Can anyone past 1990 be reasonably put in top 5-10 AT p4p lists?

When you have to resort to "remember when Mayweather got rocked that time" or "remember when Judah was leading on the cards before he lost" ...

And in the next breath say forget whole decades in Duran's career when he got knocked unconscious, quit against journeymen, lost to no-names, totally embarrassed himself by entering the ring a bloated drunkard .. the argument is lost.

 

Well, you could start by dropping the guys who weren't even considered the best of their era at the time they were fighting ... like Langford, Greb and Duran ... from your top five.

I have no idea why you have a guy who was never considered the best in the world when he was competing and who also lost and drew 68 times in your #2 spot.

If he wasn't considered the best 100 years ago, I'm sure there were a couple guys in the 100 years since who you could put in there.

 

Henry Armstrong is almost inarguably the greatest ever for me.

 

If you have no idea why Sam belongs in there, it's probably beyond me to explain it for you.

First, you put too much emphasis on how a fighter is viewed during his own era. It is often the case that a fighter's overall standing improves with a bit of historical perspective. This is true not just of boxing but all other sports as well. It is also true in other arenas as well.

I don't have time to list all of Langford's accomplishments. The information is there if you want to dig it out.

He had notable victories over ATG opponents from Lightweight to Heavyweight.

The stats you quote have to be viewed in the context of him having had between three and four hundred bouts. He fought in an era when boxers (including Langford) often boxed several times a month.

How do you imagine Floyd's resume ( or Loma's or Leonard's) would look if they had several hundred bouts, often fighting on consecutive weeks, and from lightweight up to heavyweight.

Can you imagine serious discussion taking place as to how Loma might fare against Usyk ?

Not too long ago, there was a thread on here discussing a hypothetical Langford-Marciano bout.

Personally, I would favour Marciano in such a bout, but the very fact that it was considered a serious question of discussion by some of the more knowledgeable posters here is remarkable.

At this point, I would not put any of the four I mentioned ( Floyd, Pac, Pea and Roy) in the top ten. (I have Roy at 11 ).
What I said was, those were the four you could make a case for putting including.

And I certainly would not elevate any of them above Langford.

 

Yes, it's had many names over the years but today it's known as the "Hipster Factor."

People go back and try to rewrite history with bits of facts here, a few word of mouth storries there, and morsels of footage. People have done it throughout history, regardless of the field.

Sam Langford was never considered the best fighter in the game when he was actually fighting.

And 100 years after his last fight ... you have him as the #2 best fighter EVER ... ignoring the people who watched him at that time and 100 years of boxers who came after.

Sam Langford fought 250 times. How many of those fights have you seen in their entirety? How many of those fights have you even read descriptions of that covered the action bell to bell? Which rounds of Langford's in his long career did you disagree with the scoring of the officials - like, let's say, the Catteral-Taylor fight? Or were the judges in Langford's fights always spot on and you were in total agreement with them? Which losses lowered your feelings about him?

You won't elevate people from the last 30 or 40 years above him because you can see their faults. All their fights. All the rounds. When someone got wobbled here. When you disagreed with a round scored there.

So put the guy who you've seen about 30 minutes of footage of in total - EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THAT FOOTAGE WAS PARTICULARLY IMPRESSIVE AT ALL - above ALL OF them.

 

No, he fought at least 314 times.

No, again you've got it wrong.

I won't elevate boxers above him because their bodies of work don't measure up to his.

Your reasoning reminds me of the old Lounge refrain , "Pics, or it didn't happen."


Thing is, lots of stuff happened that you or I didn't see.

None of Napoleon's battles were videotaped, but from eyewitness testimony, and from how history unfolded as a result of those battles, I can conclude he was a pretty decent general.


I rank fighters on a combination of the eye-test (watching them fight ) and achievement. I put twice as much emphasis on achievement as I do on how they look.

Much of Sam's greatness rests on his achievements. The record is there to be considered.


I've never seen a single second of video of Roger Bannister. I couldn't pick him out of a 1950's line-up.
And yet, I know he is one of the ATG mile runners.

I rely on reports of others in making that determination.

INobody on here has seen a single second of Greb's bouts.

But I know, among other things, that he had a win and a draw over Gene Tunney, and I've seen loads of Tunney video.

In short, a fighter's record is there, whether or not it has been recorded on video.

Bear in mind that these rankings are a game of sorts, and have no rigorously precise foundation. Your rankings will be determined by what you prioritize.

And based mainly on the record of his achievements, I rank Langford at #2.

There are others on here who rank him higher !

 

You do. Name your 10 favorite Sam Langford rounds. He had 300 fights. Should be easy.

I'm sure most people who name them highly could name their 10 favorite Pacquiao rounds or Hearns rounds or Ali or Mike Tyson rounds with little to no effort, and they had a fraction of the fights Langford did.

Let's see or hear all about them. If there's no video, describe them. Let's hear all about them. Paint us a picture with your words.

It's your list. You rank him the #2 all-time greatest.

YOUR SAM LANGFORD 10 ALL-TIME FAVORITE ROUNDS: Go!

 

Footage isn't necessary. He can tell us his favorite rounds based on his readings of all the great Sam Langford performances. That's why I said paint a picture with words.

And Bud Crawford and Chocolatito are hugely rated by their peers today and have been for years. If, in 100 years, someone rated Bud Crawford or Gonzalez the #2 fighter of ALL TIME, I think it's fair of someone 100 years from now to question that and go "WTF?"

 

Laziness isn't an excuse to rate some guys higher.

Rating someone from 100 years ago - when the sport was entirely different than today - #2 all-time needs explaining.

Especially when you CANNOT point to footage to support it ... and you CANNOT even explain what were impressive rounds that stood out in their careers to support it... and you CANNOT even point to what scores you agree or disagree with to support it ... especially when so many of the fights weren't even officially scored.

How many fighters in this thread weren't rated higher because someone said they didn't agree with a score or they saw someone get staggered by an older guy?

So modern fighters get rated lower because we CAN see them and the guys we CAN'T see move up ... even when they weren't rated the best then?

If they weren't rated the best at the time they were competing, instead of assuming everyone back then was WRONG ... maybe we, ALL OF US, with no actual footage or actual round by round reports or no first-hand knowledge at all, shouldn't assume WE KNOW BETTER.

That seems lazy and presumptuous.

It's the definition of being a hipster.

 

I can’t see any modern fighter being in the top 5. But I MIGHT be able to see someone like Floyd Mayweather sneaking into the lower part of the top 10. Belts in five divisions. Wins over a dozen or more past present or future champs. 50-0 record. Several wins over either current or men who will be a lock for the HOF.

 

You didn't understand a single word of what you read there, did you.

This is a bit off a pointless exercise, it would seem.

I don't have ten favourite Greb rounds either, and I have him at number 3.

Once again, I place him where I do based on his overall accomplishments in the sport, nothing to do with individual rounds.

 

If you rate fighters on their accomplishments, your ratings are way off.

Did Sugar Ray Robinson accomplish the most in boxing history? Did he beat the best fighters in boxing history? Did he only lose to the best fighters? Did Sam Langford accomplish the most in boxing history? Did he only lose to the best fighters?

Forget Harry Greb. His career is completely taken out of context. Every spar he took is listed as a no-decision win on his record.

You pick and choose who how rate fighters depending on the fighter. You hold stuff against one guy and don't hold the same stuff against others.

If you judge people harshly on how they look in the ring, how can you judge a boxer you've never seen? If you hold it against a fighter for winning a decision you thought he lost, how do you blindly assume all the accomlishments of other fighters you've never seen at all are justified?

If only actual wins and losses matter, than forget how fighters over the last 40 years have looked and only judge them on wins and losses.

Throw out all those controversial decisions you didn't agree with. Only official results count.