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

Charles was an ATG of that there is no doubt. But to rank him ahead of Louis in any ATG list is just wrong. Louis' accomplishments as a fighter and Champion far out weigh those of Charles.

 

Thank you :good

Flawed as it may be, I just feel if you can be widely regarded as the greatest fighter ever in a boxing division then that is a sign of greatness. Perhaps it is just because noone else stayed there as long, perhaps not but for almost 30 years now the division has been in affect so i'll stand by my decision for now.

 

Ofcourse it doesn't mean that.

It means that louis was greater considering manner of victory, more dominant in the ring and, imo, displayed better skillset than charles did.

Unless there's some awesome footage of charles i've missed out on?

I see louis as a perfect fighting machine.

Unless there is anything indicating that charles was a superior fighter in the ring?

Note I might let you convince me charles had more skill than I currently give him credit for, but my system stays as it is!

 

burt, given that you rank fighters according to their ability head to head, does this mean that all of the greatest fighters are heavyweights, as they'd beat the largest number of other fighters head to head in their primes?

i have read many times that you think that greb is the greatest fighter who ever lived though. you surely don't think he would beat ali or louis... do you?

also, do you consider light heavyweights part of the heavyweight division? i'd be grateful if you could answer these questions, as i'm trying to get to the bottom of your thought process. thanks.

 

Dominating a heavyweight division for 12 years. A number of past prime performances against top ranked opposition. The way he systematically and methodically broke down heavyweight after heavyweight really impresses me.

What charles did between middle and lightheavy is legendary. What he did at heavyweight is really a cherry on the icing which is tremendous considering the amount of heavyweights he would go onto fight and defeat. I'm not questioning charles' credentials at all, the man is a true elite legend.

Perhaps I just impress more by what louis did, perhaps my love of the heavyweights blinds me to some obvious truth.

I don't have favourite boxers per se so i'm not biased but perhaps I am more impressed by the exploits of the heavyweights than the average boxing fan. But to conquer the greatest division and rule over it for such long time is an awesome feat I just cannot ignore.

 

why do you like the heavyweights so much?

 

Just the rich history, the consistency, the battles they've produced just everything about it.

There's a reason why the heavyweight championship was called the richest prize in sports.

Men from john l sullivan to wlad klitschko, the history fascinates me.

 

yeah, when i got into boxing, i was fascinated by it too.

 

Resume, legacy, h2h. In equal parts.

You changed my thinking once, it aint happening again haha.

Charles might move above ali perhaps, not quite sure just yet.

But him and armstrong both stay beneath louis imho, for whatever that is worth lol.

In bygone years fighters were judged on perceived talent levels, it has swung more to resume based now so I like to combine the two plus add in appreciation for the sum of their achievements, again this is in equal measure.

So I basically look at who a fighter beat in comparison to another. I measure my perception of their legacy in comparison to another and then I weigh up the h2h ranking (method of victory, dominance, skillset etc.) Whoever comes up 2 out of 3 ranks higher.

I'm quite happy with my list as it so please don't dig too deep in am attempt to expose some flawed logic at hand lol