Best Boxers of All Time, by Division (LIST)

I agree with everything but the Middleweight listing - It should've been The Marvelous one

But then again , thats a matter of opinion and i'll admit i might be a little biased due to the fact Hagler is one of my top 3 fav of all times .

 

Watanabe > Galaxy, but otherwise the list is fine. I might trade Hearns for McCallum and Greb for Monzon, but there's nothing wrong with those calls either.

 

No. Watanabe, Roman, Konadu, and Moon would all be better choices for my money. Although I suppose Galaxy wouldn't necessarily be a bad choice, all things considered. I'd just favour most of those men in some way or another.

 

cant trade Greb for Monzon, Greb and Langford are the only one's who you can make a legitimate argument for possibly being better than Robinson. Well and Armstrong.

 

Yes, because they both did ridiculously impressive things outside of Middleweight to go along with their accomplishments at the weight. Strictly on what they did at 160, there's still nothing wrong with saying Greb, but I'd probably put King Carlos at the top.

Oh, and Armstrong has no case to rate above Robinson. He'd be lucky to outrank Ezzard Charles :yep

 

This is a lot better than the recent boxing lists I've read on Bleacher Report.

 

McCallum did not have the resume of Hearns at 154. Hearns fought and beat Benitez and Duran at this weight when both were champs, outboxing the boxer and knocking out Duran. He also defended the title against Minchillo and Hutchings and Medal.

 

Jackson, Curry, Kalule, Braxton, McCrory, Minchillo > Benitez, Duran, Minchillo, Hutchings, Medal.


Dont' worry though MAG, I'm just saying it could be argued either way.

 

He has a case to be ranked in the top 3 for sure and he sure as hell out ranks Charles It's silly to even think otherwise Armstrong held 3 titles and the same time when there was only 8 and had a insane resume, Charles was probably the best LHW ever but there isn't any argument fathomable to put him ahead of Henry. If you can come up with a real one I will literally eat my hat.

 

No. Fighters should be judged on several criteria.

This is why every list is subjective. There is no such thing as a definitive ATG list. This also applies to P4P lists.

 

Against other top 25 ATG's, Armstrong is 1-1, beating Ross and losing to Robinson.

Charles is 6-0, beating Archie Moore 3x, Charley Burley 2x, and Joe Louis.

Charles moved through as many divisions as Armstrong, beating a slightly more impressive list of fighters along the way. He was denied ever getting a shot at the Middleweight or Light Heavyweight title, but that can't really be held against him. He fought practically everyone he possibly could have from Middleweight to Heavyweight, whereas Armstrong "missed out" on fighting several notable welterweights of his time, such as Burley, Williams, and the Cocoa Kid. As a heavyweight, Charles also actually had to overcome greater size disparity more often than Armstrong did at Welterweight.

On film, he also looks just as impressive as Armstrong, maybe even more so. They're #'s 4 and 5, just missing out on the company of Robinson, Langford, and Greb.


I hope your hat is made of something delicious, my friend.

 

It is debatable that is for sure and that is what makes it fun. Hearns wins are much more iconic in my mind and Benitez and Duran were 80's icons. beating Benitez for the title and knocking out Duran is more than the two top guys which Mike beat Jackson and Curry. Curry it can be argued still was not over his loss to Honeyghan and Jackson was still a young fighter when Mike beat him.

 

I would rate
Archie moore over charles (close)
MMH over Greb (easily MMH was the GOAT AT MW!)
Duran over JCC @LWW*
Pernell @ 135**
Nelson at SFW
I kinda liked Zarate at bantam but Jofre was great as well

Duran and Pernell>>>JCC, Duran was more or less a LWW when he fought so I rank him over JCC

outside of that great list

 

:deal Where is Donaire and Pac?

 

Explain.