Boxing News ranks the 100 greatest fighters

Who do you lot think is the biggest omission? Joe Walcott? Harada? Packey? Bivins? Anyone else?

 

I've got Fitz very comfortably in the top ten. Wilde outside the top 20 last I actually did one a while back. I dont see how Canzoneri is so much higher than Ross/McLarnin, but I rate Barney highest of the three.

 

Walcott and McFarland, yes.

Terry McGovern.

 

that is the problem with these lists. They have their favorite styles and eras. No way for a real accurate list to be made.

 

Hearns gives me a real dilemma. I mean, I'm not shy about placing him within the Top 30 on an ATG list but the problem is, in terms of skills/ability/H2H he's one of the five most impressive fighters I've ever seen on film (for me) and I'm disgusted I can't justify placing him higher. He's usually the point I say to hell with these lists and just leave it alone.

 

good call i'm BARELY comfortable with a tentative top 10. top 100 is near impossible

 

An extremely tentative Top 15:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Henry Armstrong
03. Sam Langford
04. Harry Greb
05. Ezzard Charles
06. Robert Fitzsimmons
07. Roberto Duran
08. Benny Leonard
09. Muhammad Ali
10. Ray Leonard
11. Willie Pep
12. Charley Burley
13. Archie Moore
14. Barney Ross
15. Mickey Walker

Nipping: Louis, Canzoneri, Gans, Monzon, McLarnin among others... Sorry if that's a **** list. Not bothered.

 

Clearly you are bothered, or you would not apologize first...

Anyway it is your list, and your call, there is no right or wrong answers.

You seem to have all the right fighters, mostly in the wrong positions!

 

No, that was sarcastic. I really couldn't care less. :good

 

I think he should be higher, but these are so subjective. I cannot believe McCallum is not in there. And Pryor over Hopkins just is not accurate. Marciano at 21 is a little too high. It is always this way with the list. If a guy makes it into most 50 top ATG lists all the time, then he is pretty good.

 

I think Hearns should be higher than Hagler, regardless of Hagler beating him just because Hearns fought a wider range of HOF fighters in many weights than Hagler ever did. Had Hagler moved up to 175 and beaten Spinks I would have given him where they rate him here. This list is based too much on h2h matchups.. Although I am glad people finally are giving Ray the credit he deserves.

 

Hagler has said if Spinks wanted to fight him, he should've came down to 160. :rofl

Preposterous, really. But SRL is to take an exorbitant amount of **** for not coming to fight him in 1982. Okay.

As far as Hearns goes, he's absolutely the greatest fighter Marvin Hagler ever defeated and it was his first fight at 160. OTOH, Hearns demolished Cuevas in two, Duran in two, outclassed an incredibly strong (44-1) Benitez with a bum hand, outboxed Leonard in their first fight and clearly beat him in the second, beat an undefeated Virgil Hill at 175. Hagler's got middleweight contenders, Thomas Hearns has contenders everywhere: Gray, Espada, Weston, Hutchings, Shuler, DeWitt, Andries, on and on from 147 to 175.

 

Everyone knows Leonard was a fantastic fighter.Hell,I despise him and know how terrific he was,even though he manipulated the system like no other.I've no idea why you even wrote that.Whatever.As much as I respect Tommy Hearns,he NEVER EVER BEAT A FIGHTER HIS SIZE THAT WAS REMOTELY AS GOOD AS MICHAEL SPINKS.Not one.Not even close.Why you would expect Marvin Hagler to move up 15 pounds in order to beat an ABSOLUTE ATG in order to rate him higher than Hearns is beyond me as well.Cheers.

 

Leonard was the one that teased the boxing world about a possible Hagler fight and did so for years even though it was obvious that he wanted nothing to do with Hagler until it was certain that Hagler's reflexes and footspeed were gone,which they were,even though his power and chin were still there.Leonard even invited Hagler to the opening in his restaurant in Maryland in 1986 just to gauge Hagler's mindset considering Marvin's slippery slope downward,which Lenny baby was 100% aware of.As far as Tommy's best victories above 160,clearly the best was Virgil Hill,who was manhandled by Michelzewski and destroyed by Jones.****ing hell,Tommy was beaten twice by Iran Barkley.

 

Hearns was going to fight Spinks but Hagler beat him. That was going to be the next fight for Tommy. Hearns beat who was there for him. Hearns resume is just as good as anyone in boxing history as far as fighting HOF and ATG fighters. I don't understand the never beat a fighter his size that was as good as Spinks. Virgil Hill was Hearns height pretty much and a one less inch reach and a great jab, and Tommy outjabbed him. What more do you want? Size is not always weight. Hearns was a naturally smaller guy than most guys his height. That is like saying if Tommy beat Mike you could say he never beat a guy his size yet.