Ray Robinson and Harry Greb, I put Robinson #1 simply because I've never seen Greb, but his resume is beyond belief
In terms of achievement & resume the guy in my avatar. Beat prime Walker, Tunney & Gibbons... despite being partially sighted. Doesn't really get better than that.. then throw in his 1919 insanity.. he fought 45 times, fighting in 21 cities across 8 states against HWs & LHWs despite being a MW. In that year alone he defeated 5 HOFers 10 times.. Levinsky, Mike Gibbons, Mike McTigue, Jeff Smith, Leo Houck & Billy Miske. No PEDs, no day before weigh ins, fewer weight divisions & gloves with far less padding. He stands alone. No one can compare. Try it.. you'll see.
Naming anyone before 1960 is like naming some soccer player from back then. Sure people fought more often, but the field was so much less competitive. If the general Level is lower, it is so much more likely someone achieves a superiority. No sports sciences, they smoked and drank ox blood... Between alcoholic beveraged I assume. "Best" boxers is a different category. The old guys might be able to compete on narrative. Often they will even be superior in that regard. But put one golovkin or canelo as much as I dislike him in a 1930s environment and they start beating top heavyweights, too. Probably even derevianchenko could. If you look for "best" boxer you have to look at more modern fighters. Caveat to what I am saying - being used to bigger gloves might spoil gggs and canelos chances, because they would need to change their style. But in general i stand by what I said
It's the opposite actually.. fewer divisions meant the talent pool wasn't as diluted & one belt per division meant u had a better idea who 'the man' was.. so for me those were purer eras. Most of the consensus ATGs are fighters pre 1960.. Charles, Greb, Armstrong, Louis, SRR, Langford, Walker, Fitz, Pep, Ross, Gans, Mclarnin etc.. Ask most of your favourite fighters post 1960 if they'd agree with that statement.. i think you'll find they would. Yes I'm sure you're going to argue its more global now & more competitive.. is it really tho? Go look up todays LHW & MW rankings & compare them to Charles' era or the Greb, Flowers, Walker era.. are Bivol & Janibek really fighting better opposition? Maybe look up i.e Barney Ross' opposition & tell me Tank Davis is fighting better too.. ye i don't think so.. As for GGG & his ilk beating the 1930s HWs.. What's he done or who's he beat to suggest he can take out Louis, Sharkey, Schmelling & Baer? Let alone prove he can operate successfully under the harsher circumstances that they thrived in.. no PEDs, thinner gloves, higher fight frequency etc.. that's what hed have to contend with.. against the eras best HWs too.. how have u come to thar conclusion valeria? Cos he beat Danny Jacobs? LMAO.. but but evolution etc etc..
I agree with you, that the old eras had more fights made. The best fought the best - and the worst in between ("bum of the month club" they used to say to louis opponents). GGG or anyone these days could ko one non professional boxer each month without preparation. Louis was great and all these other ATGs, too. But when talking about the best I wouldn't bet on them against modern fighters. They are often greater than modern fighters, but that is because of their story and because of how they fared relative to their opponents. If you have 5 fighters better than the rest of the field and then one fighter dominating those five it will always be great. But head to head they have no chance. Many argue that louis is greater than tyson, lewis, holmes and they might well be right because of what he achieved. But i wonder how many of them would bet on him if he were to face any of them head to head, prime for prime... Tunney had his great moment against dempsey because he was so technical. Everything tunney did is basic repertoire for most fighters these days. It would be a sad thing if boxing as a sport didn't evolve to the point that techniques and the knowledge how to use them get better with time. What are coaches there for after all? When I was training, my coach had a million little things to criticize no matter how well I did. Half of them weren't even known before the 60s. Boxing had to invent the jab once. fighters before that didn't know the concept. The soviets had sports science totally change training, both technically and with nutrition and how much and what to do to strengthen the body. To me the old timers have many great fighters, but when talking about the best I think we mean the ones that you would show to someone when pointing out what this sport is able to achieve in it's athletes.
Alfredo Di Stefano and Ferenc Puskas still get mentioned right up at the top in those football debates about the greatest.
My top ten, as of six years ago. 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Sam Langford 3. Harry Greb 4. Muhammad Ali 5. Roberto Duran 6. Hank Armstrong 7. Bob Fitzsimmons 8. Willie Pep 9. Joe Louis 10. Ezzard Charles Since then, I haven't seen anyone I could insert. Maybe Usyk or Inoue, but not as of yet.
Come on, we all know it's Oleksandr Usyk. Why deceive ourselves? Other mentioned boxers may be good as well, but Usyk is the best.
1. Harry Greb 2. Sugar Ray Robinson 3. Oleksandr Usyk 4. Willie Pep 5. Muhammad Ali 6. Benny Leonard 7. Tony Canzoneri 8. Roberto Duran 9. Manny Pacquiao 10 Henry Armstrong