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

Oh Please wrote:

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.

No, this is dumb. Do you not realize boxing is not a fight? There are all kinds of rules preventing it from being a real fight and require strategy and skill. I would pick neither one of them and would instead pick someone with a weapon. Geez. Low IQ boxing fans are lame.

Umm...Butterbean, yo?

He's clearly No. 1.

Tommy Morrison

SDSU Aztec wrote:

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.

Foreman probably punched harder than any other 220lb pound guy that has ever lived. I don't consider his 2nd career in evaluating him.

Yeah, thats what I am saying though. His punching power and size are what made him great. I am not saying he wasn't great, just saying if you watch his technique it really wasnt that good. In fact had he had better training in his younger years he likely would have hit even harder if he had learned better technique.

portsea57 wrote:

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,

If I understand your argument.

Really need to get rid of the distance nonsense in running. Stupid that someone could win an event just because they went further. Since weight doesn’t matter neither does age so a kid that sprints is better than a marathon world record holder.

OP here.

I’m going to be honest that this is trolling rubbish.

2 and 6 don’t exist.

7 is Rick Moranis in ghostbusters

Here, let’s go with a serious top ten, and tell me if you agree. This time, I’ll start w/ greatest.

1. Joe Louis

2. Sugar-Ray Robinson

3. Rocky Marciano

4. Muhammad Ali

5. Sugar Ray Leonard

6. Floyd Mayweather Jr

7. Lennox Lewis

8. Mike Tyson

9. George Foreman

10. Marvin Hagler

Oh Please wrote:

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.

Also, should probably point out pound for pound rankings are not completely subjective. There are many metrics that can be used, such as how many fights total, wins vs losses, how many knockouts etc... For example Archie Moore who I listed has the most recorded knockouts, also one of the longest winning streaks as a champ. Same kinds of reasons many people will rank Sugar Ray Robinson as the GOAT because of his incredible winning streak and the amount of overall bouts he won and the level of talent in boxing at the time etc...

In fact, it is really dumb to argue this when many bouts end in a decision. The guys lots of you will say 'he was the best because he was the biggest and hit the hardest' didnt even knock that many guys out and instead won many of their bouts on account of being judged to have won.

Its a weird list. At first i thought it was a heavyweight only list, then when I saw FMJ, it became a joke. There are a multitude of folks that need to be ahead of some of those. JCChavez of course, R Duran and Ray Leonard, even Tommy Hearns with his marquee losses was way better than FMJ. FMJ to his own detriment did not test against the greatest assassins of history the way Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Chavez did. He had a chance but ducked Pacman too long too count. And i am missing a few. There a few with short careers that were posssibly the greatest but we didnt get enough time.

Looking at his entire career Tyson might not even be top 20 heavyweights much less all boxers.

If talking about impact on the sport and "what if's" he's probably #1.

No one beats a prime Tyson but his prime lasted maybe a year and his personal and personnel decisions sunk any chance he ever had of being great

Alan

Being serious:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Roberto Duran

3. Henry Armstrong

4. Harry Greb

5. Sam Langford

6. Sugar Ray Leonard

7. Willie Pep

8. Benny Leonard

9. Muhammed Ali

10. Joe Louis

nope, but nice try wrote:

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?

Do away with divisions? Like in track and field? Following your strange school of thought , track and field athletes with terrific techniques should be ranked amongst the all-time best even if those athletes actual performances are way down in what elite athletes can do. It doesn't make sense. You are failing to see the the bigger picture...the real picture. Again, weight divisions were created to give athletes - who are far below the actual best in the world - a chance to compete at something. I'm interested in the boxer who can beat every other boxer in the world, and not some midget with a "good technique". For example, Sugar Ray Robinson is often cited as the best fighter ever but he would have been murdered by Floyd Paterson, a fighter who doesn't rate in the top 10 heavyweights of all time. Start using your brain.

nope, but nice try wrote:

Oh Please wrote:

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.

No, this is dumb. Do you not realize boxing is not a fight? There are all kinds of rules preventing it from being a real fight and require strategy and skill. I would pick neither one of them and would instead pick someone with a weapon. Geez. Low IQ boxing fans are lame.

U.F.C. is more like a fight, but many of the matches are won with punches by guys that couldn't even be average professional boxers. Any talented boxer that spent the time to learn grappling skills would dominate U.F.C. It's like comparing a triathlete to an elite marathoner. Why don't you pick a fight with a boxer and see how it goes.

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.

He wasn't that much larger than everyone. He would actually be a very average sized heavyweight today. He was far more powerful than anyone else, and that should translate to pound for pound.

He came back in his forties against a who's who of steroids cheats and still managed to win back his title at 45. The guy who is ranked 3rd on the OP's list refused to fight him (when George was 42) because he knew he would be destroyed.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Why don't you pick a fight with a boxer and see how it goes.

What? I am (was) a boxer. I am saying boxing is not a true fight. People who judge boxing purely in terms of who can beat up who are dumb. That is not what boxing is about. I am saying in this stupid scenario of who would win in a real fight, I'd rather have someone armed on my side than a professional boxing.

Otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.

Yes, and when he came back he actually had better technique than when he was young. Archie Moore trained him right. In his youth he was much larger than most other heavyweights. Obviously by todays standards not so much. I personally would choose others before him on a top 10 list but I dont disagree that he deserves consideration. Thats all I am saying.

portsea57 wrote:

Do away with divisions? Like in track and field? Following your strange school of thought , track and field athletes with terrific techniques should be ranked amongst the all-time best even if those athletes actual performances are way down in what elite athletes can do. It doesn't make sense. You are failing to see the the bigger picture...the real picture. Again, weight divisions were created to give athletes - who are far below the actual best in the world - a chance to compete at something. I'm interested in the boxer who can beat every other boxer in the world, and not some midget with a "good technique". For example, Sugar Ray Robinson is often cited as the best fighter ever but he would have been murdered by Floyd Paterson, a fighter who doesn't rate in the top 10 heavyweights of all time. Start using your brain.

Nope, but nice try. Again.

This post demonstrates how little you actually understand about this topic. Apparently you don't understand that many boxers compete in different weight divisions. Using the Ray Robinson example he fought as a lightweight, middle weight, welter weight, and light heavy weight. Perhaps if he could manage to put enough weight on to move up to heavy weight he would have won the heavy weight title in addition to all of the other titles he won. Please, stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

If you want to start a "who would beat who" thread go ahead. But that's not what this thread is about. It's a comparison of careers.

You seemed to have forgotten to include boxing as an event that should be removed from the Olympics, since that is also subjective.

Yea, I feel like its a "who is the best given their record and contemporaries they had to run through" thread, regardless of division. That to me gives welterweight-super middle of the 80s a huge advantage. Back then it was murderer's row- Ray leonard, hagler, hearns, duran, not to even mention Arguello, Pryor, mancini going at it at the same time and a host of super dangerous guys you have forgotten (benitez, barkley). Hearns remembered for high profile losses, but destroyed in short order everyone he faced for almost 50 fights, including Duran at his prime! But we all remember hagler fight and leonard. So, undefeated Floyd maywhether is almost meaningless. The guys in the 80s (and earlier decades for heavy) had to fight giant killers every year. People also forget that the golden boy actually waded through the best of all time to get to where he was, we just remember the end of his career and a controversial decision that if it went the other way.... That what affects everyone's memory. We forget more than we remember.