Top 55 Fighters, All Time

The resumes/number of fights on the old-timers is usually what does rank them ahead though, even though skill-wise there are many who could be argued above certain fighters from different eras. Depends on what your strongest criteria for ranking fighters is.

Although, as to your first paragraph, I think if you study certain fighters records, it's actually quite easy to rank one over the other, as long as you do so carefully. And again, depending on your criteria, but even in a head to head/in-ring performance type of list, it's not that hard to do, depending on how deep you get. I don't think I'll ever be able to do a top 100. I'm on a top 35 myself.

 

Evander isnt retired yet??? As far as Im letting my mind know he has....:yep

 

Probably just because I am more impressed with a guy like Walcott, and, while Fitz's accomplishments were great, I don't feel his resume overall is as great as some of the guys ranked around him. I have him at about #16 or so though, so I guess it's no big deal.

 

Sweet Pea...just out of curiosity, where do you rank Whitaker???

 

My top 35 at the moment. My list changes often.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Mickey Walker
9. Barbados Joe Walcott
10. Barney Ross
11. Ray Leonard
12. Pernell Whitaker
13. Willie Pep
14. Benny Leonard
15. Joe Louis
16. Archie Moore
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
18. Joe Gans
19. Tony Canzoneri
20. Carlos Monzon
21. Gene Tunney
22. Marvin Hagler
23. Alexis Arguello
24. Carlos Ortiz
25. Emile Griffith
26. Kid Gavilan
27. Roy Jones Jr.
28. Sandy Saddler
29. Julio Cesar Chavez
30. Eder Jofre
31. Jimmy Wilde
32. Charley Burley
33. Tommy Hearns
34. Jose Napoles
35. Ike Williams

 

Personally, I'm too lazy to rank fighters with such distinction. Everyone should use the same criteria IMO. And thats quality of opposition, longevity, then coming back from defeats and inactivity. Surely nobody ranks fighters with H2H being priority over every other category. That would be plain crazy. Longevity and quality of opposition IMO are the key areas. A fighter with an impressive longevity under his belt usually has a greater number of fights than another fighter who's not as consistent. Not always. Roberto Duran's longevity is impressive, but he became rather inconsistent after "no mas" in particular, but what he scores heavily on was his ability to come back after serious setbacks. Part of the reason why Duran was special.

The most impressive feat for any fighter would be fighting against a high level of opposition on a regular basis, moving up divisions, remaining unbeaten for a lengthy span, then when the wheels come off they are quickly back on against opponents with a similar calibre to those he fought in his prime.

 

As of now, it's on a basis of skill the way I see it. Both moved up in the weights very well, Duran from 135 to 160 successfully, Walker from 147 to HW. As of now, it's because I'm so impressed with Duran's versatility, albeit inconsistency at times.

Thanks. Burley is rising in my rankings, though I've obviously not studied him like you have. Wilde is another I'll have to give another look, as I'll often make my perceptions of a fighter relatively quickly, and his resume didn't impress me at all upon first inspection, regardless as to the size of his opponents. Again though, I'll give them second looks.

 

Who is the hardest fighter to rank objectively?