P4P top 15

Thanks Senya. Interesting stuff. I'm thinking there has to be more weights for Blackburn's fights listed somewhere. Just a matter of finding them.

 

This list is certainly interesting, how about the following:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons - Sorry, I cant see anyone who beats him. I am sorry, but if he isnt at or near the top, i have difficulty taking any list seriously. His record is simply that good.
2. Harry Greb - A phenomenal fighter, who did everything, but i wonder whether he quite had enough power to rate so highly and deal with Fitz.
3. Sam Langford - His record goes without saying, although i have always thought it very strange that he was more succesful fighting bigger hitting heavyweights than the smaller fighters. Is this a weakness?
4. Henry Armstrong - We all know his triple crown exploits, I think he deserves his top 5 ranking.
5. Tommy Ryan - Did everything that Sugar Ray Robinson did, except lose to all those middleweights.
6 Benny Leonard - He was so highly rated by his peers, he really was considered a genius. And definitely the better of the two Leonards, imo.
7. Rocky Marciano - Not usually rated on a pound for pound basis, but he should be. A small heavyweight, who was never beaten and knocked out (albeit older versions) of pound for pound greats Charles, Walcott and Louis. He did everything asked of him and won every fight. It is hard to imagine a fighter, who used every inch of his reach, weight, etc in a better manner. That is the definition of pound for pound, in some respects.
8. Joe Walcott - Barbados Joe epitomised pound for pound. I actually wonder whether anyone shorter has ever KOd so many big opponents. Some of his giant killing performances are on par with anything Greb did, in a pound for pound sense.
9. Les Darcy - Most fighters do get overrated due to an early death, and les may be a possibility, but very likely would have beaten Harry Greb, if they had every met, and probably held every title from Middleweight to Heavyweight.
10. Marty Servo - Most people who saw him fight Sugar Ray, thought he beat him! in fact, Ray may never have been the welterweight champion, if Servo didnt vacate the title for him. And Marty was naturally lighter than Ray, so it might have


Okay, i will admit i made one or two, shall we say, bold calls. :bbb

 

Yes you did, and now I know you have a serious affinity towards Fitzsimmons. I ranked him around 16 and got chastised by you. You have him at #1! :shock: Obviously not having SRR is beyond bold, it's a little crazy.

And I know it's a coincidence and I'm not trying to suggest something, but I just noticed the top two guys are white. I don't know, just struck me as unusual (Don't think I've seen that before).

 

Definitely an interesting list. :good

I would have Bob Fitzsimmons at or near the top too.

where would you put Stanley Ketchel ?

 

So, who do you have ahead of Fitzsimmons and why? If the criteria is objective, Fitz will have done what they did, and then some. All those bold picks, and you choose Fitzsimmons selection as the criticismatsch

Why? He barely beat the smaller Marty Servo, in fact, according to most who saw the fight he didnt beat him. Yet Servo doesnt make many top 100 lists at all. It is no disgrace for anyone (except Fitzsimmons) to be left out of the top 10. One of the points i was making with the list.

I think that Greb/Fitzsimmons are 2 of the most commonly picked number 1 and 2 ever. Not because they are similar colour, but because their careers/legacies epitomise many of the same things.

 

I am not as big a fan of Stanley as most are. In fact, as a general rule, i think that most fighters who die early tend to get elevated more than most. I see Darcy as the exception to this rule, but it wasnt always this way.

I really dont know anyone, who has looked into Bob Fitzsimmons in a serious way who doesnt have him near the top, unless of course try to rank him solely off the film of him they have.

 

You make a good point about omitting Duran. But others who have similar cases include, Monzon, Hagler, Louis, Charles, Moore, Burley, Walker, Loughran, Tunney etc.

To be honest, that wasnt my top 10 list, just a list i though might create some interesting arguments/discussion points. Much like Senya's very interesting list.

I still maintain that Robinson outside the top 10 is not as bad as people think.

 

You were trolling with the Marty Servo call, correct?

 

I was making a point, with the point being that Sugar Ray is not the invincible, unbeatable be all and end all that many think he is, not even at welterweight!

Still, where would you rate a fighter, if you thought he had a win over a prime Sugar Ray Robinson? or who lost a razor thin decision to him (twice from memory). Surely he would have to rate somewhere near Sugar Ray, wouldnt he? Maybe not top 10, but if Ray is no 1, he must be top 20 mustnt he?

 

And by the way, if Senya is still around, i would be interested in hearing the following explanations:

Why Macfarlane and Gavilan is so high

And why no Fitzsimmons in the top 10.

Also, where would you consider the following fighters to fit in:

Jimmy Barry, McAuliffe, Carney, Attell and Dixon. A little random I know, but i am interested none the less.

 

From what I understand of the era Ketchel has a great resume, probably better than Darcy's. He cleaned out a good crop of middleweights.

I see the sense in ranking only those fighters we have good film of in their primes, so I can understand those people who leave Fitzsimmons out for that reason.
But on an all-time list, in which Fitz and other unfilmed or early fighters are included, I cant see Fitz being ranked lower than the top 6.

 

That'd take a lot of time to explain, with a lot of quotes from contemporary sources. I don't like simply tossing about names taken from their records as most people (including many historians) like to do.
I wasn't as impressed by Fitz as some (even after reading Adam's book). Neither skill-wise, nor achievement-wise.
Barry, McAuliffe and Dixon were leaning too much toward aggressive fighting to me, than the clever boxing that I prefer. Same for Nonpareil Dempsey who has also been mentioned on this thread (the bout with Mike Donovan proved to me he wasn't clever or skillful enough to be ranked near the top). Dunno about Carney, didn't research him. Attell was a bit too inconsistent.

 

Yes, if you have the logic of a third grader, I suppose he must!

 

Dixon was reknowned as a very scientific fighter. Essentially a Bantamweight version of Gans.