Bert Sugar's 100 Greatest Fighters(What Do You Think?)

It was posted that Sugar is entitled to his opinion. Of course, But the point of the thread was whether we agree or not. So--

Overrated
#23--Marcel Cerdan--I have defended Cerdan from being high on overrated lists on the basis that while he didn't defeat that many top men, we really don't have strong evidence that he wasn't as good as he seemed. His career was just too abridged by WWII. Still, I can't see him being put in the top 25. He would be a so so pick for top 100 on achievement.

#27--Jake LaMotta--certainly gets a lot of mileage out of the Robinson victory. Okay, but I wonder how many good middles might not have been able to take 1 of 6 from a welter Robinson? And there's the movie effect. LaMotta's record really does not match his reputation in my judgment. Another so so pick for top 100 on achievement.

#98--Rocky Graziano--exciting and not awful, but above Teddy Yarosz and Freddie Steele? Shouldn't be in the top 100.

#9--Jack Dempsey--this has been gone over many times, but this rating is all about what he would supposedly do in fantasy fights, not what he actually did.

Underrated
Teddy Yarosz & Freddie Steele
Duilio Loi
Lloyd Marshall (was only about a pound heavier than LaMotta, but toyed with him, and also KO'd Charles. I think a much better fighter than LaMotta)
Eder Jofre--should move up a lot.
Pascual Perez--should move up.
Gene Fullmer--should slip into the top 100. Was much more consistent than LaMotta or Graziano or Zale, never losing or drawing to anyone who was not a champion or top contender.

Overall--American biased and also old-timer biased. No rhyme nor reason to these ratings. The top four are the stars of his youth, like Fleischer, only Nat's youth was a generation earlier.

 

Sugar was very biased and always wore nostalgia glasses. Interesting and eccentric personality, but he shouldn't be taken very seriously. That's not to say he didn't have some interesting things to say and was in many ways a walking encyclopedia on the sweet science and it's history.

 

Dempsey was acknowledged as the greatest hwt we ever had by experts. A fighter as universally accepted as an ATG, Sam Langford, stated that Dempsey was the "greatest fighter he had ever seen." Arcel who first watched Dempsey in NY in 1916 (Arcel stated he did not look that hot at that time) felt Dempsey was the greatest and only Louis had the chance of beating him at his best. These words should be weighed heavily. They were spoken by two of the most respected figures in all of boxing history.

 

1946-06-01 The Pittsburgh Courier (page 12)
POMPTON LAKES, N. J.--"Joe Louis is the greatest heavyweight champion that ever lived." So said Sam Langford, the famous "Tar Baby," after a recent visit to this training camp. "He's fought anyone the promoters have ever asked him to fight, and all he asks is a referee that can count to ten."

Sam, now totally blind, entertained the crowd in Louis' camp with his stories and advice to the champ. "When you fight Conn for the championship, get on the inside of those long arms. If you stay on the outside he will jab you to death," was Langford's advice. "I like a puncher. It takes a million punches to win a fight on a decision but only one punch for a knockout."

 

Langford was on the money. Dempsey and Louis were the best hwts he ever saw. This should be remembered when those try to discredit these two fighters.

 

Left out great fighters like Frank Klaus, Kid Lavigne, Lou Ambers, Owen Moran, Billy Papke, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Billy Miske, Lew Tendler, Jack Root, Harry Lewis, Les Darcy, Young Griffo, Kid Norfolk, Dixie Kid, Willie Lewis, Max Schmeling and Paul Berlenbach

Fitzsimmons, Jeffries and Corbett are way too low. So are Kid McCoy, Tommy Ryan, Jim Driscoll and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. These guys were pioneers of the sport.

I will never understand why he's placed Maxie Rosenbloom, Emile Griffith and Beau Jack as high as he has.

There's so much other stuff I can't wrap my head around. He must've been under some kind of influence when he made this list.

 

Quite a talented list.

 

Cerdan and LaMotta above Hagler and Monzon confirms it.

 

First 8 are pretty solid then it gets progressively worse with Dempsey at 9.

 

I can say this much: I have seen worse lists. It is not easy listing a top 100. It is much easier to pick another list apart. Try making a top 50 Heavyweights list, let alone pound for pound. I am in the process of extending my all-time Heavyweight list to 50 right now. It is not an easy task.

 

I think that sounds about right. Though they did not reach the same level of 'attainment' they were better fighters. (i.e. they would've beat them one-on-one).

 

I can't see it personally, but that is what these forums are for. Have a good day!

 

What I think? I think the list has the wrong name. The list should be called "Bert Sugars 100 Greatest Boxers". If it's about "fighters", then the list should include MMA fighters, Rob Kaman, Frank Dux...
I think this is a great list. The longer the list, the more difficult it is to compile (it is easier to compile the top 10 than the top 100). If you don't believe me, try to make a list yourself.
P.S. it is easier to make a list of "TOP 100 boxers" than "TOP 100 fighters". Much easier.

 

Hagler had problems with a past prime Duran and SRL, I really don't see him beating full-sized ATG Middleweights both of whom are also ATG pressure fighters. Monzon was never a particularly dynamic fighter, his jab can only keep those guys at bay for so long.

 

Whats wrong with Dempsey at 9?