ESPN Lists Top 50 Boxers of All Time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMicK

:rasta:

---

8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

roy jones at 46!!!! wtf was that..roy is top 5 all time..and imo right behind ray robinson....even besides that shane mosely was one of the greatest lightweight fighters ever...period and he didn't even make the list and oscar did...

sweet pea, monzon, bhop, roy, floyd, barrera, all lower than delahoya is F****** dumb...

---

pfp. I think Jones is a great fighter but Roy is not top 5. He dominated fighters which were great possibly Virgil Hill and James Toney and Bernard Hopkins but that does not make him top 5. That is a lofty place for any fighter. Roy did not commit to boxing enough to be 5.. And anyway, this is of all time. Anyone on this list is in good position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I can't see a classical top ten list not comprising of

Ali(1 or 2)
Robinson(1 or 2)
Willie Pep(3 or 4)
Henry Armstrong(or 4)
Duran(6)
Ezzard Charles(7)
Benny Leonard(8)
Gene Tunney(9)
Joe Louis(5)

The last person could be anyone, but they hit the top ten pretty well except Jack Johnson and Dempsey IMO. I would probably use Conn.

---

I can't see a top 10 list without Jimmy wilde full top. not because i am welsh, he may not have had the biggest names on his record, but he damn sure is top 10 if not top 5 p4p in the world ever

---

THe only reason I am rating these guys higher than Mayweather's, Holyfield, Lewis', Whitaker's, Jones', etc. is because of their opposition. I don't think Jimmy is top ten IMO because he didn't fight the same guys these guys did I put in the top ten did. I would definitely have to put guys like Conn above him, and even Dempsey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

roy jones at 46!!!! wtf was that..roy is top 5 all time..and imo right behind ray robinson....even besides that shane mosely was one of the greatest lightweight fighters ever...period and he didn't even make the list and oscar did...

sweet pea, monzon, bhop, roy, floyd, barrera, all lower than delahoya is F****** dumb...

---

pfp. I think Jones is a great fighter but Roy is not top 5. He dominated fighters which were great possibly Virgil Hill and James Toney and Bernard Hopkins but that does not make him top 5. That is a lofty place for any fighter. Roy did not commit to boxing enough to be 5.. And anyway, this is of all time. Anyone on this list is in good position.

---

Nobody had more talent than Roy JOnes Jr. who ever boxed... nobody even had close to his natural abilities. Furthermore nobody made the same level of opposition look as easy as he did.

In all honesty marciano should not be in a top 50 list unless its heavyweight/ko artist exclusive. He only had 4 title defenses and was technically horrible but he would whoop on any heavy.

Pretty hard to make a list like this, there is too much subjectivity but...

I woiuld say that George Foreman is far too high.

I can't see Duran at #6, sure he has a tough guy image but his record doesn't justify #6, not enough big name scalps. Top 20 maybe, but not #6

Arguello is far too low. I can't see how Arguello should be that much lower than Duran, if at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zzz

Pretty hard to make a list like this, there is too much subjectivity but...

I woiuld say that George Foreman is far too high.

I can't see Duran at #6, sure he has a tough guy image but his record doesn't justify #6, not enough big name scalps. Top 20 maybe, but not #6

Arguello is far too low. I can't see how Arguello should be that much lower than Duran, if at all.

---

At least Arguello gets in the top 50, where on earth is Aaron Pryor who beat him Twice!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zzz

Pretty hard to make a list like this, there is too much subjectivity but...

I woiuld say that George Foreman is far too high.

I can't see Duran at #6, sure he has a tough guy image but his record doesn't justify #6, not enough big name scalps. Top 20 maybe, but not #6

Arguello is far too low. I can't see how Arguello should be that much lower than Duran, if at all.

---

At least Arguello gets in the top 50, where on earth is Aaron Pryor who beat him Twice!!

---

Are you saying that Pryor should be rated higher than Arguello? I would disagree with that. Arguello's career record is far superior in terms of title fights. Also, Arguello was champ in three weight divisions and had moved to a fourth by the time he fought Pryor. This is an all time p4p list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zzz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zzz

Pretty hard to make a list like this, there is too much subjectivity but...

I woiuld say that George Foreman is far too high.

I can't see Duran at #6, sure he has a tough guy image but his record doesn't justify #6, not enough big name scalps. Top 20 maybe, but not #6

Arguello is far too low. I can't see how Arguello should be that much lower than Duran, if at all.

---

At least Arguello gets in the top 50, where on earth is Aaron Pryor who beat him Twice!!

---

Are you saying that Pryor should be rated higher than Arguello? I would disagree with that. Arguello's career record is far superior in terms of title fights. Also, Arguello was champ in three weight divisions and had moved to a fourth by the time he fought Pryor. This is an all time p4p list.

---

I hear what you are saying and i would definately have Arguello in my top 50, however Pryor dominated the 140lb division and those two wins against Arguello are significant when comparing the two fighters. You can't get a better comparison when the two combatants have fought twice in their prime.

wow.. i am speachless.......

I would ask you guys to make a 50 list, but that is difficult. How would you guys alter that list? I liked how one of the magazines a few years back rated the best boxers of the last 50 years.. Lists like that usually are terrible since we all have a favorite era and boxer. So the era we favor is going to be near the top, and then the fighter we liked in that era will be favored. It is hard to really rate fighters. And I think Foreman being high on an alltime list is not legit. Foreman in his prime should be the one rated. He knocked out alot of guys and wiped out Norton and Frazier which to me is impressive, but then he lost to Ali. He was like Tyson in his former career. He would win big or get wiped out. Does his second career from 87-96 or so warrant him going higher? I do not think so. He lost to Holyfield with a big weight advantage. Lost to of all people Tommy Morrison. Then finally wins when he knocks out a former light heavyweight with no chin. He fought good guys but does not warrant him top spots. I would rate George a great heavyweight I suppose. Just do not know where. And Hagler was a great fighter, but people are complaining how he should be higher. I always thought the fact that he did not move up and fight Spinks and test his skills the way his buddies Hearns,Leonard and Duran did should knock him down alot. Hearns tested his overall skills more than Hagler, and maybe he went down sometimes, he still tested them more with weight gains.

Marciano #14!???....Who wrote this list? Women???

these lists are always bad. Do you guys think Foreman warrants 20 and Larry Holmes 38?? I dont.. Quality of opposition and knockout percentage better for George but domination and holding the title Larry was better. I would reverse those numbers and put George near 50.I guess the list could be worse. Joe Frazier ahead of Marvin Hagler. wow. I never saw Marvin Hagler lifted off the ground with an uppercut and demolished in two rounds in a title defense.