The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

I'm not leaving the forum. I just see no point to post anything or explain anything, when things like these are almost not even questioned, when it is obvious they are plain wrong. Even if I posted comment for each one of Gans' 200 fights, similar way like I did for Danny Duane a couple of days ago, or post comments for most (not all) of Leonard's bouts, would that really change anything? Hardly.

We can debate this when Ali learns blocking, effective punching and counter-punching, and ring generalship the way Gans was known to possess. If you don't know what you talking about, better not to speak at all. Read the opinions of tens of best American experts from Gans time, what they said about his skills and ring generalship compared to anyone, reagrdless of weight, during his time or before him. Then we can get back to this. And please, spare my time trying to persude me that Liston, Frazier and Foreman were better than Griffo, Erne, McFadden, Blackburn, Holly, Walcott, Britt, Mike Sullivan or Battling Nelson (names in random order), regardless of where you rate those three in the ever poor heavyweight division.

 

this is key...ali, robinson, armstrong were not around during gans' time. he may have been the best until that point, other fighters have emerged with superior combinations of resume and skills.

ali was unorthodox and he dominated nearly 2 decades of heavyweights, the best era in it's history, by using a style uniquely his own. mcgrain noted that 3 of his scalps (liston, frazier, foreman) are in the top 10 at the weight while norton and patterson are in the top 20. his list of contenders beaten is ridiculous and we have ample footage of prime ali look frankly unbeatable.

you rate gans higher. fair enough. but to imply there is no argument for ali is absurb

 

I really did believe it was a 'given' among sensible boxing historians that B. Leonard was greater than Ali. Gans too, although to a slightly lesser extent.

However, Senya - you know you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to lists. Even if I agree with your general sentiment in this case.

 

Too many people talk about a lot of these fighters who we don't have much(if any) footage available for as if they were ringside for every one of their fights.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have more of an "i'm honestly not really sure just how good\bad\effective he was" attitude to some of the real old timers and fighters of genuinely limited viewing availability on here.

It's one thing to extensively research a fighter through the written\spoken word and come to a rough overall feel of their worth(this is essential to keeping boxing history alive), and then entirely another to talk with the kind of conviction we often see on here.The kind of conviction that SHOULD only come through extensive first hand viewing imo.

It's one of the main reasons i rarely take part in debates over fighters in the above category.The certainty and dictatorial approach from too many quarters is just too glaring to be taking seriously.I mean hell, look at the disagreement and uncertainty of intrinsic worth\ability we see on here every day about fighters where most of their prime career is there for everyone to view?

 

I was watching an interview with an old football radio announcer just now. And he said that often they overhyped and overstated certain games and certain players simply in order to call the attention and have more listeners
Because, after all, without the TV the public trust in what the announcers said in those days....no surprise there..... but I found myself wondering on the old fighters without footage and how we cling to what other people said so much, sometimes....

Anyway....on the other hand I think is unfair to exclude guys like Greb or others when we talk about all time p4p comparisons, simply because we unfortunately don´t have footage of.....The consensus of the press at the time need to be preserved and taken into consideration in those discussions.....

 

oh no doubt i don't think they should be excluded at all.I find that probably even more ridiculous.

Still i can't relate to the kind of smug certainty the likes of senya display about fighters they've barely seen.

 

I think we can rate the careers of fighters we haven't seen but it's ludicrous to me when people speak in conviction about how they'd fare in a fight.

For example if I asked who would win between Harry Greb and Jermaine Taylor I don't see how anyone could answer that with convction.

 

I see your point. When confronted with this I tend to ask myself how Taylor would do against Tunney, Loughran and Walker- guys we have film on. My conviction is that all three would handily beat Taylor, Walker knocking him out. That being the case, I think it's more than fair for me to assume that Greb would beat him too, as Harry beat all three of the above named gents.

 

Young Griffo is 1-0 against World heavyweight champs in bar fights. What makes you think Frazier would square the ledger :shock:

 

When you have people like arcel and futch , Dundee and other great trainers from further back that voice opinions on fighters and their abilities for me these are voices that should be listened to . what we read and see will obviously shape our opinions and views will differ across the forum on different fighters depending on which opinions from the past we accept and what each individual see's when watching fighters . It could be weights for fights or the order of boxers on lists the disappointing thing for me is at times it seems to turn into silly little playground like arguments about knowledge . This is a really good forum with lots of very good posters , and I have found this thread a really good read mostly .

My rant is now over

 

Is Senya Russian?

 

Tyson dominated Tucker who knocked out Douglas who knocked out Tyson.

Triangle theories in boxing are amongst the weakest out there.

You could argue in twice beating Hopkins Taylor has a better mw win than anyone you just picked to handily beat him. However after seeing him on film you can make an educated pick on his skillset and weaknesses.

We can not do this with Greb. We can say he's a greater mw based on his achievements and resume but can we say for definite he's a more skilled fighter who would defeat Taylor? Not in my opinion.

 

Yeah, but people don´t listen what ARcel had to say about Dempsey.....so, you know....