Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Feb 15, 2013.
Marciano should be ranked higher. Beat three of your top 15. But awesome list.
Some of the posts in here since the heyday of this thread are.....well, quite frankly abysmal.
Strange that no one has Charles Martin or Tony Bellew in there top 100.
I'd find room for Benny Lynch and Joey Archer in that top 100. Outside of Jimmy Wilde, Lynch could beat any other flyweight. Archer with his silky skills could have given quite a few in that top 100 a boxing lesson
I have a problem with this. It's not useful to lump together the entire lineage of a sport then determine the best of all time, other than for ****s or giggles. This ignores the evolution (or devolution in some cases) of a sport over time. As sports grow and develop they change, rules are refined, standards are generally improved, goalposts are changed. If the sport becomes more popular then the overal level of competition increases, which in itself usually raises the bar.
For example, there's just no way to say with any real conviction that Bob Fitzsimmons or Sam Langford are 'likely the two biggest punchers ever.' It's just an opinion and I could counter by saying that Jackson or Hearns are bigger punchers P4P. Who is right? They fought in different eras with different rulesets and mentalities. I think it's better to say that all 4 are among the hardest punchers P4P of all time. It's like in football - can you really say who was better between Pele, Maradona or Messi? I can't and I would argue that no-one really can. it's all just opinions at the end of the day.
Was just perusing through McGrain's top 100 heavyweights, broken down into 10 chapters. Good stuff McGrain.
For me today's heavyweights would be to big and dangerous for the likes of Marxian and co, but what do I know just a thought
I love reading this thread from time to time and go over how it got to this point. In recently doing so again, I was just curious on the discussions and reasoning behind Hagler and Monzon being listed where they are, for example, say above Holyfield? I thought p4p implied, no matter the size, this man could get the job done. All the fighters in the top ten, and many more throughout the listed, showed those very qualities. Hagler and Monzon, basically fought in the same division their entire career, and never moved up in weight to see if this p4p theory is true. What's more, if there were fighters who moved down in weight to challenge them, we'd at least have that, even though it was still fought at their same weight. Instead, we see nothing like that with either, but instead, it was fighters moving up not down, and were generally smaller than Hagler and Monzon. So I was just curious what the extrapolation was here that got us to having them ranked higher than some who actually did meet guys across various weights, and often times being the smaller guy?
Good question and hopefully some more chime in although you might want to start a separate/new thread as I don’t know how many revisit this one frequently.
For me the resume is contrasted and while other factors weigh in the favor of success or sustained success in multiple weight divisions, I balance it against that same criteria of longevity accomplishment ranked opposition for those who didn’t or were not built to navigate multiple weight divisions. Hagler Monzon Hopkins spring to mind as do HW’s in general. I try and contrast the opposition and sustained level of greatness but that does not exclude those who had sustained greatness in one or very few divisions. I do think doing that in multiple divisions gives added points and is why many of the top tier guys did in fact achieve greatness in multiple classes or divisions. Which is probably why the Haglers/Monzons for example come on in the 20s ? Even though their duration and defenses are on par or exceeds others it also lacks the multiple weight level enhancements of others. But good question that I hope others who do ratings will comment on
I thought the idea of p4p was that you don't equate for their weight or size, you rank purely on their skills and attributes. Obviously resume and achievements would come into play, but more of a way to compare fighters from different weight divisions in more of a H2H manner.
Foreman deserves to be higher than 100. Lewis deserves to be higher than 94. Sweat pea is too high for me and the same with Rocky. Gene Tunney is a bit low as well. But it’s just my opinion
And your opinion means absolutely nothing
Eh...It means as much as anyone else's on this topic not named McGrain.
No it doesn’t as he’s given no reasoning for it.