Possibly, he's a dedicated troll if so. Personally, his list & posts in general, strike me more as someone who - 1) Is a modern boxing fan with a passing, but far from comprehensive, interest in boxing history; and 2) Correlates how well known boxers are to him, with how great they are. e.g. I suspect, he's listed all the classic old timers that most modern boxing fans with a passing interest in it's history will know a bit about, e.g. Louis, SRR, Greb, Langford, Pep, etc. and the modern fighters like Naz, Froch, Vitali, McClellan, Jackson, etc. that he is familiar with, over true greats of their time that he isn't, such as Fitsimmons, McFarland, Ryan, Dixon, BJW, T. Gibbons, etc.
That was from the top of my head, there are probably some I forgot about. I don't include anyone pre 1900, boxers were too rudimentary back then, their skill level was very poor. That's why there's no Fitzsimmons and Ryan. And I forgot about Packey.
All the same, you're gong to have to forgive me for not paying any consideration to any comment you make about who isn't & is top 50, when you include Froch, Julian Jackson, Vitali, Naz, McClellan, etc. in yours. Even allowing for your criteria & only considering post 1900 boxers, they don't belong anywhere near a top 100, let alone top 50.
Yet there are more than 50 listed here - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-top-100-pound-for-pound-all-time-greats.459918/
Read my post again, careful this time. I said that they are worthy of taking into consideration for a top 50, not that they are automatically there. And there's no trolling whatsoever, these are some of my pick, although like I said to Greg, I obviously forgot some, these are just some I listed on the top of my head. As for your critique, take for example Calzaghe. The man was champ for a very long time and was undefeated. Sure, some big names he beat were past their best, but he still beat them. As for his "Euro level opposition", as you put it, one could say the same about Monzon fighting South American level opposition, yet he's viewed so much more highly. Not that I have something against Carlos, but my point is that if we are scrutinizing the way you are, every champ can be questioned. And lastly, your ranking criteria is obviously different than mine. For me, the era in which they fought matters, modern boxers face better opposition on a whole, and that makes a huge difference.
"And lastly, your ranking criteria is obviously different than mine. For me, the era in which they fought matters, modern boxers face better opposition on a whole, and that makes a huge difference".[/QUOTE] If by "better" you mean if you transported boxers straight out of a 1920's ring & into a ring with modern fighters they'd lose more often than not, you could subjectively argue that credibly. The greatest boxers of previous eras objectively - 1) Fought much more often overall; and 2) Fought the best of their era far more often. Harry Greb may have more wins over boxers amongst the top 10 in the world in their weight division than Mayweather has fights.
Out of the 50 from that list, I've colored This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected the ones that I don't see as being greater than Canelo: 01 - Sam Langford 02 - Harry Greb 03 - Sugar Ray Robinson 04 - Henry Armstrong 05 - Ezzard Charles This content is protected 07 - Muhammad Ali 08 - Joe Gans 09 - Joe Louis 10 - Roberto Duran. 11 - Benny Leonard 12 - Mickey Walker 13 - Willie Pep This content is protected 15 - Archie Moore 16 - Ray Leonard This content is protected 20 - Pernell Whitaker This content is protected 25 - Charley Burley This content is protected 28 - Gene Tunney 29 - Roy Jones This content is protected 31 - Carlos Monzon 32 - Jimmy Wilde 33 - Eder Jofre 34 - Marvin Hagler 35 - Julio Cesar Chavez This content is protected 37 - Kid Gavilan This content is protected 41 - Alexis Arguello 42 - Michael Spinks This content is protected 44 - Thomas Hearns This content is protected 47 - Floyd Mayweather 48 - Manny Pacquiao This content is protected So that's at least 20 that I don't see as being greater than Canelo.
Yes, they fought more often, and they probably fought the best more often, but the skill level wasn't as high. Greb's resume is incredible, but This content is protected of beating opposition like Hagler, Monzon, SRR, Canelo, Toney, RJJ, B-Hop, GGG etc - This content is protected
Whitaker's resume is surprisingly thin and isn't necessarily better than Canelo's. If Canelo retired today he'd be top forty but arguably low thirties or high twenties.
Thank you for further demonstrating my point that no consideration should be paid to who you do & don't see as top 50 all time.
I would have had an in depth coversation or debate with you about any boxer but you come across extremely arrogant and pretentious so I think ill pass. Yes, I use boxrec from time to time and so what im not embarrassed to say that. Unlike you Im humble enough to admit I dont know everything off the top of my head. Another thing referring to your other post..when I post something I dont have to run it by you to see if it qualifies to your standard.
There aren’t 50 guys with better ability and better resumes? Throughout the entire history of the sport? I just listed his best wins. What’s his best ever win? An aged GGG? He hasn’t got the wins to be rated that highly. On what planet can you rate a guy the top 50 of all time, when he couldn’t win a round off of a 36 year old Floyd, and he struggled to beat B level guys like Lara and Trout? You think he’s top 50 because he beat a faded GGG, a faded Cotto, Danny Jacobs, BJS and Caleb Plant etc? Get real. Where would Canelo be if we dropped him into the 90’s or somewhere? He’s done nothing to warrant a top 50 ranking. It’s just ridiculous.
Calzaghe is another fighter who doesn’t have the ability or the resume to be ranked that highly. Out of 45 opponents, only about 13 of them were world class. Yes, every fighter is scrutinised if you’re placing them so highly. They have to be objectively scrutinised. If someone said that Joe was their number 1 fighter, then that’s cool. There’s nothing wrong with having a personal favourite. Many of my friends have Hatton as their personal GOAT. That’s cool. But when you’re ranking them on a proper ATG list with guys like Greb, Robinson and the Fab Four etc, then it’s a joke. Any knowledgeable and objective fan should be looking at the following: Their skills. A full analysis of their complete skill set. Their resume. Their best wins. Their level of opposition. Who they fought at what point. Their ambition. Their risks. Their dominance. Their longevity. Their accomplishments. The manner of their victories. What their opponents had done just prior, and just after fighting them. Their legacy on the sport. Everything needs to be taken into account. Context is key. Joe racking up defences against the Sobot’s and Veit’s of the world in the defence of a worthless belt, doesn’t put him anywhere near guys like Leonard.
Again, this at best addresses 25% of your criteria. By your own admission, in previous eras fighters fought more often and the best fought the best more often. So, by definition, the very best of previous eras achieved more, in terms of win resume depth, in their eras than modern boxers, which you claim represents 50% of your criteria.
