The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Firstly; any vagueness on Dixon-Walcott is completely just by comparison to Williams-Williams, surely, since there is far less information on the former pair.

Also, they seem pretty close, don't you agree? Same as Williams-Williams, except you place them miles apart. The emphasis is on the four or five tiers by the way.

I see Dixon and Walcott as close, and I give it to Dixon by about five places maximum because I understand he was the innovator between the two and he was regarded as a perfect boxer in his day. I may prefer the idea of Dixon being higher, too, but then I wouldn't separate them by twenty or more spaces.

Your arguments of boxers featured on your pound-for-pound list need only apply to Burley if you want to get technical. A good version of Moore lost to Williams, even if he was bigger, because of low blows, and proved his superiority in the rematch.

Williams did lose the series to Gavilan, correct; but only the third fight was clear. Overall Ike was a hair behind a #4-8 Welterweight. If we say Holman was a hair behind Burley, where does Burley rate in relative terms to Gavilan really? A better middleweight than Gavilan was a welterweight?

You seem to be muddying the water with this stuff. Like Charles was tier one material when Marshall thrashed him. Gavilan was already an iron jawed beast when Williams equaled him in two fights - Charles was yet to fill out in the army and was 'only' an excellent but not-yet-great middleweight.

Lloyd Marshall, a great fighter. Not necessarily better than Angott or Joyce. I know Williams lost his series to Joyce, but ****, Holman was only evens with Cocoa Kid. Joyce was on their level! There are people who want him in the Hall of Fame.

Dawson, too, was an excellent boxer who would likely equate in evenness with Eddie Booker. He is very highly regarded. Williams proved his superiority there.

Maybe you don't know a lot about the '40s lightweights. That's fine. I'm fairly lost on '70s featherweights and '40s bantamweights. But Jack was a seriously good lightweight. So was Montgomery, even an aging version. Angott, too. It was a tough, tough era. Larkin, Bratton and Bolanos were of high quality.

Some of the older posters may tell you about this. Burt and John Garfield in particular saw Ike and considered him a lightweight Ray Robinson of the toughest lightweight era in history. I believe McVey is also a big fan. These kind of posters rate Williams #3 to #5. Off the top of my head, ETM, Surf-Bat and SuzieQ49 also rate him top five. These people are familiar with his career and I just don't see the same regard for Holman. Is it because he is underrated? Even now?

Not that Holman is less than a #28-32 great. I am just illustrating my point that to rate him four or five tiers above Ike is as absurd as having Monzon four or five tiers above Hagler.

With the Napoles-Rodriguez thing, forget I used numbers because to this thread it doesn't apply. You used tiers. And you said Ike was four or five tiers below Holman. There is no ****ing way that's right, and I'll tell you why, because it implies one was a lot better than the other. So it's like putting Rodriguez several tiers below Napoles because that sounds stupid.

 

You're taking one thread from one site. Nevertheless, I concede that you are right in this instance, it must have been in my head (because Williams' style does match up superbly and I consider it even). Here's an even thread versus Duran:

[url]http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=11286168[/url]

My point still stands. Ike is considered among the very elite lightweights, Holman is not to the same extent, even if I believe he gives many top seven middleweights at least a very tough night.

 

You can talk about any list you want and I bet most of them mention Ike before Holman. But you're talking about lists put together by people not necessarily in the know - I bet most people familiar with both couldn't bare to see them separated by the wording; four or five tiers.

 

Manassa its ok. Let's just get Loughran in first.

 

This is a brilliant post! Forget Pittsburgh and come on over to the Dark Side young Skywalker.

 

Or T. Gibbons?

 

Gibbons would give Dempsey to much credit. Plus Loughran won a title held his own with 3 top 40 guys and beat three heavyweight champions.

 

Anyway I'm leaving this ****ing **** debate!

Ike Williams four or five tiers worse than Holman? ****ing joke!

This is all **** and ****ed.

Excellent point on Dempsey. Gibbons must be moved down as far as possible.

Haha lots of quotes. Good night

 

The elitist prickness always comes out in a classic ranking lists thread, huh.

 

Hey i'm not an elitist!

 

You are the only exception.

You're well schooled in eventology. You know as a member with strong pull I can get you in the Main Event Mafia with this kind of talk if you would like? As an expert on eventology I can attest that you've got one of the strongest EVT records on ESB.

 

Burley is overrated.

 

Well as Canto and Chang haven't had a mention yet....

 

He got up to well over 50 before.

Was a good list too.

By the way where is YCIII?