Top 10 PFP ever?

I'm doing a top 15 because why not ?
1. Harry Greb
2. Sam Langford
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Bob Fitzsimmons
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Joe Gans
10. Mickey Walker
11. Willie Pep
12. Muhammad Ali
13. Archie Moore
14. Joe Louis
15. Either Barney Ross or Sugar Ray Leonard

 

A very.....very tough one to call. My top 3 are -

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Hank Armstrong


Will have to seriously think about the rest.

 

I like this list - without sidetracking the thread, can I ask why Ali above Duran and Fitz, Robbi no. 4, Langford no. 2 above Hammerin' Hank?

 

I'm sure debating these kinds of things is what the thread is about, I wouldn't be so worried. Maybe Keed can chime in and let us know.

I find Ali's résumé more impressive than I do Bob's, even taking into account the size differences Fitzsimmons was overcoming. I just think Ali's generational wins over Frazier/Foreman/Liston, etc; are really, really impressive. Being the greatest heavyweight ever doesn't hurt either. And as for my rationale for Ali > Duran can be found in a thread I made about it awhile ago. Here: Who's Greater: Roberto Duran or Muhammad Ali?

I'll say that I'm not willing to die on any hill regarding the order of the top five; just that those are the names that belong there. You can really have them in any order - like I say - but I go with Langford at number two due to his weight jumping and the quality of opponents he beat. Someome who can draw with Walcott, and beat Gans, O'Brien, Flowers, Norfolk, Holly, Ketchel, etc; at middle/light-heavy and below, then go up and become one of the greatest heavyweight contenders ever, beating a whole host of top fighters who were also denied a chance for gold while naturally smaller than them. I also have never really cared for a pretty record, like most others do. And even so, he wasn't as inconsistent at his peak as most make out - although that's not to say he wasn't inconsistent at all, he definitely was.

I can see why you'd put Robinson over him. Being the GOAT welterweight and a top five middleweight, while having great wins all of the place and having an amazing record in his prime. I can also see why Armstrong's short-lived dominion at featherweight - over some truly great fighters - before going up and dominating the welterweight division while basically being little more than a lightweight, and having beaten loads of great fighters and simultaneous championship in three divisions would lead you to put him above Langford. BiButhese guys are like 2a/2b/2c. They're more or less equal, I just find Langford's weight jumping more impressive than I do Armstrong's, or Robinson's.

 

Very well put - very well put.

Ali is my favourite fighter but I do rate Duran above him 8/10 times. At the same time, Ali never had "No Mas" and neither did he have the Hearns poleaxing.

I do place a lot of importance in being successful jumping up through the weights genuinely and not the manufactured style that we have seen over the last 15 years or so. I like Langford and his wins are top notch, unfortunately for him, and also Fitz, the little film we have of him make it hard for me to rate him above my favourites, such as SRR, Ezzard, Hammerin' Hank - I'm going to be hypocritical in that Greb's position within top 3 is stronger for me than Langford's despite my earlier assertion about lack of comparative video. His record is just - wow!

All things considered, I do like your list and with your explanations - I don't feel compelled to disagree.

 

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Sam Langford
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Eder Jofre
9. Willie Pep
10. Joe Gans

Honorable mention/on the cusp: Mickey Walker, Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Packey Macfarland, Charles Burley, Sugar Ray Leonard, Jimmy McLarnin, Terry McGovern, Ike Williams, Jimmy Wilde

 

Here is my top 15 along with the criteria they are ranked on... since we are talking p4p, I give a lot of credit for being the GOAT of one’s weight class.

1. Armstrong (resume, eye test, achievements, top 5 ATG in multiple divisions)
2. Robinson (resume, eye test, achievements, GOAT at 147)
3. Ali (resume, eye test, achievements, legendary Ws, GOAT at heavy)
4. Greb (resume, legendary Ws, GOAT at 160)
5. Pep (resume, eye test, achievements, GOAT at 126)
6. Langford (resume, achievements, some legendary Ws, possibly GOAT at LHW)
7. Charles (resume, achievements, possibly GOAT at LHW)
8. Louis (resume, eye test, achievements)
9. Leonard (resume, eye test, achievements, some legendary Ws, possibly GOAT at 135)
10. Duran (resume, eye test, legendary W, possibly GOAT at 135)
11. Wilde (resume, GOAT at 112)
12. Fitzsimmons (legendary Ws, achievements)
13. Joffre (resume, achievements, possibly GOAT at 118)
14. SRL (resume, possibly best eye test boxer I’ve seen outside prime Ali, legendary Ws)
15. Pacquaio (resume, eye test, possibly greatest achievements in boxing outside of Armstrong, some legendary Ws)

 

Seeing multiple mentions of Jofre is quite shocking to me. What did he do to separate himself from Ortiz or Olivares quite so much? His best wins are Medel and Legra - both excellent fighters, but good enough for top ten? Really? All four members of the fab four should be above him, for a start IMO. So should at least three other bantamweight champs, Harada, McGovern and Olivares.

 

His impeccable comeback where he went 25-0 after 3.5 years off and won the title at a higher weight class against an exceptional champion is what separates him.

 

A pretty number and two wins of note don't do it for me. Olivares' record at feather might be spottier, but it's better. Even if it's not, Jofre shouldn't be anywhere near these lists if people like Hagler and Hearns aren't getting on them.

 

I don’t rate him that high, but he’s certainly better than Olivares. Completely disregarding losses just does not jive with me.

 

His longevity, consistency, and dominance in an era where that was uncommon is big. As is his actual overall talent level. He was universally acclaimed as the best pound for pound boxer in the world at his peak, and people who saw him up close like Barney Ross, and Willie Pep were in awe of him and ranked him favorably against the all-time greats. May Fleiacher who never gave credit to current guys went further back that Ortiz’s days to find a bantam who he thought was as good. These are significant opinions.

If Harada is ahead of Jofre overall career-wise ( no doubt due to h2h on your list) then does Rafael Herrera > Olivares? He beat a younger Olivares (than Harada-Jofre) in MUCH more dominant fashion. Does the fact that Olivares was getting KO’d and losing in his 20’s compared to Jofre going up to 40 without losing not factor? Jofre was the true lineal champ at feather, Olivares wasn’t for example. Does Rose > Harada? I think you open a can of worms when ranking like that.

Medel was good enough to KO Harada peak, and Jofre beat Medel at his absolute peak in dominant fashion in two huge fights and Medel’s big fight record was great (Mexican bantam champ for 8 years, won North American title), I think just because Caraballo, Caldwell for example didn’t go onto become legends doesn’t detract from those wins. Context is very important. Caldwell had defeated Halimi twice, Caraballo ran up a great record and has excellent scalps.

Jofre’s only two losses in 78-fights across 20 years were razor thin decision losses in Japan to an all-time great in his prime and that was after he had his pound for pound #1 run of 50 fights and then after those losses came a 25-0 run to the age of 40 where he became the lineal and #1 at feather. Very impressive.

 

Having someone with like four good wins doesn't sit right with me. Olivares' resume is leagues above Jofre's. And let's not forget that Olivares went like 65-0-1 in his prime. It's not like he was losing much either.

 

I’m looking at your top 25 ...and no I can’t squeeze him in either lol

 

It’s not just four good wins and you know that. Or you should know that.