Last time I did a top 10, I think I had him 10th as well. Which proves his greatness as I am highly anti-semitic.
Well you can only be as good as your rule set will allow. Fighters back in the early 1900s were still used to small or no gloves and therefore slipping and ducking to the extent modern boxers do wasn't an option. Neither was combination punching or high work rates. It all meant broken bones or tiring late in the fight. Nevertheless, I do think, even relatively, the sport turned more professional and sophisticated and that fighters did improve. Even if the 1901 rules remained the same, the fighters of the '40s would be, on average, a bit better because there'd be more of them training like actual athletes. Still, I like to rate 'for the era.' Galileo was great, despite his theories being known to be mostly inaccurate today. Fitzsimmons was great because he was a pioneer of the gloved era, and in his own time, was considered to be pound-for-pound the best, save perhaps Joe Gans. Of course, I'd pick Ezzard Charles to slash him up.
Interesting. They all make my top hundred. Infact, at least a couple of them make the top seventy. I mean, you won't catch me rating Carlos Palomino or Jose Luis Ramirez over these four.
Too high for me. If I were to rate Gavilan at 15, I'd have to rate Jose Napoles at about #11, and Ike Williams at #14 or #16.
im very impressed with Ross obviously his resume and achievements but on film he really is great isnt he? very adaptable boxer-puncher kind of mould but more boxer. Had all the skills but was tough and gritty and determined with it. Had great straight punches and movement aswell.
As per era??? Damn, Manassa, you've unlocked the solution to my problems on ranking. How did I not think of that before :good I have Gavilan at about 30, behind Napoles (29) and Williams (25) That's based on recollections of the last list I attempted about three or four months ago. I might be ready to put my 'brackets' to the test and see which fighters would eek out others to make certain spots. Painful stuff, wish me luck
clearly not a top10 p4p. did anyone notice he is somewhat like reggie johnson in the sense that his losses and wins (i mean the relevant ones) were close decisions and he was never stopped. well , reggie johnsons opposition is more impressing : Roy Jones James Toney Antonio Tarver Steve Collins Jorge Fernando Castro X2 John David Jackson Julio Cesar Gonzalez Lamar Parks Sanderline Williams Ralph Ward Borderline : Ismael Negron Adam George the other reason is simply because : Sam Langford Manny Pacquiao David Tua James Toney Mike Tyson Rocky Marciano Dwight Braxton Roberto Duran Ray Leonard are 10 fighters and then come : Young Peter Jackson (Baltimore Demon) Mysterious Billy Smith Jersey Joe Walcott Ezzard Charles Evander Holyfield Ray Robinson Joe Louis Muhammad Ali Marvin Hagler Harry Greb Oscar Delahoya Kotsya Tszyu Julio Cesar Chavez Hector Camacho Roy Jones Joe Frazier Mike McCallum Oneil Bell Jack Dempsey Gene Tunney Carlos Monzon Rodrigo Valdez Charley Burley Henry Armstrong Chad Dawson Orlin Norris Julian Jackson Marlon Starling Jose Luis Lopez Aaron Davis Reggie Johnson Jorge Fernando Castro Steve Collins Archie Moore Max Schmelling Steve Hamas William Lawrence Stribling Ike Quartery Oliver McCall Tommy Loughran Vinny Pazienza Fritzie Zivic more than 4/5 of those i mentiones deserve to be ranked higher than Barney Ross , so how can he be top10 ? not even top20 p4p. and i even forgot some or even many. one should think remind consider and remember before he declares a ranking for someone.
Might take another week or so - it's hard to do a deliberate list, especially after #30. I've seen some lists before and they just look randomised. I'm making sure to include every great fighter.
Does anyone else think its time to track down and destroy Frankenfrank? Also how do you guys rate Lou Ambers?
1. Yes. 2. Not sure where, but he's extremely underrated. One of the best resumes of any fighter, period.
I'd rather you take your time cos it seems you'll really unleash a beauty when you get to the finished product.