P4P Top 10 Official Survey (Poll Closes October 27)

The current list.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Sam Langford
5. Roberto Duran
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Charley Burley
8. Archie Moore
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Louis

 

1. Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Harry Greb
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Roberto Duran
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Willie Pep
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Benny Leonard

 

Completely agree. When you made the count down, I was must less concerned with the places of different fighters (which I largely agree with, though) than with your great descriptions of the fighters themselves. And Burley is a fighter that needs to be written about.

Since the achievements have to be on the table, there's less place to hide. Looking at what Greb and Langford achieved in terms of wins against great opposition there's no getting away from that they deserve to be very, very high up. Conversly, it gets very hard to defend such a high placing of Dempsey as for example Bert Sugar had.

Good luck!:good

 

Thanks!:goodHave enjoyed your posts here as well, as usual.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

:good

 

For me, there is clear daylight between Ezzard Charles and the likes of Duran and Pep. Charles is a level above, in terms of career greatness, IMO.

 

1 Ray Robinson
2 Harry Greb
3 Henry Armstrong
4 Sam Langford
5 Roberto Duran
6 Ezzard Charles
7 Bob Fitzsimmons
8 Barbados Joe Walcott
9 Muhammad Ali
10 Roy Jones Junior

 

I will always rate beauty above effectiveness, skill and flair above brute force and strength. (although that is obviously not my criteria, just think beauty is 'better' than effectiveness; its harder to achieve and is the pinnacle of being)

That being said:

1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Harry Greb
3) Sam Langford
4) Henry Armstrong
5) Ezzard Charles
6) Benny Leonard
7) Willie Pep
8) Roberto Duran
9) Muhammad Ali
10) Bob Fitzsimmons

 

The assertion was made in relation to the boxing world at large. Whether it applies here wasn't the point. It applies widely -that is the point.

I'd be curious to know, however, if you agree with that point.

I have to disagree. The examples you use are the elite of boxing -they are not representative. Additionally, far less fighters have 60 plus fights today than yesterday, though that wasn't what I was talking about. I wasn't clear. What I mean is that HWs can and do continue to campaign when older. There are many examples: Holmes, Foreman, Holyfield, the Klitschkos, and legions of lesser big men. Mamby, by contrast, is more of an anomaly. There are many variables, style being one of them, punishment being another, -so I can't really be certain that the fact that "power is the last thing to go" is the difference. I don't agree that there is more wear and tear on bigger frames though -it is the lazy man's division! It is also a fact that smaller guys punch more, move more, and are less likely to have fight-shortening power. One punch KOs are less dangerous than long-term beatings to be sure.

As for Duran, I think that you know that he was not swarming after June 1980. His legs were stiffening. His style evolved over the years -I see him as a puncher, a pressure fighter, a boxer-puncher, a swarmer par excellence at his peak, and then a counter-puncher. He aged gracefully in the ring -by adapting his style to larger opponents and aging legs. Interestingly, towards the end he became a trap-setter and once again became or tried to become a puncher. I'm thinking of the Pazienza fights as an illustration.

You'd say it supports your thinking, but I'd say that it supports my thinking. Ferdie Pacheco, Angelo Dundee, (I'd bet) Thomas Hauser, and ESPN's poll all have Ali close to the top if not at the top.

That makes me suspicious.

Given the starlit celebrity of Ali among his fellow baby-boomers, it is only sensible that we cast a suspicious eye on his being ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. I'd like to conduct an experiment on those (outside of ESB Classic) who rank him that high. I'd ask them to name three men that Greb defeated. I'd ask them what division was Ezzard Charles's natural division. I'd quiz them on Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, and then tell them to tell me who the third man was that Armstrong defeated to get the first of his three consecutive titles.

If they cannot answer those questions, then I would get a great big rubber stamp, and BANG it would read "INVALID" on their polls.

See what I'm saying here?

Some posters on this thread ranked only those fighters that they have seen. I respect that. Others rank Ali within the top 10 but I know damn well that they know their boxing, so I respect that too. I'll respect it even if I fight them if he's within the top 5, because bumping out a guy with 200 fights in a tougher era, in a tougher division, just demands a kindly protest.

 

That's fair. My argument is that if one is to have Duran amongst this calibre of fighter, why not Ali? It's just consistency.

 

Ali's was considered chinny because he went down and went down hard against Sonny Banks in 62 and Old Heneree in 63. That's the evidence that the scribes were looking at.

I'd say that prime for prime Duran was more, not less, susceptible to getting caught than Ali. The reason why is because his defense was of the technical sort -he was inside the danger zone, moving in and around shots and making them miss by inches. Ali's defense was less technical and less risky because it took place outside of the perimeter. He was out of reach. Now, which is harder? Which is more risky? Duran's. Duran was beyond Ali in terms of technical defense, but he was also easier to catch. Add to that his aggression...

What launched Ali above Louis in my rankings was that lesser champion that Ali became in the 70s -the one who took the punishment he did against Frazier and Foreman and Shavers and relied on his will to do it. It is the stuff of greatness. I wish he had the foundation of skill to fall back on when his legs went because he'd be in better shape now.

However, I'd take issue that HWs are more dangerous. Sure they hit harder, and are stronger, but this is a sport about smarts not that primitive stuff. I'm in the Toy Bulldog school. The heavyweights are easier to beat ...because they are slower and get tired quicker.

They have to rest -like big male lions sleeping 20 hours a day. Smaller guys not only throw more shots that are harder to see, they also rest less. Frazier is a noble exception that proves the rule.

In fact, I have a theory that this discussion/debate has inspired: Heavyweights who have a more active offense (who rest less) than expected seem to have an improved chance to dominate the division or at least excel. Dempsey. Louis. Marciano. Patterson. Ali. Frazier. Tyson. Holyfield. An interesting pattern...

Now, here's the difference. An active offense and resting less doesn't mean much at all in the lower divisions. So it makes me wonder... would Marciano have been so successful had he been a WW? I really don't think so. I think a Holman Williams would tear him up and I am convinced that LaMotta would match his strength and then his skills would offset the heavy shots. Foreman? Foreman may have been Lew Jenkins with a tan.
Frazier... is an exception. Why? Because he fought like the more formidable fighters in the lower divisions!

I'd agree to a point. The man who was 135 at age 25 is less likely than that man who was 152 at 25 to develop that absorbing strength. He has farther to go, so to speak.

Ali's 8 is compared in a p4p manner, but as to your question: CHUVALO.

 

Okay, but see that constitutes "Experience" on mine. And it's worth 25 points -more than the rest. But aren't you discounting other important criteria like level of skill, longevity, dominance, etc.?

 

I cannot place Duran any higher than 5. Even that rank surprised me. You said in an early post here that there is no reason that Duran should be higher than Ali. But there are at least three sensible ones -he outdoes Ali in terms of such things as "experience" and "longevity" and "performance against larger opponents."

 

I can't argue you with you but I've seen some people flip that 5 spot with those type of guys before. The top 4 is generally of that 4 with just a different order.

 

More like you haven't done your research. You'd be better off calling it a list of favourites.