For my 5,000th post : My Pound-for-Pound Top 50 Fighters of All-Time..

Is it williams i'm getting confused with? Is that the guy he didn't rematch successfully?

Here's mine. Not quite finalised but it's my rough version.

Couple of points

My criteria is resume, legacy and h2h in equal measure.

If you're considered the greatest ever in a division you make the list by default.

Fitzsimmons
Langford
Robinson ..
Greb
Louis ..
Armstrong
Ali
Charles ..
Pep ..
Duran ..
B. Leonard
Gans
Ross
Moore
Leonard
Walker
Burley
Tunney
Whittaker
Canzoneri
McLarnin
Monzon ..
Jofre ..
Wilde ..
N.P.
Griffith
Hearns ..
Arguello
Ketchel
Sanchez
Oscar
Spinks
Saddler
Walcott
Chavez ..
Pryor
Rocky
Hagler
Napoles
Dempsey
Lopez ..
Locce
Calzaghe ..

Still active

Pac (19)
Jones (26)
Hopkins (27)
Holyfield (29)
Floyd.. (40)
Toney (46)
Morales.. (49)

The double dot means they're my goat in a particular division. I put morales at sbw but my knowledge of that division is very poor.

 

charles avenged pretty much every loss he ever had. he dropped some unavenged decisions to experienced fighters prior to 1943. he avenged everything else up until 1953.

nice top twenty. pretty similar names to mine but i don't have burley. you'd think that your high ranking of burley would bode well for your ranking of charles! according to you, charles is 6-0 against all-time top twenty guys.

 

Yeah I know he avenged most of the ones that count like ray, bivins etc.

Yeah as I say I really rate his resume it's fantastic. He loses out to ali on legacy and h2h. The legacy is razor close tho. 3 times heavyweight champion of the world and being the man to have the second longest aggregate reign in heavyweight history with victories ranging from liston to foreman is very good. Still wondering whether I like charle's legacy more or not.

 

ok, what about this one. foreman > charles for manner of victory, and for achievements. charles > foreman for resume. foreman 2:1 charles!

 

Knocking out frazier, norton and moorer is hugely impressive compared to other heavyweights. Widening the boundaries it doesn't impress me as much. I'd give charles a h2h advantage here. Foreman was very successful against the names mentioned but at times he looked very amatuerish. Against ali, young, lyle etc he did not look great. In the heavyweight picture it looks great but overall it doesn't imo.

I'd have it 2.1 charles and maybe even 3.0. Coming back from 20 years later to win the championship is great, of course, but does it read better than having a ten year spell beating everyone you fight between middle and heavy? I'm not so sure.

There could well be a man out there that makes my formula look daft but foreman isn't that man, unless clubbing a guy to submission really impresses you.

 

ah, you share my lack of admiration for foreman... don't worry, i'll get one!

 

looking at your list again, louis is the only one that really stands out... i guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

 

Fair enough, I appreciate louis splits a lot of opinions. I just cannot look past his dominance. Plus I really rate his level of performance against opposition spanning a very long time. On that heavyweight champions after 1930 thread I posted quite a lot of heavyweight research i've done.

Louis, against top 10 ranked opposition is something like 36-3 it's amazing to me considering these are guys from brown to bivins spanning what 17 years or so? The variety of styles he was able to breakdown and ultimately knockout will always impress me. In my h2h category he'll only ever lose clearly to robinson. Achievement wise it's only the guys above him that outdo him imo.

Anyways if the worst thing about my formula is that it puts a great man like joe louis in the top five, I can live with that :good

 

yeah, louis is one of my favourites to watch. he had a great run, but for me, charles' run is maybe the greatest ever. eleven years, everything avenged, everyone out there. some of the best of all time in any division. good research in the other thread, enjoyed reading it.

 

this is a ridiculous way to make a lb for lb list. joe was the most accomplished at 168 but no great fighters stayed their entire careers at the weight plus the 168 div has only been around since 1984. andre ward is going to surpass what joe did at 168 if he beats froch and bute. does ward move into your top 50 all-time?

 

Well as I said before, i'm not a boxing historian so it matters not how people view my list.

 

It sure was something special i'll give him that.

Cheers, it took quite a long time going through them names and that's only guys after tunney!

 

that's an honest comment but you know your stuff as much as most on here. i just don't agree with that part of the rankings.

 

Why? What did Charles accomplish that was significantly better then Louis?

 

To say that Ezzard Charles was a greater fighter than Joe Louis is wrong. Yes Charles beat a shot Joe Louis in 1950, when Louis was THIRTY SIX years old,and a shell of his former greatness. In 1942-3 when Charles was fighting Maxim, Bivens, Lloyd Marshall,there was never I believe, a whisper of matching the LH Ezzard Charles with the 27 year old murderous punching
Brown Bomber. NEVER. Yes Billy Conn got the shot in 1941, because we at that time hoped that the fleet-footed Conn had the speed to nullify the
bombs of the great Joe Louis. He almost did that, but Charles in a shootout with the heavier murderous punching,was not as speedy afoot
to be considered style wise to beat the Brown Bomber...It is probable that no FIGHTER that ever lived,woiuld have beaten the Joe Louis of the Baer
fight in 1935, so how can you say, Charles, [great LH,as he was] was a better fighter than Joe Louis,prime for prime..?