PULLING RANK - The Highest Rated Boxers of All Time

Almost everyone, including me, has their own idea of who should be in the top ten. Whether it is a divisional or pound for pound ranking, active or all time-we have a list for it. Some lists are better than others but, no matter how well thought out they may be, the cold truth is that Taras Bidenko or Carl Davis Drummond will most likely get a title shot before anyone on our lists.

http://fightbeat.com/article_detail.php?AT=641

 

Where's Pryor? Loughran? There are some inconstinencies as well.

I'm sorry. I don't normally do this, but that list is terrible.

 

If this list was strictly based off of longevity, then it would make a bit more sense.

As it is, all-time lists are meant for debate and I'm sure this will serve its cause. However it looks like an unfinished list in some cases.

 

i think the rankings are based on accumulation of points from the sanctioning bodies.

kinda pointless in my opinion addition to the fact that the ranking excludes ray leonard at welter and holyfield at cruiser.

tracy galwho? ::

 

No offense man, because I know it's a hard task and a very subjective one, but they are some seriously dreadful, dreadful lists.

 

These Type of Lists R GENERALLY Intended to Start Debates...

N this Particular Case, that's NOT a Good Thing...

Holyfield was a MUCH Better Crusier than Heavy, yet he's UNRANKED @ Crusier, as R Vassily Jirov & James Toney...

Michael Spinks is Rated 8th @ Lightheavy???...Mike McCallum is UNRANKED @ 154???...Ray Leonard is UNRANKED @ 147???...Aaron Pryor is UNRANKED @ 140???...

Roberto Duran is 3rd @ Lightweight???...Sweet Pea Whittaker is UNRANKED @ 135???...Floyd Mayweather is UNRANKED @ 130??...

WOW!!!

2 Words..."GLARING OMISSIONS"...

REED

 

the difference being that if i or someone like Reed were to post a top 5/10 rankings on every weight class, folks might disagree, but also agree to a certain point. the subject than becomes at least debatable.

the ratings from this article is not debatable. i mean, where would you even start? ::

 

at johnny nelson at #1
plus aaron pryor may have been decent but he was no bruno arcari ::

 

Just look at the top, at Heavyweight. The fact that Floyd Patterson is even in the top-10, much less at number 6 (ahead of Lennox Lewis and Jack Dempsey?) is odd, at best.

 

Yeah, it really is a terrible list. The omission of Whitaker kills me. Tszyu at 1? And where is Ezzard Charles...?

 

lets just all stop for a minute

Sugar Ray Leonard isn't even ranked in the top ten for welterweights.

This needs to be taken down immediately, and this person needs to be taken out back and old yeller'd for crimes against intelligence

 

seriously though, I'm going to take the time to compile my own lists, in this form, and then we can be provided with debate, rather than disgust at how awful this shit is

 

This is, I think and off the top of my head, the THIRD truly terrible article posted on this site in recent times and may even be the worst of the lot.

Johnny Nelson? :laughing:

There are NO criteria, other than sheer fucking HORRIBLENESS and a willingness to fight ABSOLUTELY NO ONE DECENT, which could have Nelson anywhere near the top of any CW list.

Seriously Cupey, why on earth do you persist in allowing trash like this to be posted? It makes the site look like it is being opened to the lunatic asylum. :dunno:

MTF

 

Because it's starting discussion, regardless of how bad of a list it is.

It's the Jerry Springer/Maury Povich approach.

 

name another crusier besides holyfield and de leon who's as accomplished as nelson is. at the very worst, he's top 5.

 

The only discussion that this article has started is whether or not the writer should be sectioned or shot. :dunno:

Subjective lists of this kind usually provoke SOME disagreement, but there is usually some kind of consensus on MOST of what is produced. On this occasion, the reverse is the case, which marks this article out as an utter car crash or a piece of writing.

And as I said, this is not exactly the first piece of silliness which has been posted recently. The character assassination of Jermain Taylor someone had the gall to spend time writing and producing not so long ago still stands out as a truly awful piece of work. Stuff like that, and this latest entry for the 'worst piece of drivel ever written on the subject of boxing' will only sullen the reputation of this site IMHO.

MTF

 

That isn't even the point, even though I would say that Nelson was HORRIBLE to watch and might just, at a push, be top ten.

The bottom line is that any CW list which:

a. Has Johnny Nelson at the top of it, and
b. Does not have the words 'Evander' and 'Holyfield' anywhere within it

is instantly discredited.

 

I think the reason why Holyfield is not at the cruiserweight list is that he is ranked at heavyweight and all fighters there only participate in one category (I think that is why Roy Jones is not ranked at super-middle but he is high on the p4p list). Some very odd choises there, Patterson being the first one of them, but a big step-up from Tracy Callis anyway::

 

Boxing fans have varied opinions as to which fighters were the greatest of all-time. Younger fans prefer the modern fighters. Older fans prefer the old timers. Other fans have mixed and more diversified views.

Those who favor the modern fighters argue that the men have gotten bigger, faster, and stronger over the years. They also point out that techniques have improved with the passing of time.

"Those who favor the fighters of the earlier years contend that the men grew up in tougher times and were "hungrier," more rugged, better disciplined, and better conditioned.

I do not believe that all fighters and athletes necessarily get better with the passing years. Athletes do get bigger, faster, and stronger over time. Techniques improve too. But, that does not mean they are better. Different periods of history impart certain attitudes and practices due to the "temper of the times" and the conditions under which the people live. Athletic skills are affected by mental conditioning and discipline as well as physical attributes and techniques. Consequently, performance peaks and ebbs in different periods of history and fighters are better in some periods than they are in others."

I can just imagine your fury at having read that, Ugo... ::

 

:: that was published like a year ago so I think my pulse is slowly getting back to normal.

I still love the part that states Athletes do get bigger, faster, and stronger over time. Techniques improve too. But, that does not mean they are better.

I mean really, there is nothing more to add to that ::

 

agREED:: ...

It's like Comparing Females...Sure, this Other Chick is FATTER, SMELLIER & HAIRIER, but it Doesn't Mean She's Worse Looking....

Boxing's the ONE Sport where Guys REFUSE to Acknowledge the EVOLUTION Of Athletes...

Jesse Owens Probably COULDN'T Win a High School State Track Meet These Days, Cause of Athletic Evolution...But "Experts" Think Boxing has Remained STAGNANT???...



REED

 

No list that Ranks Marlon Starling ahead of Sugar Ray Leonard at 147 should be given the time of day...

am I the only one outraged at how absolutely dumb this is?

 

I'm among the biggest Magic Man fans alive and I wouldn't even do that.

That being said, and you can tell MCC this, Starling kills Hearns at 147.

::

 

:laughing::laughing:

you're kidding I trust?

 

This should not have been published.

 

That was just the final error involving this piece of 'writing'.

The actual act of writing it was the first and major error: publishing it only compounded that lunacy...

 

Every now and again, people are allowed to strike out.....completely. Any time there's a maker/checker process, the fault lies on the checker moreso than the maker.

 

First Flaw: this human had to pass through some woman's womb, or was cut out

Second Flaw: Writing about a topic you know nothing about

Third Flaw: Not including Pernell Whitaker somewhere in the LW rankings

Fourth Flaw: Ranking Marlon Starling and Felix Trinidad as top 10 WW's

Fifth Flaw:.....etc.

By induction

Nth Flaw: Submitting this as an "Article"

(N+1)th Flaw: Publishing the article.

Thus, An absolute pile of :shit:

 

:laughing:

I stand corrected...

 

Like U, REED doesn't Really Like to CRITICIZE the Work of Others, but U're Absolutely RIGHT N this Case...

It SHOULDN'T have Been Published...When U REED the Title, the ASSumption is that the Writer KNOWS the Subject @ Hand...

But Based on the LITTANY of Omissions, U Seriously have to WONDER about this Author...It's 1 Thing to Rank Certain Guys AHEAD of Other Guys, but Some of the Names that were OMITTED R Unacceptable...

Leonard, Pryor, Whittaker???...N Good Faith, How could ANY "Knowledgable" Boxing Writer FORGET those Guys???...Even HATE or BIAS Doesn't EXCUSE that...


REED:dunno: