A first draft: My hundred greatest boxers of all time, p4p

The heavyweight belt puts him over the top in my view. OK, it's one fight at that weight but I personally consider it an astonishing achievment. There is not much between these two - as indiciated by their close placement - but I also consider Jones the better of the two, which made it easier.

 

Langford KO1 Harry Greb.

 

Thanks - forgot Bob Foster.

What stands out for you as wrong? Who should be in that isn't? Anyone particularly undeserving?

Tell you what I found hard - the bottom 20 or so. I'm basicallly of the opinion that you could have used any 20 of around 80 fighters and it would have been acceptable. So I may have used that part of the list to "right some wrongs".

 

Ooooooooooooo it'd be a good one!

 

I personally don't consider beating Ruiz that astonishing, and it has to be taken into consideration that there are multiple titles on offer, BUT, I consider belts at three weights - including the monster haul at LHW - the stamp that confirms Jones great quality - with his apparent fetish for titles, Jones in many ways constitutes the "Anti-Langford", who fought at all those weights and got, well, rather less belts.

But I do think that Jones and Langford have more in common than they have issues which seperate them actually. They are both true phenoms. Given that there is no film of Greb, I'd argue that Jones is the most physically gifted fighter to be captured on film, a one off, a never-to-be repeated mix of skill and talent that sees him ride higher on my list than would be the case based purely upon his achievments.

Every list I complete is composite - which means I try to take into account everything that I can, record, resume, losses, how a fighter appears to my eye on film etc. etc. etc. - but really this is just a fancy way of saying "I feel my way through it", i base a lot of this on what "feels" right".

Downside? It'll be idiosyncratic, so you'll see guys like Eddie Booker riding high. He probably wouldn't appear on any other top 100 (well, maybe Archie Moore's ), but the upside is I can display my list, take advice and criticism without getting to defencive and hopefully build it up into something pretty special.

The bottom line of all of this chat? Jones and Whitaker stay where they are. Probably.

 

Some fo these are on my list, yes, including Lewis way up in the top 50! You're very into redemption etc., so I always take that into account when viewing your lists (Foreman :dead ) but there are some interesting omitions from my list, first amoung them Nelson. Something may have to be done there, to many smart guys shouting about him. But I must confess - I don't think he makes my top 65 or anything like it at this point. So he's down with the "softies" the slots where any one of 70 or 80 guys would be comfy. If I put him in i might end up being "for show".

 

Ketchel ko7 Monzon.

 

That's a fine way to start - it sounds silly, but I got mine by trying to sort out a ten.

Late last year I had a long conversation with Stonehands about Duran, and by the end of it my top 10 p4p list was in ****.

My basic problem was I had 10 slots and 15 names. So I worked up a 15. Then in a conversation with Sweet Pea, I worked up an ad hoc 20. Took about two days to build a 50 after that.

I posted the 50 in Classic, took a bunch of names from a bunch of smart guys and reworked the fifty. This left me with 53 names. Working that up to about 180 names took me about three weeks. Working it down again was much, much easier until I got to the last 15 or so and realised just how many great fighters I was going to have to leave off.

Then you start thinking about a top 150...

But in the end it's going to be your subjective opinion that counts for most, and you have to keep that in mind. There is no formula here. If there were, Janitor would have reworked it to prove that the top 100 fighters are comprised of pre-1930's competitors by now.

Good luck.