The Ipswich Express Top 100 Fighters of All Time List

damn!! :|

 

How hard is it to do this list :nut

Joe Gans was the First Black man to win the World LW title....most ATG lists have Joe higher...not that I'm arguing

 

I would have Gans in my top 20 personally.

 

Keen to see what it looks like mate.

 

I'm thinking Colin Graham at number 7......

 

The final 39 will be very interesting.. Mostly predicatable top 10... but ya never know.. Aussies in the top 40????

 

When did Jack JOhnson draw in 12 with Peter Jackson?

 

In the interest of fairness I always post a list up before I criticise another list. I've never gone to the lengths of a top 100, and because these things take time I've gone back through my files and found my most recent top 50 which is a few years old. You'll find I don't rate a lot of modern fighters as I think a little time needs to pass before their career can be rated without certain bias. I still stand by the list, although I'd probably make some tweaks if I looked at it carefully enough:

1 Ray Robinson
2 Henry Armstrong
3 Harry Greb
4 Roberto Duran
5 Sam Langford
6 Ezzard Charles
7 Muhammad Ali
8 Willie Pep
9 Benny Leonard
10 Jimmy Wilde
11 Gene Tunney
12 Joe Gans
13 Joe Louis
14 Ray Leonard
15 Archie Moore
16 Bob Fitzsimmons
17 Mickey Walker
18 Carlos Monzon
19 Pernell Whitaker
20 Sandy Saddler
21 Eder Jofre
22 Alexis Arguello
23 Stanley Ketchel
24 Marvin Hagler
25 Jose Napoles
26 Barney Ross
27 Michael Spinks
28 Tony Canzoneri
29 Salvador Sanchez
30 Emile Griffith
31 Jack Johnson
32 Thomas Hearns
33 Billy Conn
34 Aaron Pryor
35 Azumah Nelson
36 Julio Cesar Chavez
37 Tommy Loughran
38 Wilfredo Gomez
39 Rocky Marciano
40 Jack Dempsey
41 Evander Holyfield
42 Masahiko Harada
43 Terry McGovern
44 Wilfred Benitez
45 Bob Foster
46 Marcel Cerdan
47 Charley Burley
48 Ike Williams
49 Kid Gavilan
50 George Dixon

Anyway, while I've enjoyed reading through this, there's some things that need saying.

#1- I think Aaron Pryor is way too low. As is Fighting Harada. Both men were excellent champions who dethroned two of the all-time greats and I personally think both should be inside the top 50. Harada is often underrated by Australians because of the Rose and Famechon fights but at his peak he was a different fighter. Pryor is one who is rated different by many. My opinion of him is that if you could name me a single boxer in history who would have had an easy night with the Pryor who fought Arguello, I'd like to know who he is.

#2- Felix Trinidad over Kid Gavilan. To be a legend you've got to beat legends. Had Trinidad dethroned Hopkins, then yeah you'd be making a case for real all-time greatness. His best win (over Oscar) was questionable and other then that, bar Whitaker who was well over the hill, his record isn't that impressive. Gavilan on the other hand is probably a top 5 welterweight of all-time. Off the top of my head, Ike Williams and Basilio are better then anyone Trinidad beat, combine that with the competitiveness of the Robinson fight and the overall stronger era he fought in and the arguement for Trinidad isn't very strong.

#3- I think Foster is way too low as well. This guy was a wrecking machine at 175. Some of the lesser known Asian fighters you have over him really shouldn't be. Foster not only dominated one of the original divisions, he cleaned house of every light heavyweight in the era. Foster's reign is far superior to the likes of Galaxy, Yuh and Chang.

#4- It's utter madness to have Frazier over Marciano and Dempsey. As much as I like Frazier (and he's one of my favourites so this isn't bias), those guys deserve the spot so much more. Frazier's a lower end top ten guy, both Marciano and Dempsey make an arguement for the greatest heavyweight ever in a lot of respect writers opinion. I rank then 4 and 5 respectively at heavyweight with Frazier at 9. What further bugs me is Jersey Joe over all three of them? Unless your confusing him with Barbados Joe, the welterweight of the early 20th century I've got no idea where he came from. And as for Lennox Lewis, I personally think having a guy who utilised his size and weight to maximum effect in a pound for pound division over 180lbers who achieved more in the same division is a tad unfair.

 

My main criticism of your list is that I think you rely too much on numbers. Boxing isn't a numbers sport. 15 title defences in the modern era isn't the same as 15 title defences in the 1930s. Hell, holding a title now isn't the same thing because there's so many of them. Boxing these days is all about the pretty record and getting as many titles on your resume as you can whereas in the 1960-70s and back it was about who the best boxer was and these guys had to fight to prove it.
The other thing I think yoiu're overlooking is what these guys did for the sport. Dempsey was a real pioneer and the game changed a lot because of him. Both him and Jack Johnson were fighters ahead of their time with abilities that guys hadn't seen back then. Dempseys title reign looks shoddy to the naked eye but you have to consider how much money it was costing promoters to make fights with him. Stadiums had to be built to house the crowds for the fights and there were no tv rights or anything back then so when he fought it was an event. I really think you should do some research into Dempsey, the guy really was a legend of the sport.
Anyway, on with your list. It has been a good read so far and it was rude of me to interrupt in the middle and make you take time answering my questions. (You still didn't explain why Walcott is ahead of Dempsey :deal).

 

i have a feeling Bernard will be in the next 5-10 or so... as well as perhaps Tommy Hearns?