What is a realistic "p4p atg top 10" in your oppinion?

We cannot accurately judge guys like Greb, Armstrong, Robinson, etc because there is often very little footage that exists of them. We just turn into Boxrec warriors and completely ignore the circumstances of their wins and losses.

 

deal I couldn't have said it better myself

 

1. Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Harry Greb
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Roberto Duran
7. Willie Pep
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Benny Leonard
10. Mickey Walker

It's tough to overtake these guys, especially now that guys are fighting less frequently and not always against the top competition. It's possible though - Pea isn't a million miles away (around 15 on my list) and if RJJ and Floyd had taken a different path, they could conceivably be up there.

To crack the top 10 though, is incredibly tough.

 

Sure makes it convenient, doesn't it? I've often considered taking the Stonehands approach of scraping the idea of rating fighters prior to 1920. The idea of it rests on this:

It would seem some posters here in the General would lobby for considering the modern era post-color televised bouts, with all things pre-1965 irrelevant. You can do it for sure, but it's another way of saying fighters of previous generations put together careers and accomplishments today's couldn't dream of approaching. But consider this: Out of the thousands upon thousands of fighters there have been over the last century, why is it only the same select few who consistently rise to the top? What's suspect about Robinson or Armstrong and where are the comparable accomplishments? :think

 

Boxrec? Do some damned research. There is more than enough literature on all of those guys to assess their resumes.

 

Absolutely. Should we just give up studying the American Civil War or the Norman Conquest because there was no color film? We know an awful lot about history despite the fact that there were no IPads around.

In studying the great fighters, we don't just need to read books -we have primary sources.

Circumstances can in fact be determined because before television, the writing was how most fans followed the sport. The details were specific and the writers themselves were very often experts themselves on what they were watching; not to mention the fact that they knew their subjects well. Then there's cross-referencing. If you have 4 different reporters writing the same things over and over again about the same fighter or fight, you get a very good idea of what is happening.

In cases like Greb (and many others), those who fought him, saw him, and knew him were nearly unanimous in their assertion that he was off-the-charts great.

 

watching it with your own eyes allows you to give a better assessment than reading somebody else's account.

imagination is always better than what or how it really is or was.

 

They had heavy bags, jump ropes, and running shoes 80 years ago. Boxing is one sport that modern fighters have gained almost no advantage over past generations. Sports with weight classes work entirely differently than the nfl, baseball, and the nba.

Example, SSR, SRL, and Hearns where all bigger stronger and more athletic than todays welterweights. All three could win the legit title at 147, 154, and 160 at the same time today.

 

1. K2 Brothers
2. FMMJ (aka PBFMJ)
3. Pac
4. RJJ
5. SRR
6. SSM
7. SRL
8. Tyson
9. JMM
10. Armstrong

 

That may be one of the worst lists i've ever seen

 

If you want to switch out Armstrong and throw in somebody like Tua or Ibeabuchi, it might strengthen it a bit, no?

 

Robinson literally has dozens of filmed fights available from throughout his long career.

Armstrong has considerably less that I know of but still enough to gauge his abilities.

 

Does an ordinary fighter run up a record of 135-1-1? or 128-1-2?

 

Who said they were ordinary. All we are saying is that their skills are overrated by many.

 

Maybe add Buck Smith and Eric Esch...