Bert Sugar: "Manny Pacquiao is the best Southpaw of All Time"

Neither Morales or Barerra come close to top 50. ESPN is being ridiculous.

 

As i've stated in an other thread, Bert Sugar is an entertainer, not a boxing historian. And his opinions should be seen as such. Up until two years ago, Lennox Lewis wasn't even in his heavyweight top15 while Tunney was in the top10, for ****s sake!

 

This must be an old list on Sugar's part because Marvin Hagler is 47 on the list and Manny is not in front of him. No disrespect to Manny, but Marvin was a better fighter.

 

In no other sport does there seem to be a definitive list of "musts" as there is in boxing when it come to boxers all time ranking.

I think every other sport has arguable greatest of all times. Football (soccer) for example, it is generally considered that either Pele or Maradona is the greatest player ever. But if someone suggested Cruyff, Puskas, Platini, Best, Eusebio, Zidane etc. they would not get laughed out of the room the way a person would were they to not have SRR as top of the all time P4P list.

Tennis is another great example...you have Borg, Nastase, Sampras, Lever, Federer etc....all arguably the number one.

I rank Pep above SRR personally but I barely ever discuss it as I think as soon as you say SRR isn't number one people instantly discredit you.

I don't agree with Sugars assesment of Pea, but I don't have a problem with it either and i think he's earned the right for his opinion to be respected.

 

Bery Sugar :verysad

2 words.... Pernell Whitaker.

 

i didnt know bert had been stricken with alzheimers....seriously though,hes either taking the **** or has been caught up in the pac hype train

 

i didnt know bert had been stricken with alzheimers....seriously though,hes either taking the **** or has been caught up in the pac hype train

 

bert's got the knowledge, but their ain't anyone home to use it....

 

You're asking why we believe our picks hold more merit? I guess we can't convince you unless you're willing to do the research necessary to educate yourself and form your own opinion. That's really the only way you'll know for sure. If the vast majority of uthose who have done said research can come to a consensus that Bert Sugar is a bit nutty with his boxing views, that should offer some perspective.

 

ive done my fair share of research in the last 35 years and have formed my own opinion. i dont pretend to have all the answers so i am willing to get some concrete evidence on why one list is better than another so that i may amend my own or feel more secure in my current belief.
i have come across several "consensus" views on esb that i feel are wrong so i dont put too much stake on what the majority sees here.
i will admit that my knowledge on past boxers is very limited pre 70s. i prefer judging boxers on performances i can witness and not have to rely on what other people were saying about them.
my problem is that i am faced with the dilemma of picking an argument between a lifelong student of the game and a hobbyist at best. im not saying that the hobbyist is automatically wrong but what is someone in my shoes suppose to do?
i see many posters say bert is full of **** but i see little proof other than a difference of opinion.

 

Sorry, I didn't see your reply to my post.

I do agree about judging a fighter you can witness.
May I ask you your Top 10 P4P fighter then ? It would give us a good insight of your preferences.

 

Dont think so.

 

my list is as follows.
robinson
ali
armstrong
duran
charles
monzon
ray leonard
marciano
chavez
pep


some of these i guys i have not seen much of but their achievements on paper can not be ignored. others are in there because ive seen a lot of and i cant see them losing to many in their prime. again, keep in mind that i judge on what i have seen or consider reliable info.

 

Monzon and Chavez, while no Langford or Greb:think

 

its not too bad having Monzon in a top 10 list but having Chavez in ESPECIALLY with no whitaker is ******ed