Fightbeat top 20 p4p of all time.

I agree that Corrales was no Hearns. Agree 100%. But as you know, that wasn't my point. As you said...both guys fought the best available challenge at the time.

 

Mosley should be in there, not Floyd.

 

Hey Irish, if you can come up wit numbers it'd be a help for when I tote them up. And as Broadway says, 1940s onward if you could.

 

I'd rank Oscar above Mosley, personally. Though I don't think either belong within a million miles of the top 20. At the time of writing I'd rank Oscar and Floyd quite closely.

 

How so? I've been clownin you for what, 8 or 9 years now?

 

I especially find it ironic to hear a black man like Sly belittling Ezzard Charles on the basis of his 25 losses (and more importantly, his early career losses) while being completely ignorant to the plight of great black fighters back in those days and the fact that they had to fight the best guys a million times in order to get a title shot... Ezzard is the best 175 pounder who ever lived, no one's resume there comes close, not even Spinks, and he NEVER got his shot at the title because the pretender champions of the day wouldn't dare get in there with him with the belt on the line... that is the truth right there. Charles was fucking brilliant, maybe if Sly had ever seen any of his fights from when he was young and vital he might have a fucking leg to stand on with all of his longwinded shit talking... but I KNOW he's never seen any of it... hell just watching the guy past his prime as a heavyweight champ ought to be enough to clue you in to his greatness... sly is an ignorant clown

 

Dude I'd gladly match my big fight prediction record against yours anyday and we'll see who knows more about this sport. Like I said..textbook knowledge is only one thing.

Charles was good...but I see no justification for ranking him higher than a Bernard Hopkins or a Floyd Mayweather. none.


You "clown" people only in your wet dreams, redneck.

 

Not going deep into this argument but this logic is terribly flawed.

why not add Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe. they have perfect records as well. Hell, Hopkins lost his FIRST pro fight. is that held against him?

As much of a Roy Jones fan as I am, I have a difficult time ranking him amongst the all-time greats...can't think of one who got one punch KO'd in consecutive fights.

 

I'm with you there to be honest. I may have to revise my standing where Jones is concerned. that hurts his legacy somewhat. His quitting against both Tarver and Calzaghe hurts him too.

I'm a die hard fan of Prime Jones...but he's shown a bad side of him in his later years..and i'm not just talkign about his punch resistance...because that alone would be forgivable.

 

Dude. I'm really trying NOT to be a dick here, but every time you talk about Charles shows how little you know about him. It's not a crime that you knowledge of fighters is limited to a certain time period, but you'd be better off talking about fighters from the last 20 years or so.

I don't know much about the very lowest weight fighters, especially those from outside North America, but you don't see me running my mouth about any of them, do you?

 

Sorry Sly......but........<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0oHnLof3cmQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0oHnLof3cmQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

cool.

I think i can stretch it to 50 years though. ::

Regardless of how good or not we think Charles was (I do see him as great) I think my actual point was lost, in everyone defending Charles, in that we hold modern and cmntemporary fighters to a higher standard than we do the legends of the past.

 

Sly, who do you consider to have a better resume - Hopkins today, who you rank top 10, or Charles going into the 3rd Walcott fight? Taking out all the irrelevant losses when he was punch drunk. As I've said, Charles win/loss ratio was superior so presumably you think the QUALITY of Hopkins wins are much much better than Charles?

Tito & Oscar at Middleweight, Winky Wright & Pavlik at 170, Tarver & a consistent middleweight reign against nondescripts vs Joey Maxim x4, Joe Wallcottx2, Jimmy Bivensx3, Archie Moorex3, Charlie Burleyx2 @ 160 & Joe Louis.

I mean to me this is basically a rhetorical question, but i welcome your perspective.

 

I guess to be fair...you'll have to subtract the Taylor and Calzaghe fights from Hopkins today..if you're going to ignore the Charles losses at the end of his career. Then we'll talk about win/loss ratio.

 

I already did subtract the Calzaghe loss last time in the win/loss ratio- Charles' is superior. And considering 3 of Hopkins most notable wins, among only 5 I specifically listed, happened after the Taylor fights what the hell sense would subtracting them make?

Ok subtract the Taylor & Calzaghe losses and the Tarver, Wright & Pavlik wins. Who's resume is superior, now?

Cummon man, Im not trying to be a smart ass here, but when you actually look at it in black and white there isn't even a debate to have, is there?

 

This is pfp

Charles did exceptionally well in 3 different divisions.....Middleweight through Heavyweight,

Bernard has done OK in two divisions....fighting guys who had a fraction of the power and strength and talent that Charles did.

For me, it's simple.

Charles beats the shit out of Hopkins, anywhere from 160 to 190lbs...any day of the week.

Oh....I suppose Hopkins would take Marciano the distance? Or beat Walcott?


Dayumm....this is easier than fighting Hopkins.

 

If we didn't have the benefit of timing..electronic or otherwise...

Jesse Owens may still be considered the GOAT in terms of sprinting.

His competition: Ralph Metcalf and others...may be deemed better than Asafa Powell, and Tyson Gay.

Fortunately, because sprinting is timed, we know that Track Athletes are getting faster/stronger/better.

Well it's not just in track that this is happening. We see it in swimming. We see it in every discipline where we can measure it without the hindrance of bias.

I submit to you all....if it is evident that athletes of other sports are getting better and better, then it's ridiculous to assume that in boxing the reverse is happening.

 

I see where you're going but you've chosen the wrong sport to use this analogy...you'd be better served using football, baseball or basketball...timed sports are a poor indicator.

You can't judge how hard Joe Louis hit in comparison to Klitschko.

"However"

I'd say older fighters might not do as well based on the limitations today's fight game has...padding in gloves, length of rounds, sheer volume of fights.

Whose to say if Ray Robinson in his prime had teh benefit of today's training, diet, rules and weight divisions wouldn't have been undisputed from welterweight to lightheavy?

Conversely...

With Floyd's brittle hands, who is to say he could have held up in a 15 round fight against the best welterweights of the day or whether he could have fought three times in 21 days (like LaMotta and Robinson).

hell...Floyd had issues fighting castillo within a calendar year after their first match...can we honestly think he'd have gone at him a week or two later?

 

Three counter points:

1) boxing is almost unique in the sporting world in it's luditism in training methodology. Sprinters have gotten faster because they've integrated advanced weight training and plyometrics into their training. Most boxers are still doing 500 push ups as strength training and running long distances for conditioning. David Haye & the Klitschkoes are exceptions and the trend may be beginning to reverse. But as of 2010 most boxing trainers still think lifting weights will slow their fighter down and 'bunch them up'. And among those who don't like Hatton you see them doing leg extensions and pec decks flies. Boxing is still in the dark ages.

2) All directly measurable sports I can think of are essentially gross movement patterns or sports where there's a low ceiling on the development of technique as a determining factor. They're down to pure athleticism. Once you can perform a snatch proficiently it's basically just a measure of whos stronger. Once you can sprint in a relaxed, toe dominant fashion (half of which is down to anthropomology shaped by training anyway) it's just a measure of who can apply the most force per footstrike. Boxing is at the other end of the scale. It's monumentally skill dependent. And in my opinion the skill level is, in general, regressing and has been since the 80s. Guys like Hopkins & Floyd being exceptions.

3) Even if what you said were true, aren't you the guy who says it's only fair to judge guys based on what they did in their own era? Isn't that the only sensible way to do this?

 

I can see the Calzaghe fight, but I disagree with the Taylor fights since Hopkins was the Middleweight champ going into that fight and then was trying to regain his title. The equivalent for that for Charles would be his last two fights with Walcott in which he lost the title and failed to regain it in the rematch.

 

Training is almost the same yes, but the fighters in every weight class are getting bigger and stronger. Thus it is very likely that middleweights now hit harder than they used to.

I do not think skill level has regressed. Fighters throw their punches in proper ways, they know how to move and use the ring etc.

In fact it could be argued that skills have developed as fighters concentrate on what is working (even if that is a basic one-two and high guard). Why to use shoulder-blocking or left-hand uppercuts if more simple techniques bring similar results? Simplifying boxing doesn't mean the same as regressing.

And btw I am not saying that techniques now are better than before. It is just that even they can't be compared, since what looks best isn't necessarily the best

this is correct, but even that can't be done fairly, since we can't expect a fighter now fight in every two weeks as they used to do. The same way we can't expect the past legends to have perfect records

 

Ok...good post but let me address power, chin and speed..because these are tangible.

In boxing we haven't been in the habit of measuring these things, because the meaurements are irrelevant really (well chin would be near impossible to measure, for obvious reasons)..but for argument sake...

If we were measuring handspeed and power since the 20s to now....considering the trend in track and field and weight lifting etc...as well as the truism that record are there to be broken....wouldn't we all agree that it's LIKELY...no scratch that..it's INEVITABLE that as a whole, fighters today would be measured faster and more powerful than fighters of 50-60 years ago?

 

Because of day before weigh ins? I agree this is relevant to MM's but I can't see it's relevance in comparing he greatness of fighters of different eras.

OK, then we disagree. I've talked about this at length before but theres no point going into it again, if you dont see it you dont see it.

This is a very intelligent point but I don't agree with it at all.:: Look what guys with old style skills like B-Hop, Toney & Floyd have done to more basic stick-to-what-works modern style fighters in this decade, despite in two of their cases being lazy/fat & old respectively. It's just that the supply of these guys is literally drying up as the decades go on and the pool of guys who learned their trade when boxing's talent pool was so much deeper to pass on these skills die off. That's the sad reality as i se it. The abominal change in amateur scoring has had an enormous effect in accelerating that too.

 

No, for the reasons I cited.

 

Good post...I'll address point three first and the rest in another post.

I agree about it being only fair to judge fighters against the peers available to them and in teh context of teh era that they found themselves in.

For example: as much as i hate Larry Holmes..i do believe that it's unfair to denigrate him as a champion...because his competition wasn't as strong as say..Ali's or Foreman's.

naturally fan NOW give Holmes credit..but that's because "fans" (which is what's causing the problem today) only give credit to a fighter after their career is virtually over...

Even hagler's opposition wasn't seen as hot..at the time he was active...only NOW the names of Alan Minter, Mustafa hamsho, Watts, Monroe, Sibson or whoever sound like a bunch of world beaters.

Bernard Hopkis fought and dominated teh middleweight division that was given to him. Sure...Holmes, Joppy, trinidad, De La Hoya, Echols etc don't sound as "great" as names of retired fighters from decades past sound...but all you can ask of a fighter is to beat the guys that are offered to him and to show consistency of victory over different styles and challenges. Not Bernard's fault he never fought "the great" Charley Burley.. or "the GREAT" Jimmy bivins or "the great" Archie moore. Bernard fought who was given to him, who was available to him and he prevailed.

 

again...maybe maybe not.

You'd also have to make the same allowances going the other way...

How would guys in today's era handle getting hit with 6 oz gloves vs 10 oz gloves.

and again...

weigh-ins the day before greatly assist guys shrinking down to weight classes. we've seen this time and time again. How many times have we seen a guy's power decrease as he's gone up to his natural weight class?

Mosley is a favorite of mine but he'd weight 147 the day of his lightweight fights.

Same with oscar when he fought at lightweight and below.

lastly...speed isn't everything. In some cases it's overrated. I'm not concerned if guys are faster or even stronger for that matter now.

I'm sure a guy like Jeff Lacy is stronger than many many great fighters...means nothing.

Boxing comes down to skills and one thing history has shown...no matter how skilled or great the fighter, when he steps up and faces the best guys out there he loses.

Doesn't diminish his legacy...in some cases it adds to it depending on how he rebounds.

That's what's missing from guys today...they forget that an important element in the boxing game is redemption.

All of the great fighters we've discussed they've all lost and came back better. That's what separates boxing from other sports that gut check.

Unfortunately there are certain self-proclaimed "great fighters" refuse to acknowledge.

 

Well Bernard lost to Roy, early in his career...came back and had a longer reign than Carlos Monzon.

Floyd hasn't lost...but he fought the best and most dangerous lightweight in his first step up into that division and the HBO team and a few others people an fans thought he may have lost that fight. So instead of just taking teh win and moving on he deceded to stay and redeem himself and win more convincingly.

Sometimes I feel that Floyd is criticized for being undefeated. I've said again..if Floyd was afraid of challenegs and just wanted to protext his undefeated record...he most certainly wouldn't have challeged Oscar at 154lbs. Everyone knew at the time that was a dangerous fight for him.


Anyway i agree that boxing is about skills...I happen to believe that skills are improving.

Roy Jones was better, talent-wise, than any fighter than preceeded him. My opinion of course.

Bernard Hopkins, is more "skilled" than both monzon and hagler. Again my opinion. NMo way to prove otherwise.

Floyd mayweather, I concede, may not be quite as much as a defensive wizard as Whitaker....but he's better OFFENSIVELY than whitaker and hits ahrder and is therefore, in my humble estmmation, the better overrall fighter.

Problem is..it's all a matter of opinion and no way to prove it as these thigs cannot be measured. But..as i said before...I know what I see with my eyes..and i know that the trends in every human endeavour is that we're getting better as time goes on...so I believe it's happening in boxing too

 

In theory I get what you're saying Sly however, the argument about today's fighters getting better leaves the door open for speculation that say a guy like Malignaggi is better skilled, "faster" therefore "better" than some of the greatest welterweights of all-time (and I say welterweight because 140 didn't exist).

Oscar wouldn't have messed around at 160 at all...Floyd (truthfully) never would have left 135. Today's game allows for more tweener fighters. Dilluting the pool so to speak.

One quick note...it might not be popular but I'd snatch Hearns off the "all-time great" list. yes he had great wins...but he lost his two biggest fights...Leonard and Hagler. I wouldn't put him on the same level as Leonard and Hagler.

mayweather doesn't belong on the list either. I'm not going through the list of guys Floyd could have fought and truthfully, most (including myself) don't have much issue with his pre-2002 ledger.

Manny is far more deserving than Floyd.

 

A few things...

Holmes was criticized for his opposition because he didn't fight all the best fighters around while he was champion. He dropped his WBC title to avoid fighting Greg Page, priced himself out of a fight w/Coetzee and wanted NOTHING to do with Pinklon Thomas. But he DID manage to find time to fight the likes of Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, and Lucien Rodriguez instead. And even some of the tougher titlle defenses Holmes had were supposed "gimmes" gone wrong...like Weaver, Witherspoon, Smith and Williams. Holmes was a great fighter, but to say that his opposition was unfairly criticized isn't accurate, especially when compared to Ali who fought everyone who mattered in both the 60's AND 70's.

Hagler opposition wasn't thought of as badly as you are making it out to be. Sure, there was some nay-sayers here and there, but Hagler was respected by most...especially for the path he took to the title in which he fought all comers. Hagler was given a lot of respect for taking on all those Philly fighters on the road, and for stopping the ones who beat him the first time around. As for his challengers...most of them where considered quality fighters who were unfortunate to have a great champ like Hagler in the division. He did get criticized a bit for getting caught up in the moment and showing Duran far too much respect, but Hagler still won by a greater margin than the scorecards showed. And any lingering doubts following the Duran fight were erased by Hagler's KO win over Hearns.

 

Yeah but...as I said before...

Challenge for challenge in terms of what was available to them, at the time...which is the only fair way to compare fighters from each era...

Duran and hearns..are equivalent to Castillo and Corrales.

Fighting hagler hat the tail end of his career when he was just fighting once a year and obviously slowing....is equivalent to Floyd moving up to 154 and fighting Oscar.

When Leonard came back, at just 30 years of age (Floyd is now 32), he didn't fight Michael Nunn, Donald Curry, Mike mcCallum, Nigel Benn, Iran barkley....and he didn't retiire either.

Instead he fought Lalonde. (???!!!???)...a hearns who had already been SPARKED by barkely and a Duran who was older than old is old when old is old.

Yet...you don't hear anyone talking about who leonard never fought..but instead you hear about floyd never fighting Tszyu, Margarito or Cotto...even though it's well documented that Cotto wasn't ready to fight Floyd at the time when Floyd was available to him and Tszyu was on Showtime (we know how difficult it is to get ST and HBO to work together)...and margerine was irrelevant.