Top 10 ATG

This is how I'm feeling today:

1. Greb
2. Langford
3. Armstrong
4. Robinson
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Charles
7. Louis
8. Ali
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard

 

Plenty of footage of the guys he absolutely dominated. :good

 

Sam Langford at #1 :yikes


But then again u r one of the dumbest most biased posters on here almost on par with Dinofool.

 

Joyboy alert

 

This is idiotic and here's why. If you have to have watched all these fighter personally then since I'm about 30 years older than you presumably your list ends 30 years earlier than mine. I was around when Ali was fighting you weren't born. I was around when Hagler was fighting, you weren't born. I saw Tyson's whole career from being to end. You weren't even born when he started fighting. So thankfully for you it doesn't work like that.


Rather I do something called research; I buy books and videos. I have read a Dempsey bio "A Flame of Pure Fire." and I bought some videos of his fights.

I've done the same thing for Foreman, Ali, Duran, (Hands of Stone) and Jack Johnson amoung others. I also defer to the experts who saw many of these fighters live if they know their boxing. for example Arcel said the best fighter he ever saw was Benny Leonard. Other experts such as Bert Sugar, Nat Fleischer, have seen fighters fight for the last 50-60 years, so why would their opinions be meaningless?

Finally one can also look at records. If SRR fought over 200 fights and won the vast majority of them, many of them for title matches, that has to mean more that someone with a 32-0 record or a 45-0 record regardless of whether or not you seen them fight. Watching them fight if it counts at all, only would count on a H2H basis.

 

Well I don't think there's anyone on the list from the 1880's and here's an interesting factoid about Dempsey. In the 1950's the polled a list of boxing writers, trainers, etc. as to who was the best boxer they've ever seen. The majority said Dempsey, even though they seen Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Louis, Benny Leonard, Gans, etc. Now who are we to say 60 years later that these guys are full of ****?

Here's some commentary on this.


In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] The sportswriters of the first half of the century named Dempsey as the greatest fighter they had ever seen. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

 

There was no "rocks in his gloves" that's been long ago debunked. It was one of the greatest wins of all time, but Willard wasn't as hurt as much as had been portrayed. Tunney schooled him because Dempsey had taken 3 years off and was basically parting his life away in Hollywood, and when he fought Tunney he was over 30 and suffering from ring rust. That said he lost fair and square, because my view has always been that when you agree to step into the ring, it counts.

Now 30-32 might not sound old, but that time of style doesn't age well. Guys like Frazier, Marciano, Dempsey etc. were all done by the age of 32. Tyson even earlier. That seek and destroy style requires an unbelievable amount of stamina to pull off at the elite level, and so it doesn't age well at all.

 

I'm not going to get into the whole history of how it was debunked but they even did tests to see if the plaster of Paris theory would even work, and it turned out you would break your hands trying to hit with that stuff. I've never heard of rocks. I've heard either the plaster of Paris or an iron railroad bar that looked like it was on the side of the ring according to pictures taken. Yes Willard was in his late 30's but it was feared he would kill Dempsey going into the fight cause he was about 6'6" to Dempsey's 6'0 and he weighed about 50lb more. They talk a lot about it in Dempsey's bio.

Don't know who would have won if they were both in their primes, but Tunney himself thought it would be have been Dempsey, but perhaps he was just being nice about the whole thing.

When a fighter looses it has to matter when tro some extent, otherwise Leon Spinks could go around saying he's better than Ali.

 

So if this were the case that means Greb wouldn't be on anyone's list because there's not footage of him, and yet, he was a middleweight who beat Tunney, how does that square with your theory?