The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

The featherweight Abe Attel. Wasnt he nicknamed KO Kid? I might be mistaken

 

Still dont know what everyone's up set over just b/c I threw Pac out. He never was high on my list. Even Ali & Duran not that high

Ray Leonard would be higher but his career is too short. Suspicious comeback & the like. The hype just didnt do it for me. Wins over Pryor & Curry wouldve helped tremndously. Either that or a 1989 red hot Micheal Nunn

I realized that people are also upset on how I ranked Hagler. Hagler is not well liked here even on ESP but when u got skills as he showed vs Hamsho & Sibson + power beyond compare + the animal instincts to rip your opponent to pieces (Minter, Lee, Hearns),, the world is yours, and there are no limits

 

The little Hebrew , the little champ

At least your ko kid wasn't joey spina

 

Thanks MB

 

Your Mum.

 

I would have ray leonard lower and hagłer higher but I can see others points and it doesn't bother me .


All your mothers

 

You leave my mother out of this you *******! :twisted:

 

Yes, but there is a reason for that. Compare his record to that of his contemporaries like Greb, Walker, Leonard, etc, etc. A very carefully managed fighter, Tunney was. With a couple exceptions, he fattened up his record on washed-up middleweights(Houck, Smith, Keiser, Wenzel, etc), washed-up light-heavies(Carpentier, Gibbons) and received his biggest acclaim by mugging a washed-up heavyweight champ.

He took very few risks in his career. Maybe if Tunney had gotten into a series with Loughran (why didn't he??) or bothered to fight blacks (where's Kid Norfolk?) you would see a few more losses, provided he didn't get his friendly NY judging involved (see Greb-Tunney II).

I don't see any way anyone could have Tunney within a sniff of the top 15. His record certainly doesn't justify it. And to have him ranked over Ezzard Charles? Whoo-boy...

MILES behind. That's like saying if Ali is number one should Ken Norton be far behind.

 

:deal

 

Ok everybody's else's mother and your sister:good

 

I couldnt rightfully rank SRL higher than 51. Too many negatives, way too little action, too little in the way of real opposition. That lalonde fight there was just no excuse for that travesty. Hagler wouldve been laughed out of boxing and stripped of his license.

Leonard was VERY fortunate I allowed him rank over Norris & Camacho, both of which I felt were better fighters. ESB too should be grateful I ranked him as high as I did

Hagler: far more proven,better skills with the better record, chin, longevity, better fights, better opponents,, etc.

Hard to believe that in the Sibson fight, he was just barely warming up when the fight was over, In the Hamsho fight also, fighting at half speed and dsetroyed a man with the stamina of Lamotta

and the Hearns fight, we've never seen anything like it or ever will again

 

Imagine if it was redrooster who started this thread:

"Help me sort out this top 100"

"Nah, **** off."


:rofl

 

Fair enough.

 

u could at least be funny in your replies

I assume this thread is open to other ideas. My list is decent and my explanations are all valid. If I knock a guy for fighting lalonde after saying he said he couldnt fight anymore due to eye probems, I'm going to place him where he belongs

and if I see a technically perfect fighter such as hagler, who put out performance of higher standards, he will be rewarded

Roy Jones, the second Sugar Ray was likewise rewarded for his fistic excellence. Was it wrong for me to put Roy over the likes of Armstrong? No. For as much as Henry achieved, Roy achieved more so

Likewise, Micehal Nunn also made it onto the list due to his lightning quick one punch KO of Kalambay. Too quick perhaps for boxing purists who enjoy 15 round snoozers but hey, punching IS the name of the game, and Mike made all the right moves

so no one can point the finger at my list and knock it since I am one of the more keen posters and know how to justify my picks