A 14-year old fan's terribly inaccurate top 50 list

He was the first man to win 3 titles, fought until he was near 100 lol. If he could beat fighters of today is besides the point, the thing is he face about everyone there was to face in his era, got 3 title reins in the process, and most often was outweigh when he went into the heavyweights.

 

There's nothing inaccurate about a list mate.

But if it's one you want to defend and debate just make sure you're consistent with your criteria.

What is it that impresses you most, is it a resume, is it statistical achievements, is it the legacy that's been left.

Once you have your criteria and you're happy with it, you'll soon appreciate other people are completely unable to tear that list apart, they're only able to provide you with alternative considerations.

I did a top 25, most recently, could have easily been a top 200 but at some point you're just splitting hairs for the sake of it.

Enjoy the ride though, especially starting at such a young age. When I was 14 all I knew was that Lewis and Tyson was the best fight to ever be made and my boxing heroes (Naz, Eubank and Bruno) were all was past their best.

And also don't ever feel like you need to bow down or acquiesce to greater knowledge. Most regular posters on here have forgotten more than they'll have ever learnt and every thing they have learnt just shapes an opinion, an opinion that is no more or less valid than you're own.

Over the last few years we've had a few classic forum posters who are much younger than the mean average and I must admit, it's great to see because a cynical part of me believes boxing is now fully a niche sport and no one cares about its history any more.

 

FWIW I have Ruby at number 2 on my list.

 

What makes this forum great, isn't the greater knowledge. We all have access to the same things, aside from fight collectors.

It's the shared interest in the history of the sport. It's the people to discuss things with and bounce ideas off each other. It's the volume of posts about yesteryear to keep the conversations going.

But more than anything else, it is the indisputable fact that Duran will always deserve a mention.

 

From the version in General:

 

My main advice is consider people's arguments, or looking into things at people's suggestions, but don't alter it just to conform.

 

Lewis Holyfield and Hearns should be rated higher IMO.

 

Mayweather>Pacquiao

No case at all for Lewis and Marciano above Mayweather and Pac.

 

@InexperiencedFan0907 put together a better list than I could have at that age and I was already a pretty big boxing fan.

Make use of YouTube and find fighters you want to learn about and watch them in action is my advice.

I won’t critique the list as we all favor different guys and different things. I suggest the youngster check out the videos atop these two threads created by our own @Rumsfeld from surveying the collective wisdom of this forum:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-50-must-watch-boxing-fights.664084/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-35-all-time-reveal-boxing-survey-series.653021/

I hope the kid sticks around.

 

A good top ten might look something like this

with Robinson being a worthy top choice

Hagler and Jones are a MUST top three.

Then below the firmament would be fighters like Greb, Armstrong, Louis, & Ali

and below that you could put your Dempseys, your Foremans, Tysons

after that, the order doesnt really matter

 

I heard Fitz could put his fist all the way thru a man

 

You have most of the right names imo.

Greb and Duran are too low.

Ali is a little too high.

Lennox, Mayweather, Pac, and Marciano are too high.

Oscar is not top 50.

Canelo is not top 100 let alone top 50.