I'm a 23 year old man. Boxing today is much different than it was back then and there are different emphasises placed upon skills, power and technique. I am confident in saying the top 5 of my time are Hopkins Pac Floyd Lewis Jones But going into atg lists is a bit futile because whilst I know the likes of robinson and pep need to be up there, there is a ridiculously small ratio of footage compared to fights they had. Out of the boxers I have seen enough to confidently rank, i'd say the top 4 are ali, leonard, whittaker and hopkins. I know i'll get slated for having hopkins there but I am amazed by his longevity, the guy is 46 and is schooling prime young fighters, not relying on power or speed either. Amazing. I could just conform and give a list like robinson, pep, langford, leonard and ali. But I have seen so little of the first 3 that it would be silly of me. I have seen robinsons televised fights with la motta and very little of pep and langford. People much more knowledgeable do rate then highly so I gotta listen I suppose. Assuming the classics fill up the first however many spots, I rank more current fighters as follows Leonard Ali Whittaker Hopkins They should all be top 10 atg imo. Fill the list in with the relevant classics if need be. The next bracket includes the likes of hearns, duran, floyd, pac. Then after that bracket i'd say the likes of tyson, lewis, jones.
You can't have Pep over Ali, think about it. Both stayed at one weight, Ali has the better resume, no i'm not understating the fact that Pep boxed in a good era and beat his contenders, it doesn't matter, because Ali's resume is better. Pep has great dominance but Ali did not bad in that area as well, and his top wins are clearly a tie breaker for me. When it comes to who was better, it might be debatable, and we can do that one all day, I'm not sure, both were amazing, but it's academic when you're debating greatness, because Ali has a better resume, period.
Teeto - back to the history books for you. Angelo Dundee (he has a marginal association with Ali you might recall) said Pep was the greatest fighter he ever saw. That aside, Pep's record is Insane --- even after he broke his back in a motherf*cking plane crash! But, just mho. I'm not going to nit-pick about whether Ali or Pep deserveds #2 or #3. Both top 5.
That's one of the most patronising replies i've ever had ocelot, thanks for that. Every man and his dog knows that Angelo Dundee says that all the time, so what? That's his opinion, what i'm telling you is fact- Muhammad Ali has a better resume than Willie Pep does. All the credit in the world to Pep for beating one of the best featherweights of all time in Sandy Saddler after he had his back broken, and that might be a factor in the 'who was the better boxer' debate, but let's not confuse better with greater. Muhammad Ali has a better resume than Willie Pep, period. I know my history very very well and both men's careers pretty well, very well actually. I said in my original post that i'm not understating Pep's career, i know his resume in and out, so please save me the patronising responses informing me of stuff i already know about Willie Pep. I don;t really need a reply, I'm just stating a fact, Muhammad Ali has a better resume than Willie Pep, period.:good
I agree with this post. I feel that comparing elite fighters in different eras to be impossible. Ali, Greb, Robinson, Leonard, Pep, Armstrong, etc. are all just great fighters and I don't even try and say which one is better than the other...only time I start comparing is if they are in the same era.
Teeto - you're way too sensitive for a boxing forum. :hi: If you recall, you called me out, not I you. And neither Ali nor Pep give a **** about either of our opinions. Again, both top-5. I'm not going to squabble about who's above whom. But you came out and 'corrected' me. You know no more than I or anyone else on this forum. Don't be condescending and others won't be patronizing.
Fair enough, my mistake with the sensitivity there, sorry if i came across as a bit of a ***** there. :good