you put more stock in dominating the competition you faced, rather than judging the competition, and put more into dominating your own weight than having success at higher weights, there's a case for Ward. Though I don't know if anyone actually believes that.

 

/
What. Jake LaMotta 95.

 

Did you state his death age? I bet the middleweight contenders of the 40s wish he hadn't been around.

 

packey mcfarland? what are you, 100 years old?

 

Mike Tyson 100!

 

I feel Ward was better than Foster P4P.

 

Hearns was better than Foster and Manny P4P.

 

frankly awful. overrating guys from the past will never not be corny

 

I'll take this seriously when you tell me who from the modern era beat better people than Benny Leonard

 

Yes, how could going 100 fights unbeaten against many of the best fighters his weight and above be impressive? It happened in black and white FFS.

 

Strangest inclusion, imo, is Nonpareil Dempsey. And at #25??

 

Why? He beat a load of top fighters bigger than himself.

 

Yes... and I'm sure you can post loads of 130-year-old articles, describing him like he was the 8th Wonder of the World!

 

you blew it man. yours is strictly an old timers list with a few well known moderns thrown in.

 

Mike Tyson squeezed in perfectly at 100. must be that name recognition