Boxing Fans --- Your Top 5 Pound-Pound Ever?

[BDR]

Okay, I guess my 22 years of boxing fandom and watching thousands of fights doesn't qualify me as a real fan then

Enjoy your imaginary superiority

 

[Bretto]

Quality thread, would read gain.

Should start a thread on the best unilateral power spectral density barometer. Then, when people post up with their versions, I can shoot them down by finding information on Wikipedia, then regurgitating it onto the forum in a condescending and acrimonious manner.

 

[BDR]

Any serious poster would laugh you out of the room. Laugh, I say!

 

[coolsteve]

my information comes from my 1958 `The Ring`record book and encyclopedia.(Nat Fleischer). Think I`ll believe that. In Nats opinion,(yes , everyone is allowed to have one) His all time ranking of world boxers(up until 1958)sam langford comes in no 7,heavy wieght .harry greb no 3, ray robinson no5 middleweight, henry armstrong no 8 welter weight.They weren`t even the top fighter of their division(again, his opinion) let alone best p4p fighter.unfortunatly, someone like langton, who fought 26 times in just one year,and most of his career in boston,I dont think would handle modern day fighters with their fitness and scientific approach to fights(he must have been good, though)but ffs, he didn`t even fight for a title(unless you count his loss to harry willis for the negro heavyweight title)ok boy

 

[coolsteve]

but hey , everyone is allowed an opinion.you just agree or disagree

 

[BDR]

1958 The Ring Encyclopedia? Laughed out of the room.

 

[royce10]

Out of 3tb of boxing I only have 3 full fights of Langford. Nothing in any if those fights suggests to me that he beats Louis. If Louis lived through any era, I believe "Bum of the Month" would still have existed.

As for the Ring Magazine, Amadaca, I can see where you're coming from. But do you agree with the top 3 in the current p4p standings? Also, what rankings have been tampered with in their lists iyo?

 

[andrew057]

Did you used to post at the Aussie boxing forums that clenshaws Nader and a few other local fighters along with tools like Sevsek and Co Andrew?

I did. Was quite a while ago now.

 

[coolsteve]

1958 The Ring Encyclopedia? Laughed out of the room.

yeah , who could believe that. Pretty sure a little book written years ago,the bible I think,can it be taken seriously?any way , my books in the bookcase,i enjoy reading it

 

[Mong]

I did. Was quite a while ago now.

Figured it was the same person judging by what you have said. I drop by from time to time at those forums..

Haven't posted for a lot of years though.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Honestly Amadaca does have a point here.

Some of the opinions in this thread, quoting popular opinion or The Ring, are sort of like the equivalent of coming to LU and agreeing with everything Channel 9 says. Boxing buffs/nerds wouldn't be caught dead uttering some of these well-known modern names in all-time P4P discussions.

Nevertheless there's no point coming to a forum like this and basically making a post just so you can "expose" other posters and carry on like a smarmy wanker.

 

[royce10]

Honestly Amadaca does have a point here.

Some of the opinions in this thread, quoting popular opinion or The Ring, are sort of like the equivalent of coming to LU and agreeing with everything Channel 9 says. Boxing buffs/nerds wouldn't be caught dead uttering some of these well-known modern names in all-time P4P discussions.

Nevertheless there's no point coming to a forum like this and basically making a post just so you can "expose" other posters and carry on like a smarmy wanker.

Very true.

 

[coolsteve]

Honestly Amadaca does have a point here.

Some of the opinions in this thread, quoting popular opinion or The Ring, are sort of like the equivalent of coming to LU and agreeing with everything Channel 9 says. Boxing buffs/nerds wouldn't be caught dead uttering some of these well-known modern names in all-time P4P discussions.

Nevertheless there's no point coming to a forum like this and basically making a post just so you can "expose" other posters and carry on like a smarmy wanker.

sorry . just stating facts

 

[Tommy Smith]

Honestly Amadaca does have a point here.

Some of the opinions in this thread, quoting popular opinion or The Ring, are sort of like the equivalent of coming to LU and agreeing with everything Channel 9 says. Boxing buffs/nerds wouldn't be caught dead uttering some of these well-known modern names in all-time P4P discussions.

Nevertheless there's no point coming to a forum like this and basically making a post just so you can "expose" other posters and carry on like a smarmy wanker.

It's called being sentimental.

But be that as it may; if Harry Greb faced Sugar Ray Leonard - both in their primes - who would you bet your life on? Same with Sam Langford vs Roy Jones Jr... Or Joe Gans vs Pernell Whitaker.

"Resumes" aside, i know who id be betting on.

 

[Amadaca]

LOL. Harry Greb beat Gene f**king Tunney --- arguably the greatest LHW ever --- at least once.

He would do a Duran on Leonard.

 

[Tommy Smith]

I've already pointed out that he beat Tunney. Which shows how average heavyweights were back in the early to mid 20s... God help Greb if he fought someone like Ali or Tyson.

So which Greb fight that you've seen leads you to suggest he would do a Duran on Leonard? And by that im assuming you dont mean the No Mas fight.

 

[andrew057]

LOL. Harry Greb beat Gene f**king Tunney --- arguably the greatest LHW ever --- at least once.

He would do a Duran on Leonard.

Was it Grebs greatest performance?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

It's called being sentimental.

But be that as it may; if Harry Greb faced Sugar Ray Leonard - both in their primes - who would you bet your life on? Same with Sam Langford vs Roy Jones Jr... Or Joe Gans vs Pernell Whitaker.

"Resumes" aside, i know who id be betting on.

I'm of the school of thought that modern athletes humiliate old time athletes across the board if you just got a time machine and transplanted them. I don't think that's a useful way to do these comparisons. "Resume" is probably the way to go.

However, it's arguable that resume is also unfair as it was normal for top boxers to fight 100s of times in the good old days, which gave them more impressive resumes. Do they deserve to be rewarded for their toughness to the extent that modern fighters are almost ruled out of the discussion? Not sure.