should fighters who duck others be all time greats

[SimonH]

I'm not quite done with this subject, Britkid. Again, you obviously know a great deal about boxing history. But there's more to knowing about boxing than just being able to spew dates and names.

True; but sometimes it helps if you can! I always comeback with reasons backed up with facts, why I am disagreeing with something, and sometimes that does indeed mean spewing dates and names.

Back to your "all-time" list. Let's take Ali again, for instance. In an earlier post, you list among your deciding factors (on how to rate a boxer all time): Quality of opposition, Length of World Class Career, Originality and pioneering qualities, etc., etc.

And yet, you list Ali 11th alltime, under the likes of Sammy Langford, Georges Carpentier, Charley Burley. Why? I'm not the greatest (no pun intended) of Ali's fans. I don't even think he should be number one on the list. But he CERTAINLY rates higher than 11th. Especially given the names above him on your list.

Ali was a Heavyweight; the Heavyweights lack the quality of opposition of the Welterweights and Middleweights, and thus Burley gets ahead of him.

Carpentier is to my knowledge the only man in boxing to claim a pro national title in all eight classic divisions. He was also a European Champion from Lightweight though to Heavyweight, and claimed the World Championship at Light Heavyweight, and also held a claim as a World Heavyweight titlist.

Sammy Langford was a Middleweight who competed with the best heavyweights of the day, in a 200+ fight career.

I am comfortable putting all three above the Great Muhammad Ali.

About your factors again. You name: "Impact on society" (another of Ali's strengths over some of your other names above him). Tell me, WHOSE society? Just as Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano had deep impacts on U.S. boxing fans back in their day, boxers such as Chavez, Arguello, and Trinidad have had on their respective cultures. You, being British, can speak for impacts on British society. But are by no means an authority on any fighter's impact on other societies.

I said 'Impact on society' was used as a tie break:

How I decide an all-time Great:

Quality of opposition
Length of World Class career
Redemption

Then is intangibles like

Originality and poineering qualites
Iconic status
Impact on boxing history (all of them can be connected)

Then to break ties; I bias

Ring Generalship
Technical ability
Impact on society; then if still level
The most crowd pleasing style

That means there is going to be bias towards the society I know of, when I cannot separate the qualities listed above 'Impact on society'

What changes would I make on your list? Many. But to mention a few:

1. Ali deserves better than 11th.
2. De la Hoya should be lower than 22nd.
3. Carlos Zarate CANNOT be ranked above Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez, the fighter who destroyed him at his peak in a mega-fight between two great fighters.

Maybe in YOUR circles, fighters like Pancho Villa, Stanley Ketchel and Harry Grebb are household names. On THIS side of the world, the average boxing fan might mistake Pancho Villa for Don Quijote's (Spanish spelling) sidekick.

It's a well-known fact (again, on THIS side of the world) that Puerto Rico and Mexico are hotbeds for producing great boxing champions. I'm sorry, but any list that includes Don Quijote's sidekick and omits fighters like Trinidad, Gomez and Benitez is totally one-sided and woefully subjective.

I think you speak with a bias towards Puerto Rican fighters, and a natural instinct to look at the worst in a Mexican Great. That is fair enough, we (England) have the same rivalries with the Celts (Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France), Australia and Germany; and I probably do have a bias against the fighters from these countries.

As for Pancho Villa, well rather than mocking his name, look at his record, he was an amazing fighter who was taken from the sport too soon....

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9433