Hey Classic Forum! How's my Top 10 ATG List?

it's a good question. for many, including me, if robinson is rated above greb its based on footage in part as we can actually see how brilliant he is and the his complete domination of welterweight. robinson is the consensus best at welter and for many, at worst the second best middle of all time. his record against hall of famers is comparable to grebs and his skill set may be greater than grebs, based on the inclusion of pure, consistent knockout power which greb may have lacked

 

Jorodz, A weight lifter may have beautiful form in lifting 300 pounds over his head.But the next guy, same weight with a hitch in his lift hoists 330 pounds...Question, who is the better weightlifter ? Of course the 330 pound weightlifter, hands down...So with Greb , who licked bigger and stronger fighters then Ray Robinson, in his time AVOIDED, such as Charles, Moore,Lloyd Marshall, Harold Johnson,etc...I have said that prime Greb would surely lick every one of Robinsons middleweight opponents,no question about that...But could Sugar Ray beat the great heavier men that the Pittsburgh Windmill. beat time and time again? There is only one logical answer to this answer...NO.

 

i see your point but bigger and stronger isn't always better. i think the quality of their resumes in certainly comparable, but as you and many have stated greb may have the advantage. and certainly no argument can be made that greb didn't fight EVERYBODY. no one save harry wills lobied harder for a match against the feared jack dempsey. robinson though, did avoid a number of fighters, though i'd say he avoided burley most of all follow by marshall as you noted.

the key for many with robinson as i said before was his skill set: he was probably the most complete fighter of all time. this does not necessarily mean best but he could do everything perfectly and consistently. in both their primes, greb and robinson were virtually unstoppable for long periods of time but based on contemporary reports, robinson held the advantage in power and possibly technique.

they are likely the only two fighters (save possibly armstrong) who have a irrefutable claim to the top spot. I personally cannot decide between them but if i had to, I would lean towards robinson based on near perfection. he wouldn't have been able to beat all the men that greb did but bigger isn't always better.

 

Jorodz, great sparring, between us with no low blows...One point...Benny Leonard in his prime as a lightweight , could do probably everything Robinson could do...Leonard could box, move , jab, great two handed puncher,with great boxing intelligence...Yet Greb was the most dominate fighter of that golden age...One last inquiry ....Of course bigger is not better pound for pound...But if by miracle Ray Robinson and Harry Greb fought at 160 pounds, during the same time, and Greb was able to lick Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Tommy Gibbons, Jack Dillon,Battling Levinsky, Gunboat Smith, Bill Brennan,etc , and Ray Robinson avoided fighting such larger and stronger men....Who would you conclude was the greater boxer?. I rest my case....B.B.

 

:goodtotally agree and as always, it's been a pleasure

you make great points about leonard and greb and done the impossible: made it difficult to justify rating robinson as the number 1 p4p. i've got some thinking to do my friend

 

I would take you to task on the best comments. Robinson was the best of his time, but not the consensus best of all time. In relation to his welterweight ranking, his record (for its time) is no better than that of Tommy Ryan's both reigned for the same amount of time, fought roughly the same amount of fights etc. In fact, their similarities are uncanny. Both were different types of fighter and both were great. Although 90 percent of people rate Robinson as no 1 Welter, 90% of those, havent even heard of Tommy Ryan and dont even have him in their top 10. Further, most people think of and consider Ray Robinson as a class above his fellow welter and that no one would win a round, much less a fight against this version of Ray. This is incorrect. Welterweight Ray Robinson actually lost fights on Judges and/or Referrees cards. He had close controversial fights where the fans actually booed the decision being awarded in his favour! In fact some may say that his mob ties certainly wouldnt have hurt the decision being rendered in his favour, others might call such a situation fixing fights! None of this should hurt his legacy too much, he was an ATG and maybe the best ever welterweight, but he is overated by most.

In relation to his middleweight form, he quite honestly and simply wasnt as good as many fighters. BB has already pointed out Greb, but the fact is middleweight Ray was nowhere near as dominant as Hagler, Monzon, Fitzimmons or possibly even Tommy Ryan, to name a few without giving too much thought.

On the top 2 pound for pound, BB is right, Greb stands above Ray, and Ray could not do what greb did. But here is more food for thought, Bob Fitzsimmons did more than what they both did. Leave aside, that i dont believe either (sorry greb fans) could have won the heavyweight title at each stage, I dont think that either could have been as dominant at middleweight as he was (His ko streak and percentage was just phenomenal), i doubt that any could have done what he did as a lightweight!. Fitzimmons won the New Zealand Lightweight championship early in his career and then just 2 months later won the middleweight championship! Presumably this was done as a lightweight, or at least close to this weight. I couldnt imagine either of these two performing such an impressive feat as a lightweight. The naturally smaller sugar Ray is a chance, but he simply never proved he could do it.

Fitzimmons, imo, (and i probably sound like a broken record and lone supporter) has proven more at more of a weight disparity than any other fighter that ever lived.

 

Boilermaker, I agree with you that Bob Fitzimmons was a freak on nature...At his fighting weight of 160 to 167 pounds, he was the most P4P pound destructive puncher that vever lived... But the reason I chose another boxing marvel ,Harry Greb as Number One is Greb had about 300 fights ,while Fitzimmons had 62 recorded bouts...To have 300 bouts against larger men, fighting and winning ,and with the sight of ONE EYE, to boot, makes the Pittsburgh Windmill,the best P4P fighter to me.And remember also Harry Greb was only 5ft and eight inches also...Uncanny fighter was Greb...

 

I would rate Greb over Robinson too.

But I think Greb was a naturally heavier man. I think Greb was comfortable at 163 or 165 pounds, so when he's up against a lot of those light-heavyweights he's not giving up a hell of a lot in size. Then again, he took on some real big ones, 180, 190 pounders, so you're right.

Robinson gave up 12 -15 pounds in some of his early fights with LaMotta, and 8 or 10 pounds with many others when he was a 145 pounder in his prime.

 

Its so tight up the top I really cant find a place for Louis. I have Ali at number 8 so its not like I have him particularily high in my top ten. He is 10-20 for me though for sure but who makes way for Robinson, Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Charles, Pep, Ali, Duran and Fitz? I wouldnt find it crazy to see Louis in a top ten though of course.

 

We're pretty close. Although not in the same place at the moment, eight of my top ten is in your top ten and the two of yours that I don't have in the top ten, are in my top 20.

 

You havent overrated Ali, some guys on here underrate him, thats all.

Anyway... I dont rank men with 0 or bad footage but of all the fighters on your list with decent footage, there aint any that dont make my list.

Mines is.....

Robinson
Ali
Pep
Armstrong
Duran
Leonard
Chavez
Whitaker
Louis
Hearns

(Pep & Armstrong can go either way.... as can SRL & Duran.... as can the trio of Chavez, Louis & Whitaker)

 

Good list. My2Sense is right about the Charles>Pep thong though.

 

A solid top 10 IMO. The only things I'd quibble with are having Ali above Langford, and not having Ezzard Charles in there. For me, Langford has to either 1st, 2nd or 3rd, any lower is unjustifiable. And Charles is a top 5 lock in my opinion. Other than that, good list amigo. My own is slightly different:

1.Greb
2.Langford
3.Robinson (but my top 3 are pretty much interchangeable)
4.Armstrong

5.Ezzard Charles
6.Duran
7.Ali
8.Mickey Walker
9.Benny Leonard
10.Barney Ross/Willie Pep

 

I agree with everything you say, but i am not sure about the figure of 62 recorded fights for Fitz. Fitz, from what i have read, claims over 300 prize fights himself. Admittedly, because of the times, many of these were labelled exhibitions, 4 round no Decisions and/or unrecorded.

Both had longevity that is virtually unaparralleled. It is good to see that in the last month or so, Fitz seems to be coming into his own on this board in a pound for pound sense and at least being mentioned in most top 10s with those he isnt in usually, using lack of footage as the reason. Greb is probalby in the same boat, although most seem to rate him higher. I think i am starting to see Greb move into a clear no 2 lb for lb ranking, ahead of Armstrong, though i would like to have some Langfor fans push his case as i think he may be close to these two also.

 

Sam Langford?