My All Time Top 10 List(for whatever that's worth)

Ok, so i'm gonna be off the forum for a few weeks visiting scotland and ireland (woo hoo) and I've been thinking about this lately (notably during class today) and thought I should finally put pen to paper and make a list. It's based in roughly equal portions:

a)Resume (longetivity/variety of and quality of opposition)
b)Talent (skill set, variety, dominance)
c)H2H(how well they would have done historically, how they were about to use their talent and prospects against others in their best weight class)

I'll briefly rate how they do in each category and describe any weaknesses they may have that reflect their position

*I fully expect and welcome hate for one of these...

1.Harry Greb (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10) *thanks to mcgrain and burt for the education on greb
-weaknesses (relatively low punching power at elite level, scared the **** out of prospective opponents)

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

3.Henry Armstrong (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (some loses to fighters he should have beat such as ambers, zivic which is to be expected considering activity)

4.Muhammad Ali (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (**** body attack, no in fighting, lapses in focus lead to losses against norton, spinks and horrible outing against young)

5.Roberto Duran (Resume 8, Talent 10, H2H 9)
-weaknesses (lazy trainer, too many loses on record and too many excuses, serious trouble with jabbers and movers at elite level, especially as he moved up in weight)

6. Sam Langford (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (little footage but it shows incredible in fighting, strength,and power, regularly challenged bigger fights but did suffer numerous loses showing his size was a disadvantage, perhaps carried fighters for opportunities but still affects resume)

7. Benny Leonard (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (perhaps power but still able to score knockouts when needed such as charley white, unsuccessful attempts at higher weights though DQ for 147 title is odd, commonly rated 2nd best at lightweight though argument can be made for supremacy over duran)

8.Ezzard Charles (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (reluctant fighting style after baroudi, engaged in brawls when he shouldn't have in later career, occasional lose in early career while learning but counts against his resume)

9.Willie Pep (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (virtually untouchable in prime but vulnerable to the clutch style of sammy angott, little power at elite level, able to be outmuscled and bullied by saddler)

10. Roy Jones (Resume 7, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (poor resume shows unknown quality against the truly elite, safety first approach at light heavy lessens legacy as he regular took 2nd rate opponets the distance or toyed with them, chin may have been an issue)

Feel free to tear me a new one

 

have to agree but i didn't know who to put below charles out of those choices. this is making me reconsider the thought of a tier system as i put charles/duran/pep on the same level

definitely see your point about langford and may have to rethink duran's placement. i once had him placed at 3 and now even 5 seems high. duran is likely added by bias towards having footage of him

thanks as always for the input!

 

nice to see im not the only one keeping pep out of the top 5. fitz is interesting at 6. justifiable obviously but one i'm a little surprised about. how much emphasis, if anything, do you put in weight jumping?

 

haha guess you don't want to know where he is on my top 20 then...

 

oh yeah and totally agree about jones but i had to put in that talent and h2h forms a large part of my placing. jones resume is barely a 7 in the grand scheme of things and i was probably being generous with that. if i could be honest h2h jones is top 3 all time and talent wise he's unbelievably off the charts. but otherwise he's borderline top 50

 

i agree but i am of the mind that better counts more than bigger (obviously). if you can take on quality big men sure but being outweighed alone i don't think should count for all that much, unless the size difference is startling.

burley's win over turner for instance, where he was outweighed by 70 pounds is amazing. in fitz's age for instance the size difference between middle and heavy was not that large as big men rarely came over 220 pounds. however, the quality of his wins from middle-heavy is amazing, the opponents he fought were of the highest order.

 

pretty much and oddly enough (considering how little i thought i'd account for this) it factored into his relatively low placement. leonard had some success but not as much as the others as well. pep is likely the best feather ever and leonard, many rate as the best lightweight ever (at worst he's top 3). but most of their success came at a single weight