P4P Top 10 Official Survey (Poll Closes October 27)

Joey Maxim will be top of my list. The only man to comprehensively defeat Robinson.

 

1. Harry Greb
2. Ray Robinson
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Sam Langford
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Jimmy Bivens
8. Barney Ross
9. Willie Pep
10. Alexis Arguello


Emphasis on dominance and weight 'jumping'.

 

Roberto Duran eats Willie Pep on one of these lists in my humble opinion

 

Hm, what about Mickey Walker?

 

There have been a lot of great fighters, and there have been a handful of all-time greats. Charles and Moore were all-time greats, Maxim falls short of that status.

One could count the clean punches landed by Maxim during the fight with the fingers of their two hands.

It should be fairly obvious that the heat favours the bigger, stronger man who was known for his stamina and durability and whose only chance to win was to wear down his smaller opponent, who was completely outboxing him all the way. Maxim barely threw any punches and Robinson did a lot of moving to stay away from the bigger man. Now you may argue that it was "brilliant" strategy, but it was far from impressive.

Too big perhaps, but certainly not "too good". Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins did sweep the floor with a young "super middleweight" Ezzard Charles, while no one ever dominated Robinson until he was absolutely ancient, however Ray Robinson was a welterweight and he should be judged based upon results against other welterweights and perhaps middleweights, but not light heavyweights and heavyweights.

There is no reason to put Walcott in. Charles was clearly a naturally smaller man, but went 2-2 with Walcott, winning their first two until unwisely giving Jersey Joe a third chance, and had a better overall record from middleweight up to heavyweight. Walcott came up short in two tries against both Marciano and Louis, all-time great heavyweights who rightfully rate above him, and also suffered an upset loss to the seemingly inferior Rex Layne.

The easy option is not to rate Maxim as highly as you do, because in no way does he deserve it. Robinson, Charles and Moore were truly awesome fighters, Moore for almost unmatched longevity and quality of opposition while Robinson and Charles were simply dominant at their best weights, and successful above it.

Tunney is arguably better pound for pound, due to accomplishments at both light heavyweight and heavyweight. He is certainly the better boxer, but not necessarily the better fighter. Greb only decisively lost to Tunney two times, and had a far more extensive overall record, not to mention he was 10 to 15 pounds smaller in weight.

In the case of Maxim, Charles and Moore, Maxim does not have a more extensive record of wins, usually doing worse against common opponents, and he lost their series very decisively, thus has no reasonable claim to being rated above Moore and Charles.

Pretty great indeed but how great? How great were his opponents at the time he beat them? Were his wins decisive or did he benefit from a bad decision? Did he get the better of his opponent in a series?

What all-time rules? There is no such a thing. The fact is that Maxim's win over Robinson convinced no one of his greatness. His toughness yes, but not his greatness. He was losing nearly every round to a natural welterweight, and pulled off a win over a man who was falling over on his own by the end of the fight. When competing against men of his own size, Moore and Charles, he did not get the better of them a single time. That puts an end to any claims about all-time greatness, when there were several men better than you in your own time.

But not all that much more since it's the only case that can be made for him when it comes to all-time greatness. The rest of his record simply doesn't match up.

I think nowadays Maxim gets flattered by the victory as often as he gets criticized. If the roles were the opposite and Robinson had won the title the same way, I cannot see him being given a ton of credit, let alone if it was happening to a man 2 divisions below his natural weight. I can hardly see any featherweight going 10 rounds with a prime Robinson, and certainly not winning the majority of them.

 

Probably.

Probably.

To be fair P4P lists are completly meaningless IMO. All these guys IMO all deserve in the same class of fighters.

 

It's all good, I know I must've probably been a tad annoying but I was curious. Probably because it seems people speak with these terms and I think sometimes we all are saying something different without realizing it.

 

loved the quote he gave when people blamed the heat for robinson losing to him...."well, there was no refridgerator in my corner.."

when you consider he was only ko'd once in a 115 fight career (and had revenge in the very next fight)...and beat robinson and walcott {once}...went close with charles a few times and archie moore a couple...and beat floyd patterson {although i read that patterson was robbed}...it all makes for fascinating reading..

 

:goodnah it wasn't annoying Pete,

also- Joey Maxim number one all time

 

:good

 

The greatest in action:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYN2eeIuZr4[/ame]

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Well he out-lasted Sugar Ray. The man most be a half-mortal. The ref, the crowd, and the great Sugar Ray all wilted under the heat. But Maxim persevered... and he tries to educate us with his whimsical undeniable logic.

"they talk about that fight like he lost because of the heat. well I always tell them I wasn't fighting in the air-conditioner either."

If only fights were 40 rounds and fought in outdoor arenas, Maxim would truly get to display his immortality. Forget about the Moore and Charles fights, those were fought in the cool air-conditioned arenas. Wasn't a balance playing field...

 

In a fight to the finish and under scorching heat, Maxim would outlast any man who ever fought, including a prime Jim Jeffries, although that one could last a couple of hundred rounds before Jeffries falls from exhaustion.

 

and GreatA also-

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:good