The Top fighter of the Century

and also qawi , well , this is a panel of farts.

 

P4P and historical legacy aren't the same, not in my understanding.

All these people worked in boxing, probably studied boxing and impact boxing. Love how there opinions are worthless and much more insignificant than ESB's.

 

Of course people like Eddie Futch have more boxing know-how than the five best posters on this site put together -- however, I doubt even one of them has put as much thought into historical rankings of fighters through the ages as say McGrain has. I mean, ranking and pitting fighters of different eras together is basically all we do around here.

 

Monzon should have been AT LEAST in the top 4 of the Middleweights.

 

**** lists all around. Dempsey and Conn shouldn't be in the all time P4P, Ali and Pep are too high, Greb is way too low, and Langford is a notable omission. Moore as the #1 LHW (above Charles) is questionable at best, and Whitaker excluded from 135 and Spinks from 175 are absolute jokes. The FW list has Chalkey Wright and Wilfredo Gomez each rated one spot above a guy who kicked his ass, which is questionable at the very least (although putting Wright in the top 10 is questionable in any case IMO). Armstrong's rating on those lists is bizarre too - he's #6 at FW, omitted from 130-135 (where he was at his best) and then the #2 WW. :huh I could go on, but I think that says all you need to know right there.

 

That's right, because their backgrounds create a serious conflict of interest. For example, Dundee was Ali's lifelong trainer/cornerman and a friend who still defends him as a fighter and a person to this very day. You don't think there's a conflict if he's asked to rank other fighters as compared to Ali?

 

As are you my friend :rasta

 

If you dont have spinks in your top 3 lt heavys, whitaker in your top 3 lightweights, or chicanito in your top 5 jr ltweights i cant respect your opinion.

 

NO JCC at 140???

this must be a ****ing joke

 

No I'm not. There are other fighters clearly worthier of those spots than them, therefore they deserve them more. It shouldn't be too hard of a concept to grasp, even for someone like you. :deal

 

Sure, but that's just one very little part of it. It's list of a top 10 from all the major divisions.

 

But look at how many fighters that might be considered for any of these top 10s have some kind of obvious association with these guys.

-Dundee trained Ali, Basilio, Rodriguez, and Leonard, to name a few.

-Futch trained Spinks, Frazier, Norton, Arguello, and Holmes.

-Duva trained Whitaker and Holyfield.

That's just some of the associations that we actually know of.

Not only that, consider what fighters that might be on this list were essentially rivals of these guys.

-Dundee trained Basilio for both fights with Ray Robinson. Both Dundee and Basilio have professed to have a strong personal dislike for Robby.

-Duva trained at least three different fighters to go against JC Chavez, the results of all of which were all controversial and left him fuming.

-Clancy and Dundee's fighters had something of a rivalry in the '60s, as did Dundee and Futch in the '70s.

Simply put, there's way too many conflicts of interest here in asking guys like these to rate these fighters.

 

Same here.

There's no question those gents know their boxing through and through, but as stated there is a professional vested interest in some fighters that will influence these rankings.

What I like about a forum such as this is that ideas are kicked about back and forth daily. We argue, debate, and exchange information and thoughts all the time, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a great way to put things into perspective.

Well, for some of us anyway.

 

marciano and dempsey is still puzzling me.there must be about 4 or 5 of the light heavies who would beat those two.no michael spinks or benny lynch.i could understand there being no lynch because of the no-european bias ,but theres no excuse for leaving spinks out.