ESPN'S 50 Greatest Boxers of All Time...

I think this is a very reasonable top ten, although I would switch Ali and Armstrong and I wouls switch Pep and Duran. Johnson and Dempsey, some people are going to kick about these, but this is a GREATEST list, I think it's taken into account what a fighter achieved in a wider sense. But then we have Langford which reeks of redemption and justice, rather than achievment.

John, you've called Dempsey as to high - he's not to high. But he is to high if the list also includes Langford. You know?

As always, things get softer after the top 10. What possible criteria exsists to hav Foreman as the 20th greatest fighter ever? What does that even mean - nothing. I'm also struggling to understand the placement of Marciano above Moore given the wallpaper of the list, and why oh why oh why oh why oh why oh why is the great Leonard above the great Greb?

The placement of Saddler below LaMotta is freakish - this can only be the film. But ridiculous. The placement of Cerdan above Charles can only be described as ludicrous. We now see that your average ESB classic poster could put together a better list.

I've broken this differently just so we see that Oscar has been placed above Ted Kid Lewis, always forgotten. Some more weirdness here, but nothing desperate.

Very modern bias this section, it's like they've tried to squeeze some popular rather than deserving names in here. It's not that Jones and Whitaker and Hopkins don't deserve to be on a certain type of list, but this has really confused me as to the criteria. Is it a p4p list? If so, why is Louis/Ali so high? If not, why is Tyson below Jones? And if it's taking into consideration wider social implications (Dempsey/Johnson) why isn't Tyson in the top 15?

Most of all where is Holman Williams?

Terrible list, terrible. Your list would be far better than this John.


Obviously Dempsey's too high but there's plenty of interesting selections.[/quote]

 

Shat him/themselves I would guess.