Bert Sugar's 100 Greatest Fighters(What Do You Think?)

I was strictly on about Mayweather, Pacquiao, which you shot down in flames calling "BS". For me suggesting that they're rated higher than Dempsey ? when i fail to see how they aren't ?

Pacquiao and Mayweather also moved up ub weight and beat bigger men than themselves aswell.

Well that's just baseless/hating comment with no facts to back it up Pacquiao was never caught with PEDs.

Well he hasn't got the resume or achievements to be a top 10 fighter of all time, and that's what it comes down to end of forgetting opinions how about facts regarding resume ?

Rating a fighter should be about achievements, H2H, resume. I don't particularly think Dempsey rates amongst top 10 Heavyweights in either category.

Do you even know the definition of journeyman ? since when are McCall or Rahman journeyman ? they were solid top 10 ranked contenders. Rahman had 41 stoppages out of 50 wins and could hit, McCall had one of the best chins of all time and had some underrated wins.

I suppose lets not talk about Dempsey getting flattened in 1 round by a fighter with over 60 losses ?

As for Tyson ?

Youngest ever Heavyweight champion in history, 12 world title wins, 10 stoppages out of those 12 world title fights, 9 wins vs fighters ranked in the 10, stand out wins over Holmes, Spinks.

H2H rates very highly as one of the best Heavyweights ever.

So yeah that's why he's in my top 10.

Dempsey avoiding one of the most dangerous Heavyweights of his time is a bit of strike against him whether you like it or not.

Really ? that's why i edited my post at 4:19 and you responded at 4:28 ? which is almost 10 minutes before your reply try again.

Really ? amazing logic but that doesn't really fit does it ? since i have.....

Joe Louis
Jack Johnson
Sonny Liston
Rocky Marciano

Try again.

 

My opinion would be in the majority that Dempsey isn't top 10 fighter of all time.

I've said Dempsey has a case for being in top 10 Heavyweight's of all time but he isn't in my top 10 personally, i've been arguing with the other poster about Tyson, Lewis, not being in top 10 which again to me is baffling. And i would think 90 percent of boxing fans would have Tyson and Lewis in their top 10.

 

Well if the era isn't particularly great then how can you compare them to great fighters of tougher eras. Surely the stiffness of the competition and how frequently they fight would be a factor.
I don't hate Pacquiao but he definitely was on PEDs. How else do you explain his expanding head. Never getting caught is not the same as never doing it. Neither Pacquiao or Mayweather faced an opponent 60 lbs heavier than them.
Dempsey ran through a stacked heavyweight division, beating all contenders how can you claim he has a bad resume. Like I said you make points with very little facts to back them up - you say 'I think' or 'I don't think' and then you lecture me about 'facts over opinions' stfu.
If your picks are just a matter of data and resume how can you justify picking Sonny Liston? He was only a title holder for one fight...
Rating a fighter should be about how good they were, their historical significance in the sport, and taking the era they fought in into account, who they beat and how they won as well as the things you mentioned
Neither Rahman or McCall can be classified as great boxers.
And if you did your research on Jack Dempsey like you claimed to, you would know that Jim Flynn offered his hands to touch gloves and sucker punched him. Lack of context.
Tyson KO'd Larry Holmes after he'd been inactive for 3 years. And knocked out a scared Michael Spinks (who had defended his HW title against handpicked opponents up to that point). You don't seem to have an eye for context.
Never said avoiding Wills wasn't a strike against him - Tyson avoided Lewis and Bowe and only fought Holyfield because he thought he was washed up. Jack Johnson avoided Sam Langford. Clay never gave Foreman a rematch. So avoiding a specific fight is not uncommon in boxing history.
Your top 10 which ended with Liston magically became a top 11 including Johnson.

 

"And i would think 90 percent of boxing fans would have Tyson and Lewis in their top 10."
If truth was measured in mass appeal then Harry Potter would be the greatest novel ever written.

 

I never said Dempsey has a bad resume i just don't think he's anywhere close to being a top 10 fighter of all time, and for me he's just outside my top 10 Heavyweights of all time.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a case for being in top 10 Heavyweights of all time, i've already said he has a case he's just not in my top 10 personally. And it's nothing to do with black/white era as i rate fighters like Ezzard Charles very highly.

For the impact Dempsey made on the sport and his popularity amongst other things yes he has a good case for being in top 10, but for me he just falls short regarding resume, H2H, and achievements, i think other Heavyweights are more deserving.

I can agree/disagree with you about Dempsey being in top 10 Heavyweights of all time, but i can't agree that Dempsey belongs anywhere near the top 10 greatest fighters of all time.

I also don't agree that you necessarily have to beat an ATG in their prime, for example did Larry Holmes beat any ATG's in their prime ? yet most people have him as their top 5 Heavyweight for his title defences, consistency, longevity, and H2H ability. There's alot of criteria's when ranking fighters which is why you see so many different opinions.

I'm not lecturing you about your comments i just don't see how you don't have Lewis, Tyson, as top 10 Heavyweights of all time. Your saying i have a lack of context yet i already gave you context about Tyson why he's in my top 10.

My context for Dempsey not being in top 10 Heavyweights of all time is i've already said told you above, but again as i said i wouldn't disagree if someone had him in their top 10 he's just not in my top 10. Had Dempsey beat Greb and Wills i'd rank him alot higher.

As for Tyson vs Holmes well Holmes wasn't inactive for 3 years that's false, he was inactive for a year and half. And was never stopped again in his entire career.

So what if Spinks was intimidated ? Tyson still went out there and destroyed a world champion who was undefeated.

Your versions of events don't match up with mine regarding Fireman Jim Flynn

"Flynn knocked out Jack Dempsey in a first round win on 13 February 1917. Charging Dempsey from the opening bell, Flynn pushed Dempsey into position with his right, and knocked him out with a left to the chin, twenty-five seconds into the first round.

Nothing about a sucker punch here and Fireman Jim Flynn was actually considered a journeyman.

As for your last comment i edited my post before you replied so it doesn't matter, so it wasn't to "save face" as you originally claimed because i was editing my list before you even replied.

 

Point was just because most people believe in something doesn't automatically make it true. The arguments against Tyson and Lewis are very clear, Holyfield has more of a claim to being a top 10 heavyweight than they do (even though I wouldn't put him there) because he fought everybody. Tyson was a great fighter for a few years, and lost every time his opponent fought back. Lewis didn't develop as a fighter until his 30's and at that point all the top heavyweights were washed. Tyson washed, Holyfield washed (and he still drew with him), Morrison washed and he lost the Ray Mercer fight. All in all he is very overrated.

 

Well pretty much every person on this forum who are very knowledgeable posters especially in classic forum, would without a shadow of a doubt have Lewis and Tyson in their top 10 i don't see how you can't.

Holyfield fought everybody yes but also lost alot of his big fights 1-2 vs Bowe, 0-2 vs Lewis on fair scorecards. He has the 2-0 vs Tyson which is impressive but also had alot of hit/miss performances aswell, it depends how you see it but yes he has case.

But if your giving Holyfield credit for fighting everyone then why doesn't Lewis get same credit ? he never avoided anyone and fought pretty much most of the known Heavyweight's of his era and won. I also love how you nit pick saying he "drew" with Holyfield, when its widely known as one of the worst robberies of all time. And then your saying he "lost" to Mercer when he in fact it was a very close fight that could've gone either way.

Tyson had one of the most dominant reigns in history for 4 years, and cleaned up and unified winning a whopping 10 world title fights. As for Tyson losing anytime anyone ever fought back ? i suggest you watch the 2nd fight with Razor Ruddock.

If you want further context for Tyson and Lewis here you go.

Mike Tyson

Youngest ever Heavyweight champion in history, 12 world title wins, 10 stoppages out of those 12 world title fights, 9 wins vs fighters ranked in the 10, stand out wins over Holmes, Spinks.

Lennox Lewis

10 stoppages in 15 world title wins, 9-1-1 in Lineal world title fights 10-1 on fair scorecards, beat every man he ever fought, 13 wins against top 10 ranked opponents, stand out wins vs Ruddock, Holyfield, Tyson, Tua, Klitschko.

 

When did Lewis fight them? What real fight the Lewis or Tyson ever have in their careers that they won. Tyson had the 2nd Ruddock fight and Lewis had the Shannon Briggs fight (Briggs who in most peoples eyes had lost to a 48-year-old George Foreman). Both guys had very little adversity and when they did could not withstand it. Isn't it ironic that you can only name one fight where the opponent was competitive and dangerous and Tyson came out with the victory?
Holyfield was basically finished. Lewis had a dead man standing in front of him and didn't take him out because he was too worried about being tagged, he was a apprehensive fighter. If he had fought in the early 1900's they would've disqulified him for timidity. He got hit on the chin twice and knocked out cold twice.
You're giving Wikipedia arguments you don't even have your own POV.

 

Well yeah because Tyson dominated mostly every opponent which is a plus for him because it shows how good/dominant he was during his reign, you said he never won when a fight when an opponent fought back which i proved as false end of you have no argument.

Finished after wins over Tyson x2, Moorer, and being ranked as the number 1 Heavyweight in the world ok then.

All irrelevant baseless comment as per usual that has nothing to do with anything really, Lewis fought in many tough battles and won vs the likes of Bruno hard hitter, Mercer, Vitali, etc.

And guess what you have no rebuttal to it which shows in this reply which is another baseless irrelevant comment.

As for my own POV ? Lewis is a Super Heavyweight who ranks very highly H2H, who beat a whole host of dangerous opposition. And has one of the most impressive records in Lineal title fights and world title fights.

Oh and guess what i just looked at your posts in Ali thread, and i have strong inkling that you and "SaintPreem1999" are the same person. And judging by some of your replies here i would gather it's true aswell.

Even if by some chance your not i've wasted enough time replying to trolls today, i'm just putting you on ignore because you're a waste of time bye.

 

You've made some fine posts in this thread DP.

 

Ezzard Charles, Ray Leonard, Archie Moore and a handful of others are too low on that list in my opinion

 

Michael Spinks isn’t anywhere to be found on that list of 100 fighters.

 

@Loudon you seriously would have Mayweather above Rocky Marciano who's 14th. Because I certainly wouldn't

And Bert Sugar who's forgot more about boxing than you've ever known, wouldn't either.

 

The Best List I've ever seen

Needs a little update with Usyk, Pacquaio and a few others. but apart from that, Bert Sugar shows he's the go to guy for Boxing knowledge.

 

Sugar liked to spin old boxing stories like they were his own. Mostly full of crap and hot air. I put nothing into his opinions TBH