A question for the gang. Not who do you think is the GOAT. Instead how many guys do you think have a reasonable case for being in the initial discussion and being given at least some consideration?

Please give me the names and a brief why.

I want to see how many names we end up with.

Thanks in advance.

One thing about me is that I won't bother listing guys whom I've not seen enough footage of to comment. I can't call you an ATG just based on what I can only read.
It's a known fact that writers back in the days were known to stretch things out.

I've also mentioned this before but I also remember reading a report on a SRR fight by 2 different writers during his career in the 1940s and the 2 writers told almost 2 different fights it was like they both had seen 2 different fights, now mind you this was in the 40s now imagine articles/reports from the 1800's & early 1900's? These guys could exaggerate and write just about anything. I don't argue the fact that they werent great fighters like Greb, Loughran, McVea you name them but how do we REALLY know these writters didn't exaggerate? I'm sure they would have a field day depicting fights and fighters. Til this day, what sells? Big stories. Lies. It was 10x worst then, that's how you sell something on paper. You put a huge headline and fill in a great story even if means lying.

Which is why I would just rather stick to fighters I've seen fights of or at least enough footage to be able to rate them. It's just my opinion and how I rate fighters. I can't compare a fighter I've seen vs. A fighter I've only read about. That to me is impossible and I refuse to go by someone elses words. I'd rather let my own eyes and mind decide.
With that being said;

SRR
Armstrong
Ali
Duran
Monzon
JCC
Alexis
Ezzard
Canzoneri
Harada
Emile
Carlos Ortiz
SRL
Hagler
Hearns
Lopez
Napoles
Ike Williams
Pep
Louis
Lennox
Dempsey
Kid Gavilan
Kid Chocolate
Sanchez
Olivares
Pernell
Holmes
Marciano
Moore
Jofre
Bob Foster
Dick Tiger
Canto
Galaxy
Oba
Nelson
Gomez
Trinidad
Pedroza

- A guy that often get's a bit overlooked for my likings Hilario Zapata this dude fought some of the best names available won multiple titles and losing didn't mean a thing. He would come back and win again. I think he got the short end of the stick in the rematch with Bassa and the Laciar fight was a coin toss for me it could have gone either way. Even with that though I think he's an ATG.

More recent names who are still active somewhat... ODLH, RJJ, Hopkins, Holyfield, MAB and Erik...

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing about me is that I won't bother listing guys whom I've not seen enough footage of to comment. I can't call you an ATG just based on what I can only read.
It's a known fact that writers back in the days were known to stretch things out.

I've also mentioned this before but I also remember reading a report on a SRR fight by 2 different writers during his career in the 1940s and the 2 writers told almost 2 different fights it was like they both had seen 2 different fights, now mind you this was in the 40s now imagine articles/reports from the 1800's & early 1900's? These guys could exaggerate and write just about anything. I don't argue the fact that they werent great fighters like Greb, Loughran, McVea you name them but how do we REALLY know these writters didn't exaggerate? I'm sure they would have a field day depicting fights and fighters. Til this day, what sells? Big stories. Lies. It was 10x worst then, that's how you sell something on paper. You put a huge headline and fill in a great story even if means lying.

Which is why I would just rather stick to fighters I've seen fights of or at least enough footage to be able to rate them. It's just my opinion and how I rate fighters. I can't compare a fighter I've seen vs. A fighter I've only read about. That to me is impossible and I refuse to go by someone elses words. I'd rather let my own eyes and mind decide.
With that being said;

SRR
Armstrong
Ali
Duran
Monzon
JCC
Alexis
Ezzard
Canzoneri
Harada
Emile
Carlos Ortiz
SRL
Hagler
Hearns
Lopez
Napoles
Ike Williams
Pep
Louis
Lennox
Dempsey
Kid Gavilan
Kid Chocolate
Sanchez
Olivares
Pernell
Holmes
Marciano
Moore
Jofre
Bob Foster
Dick Tiger
Canto
Galaxy
Oba
Nelson
Gomez
Trinidad
Pedroza

- A guy that often get's a bit overlooked for my likings Hilario Zapata this dude fought some of the best names available won multiple titles and losing didn't mean a thing. He would come back and win again. I think he got the short end of the stick in the rematch with Bassa and the Laciar fight was a coin toss for me it could have gone either way. Even with that though I think he's an ATG.

More recent names who are still active somewhat... ODLH, RJJ, Hopkins, Holyfield, MAB and Erik...

You REALLY need to understand the newspaper world of pre-television. New York alone had over a dozen daily newspapers. The competition was fierce and boxing was one of only two major sports. The idea that a sports writer in that era could have just manufactured stuff and survived is lunacy. In addition, the notion that all we have is are newspaper accounts is also very, very wrong. We have interviews with trainers, judges, referees and fighters that give one an awfully good comprehensive pictures. We have well researched books as well. The idea that the above can't be critically compared and cross referenced to get near the truth is insupportable I think. And finally the idea we don't have extensive footage is just wrong. I own over a thousand fights that pre-date 1950.

Let me ask you a question. When you read military history do you refuse to think about Cesar or Alexander or Robert E Lee because there is no footage? Do you reject studying Shakespear because you can't see the plays as they were performed in the author's day? Are you unwilling to form an opinion on Lincoln's political acument because you can't see him delivering the Gettysburrg Address or the Second Inaugural?

It's up to you of course, but your starting point puzzles me.

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing about me is that I won't bother listing guys whom I've not seen enough footage of to comment. I can't call you an ATG just based on what I can only read.
It's a known fact that writers back in the days were known to stretch things out.

I've also mentioned this before but I also remember reading a report on a SRR fight by 2 different writers during his career in the 1940s and the 2 writers told almost 2 different fights it was like they both had seen 2 different fights, now mind you this was in the 40s now imagine articles/reports from the 1800's & early 1900's? These guys could exaggerate and write just about anything. I don't argue the fact that they werent great fighters like Greb, Loughran, McVea you name them but how do we REALLY know these writters didn't exaggerate? I'm sure they would have a field day depicting fights and fighters. Til this day, what sells? Big stories. Lies. It was 10x worst then, that's how you sell something on paper. You put a huge headline and fill in a great story even if means lying.

Which is why I would just rather stick to fighters I've seen fights of or at least enough footage to be able to rate them. It's just my opinion and how I rate fighters. I can't compare a fighter I've seen vs. A fighter I've only read about. That to me is impossible and I refuse to go by someone elses words. I'd rather let my own eyes and mind decide.
With that being said;

SRR
Armstrong
Ali
Duran
Monzon
JCC
Alexis
Ezzard
Canzoneri
Harada
Emile
Carlos Ortiz
SRL
Hagler
Hearns
Lopez
Napoles
Ike Williams
Pep
Louis
Lennox
Dempsey
Kid Gavilan
Kid Chocolate
Sanchez
Olivares
Pernell
Holmes
Marciano
Moore
Jofre
Bob Foster
Dick Tiger
Canto
Galaxy
Oba
Nelson
Gomez
Trinidad
Pedroza

- A guy that often get's a bit overlooked for my likings Hilario Zapata this dude fought some of the best names available won multiple titles and losing didn't mean a thing. He would come back and win again. I think he got the short end of the stick in the rematch with Bassa and the Laciar fight was a coin toss for me it could have gone either way. Even with that though I think he's an ATG.

More recent names who are still active somewhat... ODLH, RJJ, Hopkins, Holyfield, MAB and Erik...

That figures.... there is MAB and Erik but no Pacman in there. So I will be inserting my man in your list so my list will be like this:

SRR
Pacquaio -- he should be there upon his retirement in boxing; could be tied with Armstrong and Ali.
Armstrong
Ali
Duran
Monzon
JCC
Alexis
Ezzard
Canzoneri
Harada
Emile
Carlos Ortiz
SRL
Hagler
Hearns
Lopez
Napoles
Ike Williams
Pep
Louis
Lennox
Dempsey
Kid Gavilan
Kid Chocolate
Sanchez
Olivares
Pernell
Holmes
Marciano
Moore
Jofre
Bob Foster
Dick Tiger
Canto
Galaxy
Oba
Nelson
Gomez
Trinidad
Pedroza

I agree with Mick regarding boxers I have actually seen. This thread would take me all day to answer (and I don't have time at the moment) but 2 for starters

SRR - Simply becuase he did everything well, infact did everything brilliantly. I have never been so in awe of a fighers skills as when watching SRR.

Pep - A defensive geniius - simply as that

To be continued.............

It is clearly Audley Harrison and that's my final word on the issue.

Originally Posted by BIG H

I agree with Mick regarding boxers I have actually seen. This thread would take me all day to answer (and I don't have time at the moment) but 2 for starters

SRR - Simply becuase he did everything well, infact did everything brilliantly. I have never been so in awe of a fighers skills as when watching SRR.

Pep - A defensive geniius - simply as that

To be continued.............

In all seriousness it would have to be SRR or Ali.

I agree about only evaluating fighters that you have seen with your own eyes. It's like food, you can read a sparkling review of a restaurant, but you need to eat the food yourself before your opinion is truly made. Same with fighters, you need to see their skills for yourself. If you only base John Ruiz on what Fantana says then you would clearly think you are dealing with Superman. When you finally get to see Mr Huggy in action you would most likely be quite let down. You do need to see a fighter do his thing.

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing about me is that I won't bother listing guys whom I've not seen enough footage of to comment. I can't call you an ATG just based on what I can only read.
It's a known fact that writers back in the days were known to stretch things out.

Not that I disagree with your point, but I just wanna play devil's advocate here.

Does this notion of not being able to fully judge a boxer's talent without seeing enough footage also extent to that boxer's opponents? For example, how much footage of Armstrong's opponents have you seen, and if little to none, how do you know they were any good?

Personally I hate these kinds of lists. I understand the innate desire to rank everything, to have a concrete numero uno, but there's just so much we really don't know. I guess it makes for interesting discussion, but it's really hard for me to take these things seriously.

How about all the fixes and fake fights in the 40s/50s? How can you be certain of the validity of reports and records if you don't know what fights were kosher? Or are all recorded fakes known?

Sugar Ray Robinson was approached on numerous occasions to throw fights, and although not doing so, he did admit to the temptation, and to carrying fighters on the say so of the mob. And this is the fighter at the pinnacle.

Wellllllllll I don't think I need to need say who's my legit threat to the massively understood GOD of boxing.

I've seen a lot of footage of the old era guys. And I'm a bit of a heretic who doesn't just accept that old era will forever be "the greats" simply because old guys pass down stories from their time. Having said that, I take into consideration the evolution of the sport. Though some may call it a decline. But giving all of the modern science applied to sports in general nowadays.

I believe RJJ, Sweet Pea, and Bhop would beat whoever the ATG is in their weightclass and P4P Sweet pea and RJJ would both beat Ray Robinson. And RJJ being all time greatest.

I'm on my cell phone right now so I can't bother replying to everyone else.
But I will once I'm able to get on a pc.
Mr. Lee how quick you are to jump the gun. If you notice the boxers I listed are near retiring I don't think Pac is near retiring.

Sven Ottke
Pongsalek Wonjongkam
Samson Dutch boy Gym
Joe Calzaghe

I'm really not into ATG or P4P so have never really bothered to consider it but I guess the guys that we remember as the greatest of our times are usually actually the 3-5 greatest of 'our' time. 'Our time', whenever that may be is reference to 'our generation' and boxing has been going for x generations so I guess as a mathematical answer take x and multiply it by (3+4+5)/3 and there's roughly a guide for how many truly feasible ATG's there should be

Something like 25ish truly undisputed ATG's anyway.

Pac to me is 15 at best i cant rate him over Sugar Ray Leonard who is only 10 in my book. The greatest of all time is Ali for me could have a chance to beat any boxer who ever lived.

Just to clarify something.
I don't dispute if anyone wants to list Greb, McVea, Loughran as an ATG.
All I'm saying is I can't even consider it and I refuse to list someone whom I've not seen with my eyes just based on print.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

You REALLY need to understand the newspaper world of pre-television. New York alone had over a dozen daily newspapers. The competition was fierce and boxing was one of only two major sports. The idea that a sports writer in that era could have just manufactured stuff and survived is lunacy.

Oh come on, of course they survived... Like I said I've read 2 articles on the same SRR fight and both told different stories.
Writers told stories to sell the paper I'm certain they streched the truth out.
Writers those days wrote whatever they wanted. Times were a lot different.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

In addition, the notion that all we have is are newspaper accounts is also very, very wrong. We have interviews with trainers, judges, referees and fighters that give one an awfully good comprehensive pictures. We have well researched books as well. The idea that the above can't be critically compared and cross referenced to get near the truth is insupportable I think. And finally the idea we don't have extensive footage is just wrong. I own over a thousand fights that pre-date 1950.

The near truth and the truth can be worlds apart.
Perfect example Bert Sugar, I like the man a lot.
Enjoy his stories and his knowledge but it's been known that he stretches the truth out.

Take the whole Willlie Pep wining a round without throwing a punch.
We really don't know the truth and that was in 1946. Imagine 1800's...

Originally Posted by BIG H

I agree with Mick regarding boxers I have actually seen.

These writers back then weren't credible writers and the sport was just in the early stages...

Originally Posted by miles

I agree about only evaluating fighters that you have seen with your own eyes. It's like food, you can read a sparkling review of a restaurant, but you need to eat the food yourself before your opinion is truly made. Same with fighters, you need to see their skills for yourself. If you only base John Ruiz on what Fantana says then you would clearly think you are dealing with Superman. When you finally get to see Mr Huggy in action you would most likely be quite let down. You do need to see a fighter do his thing.

John to Fantana is like SRR + Ali + Armstrong...

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Not that I disagree with your point, but I just wanna play devil's advocate here.
Does this notion of not being able to fully judge a boxer's talent without seeing enough footage also extent to that boxer's opponents? For example, how much footage of Armstrong's opponents have you seen, and if little to none, how do you know they were any good?
Personally I hate these kinds of lists. I understand the innate desire to rank everything, to have a concrete numero uno, but there's just so much we really don't know. I guess it makes for interesting discussion, but it's really hard for me to take these things seriously.

It's like this...
Can you compare a movie you've seen vs. a movie you read about?

I can somewhat rate fighters to an extent as individual fighters based on what I've read and the very little if any footage I've seen. But I just can't list them in a specific list with fighters I've seen.

I'm gonna make a list based on food. The best food ever.
Mexican
Japanese
Mediterranean
Italian
Cambodian - Never ate it but the pictures look good and I've read a lot of great things about it.
Peruvian
South African - Never ate it but based on the pics and things I've read looks/sounds good.

Get my drift... I've ate Mexican, Japanese etc. etc. I know it's great. I've never had Combodian or SA so how compare it? What I've read and pictures I've seen?