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

sweet_scientist · Dec 12, 2007

The fourth criterion might go some way to explaining why the list it so heavyweight oriented, but its still a horrible list, even factoring that into it.

JohnThomas1 · Dec 12, 2007

Senya13 said:

We don't know what criteria they used for their list. I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they compiling it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, care of ESPN

The fighters in this list have been assessed on four main criteria:
In-ring performance: A subjective measure and, to some degree, unquantifiable, but an important one. There's more to being considered a great fighter than compiling wins and collecting championship belts. There's also the manner in which the fights are fought and the wins are won -- the skill, the talent, the heart. Muhammad Ali brought a whole new style and panache to heavyweight boxing. Rocky Marciano and Evander Holyfield each defined fighting heart. Roy Jones Jr. and Floyd Mayweather Jr. at times displayed flashes of skill and superiority of a kind rarely seen in a boxing ring. At his peak, Mike Tyson didn't so much knock out his opponents as send them flying across the ring.
Achievements: Blistering power or silky smooth boxing moves aren't enough. Boxing's landscape is littered with fighters whose achievements did not end up matching their skill or talent. Almost all the fighters on this list fought at or near the pinnacle of the sport for years -- most either won multiple world titles or defended one title multiple times. Stanley Ketchel defended his middleweight championship 11 times in a short life that ended at 24. Harry Greb won the middleweight title despite being half blind in one eye, and went on to fight light heavyweights and heavyweights. George Foreman won the heavyweight championship of the world, lost it, retired, came back 10 years later and regained the crown at age 45. Henry Armstrong held world championships at three weights at the same time.
The exceptions all have good reasons for being so. Sam Langford, for example, was denied the opportunity to ever contest a world championship bout. Marcel Cerdan was injured during the first defense of his middleweight title and died in a plane crash before he could win back his crown.
Dominance: A factor that arguably works against those from eras with deeper talent pools, but one which rewards those who stood out from among their peers. Joe Louis was heavyweight champion for 11 years. Robinson suffered just one defeat in his first 123 bouts. Cerdan lost only four times in 110 fights, and each of them was due to disqualification, dodgy judging or injury. Pep allegedly once won a round without throwing a punch.
Mainstream appeal: This is the wild-card element. It's a disadvantage for most modern fighters, who compete in a time when boxing is no longer a mainstream sport, but it also conversely greatly boosts the candidacies of those few contemporary boxers who have achieved crossover recognition. In particular, it substantially elevates De La Hoya and Tyson, two boxers who might otherwise not be as high on this list -- or even on it at all. De La Hoya is perhaps the only active boxer with widespread name recognition outside of boxing circles, and nobody brought a buzz to the sport in recent decades to anything like the degree of Tyson -- who, for better or worse, remains synonymous with modern boxing in the public mind.
This list, then, is not just the 50 greatest fighters of all time. It is the 50 fighters who were the greatest in their time. It is a tribute to the boxers who have gone before, and to those who have strived to reach the standard their predecessors have set.
Fifty different writers will have 50 different lists. At a time when boxing is frequently criticized and condemned to oblivion, there will, hopefully, be enough fresh blood and exciting developments in the sport to render this list irrelevant and to elevate a whole new generation of pugilists into the pantheon of boxing's greatest.

Click to expand...

JohnThomas1 · Dec 12, 2007

Obviously Dempsey and Johnson come under the "Mainstream appeal" factors heavily. Same with Ali and Louis. This certainly explains the amount of heavies in the top 10.

JohnThomas1 · Dec 12, 2007

sweet_scientist said:

The fourth criterion might go some way to explaining why the list it so heavyweight oriented, but its still a horrible list, even factoring that into it.
Click to expand...

Bugger ya, you just beat me LOL

RoccoMarciano · Dec 13, 2007

Senya13 said:

We don't know what criteria they used for their list.

Click to expand...

true

I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they compiling it.
Click to expand...

what?

Senya13 · Dec 13, 2007

RoccoMarciano said:

what?
Click to expand...

I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they used for compiling it.

JohnThomas1 · Dec 13, 2007

Senya13 said:

I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they used for compiling it.
Click to expand...

WEll she's all up, multiple times lol

Ezzard · Dec 13, 2007

I don't like these criteria.

1st - Who they fought, then who they beat and then who they did well against; all taking into consideration factors like age, peak, venue, weight class etc... I don't consider spectacular KO's any more significant than points wins.

2nd - What could they do, skills, talent, psychology, etc...

3rd - How long they did it for...

4th - historical significance

Log in or Sign up

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

sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

RoccoMarciano Blockbuster Full Member

Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

Ezzard Well-Known Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

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

sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

RoccoMarciano Blockbuster Full Member

Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

Ezzard Well-Known Member Full Member