a 14-year old fan's terribly inaccurate top 50 (also posted in classic boxing forum)

To be fair, this sort of list lends itself more to that crowd. You've got - not at all incorrectly - a good number of old-timers on there, and that's more their wheelhouse. Not all but a good many of the denizens of Classic have a predilection for the fighters of antiquity, with little interest in much past the 70's or 80's ...while here in General, conversely, you do have some that know their history but by and large the rank & file is concerned with the here & now and may have only become (casual) fans in the last 5, 10, or 15-20 years.

Here's a rough sketch of notes on what jumps out:

1. Can't go wrong with SRR topping the marquee. That's a good start. #2 is too high for any heavyweight, IMO - even the icon Ali. For that matter, many lists from respected historians don't even have a single HW besides Ali in their top 10 (usually with him on the lower end of that, at #9 or 10 himself). I do like that Joe Louis is your number two heavy - he's mine as well. But he and Rock should probably be bumped down a fair ways.
   
   
2. Gans as high as 3, that's quite a thing. Big vote of confidence in the GOAT lightweight. Not saying I hate it, just - haven't really ever seen that before. He is a part of any top 20 worth its salt, but rarely spied up in the single digits.
   
   
3. The conventional view is that Mayweather deserves to be a bit ahead of Pacquiao, regardless of how emotion may discolor one's views of either. So having Pac five spots in front of him is quite a deviation there. If anything, when people dare rate Pac higher, they usually are nestled adjacent to each other.
   
   
4. Of the Four Kings, putting Hagler third and Hearns fourth is pretty much the standard (though as a massive Marv fanboy I wish it were possible to elevate him from there) - and then whether to put SRL or Durán highest is a matter of personal preference, with a case to be made either way. So you've done fine there.
   
   
5. And then you've more or less got a lot of the right names in more or less decent order.
   
   
6. I'm not sure what ODLH is doing in a top 30 all time, though. He's maybe just cracking a 50, if we're being thorough in including everyone that ought to surpass him.
   
   
7. As for Canelo, it really is too early to start ranking him top fifty all time pound for pound. I know history will look kindly on him starting at light welter (*at 15) and eventually working his way up to knocking out the feared Kovalev at light heavy (*a Kovalev whose steady decline had been clocked by anyone following his career very closely) but placed in context a lot of the luster is taken off his achievements. He could finish as high as all that, I suppose, but, best practice is to leave the active guys out of these things unless they're already absolute slam dunks.

That's all I got for now.

Good job for your first, absolutely.

 

bUt uSyK ThOuGh

 

after reading through some of your posts on this thread, my spider senses are tingling, but people who are pretending to be someone they are not will always trip themselves up eventually.

 

Frazier isn’t top 25 pound for pound, neither is Foreman. Also having four HWs in top 11 shows your age, to say the least. Ranking Frazier and Foreman above Klitschko is also unfair and inaccurate. Those are my criticisms.

 

I'd have Mike Tyson in my top 50. Absolute beast in his prime. Youngest HW champ.

 

I think its a pretty good list.

Any top 50 is going to draw tons of irate difference of opinion.

 

So kid, are you gonna lace them up in real life or are you gonna be a fat out of shape boxing fan who sits in the comfort of his home like the rest of us?

 

You’ve missed out Audley Harrison

 

Smart choice obviously being being a fatass at home.