Do you agree with this ranking of top ten boxers of all tome

No, I don't see Little Mac on here...guy fought out of his weight class to become the champion against someone you have ranked as third.

Very little.

Remove everyone except Marciano, Louis and Ali.

Add Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Sugar Ray Leonard, Julio Cesar Chavez and Marvelous Marvin Hagler.

Laughable list when it doesnt include any Sugar Ray's particularly Ray Robinson.

Good list. I would also say Archie Moore might need to be added as well.

nope, but nice try wrote:

Good list. I would also say Archie Moore might need to be added as well.

There's a lot of guys who could be put in there and I wouldn't disagree.

Why isn’t Louis Tully number 1?

smagooooo wrote:

Why isn’t Louis Tully number 1?

Why don't catfish have kittens?

Because they’re not the key master?

Get real! This "pound-for-pond" nonsense has got to stop. For example, this list claims that Floyd Mayweather is better than Big George. What! Big George would literary kill midget Floyd with his first big punch! Let's use an T&F analogy to show how stupid this p4p nonsense is. Say there was a high jumper and everybody agreed that he had the best technique ever BUT he was only 5 ft 6ins and jumped way below the top- tall - guys. Now, would that small guy ever appear in a list of the best high jumpers of all-time? If not, forget all this daft p4p nonsense,

smagooooo wrote:

10. George Foreman

9. Floyd Mayweather Jr.

8. Lennox Lewis

7. Louis Tully

6. Sven O’Connell

5. Rocky Marciano

4. Joe Louis

3. Mike Tyson

2. Iblio Masquez

1. Muhammad Ali

No Marvin Hagler? No Larry Holmes?

Tyson Fury would literally kill Marciano. Probably the only guy on the list who could give him a fight is Lennox Lewis.

What a dumb take. There are weight classes for this very reason. If all you care about is who can beat up who than yeah, pound for pound might be meaningless to you. For people who actually appreciate the skill and strategy of the sport it makes sense to use pound for pound rankings. George for instance hardly even belongs on this list, his technique wasn't even that good. He was just so much larger than everyone else.

Sounds to be me like you are more of a fan of fighting than boxing.

nope, but nice try wrote:

What a dumb take. There are weight classes for this very reason. If all you care about is who can beat up who than yeah, pound for pound might be meaningless to you. For people who actually appreciate the skill and strategy of the sport it makes sense to use pound for pound rankings. George for instance hardly even belongs on this list, his technique wasn't even that good. He was just so much larger than everyone else.

Sounds to be me like you are more of a fan of fighting than boxing.

You are the daft one! Again, you have been sucked in to the p4p4 nonsense. Weight divisions were created to give athletes, who had no chance in open competition, to at least have a go at a particular sport and compete against someone about their standard. But, for God's sake, don't start rating the small guys among the best of all time because that would be just plain stupid.

smagooooo wrote:

10. George Foreman

9. Floyd Mayweather Jr.

8. Lennox Lewis

7. Louis Tully

6. Sven O’Connell

5. Rocky Marciano

4. Joe Louis

3. Mike Tyson

2. Iblio Masquez

1. Muhammad Ali

I've never even heard of Masquez, O'Connell and Tully. Tyson didn't beat any great fighters before Douglass/prison and sucked after that. There's no way he should be ahead of Louis. I found Mayweather boring to watch but he should be in the top 5. Lewis suffered two brutal knockouts. Marciano was 5'11, fought at about 185 pounds, had a 68' reach and had a crude fighting style. He was as tough as it gets, but there have been dozens of fighters that could have beaten him. As other posters have noted, both Sugar Rays and Hagler should be on list.

In a better world, Ali wouldn't have sat out 3 years, beat Frazier in 1970 and retired. After the break he could no longer stick and move for more than 2-3 rounds and absorbed some brutal shots that would have knocked out just about any other fighter.

2 of those deserve to be on the list, 5 others were good but not top 10 and the other 3 you made up.

>Tyson over Lennox

????

Teofilo Stevenson

This guy is trolling partially, those others are stupid cartoon characters or something.

nope, but nice try wrote:

What a dumb take. There are weight classes for this very reason. If all you care about is who can beat up who than yeah, pound for pound might be meaningless to you. For people who actually appreciate the skill and strategy of the sport it makes sense to use pound for pound rankings. George for instance hardly even belongs on this list, his technique wasn't even that good. He was just so much larger than everyone else.

Sounds to be me like you are more of a fan of fighting than boxing.

No, pound for pound is worthless and lame. It is completely subjective. How do you measure "talent" anyway? It is for this reason that I believe subjective events should be removed from Olympics. Gymnastics, Ice Skating, all "X game" events that require judging ONLY. That's not to say they aren't skilled or it isn't entertaining, they are, but they are also not competitions.

At the end of the day you can pick one person to defend you in a fight. You picking Floyd Mayweather or George Foreman, both in their prime? That's how you know.

Yeah, guess I got 'brainwashed' or something spending 10 years in boxing gyms and competing in the ring.

Personally, dont even enjoy heavy weight bouts that much as heavy weights generally have some of the weakest technique and has especially declined in relation to other divisions.

But yes, lets do away with all divisions in every sport and only allow open competition. That sure would be cool right?