Name some fighters who actually have a legit clame to being the best of all time?

Show me the proof, there is more to judging a fighter than the black & white of a boxers record.... important as it is, `resume` aint the be all.

 

My top 5 fighters ever are......

1. Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Willie Pep
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Roberto Duran

Oh yes, its true.

 

It may be true old chum, but it's not very good, is it? Pep over Armstrong? Give me a break. I would like to see you justify that decision, because it can't be done with any real legitimacy, not even by those who know a lot more about their careers than your good self.

 

I dont see better than those 5 as far as men with reasonable available footage.

There aint a lot between Pep & Armstrong TBH, both were the cream of the crop in their own style, I honestly feel Armstrong was the best swarmer ever & likewise with Pep as a pure boxer (hit & dont get hit)

I know Armstrong has the outstanding achievement of holding the FW, LW & WW titles all at once but he did have some early losses too, Pep only lost once at his best vs the LW Sammy Angott on pts, no disgrace there, he is the majority choice as best ever FW & has one of the greatest win/loss records in the sports history.

Its more a personal choice because it is very close between them, Pep was the best pure boxer, this is boxing, that scores high with me.

:good

 

But even that's a notable point, as Angott was beaten in his very next fight by Armstrong, who was well past his own prime.

But why? What if someone had a label like "the best KO puncher ever" - would that automatically earn him a top ranking among the P4P greats?

Besides, labeling Pep as "the best pure boxer ever" is questionable as there have been other great boxers that proved more and did more with their boxing skills than Pep, like Whitaker, Benny Leonard, and Barney Ross. Then there's other acclaimed defensive fighters with little or no footage of, like Jack Britton or Abe Attell, who we don't know how skilled they really were.

 

Robinson, Greb, Pep, Louis, Armstrong, Lightweight Duran, Langford and Ray Leonard would be the prime contenders.

Other arguments could be made for Ali, Benny Leonard, Marciano, Hagler, Prime Tyson, Saddler and the winner of Pac/Mayweather but i dont think they are as good as those listed above.

 

I'm changing what I said to Koki Kameda. From now on, that's my default answer for everything and I barely know who he is. ESB has done this to me. I am now insane. :nut

 

my top ten in no real order.

Barney Ross
Joe Gans
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Robinson
Micky Walker
Tony Canzi
Bob Fitz
Benny Leonard
And maybe Pep or Ted Kid Lewis.

 

Perhaps Langford,

Dont think Ali or Louis is top ten, Charles would make the next ten imo.

I get my weight jumpers with titles out of the way first like Ross and Armstrong, than guys that took over there era like Benny or Gans.

As for Ali, for the most part, outside of Foreman I belive, Ali did have a weight, height, and reach adv over almost all he fought. That Joe Fraizer was able to beat him should give more points to Joe, than the other way around, because Fraizer had to over come all of that with his body type.

 

Can't argue with most of the names quoted on this thread. There's debate on whether Muhammad Ali should be included. Imo,he's a cert !

 

You're dead right,Bill :good

 

langford, Greb, Roy Jones, Hagler, B. Leonard but not Ray Leonard

 

Langford, Robinson, Armstrong and Greb. No others.

 

Langford, Greb and Charles have the best resumes in boxing, some absolutely huge wins and a lot of depth. Along with the likes of Robinson, Armstrong and maybe Pep all have a claim as being the greatest some more so then others. Outsiders like Gans, Walcott, Fitz and Walker have a claim although not as strong as the aforementioned names.