The Top 20 All-Time Greatest P4P List

[NachoMan]

It is a challenge when trying to quantify the greatness of a fighter such as Greb, who we have no film on to see him compete. But, we do know based upon his resume how he stacked up against other great fighters such as Tunney, Flowers, Walker, Loughran, Rosenbloom and several other great fighters. Same with Flowers and the limited footage of Langford.

Sometimes that footage can work against a fighter too. The myth and legend of certain fighters is often dispelled when we find footage of them in action. Back in the 50's or 60's, Nat Fleischer had a bunch of sports writers and some boxing insiders together and showed them old footage of some fighters in action. He purposely didn't reveal their identity, until one of the writer's asked "who are these bums?" Turns out it was fighters such as Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and several others. The legends of McVea, Jeffries, and Jeannette don't hold up well when witnessed on film along with many of the other top legends of that era.

This is why I get frustrated with boxing fans who only know or consider fighters of their respective generations. They are often dismissive of other generations that they haven't watched live or on television. I'm not talking about you, I'm speaking in general terms, and a good deal of the posters on NSB.

I understand your point, sort of, but, again, how do you competently rate fighters that you hardly know anything about? You are simply deferring to what other "experts" of eras gone by have said. Funny that you mention Corbett and Fitzsimmons. Just the other day I was showing my sons video footage of those two. They could not stop laughing at how ridiculous those two ATGs looked "trying" to land a punch on each other (well, that and their undies).

The sport and athletes in general have evolved quite a lot over the years. The average fighter from 1900 could not compete with the average fighter from 2000, so the best from the former era could not have competed from the best of the latter either. If the guys from that far back fought lesser fighters, then they cannot realistically be considered to have been among the best of all-time. It's illogical. They were simply the best of their time, and that is perfectly good enough.

This is why I believe that there is no real point in making an ALL-TIME Greats list. It's fun and reasonable to compare fighters from today with fighters from the 70's (maybe not HWs), but to include fighters from the dawn of the sport in an honest ATG discussion is just silly. There are Silver Gloves LHW contenders of the current day who would have run through the likes of Corbett and Fitzsimmons. That is just a plain fact, so including guys from that far back is just paying respectful homage. Its not serious. I view it as silly play to confer some kind of phoney insider cred on one's self. Nothing more.

[NachoMan]

Why would I want it to be "like minded"?

Because you seem to want to label people who you don't like as trolls and then have them banned. Ass-holes are allowed everywhere else, why not here?

[Rusty Tromboni]

It is a challenge when trying to quantify the greatness of a fighter such as Greb, who we have no film on to see him compete. But, we do know based upon his resume how he stacked up against other great fighters such as Tunney, Flowers, Walker, Loughran, Rosenbloom and several other great fighters. Same with Flowers and the limited footage of Langford.

Sometimes that footage can work against a fighter too. The myth and legend of certain fighters is often dispelled when we find footage of them in action. Back in the 50's or 60's, Nat Fleischer had a bunch of sports writers and some boxing insiders together and showed them old footage of some fighters in action. He purposely didn't reveal their identity, until one of the writer's asked "who are these bums?" Turns out it was fighters such as Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and several others. The legends of McVea, Jeffries, and Jeannette don't hold up well when witnessed on film along with many of the other top legends of that era.

This is why I get frustrated with boxing fans who only know or consider fighters of their respective generations. They are often dismissive of other generations that they haven't watched live or on television. I'm not talking about you, I'm speaking in general terms, and a good deal of the posters on NSB.

Beautiful post.


I do believe that past fighters often suffer for the technology of the day. And the conditions they were fighting under called for a different style. We see how hopeless modern Boxers are when matched against Martial Artists from other disciplines... a lot of striking coaches have complained to me over the years about how difficult it is to UNtrain Boxers.

But there's no dis*****g that Boxing has become refined as a sport. And it takes a mature mind and nuanced eye to evaluate fighters across generations: Pacquiao clearly isn't a softy, and Fitzsimmons wasn't a knuckle-dragging caveman.

What bothers me is that fans fall in love with stories. You see the sane names repeated constantly and others neglected. It has nothing to do with the value of those fighters but the financial value of their stories.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I understand your point, sort of, but, again, how do you competently rate fighters that you hardly know anything about? You are simply deferring to what other "experts" of eras gone by have said. Funny that you mention Corbett and Fitzsimmons. Just the other day I was showing my sons video footage of those two. They could not stop laughing at how ridiculous those two ATGs looked "trying" to land a punch on each other (well, that and their undies).

The sport and athletes in general have evolved quite a lot over the years. The average fighter from 1900 could not compete with the average fighter from 2000, so the best from the former era could not have competed from the best of the latter either. If the guys from that far back fought lesser fighters, then they cannot realistically be considered to have been among the best of all-time. It's illogical. They were simply the best of their time, and that is perfectly good enough.

This is why I believe that there is no real point in making an ALL-TIME Greats list. It's fun and reasonable to compare fighters from today with fighters from the 70's (maybe not HWs), but to include fighters from the dawn of the sport in an honest ATG discussion is just silly. There are Silver Gloves LHW contenders of the current day who would have run through the likes of Corbett and Fitzsimmons. That is just a plain fact, so including guys from that far back is just paying respectful homage. Its not serious. I view it as silly play to confer some kind of phoney insider cred on one's self. Nothing more.

I think this is a very healthy perspective.

The one point to be made is that boxing has become increasingly easier.

In the past, conditions were more exacting and the best athletes weren't being siphoned off into other sports. In fact, the means for advancement were more limited.

It's like comparing a medieval knight to a modern Olympic fencer.

I hate when fans parrot popular opinion without doing their own research. But I do believe through proper research you can get a good idea of where a fighter stands in the prism of history.

Was Schmeling better than Michael Spinks? How do they both. Compare to Usyk? Maybe it's impossible to say, but you can develop enough of an understanding to see relationships and make arguments.

Not trying to change your opinion, per se. But I do want to show that it doesn't have to be monochromatic.

GhostofDempsey and WilliePep do extensive research and are very neutral about fighters and eras. So I trust what they say.

[Rusty Tromboni]

.
Tromboni again you never read it properly ...I was talking about Ali having the ones I talked about on his record and I was talking about lennox Lewis having the holyfields and Tyson’s on his record....they are all time great heavyweights not fury and as I said if fury go’s on to beat Joshua , uysyk , dubois and then retires then we can evaluate fury’s place in history.
What we have at the moment is another heavyweight champion calling him out who has more belts and brings more money to the table and here you are trying to claim fury is the best heavyweight of all time.
So now your comparing the foreman’s and Frazier’s of this world with chisora and hammer....your ****ing nuts tromboni lol

None of those fighters are as dangerous as Wilder. If Fury retired now it wouldn't mean any less than if he goes on to batter everyone you beyond. Honestly, I'd rather see him rematch Wallin. That's the gamest of them all, after Fury. And he's tough to figure out.

I wrestled for years. Did VERY WELL at Beast of the East. Completed in college. But couldn't play college football for lack of size. Or baseball because I just didn't connect enough. I can appreciate what Wilder does A LOT.

If think those small Heavyweights beat him. Why didn't THEY lose to the more skilled Light Heavyweights whom they fought!?

[The plunger man]

None of those fighters are as dangerous as Wilder. If Fury retired now it wouldn't mean any less than if he goes on to batter everyone you beyond. Honestly, I'd rather see him rematch Wallin. That's the gamest of them all, after Fury. And he's tough to figure out.

I wrestled for years. Did VERY WELL at Beast of the East. Completed in college. But couldn't play college football for lack of size. Or baseball because I just didn't connect enough. I can appreciate what Wilder does A LOT.

If think those small Heavyweights beat him. Why didn't THEY lose to the more skilled Light Heavyweights whom they fought!?

so now your saying foreman, Liston , Tyson and Holyfield are not as dangerous as wilder.....GTFOH you lunatic....wilder is one trick pony with no boxing ability and my opinion you should be let lose on a boxing forum and you should be banished to the internet wilderness ..beam me up scotty

[JAB5239]

Hahahaha!

See what being sloppy got you? You fell right into my trap...

For not one of those matches, except Wills, was his opponent not at a significant weight disadvantage.

Gans and McFadden were Lightweights. Langford was not.

Walcott was a Welterweight. Langford was not.

O'Brien and Ketchel were Middleweights. Langford was not.

In the case of McFadden, O'Brien, and Ketchel all his opponents were so far gone, that even if Langford weren't sporting a significant weight advantage, it would still be distasteful to lend much credit to those performances. Wills was very green when he was KO'd, snd would eventually get the better of Langford .

Featherweight McGovern KO'd Gans in what was all but the Lightweight Championship. Gans didn't know Langford from Adam when they met - probably under much less than ideal circumstances. But Gans left the ring on his feet. (But again, you rank Langford, who was never his division's best, #1 P4P, while giving no mention to a kid/man who was the best fighter across three weight divisions at once).

The victory over Walcott was disputable.

And the 6 round fight with Ketchel ended inconclusively.

I'm not saying he wasn't good. But a fighter who beats up on smaller men at the close of their careers is the ANTITHESIS of Pound-for-Pound.

Langford was 17, possibly 20 when he fought and beat Gans. Sam was four and a half pounds heavier.

Sam and Walcott fought at welter, Sam was not in a different weight class, he just out grew 147. Nice try.

Ketchel was the middleweight champion when Langford carried him trying to get him to sign for a title fight.

O'Brien was a top lightheavyweight.

Wills was a long-standing heavyweight contender ducked by Jack Dempsey.

Do we need to go on son?

[JAB5239]

Because you seem to want to label people who you don't like as trolls and then have them banned. Ass-holes are allowed everywhere else, why not here?

So because they're allowed everywhere else you're of the opinion nothing should be done about it?

And believe me, there have been plenty of posters I disliked, but who knew how to speak about boxing and we're knowledgeable. Liking or disliking has nothing to do with it.

[QueensburyRules]

I understand your point, sort of, but, again, how do you competently rate fighters that you hardly know anything about? You are simply deferring to what other "experts" of eras gone by have said. Funny that you mention Corbett and Fitzsimmons. Just the other day I was showing my sons video footage of those two. They could not stop laughing at how ridiculous those two ATGs looked "trying" to land a punch on each other (well, that and their undies).

The sport and athletes in general have evolved quite a lot over the years. The average fighter from 1900 could not compete with the average fighter from 2000, so the best from the former era could not have competed from the best of the latter either. If the guys from that far back fought lesser fighters, then they cannot realistically be considered to have been among the best of all-time. It's illogical. They were simply the best of their time, and that is perfectly good enough.

This is why I believe that there is no real point in making an ALL-TIME Greats list. It's fun and reasonable to compare fighters from today with fighters from the 70's (maybe not HWs), but to include fighters from the dawn of the sport in an honest ATG discussion is just silly. There are Silver Gloves LHW contenders of the current day who would have run through the likes of Corbett and Fitzsimmons. That is just a plain fact, so including guys from that far back is just paying respectful homage. Its not serious. I view it as silly play to confer some kind of phoney insider cred on one's self. Nothing more.

- -This millennium has proven to be the most insipidly puerile and infantile I've ever witnessed.

You apparently don't know how outdated you are and how critically ****** this era will look to any of the survivors.

You had infinitely powerful computers crunching data inconceivable even 50 years ago, you have most of history catalogued, but your mistakes grow ever larger as you squander ever more resources while befouling your own nest.

Why don't you compile your own top ten for guffaws all around. Corbett and Fitz fought in the horse and buggy era, you know, the one you currently live in only now you have bigger buggies, more horses, and more speed, but now you stuck in traffic because this generation ain't figured out yet how outdated and ****** they really are.

[Willie Pep 229]

I understand your point, sort of, but, again, how do you competently rate fighters that you hardly know anything about? You are simply deferring to what other "experts" of eras gone by have said. Funny that you mention Corbett and Fitzsimmons. Just the other day I was showing my sons video footage of those two. They could not stop laughing at how ridiculous those two ATGs looked "trying" to land a punch on each other (well, that and their undies).

The sport and athletes in general have evolved quite a lot over the years. The average fighter from 1900 could not compete with the average fighter from 2000, so the best from the former era could not have competed from the best of the latter either. If the guys from that far back fought lesser fighters, then they cannot realistically be considered to have been among the best of all-time. It's illogical. They were simply the best of their time, and that is perfectly good enough.

This is why I believe that there is no real point in making an ALL-TIME Greats list. It's fun and reasonable to compare fighters from today with fighters from the 70's (maybe not HWs), but to include fighters from the dawn of the sport in an honest ATG discussion is just silly. There are Silver Gloves LHW contenders of the current day who would have run through the likes of Corbett and Fitzsimmons. That is just a plain fact, so including guys from that far back is just paying respectful homage. Its not serious. I view it as silly play to confer some kind of phoney insider cred on one's self. Nothing more.

Your children giggle and all historical research is suddenly rendered nugatory?

Primary written sources and artifacts can be reevaluated by future generations, the history of the world does not begin and end with audio-visual presentations; the reevaluation of experts can be enlightening.

I can understand your children's inability to understand what they were watching, they have an excuse, they are children, but here you are now announcing that all historical investigation meaningless (unless of course you find the video entertaining.)

Worst yet, here you are telling others that their efforts are narcissistic.

Isn't it considerately more self-aggrandizing (or as you put it: to claim some phoney [sic] insider cred) for you to announce the parameters of what is and isn't proper historical research?

They were simply the best of their time . . . is exactly the statement an ATG list makes.