Pound-for-pound list

Right now i'm struggling between this:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Roberto Duran
7. Sugar Ray Leonard
8. Willie Pep
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

and my bold faced list, which is how good i think they were, with no other criteria-

Robinson
Ali
Duran
Greb
Pep
Chang
Mayweather
Rees
Louis

 

How can anyone really quantify whether or not Len Harvey was a great fighter on a world stage? He fought his entire career overseas (outside of a short 3 fight trip to the US in which he went winless in 3 fights) and rarely against world class opposition, and when he did it was typically with mixed results against other Euro-class fighters of the same ilk (Len Johnson, Jock McAvoy, Marcel Thil, etc.). Thil was clearly the better of the two, in my opinion.

 

The list is a compelling one. I happen to like Armstrong in the top spot -not because I agree that he should be over Greb or SRR, but because you defend it well and he deserves to be at least be proposed there. He's one person of the fistic trinity. (Greb, Robinson, and him).

Enough of that. It's time to return a favor. You declared my ranking of Burley at #10 as indicative of a flaw. I would shine a spotlight on your considering Gans, Fitzsimmons, and Langford. Langford's career is far murkier than Greb's with or without the film. He was a known tanker. We do not know how many of his losses -or his wins- against Jeannette, McVea, et al. were on the level. They had to eat and it is pretty certain that they would rotate who won to increase interest and get more purses -especially because of the reluctance of Papa Jack to offer a brother a title shot. Sam also carried fighters. Especially white ones.

Gans, Fitzsimmons, and Sam fought in a murky era -and no one is gonna tell me that going 15 rounds with a neutral corner rule and licensed judges is the same as going 20 rounds in a barn with no neutral corner rule and newspaper decisions where much of the press were on the take. So, we have a validity problem. Would Ruby Bob have done as well as he did in the late 19th century as he would have had he fought in 1949? Who knows?! Essentially, the sports are too different. Now let me turn off the broken record.
...

This content is protected

 

This list is compelling for a different reason. It compels me to attack it.

* Was Ali greater than Armstrong?

* Ray Leonard at 4?! Say your prayers tonight, Pachilles, because the ghost of Benny Leonard is gonna spin your head around.

* I've said it before and I'll say it again -Roy Jones in a P4P top ten is about as appropriate as a transvestite at King Arthur's Round Table.

* Do you believe that Hagler and Hearns are greater than Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore...?

* Sanchez is a coulda' been, even a woulda' been -but sitting there at number 8 makes him look like a midget on a throne. Why you gotta go and do that to him?

 

--While you threw a sneaky (Holman) hook at the same time!

Okay.

 

Simply because anybody pre-1940 is getting their ass completely and utterly served by the names on that list, in their respective weight class.

* Yes i do believe Ali is greater than Armstrong. I explained in length my opinion of the HW division in P4P lists. There is no weight jump on paper, its just wide open and completely full of men all physically capable of taking you out. No point in going into how he beat the biggest punchers ever or how he beat prime top 10 P4P ATG prime HW's, past his own prime...which is a triple rarity. Then theres his clear to see technical and physical superiority to Armstrong on footage we have.

* Benny Leonard. I've seen footage of him. He is clearly no Hearns, Duran, Hagler or Benitez and never fought, let alone defeated anyone on their level, physically or technically

* If King Arthur was so hetero, his table would be straight and rectangle. And his woman wouldnt have left him for some medieval hipster called Lance.

* Yes, i do believe Hagler and Hearns are superior P4P fighters.

* Sanchez dismantled a monstrous punching HOFer in Lopez, a monstrous punching SuperBantamweight king in Gomez and a very game future champion and HOFer in Nelson. Which throws the shoulda and coulda out the window. The rest of his argument is clear to see on footage.

With Ali, Jones and Ray Leonard i think i know your agenda. Theyre mainstream so you spite them

 

After this Pablum, why would I read any more?

...because I'm a masochist. That's why.

I do my best to respect other opinions but I can't respect those so hopelessly ill-informed as this one.

You're a fugitive from the General Forum who has pitched a ragged tent on the Classic forum. Someone get me a match.

This is almost as humorous as the rest of your post.

Superior to Charles and Moore. Really. I'm very tempted to use an emoticon here.

...and this catapults him into the top ten p4p of all time? This demonstrates more limitations in your knowledge of boxing history than it does Sanchez's undeniable greatness.

I rank Whitaker, Duran, Arguello, Monzon, Chavez, and Ali quite high. They're not mainstream?

 

You can talk all you like, Mr Hands. Pull rank and be as condescending as you like with me. I dont care about my credibility in this little sub-culture. I just love watching boxing

I can tie my own velcro and common sense tells me that this guy...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcq-Sy05C-8[/ame]

would be breakfast for either of these guys...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqEUX2Vw6k[/ame]

Same goes for a Jones Jr, Bob Fitz comparison. Or a Dempsey, Tyson/Ali comparison. Or a B Leonard, Ray Leonard comparison. Or a Ross, Duran comparison.

 

Barney Ross isn't primitive by any stretch of the imagination though Pachilles. Many people who believe that boxers from the earliest glove boxing days were primitive, they credit Ross as being the catalyst for the revolution of boxing technique. Ross is an atg technician without any reservations.

 

I generally agree with you about that, but don't see the relevance really. That would just be giving more modern fighters a bonus for developments in boxing (which are largely due to the greats that preceeded them) and developments in sport sciences in general. You have to rate each fighter in relation to their own era IMO.

 

1) manos de piedra.

2) Harold greb.

3) Bobby fitz.

4) samuel langford.

5) Eazy charles.

6) Carlito Monzon.

7) Sugah 1.

8) Sugah 2.

9) cassius marcellus.

10) Joseph barrow.