You'd have to provide a good argument to get Tunney into the top 20 let alone 10 let alone 5 let alone.......
Like @Greg Price99 says, it ultimately depends on criteria. Greb has the best resumé so if that is the main criteria that trumps all others, I can see the argument for him at no. 1 with Langford competing against him. In my view, Robinson is the most solid all-round choice as ‘greatest’ because you have a combination of a great resumé, a fantastic fighting peak where he was really untouchable, as well as a fighter who fights in a style that is classically beautiful to watch and it is believable that he could compete in any era and be one of the best or the out and out best. Plus, he had great longevity as well. All round, he ticks all the boxes. Had he won the light heavyweight title, I think that would firm up the choice even more. He also has an advantage in this debate over the likes of Greb, in that we know what he looked like on film whereas with Greb, all we have is descriptions that end up sounding somewhat like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Some people simply don’t feel comfortable rating someone who they’ve never seen fight as the greatest ever. I understand both positions but I do sympathise with that view. Then you compare Langford and the footage of him with Robinson and does Langford ‘look’ better than Robinson? Simply put, no he doesn’t. Others would say that it doesn’t matter because resumé trumps every other consideration. I’m not sure I agree with that. Also, the distinction between ‘greatest’ and ‘best’ is an important one. This is where you get fighters like Duran, Ray Leonard and Roy Jones Jnr as part of the conversation, all-time greats obviously, but rarely talked about as the p4p no. 1. However, Duran at his best between his lightweight days and his win over Leonard in Montreal looks amazing on film. Stylistically, he’s looks just about perfect - the way he puts his punches together, his balance when either throwing or defending, the overall dynamism of his attack - and maybe ‘the best’ since Robinson. But the likes of Leonard and Jones Jnr… their talents just appear other worldly to me. Even though he could box in a classical sense, Leonard could also do things wrong or take liberties because of the immensity of his talent - he was so fast, so naturally gifted and skilled that he really could beat you in multiple ways. In terms of greatness, he should make everyone’s top 20 because he also has the top-end resumé, the heart, grit and determination of a champion that belied the flashiness of his style but I don’t think anyone would consider him no. 1 all-time based on overall achievement and resumé - as good as his were - but he would absolutely have been good enough to compete against Robinson at their respective peaks or any other great fighter in history. He was one of, if not ‘the best’, there’s been. Roy Jones Jnr is in a similar space to Leonard - not a classical boxer, but an otherworldly one who could do things no-one else could because he had an incredible combination of speed and power and reflexes that were just unpredictable and unorthodox. He was the best I saw while growing up watching the sport but once those reflexes started to wane, unlike Robinson or Duran (and Leonard to an extent) he didn’t seem to have the other intangibles that make the greatest fighters still a force once they’ve passed their prime years. At one point though, people did consider him the heir to those fighters like Robinson, Duran and Leonard and in the upper echelons of the p4p all-time list. So that’s my take on the whole greatest v best thing.
Louis Ali Holmes Lewis Marciano Johnson Wlad Jefferies Liston Tyson Foreman Frazier Wills Dempsey Holyfield Charles Langford Bowe Tunney Vitali I'm aware I have Jeffries higher, and Foreman & Frazier lower, than most. I don't make as much allowance for eras being stronger or weaker than others, as some posters do. Dominance in a fighters own era is my most important criteria.
Thanks Greg! I just feel that it’s too nuanced a debate to be completely emphatic about a clear no. 1, even if my personal pick is SRR.
A word on Henry Armstrong, while I think about it. He really has to be one of the considerations for no. 1 and I would probably consider him at no. 2 behind Robinson. The only mark against him is that he didn’t really reign or dominate for that long - he doesn’t have the longevity of the likes of Robinson or Langford or Duran. But he had maybe the greatest peak of any fighter ever. So I’d go like this for the four main contenders for the all-time no. 1 p4p. 1. Robinson 2. Armstrong 3. Greb 4. Langford
I have Armstrong at 4, as the peak level he reached didn't last as long as SRR's Greb's or Lamgford's equivalents. However, the FW champion dominating the ATG WW champion Barney Ross, whilst weighing under the LW limit and then going on to post 20 defences, many whilst under the LW limit and all whilst never being more than a natural LW, means he certainly has a reasonable argument for the GOAT. I wouldn't argue too hard for any permutation of ordering these top 4.
Yeah, it’s splitting hairs at this level, really. It’s a fair point though re the respective length of the peaks but yeah, Armstrong’s achievements are really unique and impossible to repeat. Always enjoy your thoughts on these debates, Greg.
Greb or SRR imho. Difficult to differentiate. Armstrong and Langford are in the conversation. Blasphemous as it may sound, does anyone feel Usyk's recent feat of becoming undisputed heavyweight champion get him into the conversation? His pro record is minuscule in comparison but what he has achieved, without controversy, and at hw against substantially bigger fighters, cannot be ignored. True, the current hw division is weak, but how much does that take him down the order? There is nothing more Usyk could have achieved with his career, apart from winning the 2008 Olympics. I don't believe i have recency bias, but I think there is a valid argument for him beating any 200 pounder in history, and his unification takes him past Holyfield imo. I don't think he is GOAT, but interested in views on where he sits in the rankings.
I think Ezzard Charles doesn’t get discussed enough in the Goat arguments. Before he was passed it he may have the best list of scalps ever. Louis Walcott Moore Lloyd Marshall Jimmy Bivins Joey Maxim Charley Burley Elmer Ray Bob Satterfield Rex Layne And often multiple times he beat these men. Not sure anyone ever has a top ten better then that and I arguably didn’t use his best ten
Erhhhh.... Usyk? Don't shoot me. I am just repeating what the casual fanboys are saying in the main forum.
