The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

:happy Mandell has made it back into view of course he should a teir or even two higher but that may happen later , maybe not .


Still no berg that's just wrong so the hitmen are still on there way Mcgrain


Thinking seriously though there are so many great boxers not mentioned or even in the holding area. This is why I don't make lists like this total head **** time

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

i'm not saying they negate it, i'm saying they are to be held against him.

the issue i have with how i currently perceive boxing is that i can't disagree with an official decision unless i watch it myself. it's just unfair.

maybe they were all close losses but they were losses none the less.

i think i had his prime running from 32-39 cos i have his resume looking like this

LHW: Marshall, Conn, Bolden, Gainer, De John (x2).

MW: Moore, Overlin (x2), V Dundee, Brouillard, B Risko, Kreiger, Y Terry, Wolfe - Wolfe (Dx2) - Conn (Lx2), Marshall (L), Abrams (L), B Risko (Lx2), B Brown (Lx2), Wolfe (L), Y Terry (L), Bath (L).

Admittedly it's been ages since I looked at this fighter and at one time i'd just consider any controversial loss a draw which might reflect better on him, but now i think it's fair to consider a loss a loss unless i personally score it differently, know what i mean?

 

i'm still not 100% sold on my new belief of official is fine unless i see it btw. i'm just wrestling with the idea somewhat.

controversial losses, should they remain losses or be seen as draws?

 

What a ****ing boxing masterclass that would have been to witness, the brutality of the Conn Apostoli ones too. I curse the gods for technology not advancing a century earlier so people back in 1915 would already have had harddrives filled with **** we could be looking at now.

 

That seems way too rigid for me especially when you go back pre 50's. The more context the better.

 

but where do we draw the line?

louis-walcott 1 for instance

or walcott-charles 4

i'm rethinking my rethink now

 

Mcgrain I am going to suggest a new name sorry

 

Jimmy Barry

Barry retired undefeated which for the time he fought is some achievement , his first tittle was something called the 100lb (paperweight) which he won by ok in the 17th round against jack levy in this fight skin tight gloves were worn.
In 1894 Barry defeated Casper Leon ko 28 to claim the bantamweight crown and remained champion until he retired. In 1897 Barry travelled to London to defend against Walter croot
Barry won like many of his fights by ko this time in the 20th round sadly croot fell heavily and hit his head and croot died from brain injuries . Barry was exonerated of any blame but was never the same fighter in his last nine official fights he never knocked out another opponent and seven of those fights ended as draws. And he retired undefeated


These were joe choynski's thoughts on jim Barry

" Barry .... I consider the greatest fighter I ever saw . He had everything: speed , science , stamina , ring generalship , courage and uncanny punching power . There were many great bantams in that day. But Barry outclassed them all..."

 

That's where I'm standing right now. I'm not sure I'm willing to dismiss an official result based on a majority disagreeing. I think I'd need a unanimous vote like flowers-Greb 2 and flowers - walker and even then I wouldn't be confident calling it against the official result.