The Top 20 All-Time Greatest P4P List

[GhostofDempsey]

Langford, Flowers, LaMotta, Leonard, Williams, and one other shouldn't be there. Jack Johnson, Ted"Kid" Lewis, Tyson, J.C. Chavez, Joe Louis, should.
There are some honourable mentions that should be there, like, most of those I've deleted from the top list, plus Carlos Ortiz, Macho Camacho, Vitali Klitschko, Harold Johnson, Duilio Loi, Luis Rodriguiz,{ Niccolino Locche could be in the top list} and more....

There are SO MANY deserving boxers that it's really impossible to make a valid list.
Still ...your list shows a lot of thought. You may or may not know that several boxing historians have written that Benny Leonard's style ( a definite top guy) was very like Jack Johnson' s in many ways , and he had a boxing IQ almost the best ever.

These lists are difficult to quantify. In the end they're all opinion based and for me, somewhat fluid as I see and read more about these fighters over time. Not sure why you feel Langford wouldn't be there, or Flowers, yet Tyson, Louis and Johnson should be? I try to steer clear of including too many heavyweights in a P4P list. Their styles and skill sets don't often carry over into the lower weight classes. Big lumbering George Foreman would not survive as a welter weight if his only asset was his punching power. He was easy to hit, and had a distinct size advantage over many of his opponents. He didn't possess blazing hand speed of footwork, as a WW with his same skill set he'd be starched early on.

There is certainly room for the likes of Luis Rodriquez, Harold Johnson, Locche, Ortiz, Chavez and many others on that list. If you really want to give yourself some heartburn, check out Ring ****zine's latest top 100 list of the last 100 years. I have no idea what Cliff Rold was thinking when he put that one together.

[edgarg]

Johnson, being closer to 6'1", was often much larger than his opponents, particularly the ones who "played with". He had a 6 - 7" height advantage over Langford, who claims to have weighed about 156 for that fight. This would be the equivalent of Emile Griffith fighting Ali or Liston. Many of Johnson's opponents were crude brawlers, washed up, much younger and or considerable smaller. Tommy burns was about 5'7" and while he was a decent fighter, he was in with a much bigger man. In The World Heavyweight Boxing Championship, a History by John D. McCallum, he cites Burns as one of the worst heavyweight champions ever. He was basically ripe for the plucking.

Fight tapes tell a different story when we look back on the boxing prowess of many of these fighters. Remember, McVea and Jeannette were somewhat crude in their style, and Johnson only beat them while they were still green and had less than 10 and 20 fights respectively, and refuse to grant them legitimate shots at his title. He also refused to fight Wills after Wills allegedly showed him up in a sparring session.

Johnson's refusal to fight those guys when he bacme champ had nothing to do with them, but all about money , racial prejudice, his making the most of being aggravatingto whites, who paid the money to se him get betaen. No black boxer then had a chance with him.

McCallum, was not a boxing specialist writer, but a sports writer. He didn't start writing anything, least of all, boxing, until about 6-8 years before Burns died. So how accurate would he have been?? Burns was NOT the worst heavyweight champ by a long shot. Many said Marvin Hart was. Others had different choices. They all had opinions, not facts. I never saw any such criticism of Burns. who had 13 defences all but 2 were KOs. An unbeaten RECORD of 11 successive KOs in Title matches, and 4th most defences. In those days there was only ONE champion per div. as you know, so no small feat.

He beat Marvin Hart, 6 ft tall, for the Title. Jim Jefferies ref. Hart KOd Jack Root the #1 contender in 12, who had beaten Hart before. . Burns defended against the best available including a Jack Dempsey later opponent Fireman Jim Flynn, whom he KO'd twice.. He was small, but a killer punch and very difficult. Johnson toyed with him , as he did with everyone. Too many urban legends about everybody.

I vaguely recall that Fleischer article you mention, that he wasn't showing it to show old champions ineptness, but the deficiencies in camera filming of those days. They only had the speed to take 1 frame in 5-6. so everything, no matter how dolled up, missed out most of the action. and they often looked like puppets on a string. The descriptions of boxing writers were far more accurate, and it is those that I pay attention to..

I didn't say Johnson was not often (much ?) larger than his opponents, I said he was 6 ft' tall, generally given as 6' and half an inch. No Galveston "Giant". Most heavyweights then were around 5'10-11. Langford was about 5'7" and the exact statistics of Tommy Burns including the same 74" reach but heavier.. Johnson, although only 6 ft. was extremely muscular and fabulously strong.
And NO PEDS....

.If you read about Johnson's upbringing, you'll se how he got that way. Life was very hard for everyone then, but especially blacks. His father was a freed slave, who worked for the Union Army as a driver. And Johnson said he was the very strongest man he ever knew. So I suppose genetics also come into it.

For the Johnson "fight", (some said 180 ) Langford was reputed" to be 165 -70., His best fighting weight then, and Johnson 189.. You can't deny that Johnson just played with him. Langford had already had about 60 fights was NO novice and 20 years old. A prime age for those times. Langford as a genuine heavyweight actually was 185 lbs -all muscle, but much lighter for the Johnson fight.,

No matter our opinions differ, I just think that Langford's reputation in (long) AFTER life was influenced by the amount of fights he was credited with, and that he was found in dire poverty, blind quietly resigned to his lot, etc. that's all. He was never short of fights, was he...??

I feel that you do not take into account the kind of life available to black boxers then. I DO, I had an uncle born in 1876, who lived to be 97 and was a part -time carnival boxer, and a friend of Burns' black sparring partner, whom he met during Burns' Jem Roche "fight" in Dublin at the Theatre Royal (the owners were friends of my parents). The sparring partner was sick in bed then, and left behind, where he stayed for the rest of his life. At that time he was the only black man in Dublin. So I know a bit about what went on in those days with boxing, but obviously not all, nor the worst parts.

I met him when he was a very old man. He even came down to our club and presented us with some ancient equipment like sagging 5 oz boxing gloves, Leather helmets etc. I should have taken them home as collectors items but was far too young, to know what' what then.

Not the first of last time I differ with another. No harm..

[JAB5239]

I suggest you look up the record and see how many times Harry Wills beat Langford. About 7-8 times. Also you must consider that In those days these guys were often pulling their punches except for the last round or two, very skilled at that, because to keep eating they were fighting nearly every week . Look at Langford's record and note the dates. The longest breaks between fights he had was 2 months, after the beating he got from Jack Johnson, and as he also lost his next fight, he took another 2 months to recuperate.

By the time he'd fought Johnson he's already had 60 odd fights in 4 years. And Johnson toyed with him KD several times , holding him up to prevent him going down other times. and more. Of course Sam was a sort of physical freak or else he couldn't have done all he did, only 5'6" but very long arms and bullfrog chest.. But a lot of those miracle fighter stories about him are NOT true, just polished a bit to make a point, for good old Sam. or a good story.

Maxie Rosenbloom had as many or more fights , REAL fights, and had an almost invisible KO record.

I know Langford's record vs Wills. I also know he was past his best and still able to beat a prime Harry. I don't think that has any bearing on his p4p status.

Johnson won their fight, there is little argument there. By he openly ducked Sam as he grew in size and stature.

Not sure what the argument is here friend.

[JAB5239]

Langford and Walcott was a draw. Gans was dying of TB and it was his 170th fight. . .Langford was nearly 18, with Gans, because he was 20 when he tried to "fight" Johnson. .Langford was 23 when he fought O'Brien who was 34, and in his 196th fight, and had lost 6 of his last 7. Langford was his 3rd last fight, he was long past his "top Light-heavy" days -years and years past. He retired in1910. When he beat Wills, Wills was just beginning. after a year or so he never lost again. to Langford , beating him EVERY one of the many times. And Dempsey didn't duck Wills, their fight was arranged in1923, and something went wrong, nothing to do with Dempsey. Read your boxing history for goodness sake. I'm not saying that Langford wasn't good, but not like you paint him, nowhere near.

I like your posts, but...stop romancing.

Gans went 24-3-5 over the next 6 years after the Langford fight.

Johnson refused to fight Langford when Sam was a top heavyweight contender.

Langford was well past his best in ALL the Wills fights and still managed to win some.

I'm not in the mood to rehash the Dempsey ducking Wills debate. You have your opinion, I have mine.

No romancing here. How many other fighters have fought the best contenders and or champions at lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, lightheavy and heavyweight? Langford is the embodiment of p4p.

[edgarg]

Gans went 24-3-5 over the next 6 years after the Langford fight.

Johnson refused to fight Langford when Sam was a top heavyweight contender.

Langford was well past his best in ALL the Wills fights and still managed to win some.

I'm not in the mood to rehash the Dempsey ducking Wills debate. You have your opinion, I have mine.

No romancing here. How many other fighters have fought the best contenders and or champions at lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, lightheavy and heavyweight? Langford is the embodiment of p4p.

No argument her, just a discussion abo/ut what we like best...boxing. BUT...to clear up a little romancing point.
Langford's first Wills fight was a draw, Langford was 28,..prime. Wills was in his 3rd year. Then he beat Wills the same year, and also lost twice in succession to him. Then, at 29, he KOd him. After that from age 30 they had 11 fights... ELEVEN, and Langford lost ALL of them. He fought for another 12 + years.

Just clearing up a point.

As for Joe Gans fighting another 30 fights, HE HAD TO he needed the food. He died 6 years after that fight, still aged only 35. I thought I'd explained this already. He actually had to fight until the year before he died. And the year before that, were the two Highly Infamous "fights" with "Battling Nelson FORTY FIVE ROUNDERS, they wre his 3rd and 2nd last fights of his life.

Nelson and all involved with these monstrous obscenities, should have got 25 years in jail for, with no parole and very hard labour.

The problem with inconvenient facts is that they exist, and tell a story a few digits in a record doesn't.

As for Dempsey, reheatd hash doesn't taste as well. But Dempsey signed the contract, and, as he always said, they couldn't find any place to stge the fight. Wills had refused a decider fight with Tunney so, Tunney got the fight. I don't think Dempsey ducked him not can he be blamed for it, The blame might be on Jack Johnson, and his behaviour as Champion rubbing all their noses in it. By then , Wills was not that good anyway,and was KOd by Uzcudun, retired 2-3 years later. So would likely have been beaten by Dempsey-if Dempsey trained properly.

So the subject is now closed. it was a good choice, countless possible lists.

[JAB5239]

No argument her, just a discussion abo/ut what we like best...boxing. BUT...to clear up a little romancing point.
Langford's first Wills fight was a draw, Langford was 28,..prime. Wills was in his 3rd year. Then he beat Wills the same year, and also lost twice in succession to him. Then, at 29, he KOd him. After that from age 30 they had 11 fights... ELEVEN, and Langford lost ALL of them. He fought for another 12 + years.

Just clearing up a point.

As for Joe Gans fighting another 30 fights, HE HAD TO he needed the food. He died 6 years after that fight, still aged only 35. I thought I'd explained this already. He actually had to fight until the year before he died. And the year before that, were the two Highly Infamous "fights" with "Battling Nelson FORTY FIVE ROUNDERS, they wre his 3rd and 2nd last fights of his life.

Nelson and all involved with these monstrous obscenities, should have got 25 years in jail for, with no parole and very hard labour.

The problem with inconvenient facts is that they exist, and tell a story a few digits in a record doesn't.

As for Dempsey, reheatd hash doesn't taste as well. But Dempsey signed the contract, and, as he always said, they couldn't find any place to stge the fight. Wills had refused a decider fight with Tunney so, Tunney got the fight. I don't think Dempsey ducked him not can he be blamed for it, The blame might be on Jack Johnson, and his behaviour as Champion rubbing all their noses in it. By then , Wills was not that good anyway,and was KOd by Uzcudun, retired 2-3 years later. So would likely have been beaten by Dempsey-if Dempsey trained properly.

So the subject is now closed. it was a good choice, countless possible lists.

Langford was 2-4-2 against Wills with over 180 fights when he lost the vision in his left eye from the Fulton fight. I'd say not only was Sam blind in one eye, but past his best. Still not sure how this devalues him on a p4p level or even romanticizes him? These are facts. As for Wills, he had already beaten McVey, Clark and had drawn with Joe Jeanette. I'd guess he was right around his prime while Sam was obviously past his own.

You mention The Gans-Nelson fights, but I'm not sure what they have to do with Langford? Joe fought Sam in 1903. He didn't get TB until 1907, possibly 1908. I just think you've made an irrelevant point as it pertains to Langfords status as an ATG.

Sure Dempsey signed a contract. It was a bogus contract, but he signed. We can go round and round on that till the cows come home, but the fact remains he fought lesser, undeserving fighters rather than Will for years instead of Harry himself. And the old "Wills should/could have fought Tunney" for the right to fight Dempsey holds absolutely no weight with me as it disregards the previous half a decade Wills was the number one contender that nearly everyone thought Dempsey should defend against.

[mrbig1]

I'm on a boxing site where the people here know there boxing history. Thank you groovy cats and chicks. you know the legend of Sam Langford has grown over the years. no doubt he was a great fighter. On another boxing site this guy was telling me that Langford would have KOed Joe Louis. Didn't Sam Langford say himself he would fight any man in the world but Jim Jeffries? well if he wanted no part of Jeffries, he damn sure wouldn't fight the brown bomber. Sometimes we go a bit too far

[QueensburyRules]

I'm on a boxing site where the people here know there boxing history. Thank you groovy cats and chicks. you know the legend of Sam Langford has grown over the years. no doubt he was a great fighter. On another boxing site this guy was telling me that Langford would have KOed Joe Louis. Didn't Sam Langford say himself he would fight any man in the world but Jim Jeffries? well if he wanted no part of Jeffries, he damn sure wouldn't fight the brown bomber. Sometimes we go a bit too far

- - Sam landing his shot is certainly capable of KOing Joe, but Joe would be the best he ever fought, and even in his prime years before going blind Sam took some losses against lessor fighters.

Best he could hope for in a trilogy is a 1-2 record. BTW, all settled in Valhalla eons ago.

[edgarg]

This is my top 20 list, which will remain fluid, that way adjustments can be made over time.

1- Ray Robinson

2- Willie Pep

3- Archie Moore

4- Ezzard Charles

5- Harry Greb

6- Roberto Duran

7- Manny Pacquiao

8- Barney Ross

9- Benny Leonard

10- Sam Langford

11- Mickey Walker

12- Henry Armstrong

13- Tiger Flowers

14- Jake LaMotta

15- Jack Dempsey

16- Ray Leonard

17- Emile Griffith

18- Tony Canzoneri

19- Roy Jones Jr

20- Ike Williams

Plenty of honorable mentions who can easily be rotated on or off the list. In no particular order:

Jose Napoles
Pernell Whitaker
Julio Cesar Chavez Sr
Michael Spinks
Joe Louis
Jimmy McLarnin
Joe Gans
Charley Burley
Sandy Saddler
Holman Williams
Gene Tunney

Post up your lists!

Billy Conn was very good, very flashy, but not exactly the best. Joe Louis beat him when completely dehydrated, He wrote that, "feeling it was more fair because Conn was much lighter, so I did roadwork and drank no water the day before the fight and weighed in at just under 200, instead of my usual 210". Conn lost 11 fights of about 75. He lost only 3-4 of his last 40 or fights, so the others were during his peak years. Solly Krieger beat him, although he later lost twice to him just before he retired. . He was a middleweight, Conn lost to several other middleweights also.

I think Archie Moore was much better. I never saw a fight like his first with Yvon Durelle before. It was a miracle how he recovered and eventually KO'd him very late. In those days Archie was also fighting heavyweights and would put on a lot of weight. He had what he called his "secret" diet, to take off a lot fo weight quickly to make 175.and di not reveal it until after he retired.

What is was..he chewed steak etc, never swallowed any solids , just the juices and spat out the rest. CRAZY...but he did it. I recall it very well. He ducked the very under rated Harold Johnson for years too-an excellent all round boxer..

[Willie Pep 229]

Langford was 2-4-2 against Wills with over 180 fights when he lost the vision in his left eye from the Fulton fight. I'd say not only was Sam blind in one eye, but past his best. Still not sure how this devalues him on a p4p level or even romanticizes him? These are facts. As for Wills, he had already beaten McVey, Clark and had drawn with Joe Jeanette. I'd guess he was right around his prime while Sam was obviously past his own.

You mention The Gans-Nelson fights, but I'm not sure what they have to do with Langford? Joe fought Sam in 1903. He didn't get TB until 1907, possibly 1908. I just think you've made an irrelevant point as it pertains to Langfords status as an ATG.

Sure Dempsey signed a contract. It was a bogus contract, but he signed. We can go round and round on that till the cows come home, but the fact remains he fought lesser, undeserving fighters rather than Will for years instead of Harry himself. And the old "Wills should/could have fought Tunney" for the right to fight Dempsey holds absolutely no weight with me as it disregards the previous half a decade Wills was the number one contender that nearly everyone thought Dempsey should defend against.

You would have advised Wills to walk away from the Tunney fight and a possible shot at the title just to make a point above being cheated years earlier?