The 100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Six: 50-41

By Matt McGrain on March 28, 2013
The 100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Six: 50-41
Both great, but each a twisted mirror image of the other in more ways than can be named.

Pacquiao and Mayweather had the chance to separate one from the other in terms of skill and legacy but declined—the fans are the big losers…

Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather are unquestionably great fighters. We see them ranked here above men like Ruben Olivares and Larry Holmes, arguably the single best fighters ever to box in their respective divisions. It is a fact though that for the fans of these two men, this ranking is not going to be high enough—Mayweather is a fighter who believes he is #1, and his disciples are not shy about repeating this point of view. It is nonsense, of course. If people want to argue about Mayweather being the best of all time, they are welcome to it, but greatness is defined in part by adversity overcome. Mayweather shows great dominance but his opposition is not the equal of someone like Sugar Ray Robinson, or Muhammad Ali. Whilst his move through the weights has been deeply impressive, spectacular enough to bring him to the top fifty, Mayweather hasn’t overcome a significant size-difference since 2007, when he looked a little fragile boxing Oscar De La Hoya at 154 lbs. Six years later, he looked a legitimate light-middleweight whilst at welterweight he looked every bit as strong as the bullish Sugar Shane Mosley in their 2011 encounter. Mayweather fights at no physical disadvantage in the higher weight classes he graces.

And he does grace them. As brilliant an operator as has boxed since the retirement of Pernell Whitaker, Floyd probably had the physical tools to scrape the heights of true greatness. The man he needed more than any other, of course, was Manny Pacquiao.

Pacquiao seemed to be storming his way to similar heights when he de-boned Ricky Hatton in 2009 but always there have been concerns, mostly over his inability to differentiate himself from Juan Manuel Marquez. Unable to detach the Mexican from his gravity, Pacquiao paired up with Mayweather to form a twin sun for the sport and welterweight division, so difficult to separate that Ring magazine had them, for a while, joint pound-for-pound #1. When he was stopped by his bogeyman late last year after a horror-show robbery against Bradley six months earlier, Pacquiao, in spite of his astonishing achievements, probably became mired in that gravity for all time. Fighting, after Hatton, against a strange malaise of excellent fighters somehow compromised, he met a Joshua Clottey coming off a loss to Miguel Cotto, a shot Shane Mosley who was coming in behind 1-1-1 run, a villainous and recently destroyed Antonio Margarito. None of these matches were competitive and all of them had the feel of “events” rather than fights.

It is interesting. Mayweather is accused of being boxing’s ultimate cherry-picker, but this is a criticism that can also be leveled at Pacquiao. Pacquiao, meanwhile, is said to “cheat” his opponents by demanding odd clauses of them as they go to the scales, shenanigans that Mayweather all but eclipsed with his own tomfoolery surrounding the weigh-in for Marquez.

So both great, but each a twisted mirror image of the other in more ways than can be named—and for me, ranked together in perpetuity, unless one should find some way to distinguish himself from the other in the twilight of their careers.

#50 Jack Dillon (95-8-15, Newspaper Decisions 92-19-17)

Five-feet-eight-inches and overweight at 175 pounds. Jack Dillon became contender to the title of one of the biggest heavyweight champions in history, the 245-pound man mountain called Jess Willard. Willard never met Dillon, but in the three years between his defeat of Frank Moran and his devastating loss to Dempsey, the smaller Jack was named as a possible opponent as often as anyone else, such was the resume he built at heavyweight. This, though, was but the greatest achievement of the first man to be given the moniker “Giantkiller.” He also amassed a tremendous win ledger at both middleweight and light-heavyweight.

When he lost back-to-back fights (and his generally unrecognized title claim) to Frank Klaus in December of 1912, Dillon had already boxed a career. Going into those fights he was 31-2-5, and he had beaten some of the leading middleweights of his era, George Chip, Leo Houch, Eddie McGoorty, Battling Levinsky, Mike Sullivan, Jimmy Gardner and Bob Moha. The incredible thing is that all of this was in Dillon’s pre-prime. His run after the twin losses to Klaus is what made him. 

He came hot out of the blocks beating two top contenders of the Ketchel era, Jack Sullivan and Hugo Kelly. Both were faded but both were at one time amongst the very best middleweights in the world—Dillon outclassed both. A six-rounder newspaper decision against Leo Houch (whom he had already beaten several times) aside, Dillon won more than seventy fights in a row against almost as massed an array of talent as the era could provide him below heavyweight. He also began his insidious creep up the heavyweight ranks, besting heavyweight contenders and gatekeepers in Jim Flynn whom he spotted fifteen pounds, Gunboat Smith who outweighed him by twelve pounds, and Dan Flynn to whom he gave up eighteen pounds. He then dropped a strange one to the unheralded Tom McMahon before digging into the heavyweights in earnest, beating up Jim Savage, Charley Weinhert, Dan Flynn twice and Jim Flynn once. Billy Miske proved a step too far in January of 1916 but stopped the giant Tom Cowler in his very next fight, by knockout no less. He continued to brutalize the Flynns, Smith and perennial victim Battling Levinsky before he avenged himself in April of ’16 upon Billy Miske whom he outboxed over ten. 

It was said by some that Dillon’s manager had become a little too brave when he matched him with the 205-pound Frank Moran, a fighter who had just boxed ten rounds with the incumbent heavyweight champion, but such was Dillon’s reputation by this point that he was made a favorite over the world-title challenger. 

“Jack Dillon proved his right to the title of Giantkiller last night,” wrote The New York Tribune, “by handing Frank Moran a thorough lacing at Washington Park [Brooklyn].” An astonishing 25,000 people watched the massacre.

After this feat, Dillon dropped off a bit, as witnessed by the fact that Battling Levinsky now at last managed to best him. Others would take advantage, but during his mind numbing six-year prime, he amassed an astonishing 92-3-7-2 against the best the middleweight, light-heavyweight and heavyweight had to offer.

#49 Tommy Ryan (84-2-11, Newspaper Decisions, 5-1-1)

Tommy Ryan’s decade of dominance began in 1891 when he lifted the welterweight title of the world beating Danny Needham over—wait for it—seventy-six rounds. These excessive distances suited Ryan as he was persistently in tremendous condition and boxed intelligently to break his opponent down. Needham was taken apart at the seams, eyes closed one-by-one before a body attack sapped his strength. “Pure science” is how the LA Herald reported it; here then was the successor to Jack Dempsey, The Nonpareil, only Ryan would have the competition to prove his greatness.

Proving he could punch in addition to box, he dispatched Billy McMillan and “cat-quick” Englishman Frank Howson in three and fourteen rounds respectively to round out ’91. Three more defenses followed through ’94 including a twenty-round victory over one of the era’s outstanding fighters and perhaps the dirtiest of all time, Mysterious Billy Smith. Smith was the aggressor throughout, but Ryan kept him under control with a body attack that would have “felled an elephant” according to The St. Paul Daily Globe. Ryan defied the one-hundred degree heat to rally and dominate the final five rounds of twenty, forcing Smith to his knees several times. The two were rematched in ’95 and the fight was ruled a draw upon the interference of the police, but in reality Ryan had beaten Smith to a standstill, the wire report stating that he had split Smith’s ear whereupon Smith turned to the ropes whilst Ryan hammered him.

Ryan failed to lift the middleweight title upon his first attempt losing out to Kid McCoy but he would add it two years later in 1898, beating Jack Boner in twenty rounds, beating the outstanding Tommy West in fourteen rounds, drawing a rematch with McCoy (once more due to police interference) and once again defeating Billy Smith in the interim. He fought six official defenses of his middleweight title, including one of the bloodiest contests ever staged in his 1902 rematch with West and retired the undefeated champion of the world. Nor did he ever lose his welterweight title in the ring; in fact he lost just twice, once by knockout to the bigger McCoy and once by disqualification. Whilst his dominance is hurt by his failure to match Barbados Joe Walcott, the other colossus of this era, Ryan’s being arguably the best welterweight or middleweight for as many as ten years provides a huge counterbalance.

#48 Manny Pacquiao (54-5-2)*
#47 Floyd Mayweather (43-0)*

In the introduction to Part Three I wrote that “should conservatism in boxing become the norm, much of the oxygen that allows greatness to burn is sucked from the room.” Is it reasonable to level at these two men, who hold eighteen different straps including seven lineal championships at a total of thirteen different divisions between them, accusations of conservatism in matchmaking? No. I cannot say that. Fans whinge endlessly about Floyd Mayweather “cherry picking” his opponents whilst the other camp gnashes their teeth about Manny Pacquiao “weight-draining” his opponents in a series of catchweight bouts, but these men have both fought some of the very best fighters of their era.

But they haven’t fought each other.

I am not interested in the reasons why. Was Pacquiao’s ducking blood tests the reason or did Mayweather’s determination to duck Pacquiao just render that a handy excuse? We will never know for sure and I don’t care. My job is to analyze the legacy of the two men and rank them in relation to others. Their failure to meet is of interest, however, because if they had fought a pair it would have changed the rankings of both men more than any other series imaginable. Say Pacquiao had beaten Mayweather twice—he then becomes the unfettered #1 for this era with a domination of a fellow and primed all-time great under his belt and is thereby catapulted up this list whilst Mayweather drops to the lower reaches. As it stands, they are ranked almost together, as they were through much of the past decade, with Mayweather slightly higher, just as he was for much of that time. Both were ranked on the pound-for-pound list between 2003 and 2013, with Mayweather ranked higher for most of six of these years and Pacquiao ranking higher for most of four, despite Mayweather’s yearlong “retirement.”

If that seems an arbitrary way to judge them, it needn’t. It is obviously desperately close between them and they themselves had the chance to separate one from the other in terms of skill and legacy but declined—the fans are the big losers and for boxing it is the most embarrassing low blow since the abolishment of the color line. Mayweather’s slight advantage in longevity on the P4P list plus a sneaking suspicion on my part that he was better by a hair is, tragically, all I have to separate them.

There was enough oxygen in beating a series of top men and one another’s leftovers but not enough to see them fulfill that dramatic potential, and with that fight now rendered all but meaningless by Pacquiao’s destruction at the hands of Juan Manuel Marquez, only extreme longevity or a surprising leap to middleweight on the part of Floyd Mayweather will see these two modern giants trouble the top twenty in the way their fans would wish.

#46 Ike Williams (128-24-5)

Ike Williams sits atop a pile of lightweight as deep as any since the heyday of Joe Gans. Pinning down his absolute prime is difficult—such was Ike’s level of competition that there would always be a loss just around the corner—but he probably hit his absolute stride sometime in 1944. This was the year in which, putting his defeat by the superb Bob Montgomery in January behind him, he twice beat the equally brilliant Sammy Angott (Angott would avenge himself by stoppage in ’45) adding scalps like Slugger White, Freddie Dawson, Enrique Bolanos and Johnny Bratton through ’46 before Gene Burton picked him off in ’47. Tippy Larkin then fell in four before he unified the title having already picked up the NBA title in ’45, all but murdering Bob Montgomery in the process. The lightweight then stepped up to do what few welterweights could do, knocked down and outpointed Kid Gavilan in a ten-round fight in February of ’48. The decision was not a popular one in every quarter, but this rather misses the point; Gavilan, whilst not primed, was on his way to becoming one of the most formidable welterweights in history. Stepping up to beat him should have been all but impossible. Dropping him in the process is a real feather in Ike’s cap.

Defenses against the outstanding Beau Jack and Jesse Flores followed before Kid Gavilan twice avenged himself giving him a total of seven defenses against as superb an array of contenders as challenged a lightweight champion. Zurita, Montgomery, Angott and Jack were fellow kings who at some stage knelt before him. On the downside, Williams dropped a four-fight series to the stiff-jabbing fleet-footed Willie Joyce who bested him during his apparent prime, revealing a surprising stylistic weakness that undermines his standing a little, and the fifties were deeply unkind to him, stealing both his title and a his air of invincibility as he boxed on beyond his prime. An excellent puncher and a superb boxer, he’s a handful for any fighter you care to name weighing in at or below 140 pounds and was the definitive lightweight from an era that would have given up more names to this list were it 120 place long rather than 100.

#45 Jimmy Bivins (86-25-1)

Jimmy Bivins fought a level of competition only a handful of men on this list can equal and even fewer outmatch. After just fourteen fights he was pitted against Pittsburgh welterweight Charley Burley, then approaching his red hot prime, and although he held a size advantage, it is in no way a fight Bivins should have been winning—and yet, he did, landing the heavier blows and nicking a unanimous decision despite Burley’s taking over down the stretch. The door had opened on one of the most astonishing runs in boxing history. 

Jimmy’s unbeaten streak was ended by former European middleweight champion Anton Christoforidis whilst he was still just 19-0, but Anton was a fighter Bivins had beaten before, and would again. In March of ’41 he beat the great Teddy Yarosz, and a month later outpointed heavyweight veteran Billy Knox. Still a light-heavyweight, Lem Franklin and Tony Musto, both in excess of 200 pounds proved too much for him, but he overcame the murderous punching Curtis Sheppard in ten. After losing to Melio Bettina he beat former middleweight champion Billy Soose and former (and future) light-heavyweight champion Gus Lesnevich back-to-back before being matched against leading heavyweight contender Bob Pastor. Pastor had around ten pounds on Jimmy, who was a huge underdog, but the Clevelander nearly put him away in both the first and the second before succumbing to Pastor’s sustained body attack and dropping another decision. That was April of 1942 and Bivins would not lose again until February of 1946. In that time frame he beat:

Oakland Billy Smith who was two months away from knocking out Lloyd Marshall, and a few months away from a draw with Archie Moore; light-heavyweight title challenger Melio Bettina to take a 2-1 lead in their series; 200-pound heavyweight contender Lee Q. Murray, twice outpointed over ten; Archie Moore, whom he knocked down six times before knocking him out in six; Lloyd Marshall who was coming off a career’s best win over Ezzard Charles, stopped in thirteen; heavyweight contenders Tami Mauriello and Pat Valentino; his former conqueror, Anton Christoforidis whom he defeated over ten to lift the “duration” light-heavyweight title, a series of belts introduced for the duration of World War Two; Ezzard Charles himself, who he beat like a thief, dropping him so many times in the course of winning a ten-round decision that the newspapers cannot agree upon how many counts there were; Joey Maxim, future light-heavyweight champion of the world; Bob Pastor, whom he avenged himself against by nearly stopping on course to a ten-round decision; and the much heavier Lee Savold, beaten in one-sided fashion.

It’s a staggering run of form carving him out as the premier light-heavyweight of the war years and likely amongst the two or three premier heavyweights. Given what he did to this huge swathe of champions and contenders in his prime years it is astonishing that he never held a genuine title himself.

So why no higher?

His incredible run of form was brought to a halt by Jersey Joe Walcott who beat him in a controversial points decision in February of 1946. From this, Bivins appears to have never recovered. He lost to Lee Q. Murray a few weeks later, a fighter he had never had issues dominating in spite of his seven-inch height and fifteen-pound weight disadvantage, but Murray now beat him clean. He’d drop his third straight to a peaking Ezzard Charles and this was the pattern that was repeated through the second part of his career. Charles knocked him out in four rounds twelve weeks later, then Murray beat him again; then Moore stopped him in nine, then he took him for a decision; Charles and Maxim both outpointed him; Moore knocked him out in eight and then nine; Harold Johnson decisioned him; as he slipped, so did lesser talents.

That said, you cannot take away from Bivins the extraordinary things he did and even whilst the best were beating him, he was adding to his resume, taking scalps like Valentino and Turkey Thompson. A brilliant fighter capable of the dull and sublime, wonderful wins and inexplicable losses, he unquestionably can be named amongst the greatest of the 1940s.

#44 Thomas Hearns (61-5-1)

Of the many brutalizing punchers that litter this list, few have Tommy’s laser-guided accuracy, and even fewer enjoyed his height and reach advantage at his first championship weight of 147 pounds. He knocked out thirty of his first thirty-two opponents and like so many punching kings, included in this run was an excellent and dominant champion, in this case Pipino Cuevas. More unusual; until Hearns came along, Cuevas was regarded as the great welterweight puncher of the era, knocking out eleven of twelve title opponents—Hearns brushed him aside in two of the most devastating rounds seen.

The unbeaten Luis Primera and Randy Shields followed before Hearns embarked on one of the great nights of his career, of any career, the showdown with fellow welterweight demigod Ray Leonard, the winner to be anointed divine. Hearns was favored but was taken apart late after outboxing the man that would for many remain the best welterweight boxer of all time. In spite of the loss, this fight is also regarded by some as literal proof that Hearns could not be outboxed at the weight, and needed to be outfought. That this would prove a horrifying task was demonstrated when Hearns stepped up to what I consider his best weight, light-middle. A win over Wilfred Benitez helped to define his stint in this weight division although it was the knockout perpetrated against Roberto Duran that would forever define him. Like Cuevas before him, Duran was swept away on a terrifying tide of offense in just two rounds. 

Middleweight is where the Hearns story likely should have ended; losses to Marvin Hagler and Iran Barkley make 160-pound tenure a near failure despite the strap, but Hearns, like all the great ones, rose again, draping 174 pounds over his 6’1” frame and stepping up to add a strap at light-heavyweight versus Dennis Andries and another versus Virgil Hill. Hearns brought remnants of both his speed and power to this class, evidenced by his dropping the tough Andries on six occasions, and although he looked vulnerable in spite his bulging biceps and even pedestrian in short spells against Hill, he declared 175 pounds “the weight division for me!” He did look the part, and allowing that he added the super-middleweight title, making him the first fighter in history to win straps at five different weights, Hearns is overqualified for pound-for-pound greatness, his keynote wins guaranteeing his place ahead of Floyd Mayweather.

#43 Tommy Loughran (89-25-10)

Jack Sharkey was slipping when Tommy Loughran got to him in a razor-thin split decision in 1933. The result typified Loughran’s time at heavyweight. Starting to slip a little himself when moved up to the big division in earnest, he was capable of outboxing the mercurial Sharkey or dropping a decision to a less brilliant contender, like Walter Neusel. The giant Primo Carnera was too big for him, bringing to the ring a weight advantage close to 100 pounds, but Loughran was able to trouble Arturo Godoy, the man who came so close to upsetting a prime Joe Louis, going 1-1-1 with him. In addition to Sharkey and Godoy, he beat top contenders Steve Hamas, King Levinksy, Paulino Uzcudun, Earnie Schaaf, Jack Renault and Max Baer, many of whom fought for the heavyweight title—or held it. A stirring resume is undermined by an inconsistency at the weight but this never was Loughran’s best division. At light-heavyweight he was one of the greatest of all time.

Loughran fought an eight-round draw with Gene Tunney and began his dramatic series with Harry Greb whilst he was still a teenager. After going 1-1 with Jeff Smith and Mike McTigue in no-decisions for the light-heavyweight title no less, Loughran began to gain weight and take scalps. In 1923 he received a close and perhaps questionable decision over the great Harry Greb. Greb hadn’t lost a fight outside of a dubious decision loss to Gene Tunney since 1920. He was twenty-one years old. Greb took his revenge (as Greb was wont to do) a couple of months later but from 1926 through to 1929 he went unbeaten. In that time he would lift the light-heavyweight championship of the world and beat such men as champion Mike McTigue, the wonderful Jimmy Slattery, Leo Lomski, Pete Latzo, Mickey Walker and Georges Carpentier before vacating as the undefeated champion of the world.

#42 Michael Spinks (31-1)

Michael Spinks doesn’t look like a fighter. He looks like a car mechanic.

A good car mechanic. The type of car mechanic that gets it from his wife for knocking money off, for people who are friendly with him, for people who might be poor. A nice guy; but not a fighter.

He looked like a mechanic, like a nice guy, even after Larry Holmes threw him to the ground in the opening seconds of their 1986 rematch. “That’s okay ref,” he reassured Mills Lane. “That’s okay.” Unequaled in terms of temperament, he then got back to the job at hand, taking the fight on two of the three judges’ cards against a hyper-aggressive version of one of the greatest heavyweights in forever: mission accomplished.

This is what defines Michael Spinks. Professionalism. Generalship. Generalship is the most professional aspect of a boxer’s make-up—the discipline of engineering the circumstances necessary for your victory. In just thirty-two fights he achieved a level of awareness in the ring that take the few men who reach that level many more fights to do so. His herky-jerky style and hurtful rather than devastating punching were so properly nursed as to make him a world-beater. His 1983 light-heavyweight unification fight with Dwight Muhammad Qawi (then Dwight Braxton) was a masterclass, moving to his right with the uncanny discipline of a career soldier, and only throwing his right hand as a counter to the Qawi right hand, taking away his man’s best punch and best draw with reads and discipline alone. 

Between 1981 and 1988 he engaged only in world title fights (uncertainties surrounding his masterful five-round knockout of the thirty-pound heavier Gerry Cooney notwithstanding) and with the exception of the one-round devastation wrought upon him by Mike Tyson he won them all for a total of 15-1. His run at light-heavyweight included wins over Qawi, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Yaqui Lopez and his step up to heavyweight was as brilliant as any ever made by a light-heavyweight. Michael’s gain in early retirement, money and health intact, was the sport’s loss, but even in such a short space of time he was in the game he did enough to earn a place in the top fifty.

#41 Alexis Arguello (89-8)

Between his being decisioned by the superb Ernesto Marcel in early 1974 and his failed attempt at becoming a four-weight world champion in the controversial loss to Aaron Pryor in late 1982, Arguello lost just one of forty-two fights against fleet-footed lightweight Vilomar Fernandez, who exposed in him a stylistic weakness to elusive, dancing boxers. In the other forty-one fights, everyone else revealed a stylistic weakness to an all-time great punching technician with every punch in the book and unerring accuracy. Those that demonstrated this universal Achilles heel included Art Hafey, Ruben Olivares, Royal Kobayashi, Bobby Chacon, Ruben Castillo, Jim Watt and Ray Mancini. He lifted titles at featherweight, super-featherweight and lightweight, holding the linear title at featherweight and lightweight but ironically not the weight at which he was most deadly, super-featherweight, his failure to meet Sam Serrano costing him that particular badge of honor. Whilst his height, genuinely freakish for a featherweight, helped him immensely in moving through the weights Arguello’s dominance through those classes remains impressive.

Furthermore, Arguello lost none of these titles in the ring, only parting from them each time he moved up in search of new challenges. His failure at light-welterweight can hardly be held against him as he was approaching the end and allegedly facing a doped opponent in Aaron Pryor.

100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part One: 100-91
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Two: 90-81
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Three: 80-71
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Four: 70-61
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Five: 60-51
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Six: 50-41
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Seven: 40-31
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Eight: 30-21
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Nine: 20-11
100 Greatest Fighters of All Time Part Ten: 10-1

Follow us on Twitter@boxing_com to continue the discussion

Tommy Ryan Clip 1920

HBO Boxing: Greatest HIts - Manny Pacquiao

HBO Boxing Floyd Mayweather Greatest Hits

Ike Williams vs Beau Jack TKO

Ezzard Charles vs Jimmy Bivins IV

1980-8-2 Pipino Cuevas vs Thomas Hearns

Tommy Loughran James Braddock Fight Boxing

Michael Spinks vs Dwight Qawi

Boxing Ruben Olivares vs Alexis Arguello 741123

Discuss this in our forums

Related Articles


This is a place to express and/or debate your boxing views. It is not a place to offend anyone. If we feel comments are offensive, the post will be deleted and continuing offenders will be blocked from the site. Please keep it clean and civil! We want to have fun. We want some salty language and good-natured exchanges. But let's keep our punches above the belt...
  1. PhilipA 12:52pm, 05/04/2015

    One of my favourite boxing series. Would rank Floyd in the top 30, possibly 20. Would rank him above Whittaker

  2. BrianMuller 09:00pm, 04/28/2015

    One of the all-time great boxing reads, can we expect an update in a month or so?

  3. tuxtucis 11:52am, 03/19/2014

    @truth: you said: Floyd Mayweather Jr. the only boxer tho have won every single minute vs a fighter who never clearly lost any other fight (JMM). For me it’s far more than have won ten titles in an era with at least 68 titles…

  4. Truth 06:23am, 03/19/2014

    Its is not a fair comparison that floyd has the higher tier than Manny for the reason only that he was KO’ed by JMM.  Manny dominated most fighters that floyd also fought minus JMM.

    and in achievement in boxing history Manny is…
    The Only boxer to win eight-division world champion
    The Only boxer who have won ten world titles
    The Only boxer to win the lineal championship in four different weight classes.

    floyd is…
    The Only boxer to ____?

  5. Jimmy 03:32pm, 04/20/2013

    when is the rest of this list coming?

  6. tuxtucis 06:29am, 04/03/2013


  7. Matt McGrain 06:18am, 04/03/2013

    Just as it is difficult for me to imagine Moore hugging his way to a clear loss against someone like Chad Dawson.  The difference is, Moore proved his incredible character rising again and again to smash Durrelle back, whereas Hopkins got beat.

  8. tuxtucis 06:08am, 04/03/2013

    @Matt Mc Grain: maybe you got reason, Moore has better wins than Hopkins, but at the same time I can’t see Hopkins floored 4 times by someone of the Yvon Durelle level…

  9. Matt McGrain 02:18am, 04/03/2013

    I would pick Hopkins to beat Hagler’s opposition, yes, although I don’t think he would be knocking guys out like Hagler was.  Hopkins could certainly drop a decision to a shoe-shining but faded Leonard (in Dawson, Jones and Taylor, he’s basically lost to every exceptional athlete he’s ever met) but I was thinking about this - if Hopkins beat inactive Leonard that would be by far his best scalp…by far.  Hopkins ranks high, high for me on dominance and longevity.  But it’s been intimated in this comments section that he should/will be ranked with Archie Moore…Moore has one of the best win resumes in the sport’s history.  There’s a world of difference here for me.

  10. GlennR 10:50pm, 04/02/2013

    Ok Matt, put Hopkins in Haglers shoes… does he have the same run?

    And heres one for you, does he beat Leonard?

  11. Matt McGrain 03:31pm, 04/02/2013

    Horrible in this context - that is, look at the other people on the list in his segment - every single one of them beat better competition, most by distance.  It may he harsh to say “horrible” but it is not harsh to say horrible in this context.  As to a Hagler-Hopkins contest, it’s a difficult one to call, but even if i picked Hopkins it wouldn’t make any difference to my list - I would have to be confident that Hopkins would do better head to head *across the whole field*.

  12. GlennR 03:22pm, 04/02/2013

    Horrible? I think thats a bit of a harsh assessment of Hopkins opponents and even if that were true, is it his fault?

    Point two i made, does Hagler beat Hopkins?

  13. Matt McGrain 03:05pm, 04/02/2013

    Hello gents.
    Bernard is obviously rated by me but his level of competition at MW is horrible - in this type of company, that is. Hagler, on the other hand was knocking out quality fighters.  This is reflected in their respective p4p rankings in their own eras - Hagler’s was consistently higher.  Mayweather, for example, has been ranked higher than Hopkins for a decade.  The decade in which Hopkins made his bones.

  14. GlennR 01:37pm, 04/02/2013

    I think thats a fair summation of the LHW’s of that era.
    But you know, i sort of just threw the question about hagler-Hokins out there for a laugh ,but in all seriousness i now think that Hopkins should rate higher based on two things;
    1. His total body of work
    2. I think Hopkins beats hagler when they are both prime MW’s

  15. tuxtucis 01:14pm, 04/02/2013

    @eric I agree…I think the fact Monzon and Hagler never tried to fight for an heavier crown should be a big handicap in a pound for pound ranking…It would be different if at time there would have been supermiddleweights…

  16. Eric 11:59am, 04/02/2013

    Monzon ranks ahead of Hagler & Hopkins. Interestingly Monzon and Hagler never moved up to challenge the light heavy kings during their respective careers. In Monzon case he could have taken on Bob Foster early on in his reign as middleweight champ or even elected to fight fellow countryman Victor Galindez in an all-Argentina shootout for Galindez’s title. Hagler would have had just as monumental a task as Monzon, since Michael Spinks was the reigning light heavy king throughout a good portion of his reign. Maybe Hagler could’ve taken on Dwight Qawi or even Matthew Saad Muhammad. Either way the light heavy division was extra tough during both Monzon’s and Hagler’s reigns as middleweight champs and I can’t see Hagler, Monzon, or Hopkins beating any of the light heavies I mentioned in their respective primes.

  17. GlennR 12:13am, 04/01/2013

    Yep, im thinking that if you look at it objectively, Hopkins should be ahead of Hagler

  18. tuxtucis 11:32pm, 03/31/2013

    Sorry, i mystaped…the corrects words were: “in 1986 match Hagler showed not only his chin but his defensive limits too…”
    Hagler was much more fun to watch and had a stronger punch than Hopkins…but The Executioner was champion at different weights (very important thing in a pound for pound ranking) and had a greater longevity…I think between xome decade Hopkins will be rated very near Archie Moore…

  19. GlennR 04:59pm, 03/31/2013

    Good points tuxtucis….. i guess the next question would be what did Hagler do better than Hopkins?

  20. tuxtucis 10:04am, 03/31/2013

    I think Hagler would have been in top 20 if Monzon would have allowed the black man to fight him…The Argentinian had an allergy to southpaws and it would have been a monumental win for Hagler…But by results…no way…the best Hagler won was the one against Hearns, a fighter who was good but never great over superwelters limits…Duran was clearly overweight and Leonard (past prime and with only one match in 4 years!) clearly outboxed him…I don’t think the Mugabi match was a call to greatness: the Ugandan was easily dismantled by Duane Thomas, Terry Norris and McClellan: in 1986 match Hagler showed not only his but his defensive limits too…Michael Spinks was ugly to watch, but was the first light heavy champ to win the heavy crown…

  21. Eric 06:52am, 03/31/2013

    @tuxtucis, I agree with your assessment on Hagler. Definitely top 100 but not top 40. Hagler was not a better fighter than Alexis Arguello for example and Arguello comes in at #41. However, I would rank Hagler as a better fighter than Michael Spinks and some others on this list. I think Hagler’s first “superfight” with Duran and his loss to Leonard prevent him from entering the top half of a top 100 list. As great as Duran was, he was still 20lbs removed from his prime and in his thirties when he took Hagler the full 15 rounds. Some claim Hagler won the Leonard fight, but I don’t see it after watching that fight several times. Leonard wins a comfortable decision, and I really don’t see any controversy in that decision at all. I don’t think the first Duran-Leonard fight was as close as people made it out to be and think Duran won pretty convincingly and I see the same thing with the Leonard-Hagler fight. Hagler’s biggest victories came against naturally smaller men like Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, and he failed in his litmus test against Leonard who had fought 1 time in the previous 3-4 years.  If Hagler beats Leonard he makes the top 40.

  22. tuxtucis 12:31am, 03/31/2013

    Anyway i see a trend in this ranking…while older historians tends to rate very high the fighters of the start of the century, nowadays someone tends to rate higher the fighters of the ‘40…that’s why Dempsey is not on the list and Bivins and Ike Williams are so high…I disagree, i think they can be only in the bottom of this ranking…

  23. tuxtucis 12:18am, 03/31/2013

    I think Roy Jones Jr. will be in the rank, Tyson will be not…Between fighters of last 30 years I think there will be Chavez, Whitaker and R.Lopez too…Anyway the legacy of fighters grows after retirement, while the memory of older fighters fades…In The Ring Magazine 1975, after the “Rumble in the Jungle”, Ali was only 9th, Ketchel was ahead of Robinson in middleweights and Barbados Walcott ahead of Armstrong in welterweights…I think Mayweather, Marquez and Hopkins will be easily in top 50 between 25 years…

  24. GlennR 05:37pm, 03/30/2013

    Next 10, i think RJJ and Tyson…..... and Whitaker to make 3

  25. Matt Miller 04:44pm, 03/30/2013

    @Don: nice to see some familiar faces here like you and Matt Mosley. As a side note, I have a soft spot for Cotto, but all I really said was I would have given him some thought. In the end, you’re probably right that he doesn’t make the list, even mine, which would rank contemporaries somewhat higher.

    @Matt McGrain: I’m guessing Roy makes it. And Lewis. That these are who you are referring to. But I wish I had originally simply said “current fighters” or “boxers who made their mark in the last 15 years.” I think of Jones, Evander, etc as belonging to a previous and past generation of boxers, even if their careers have extended into the present.

  26. the thresher 02:51pm, 03/30/2013

    Holy shit. It’s the battle of the Matts—McGrain, Mosley, and Miller!!!

  27. Clarence George 02:47pm, 03/30/2013

    Coincidentally, I’m watching “Hercules Unchained” (a “Mystery Science Theater 3000” gem), with Steve Reeves and Primo Carnera, who’s gigantic, far bigger than muscleman Reeves.

    While I don’t rate Carnera highly, I consider him (and Jess Willard) superior to the awful Leon Spinks.

  28. tuxtucis 08:42am, 03/30/2013

    @eric: except the corpse of Alì, Mercado was the only decent fighter beaten by L.Spinks…Carnera has beaten Uzcudun and King Levinsky twice, Ernie Schaaf, Tommy Loughran, even if you think that the Sharkey bout was a fake…Vitali Klitschko never has beaten someone of this level and nevertheless someone rank him between the top 10 heavies of all time…and my point was that Jack Johnson was 30 when he became world champion and that he had beaten his best foes before his reign…

  29. Don from Prov 07:21am, 03/30/2013

    We should have a “rec” button at this site—
    I’d hit it for Mr. Mosley’s 6:57 a.m. post

  30. Don from Prov 07:20am, 03/30/2013

    I’m very happy to see Messrs. Miller and Mosley posting on this site—
    They can be counted on for more than the drive-by posts that the likes of me often throw out here.  Mr. Miller, your comments about the “old” days, and specifically about smaller pools and racism, are very much spot on.  I do have to say though that I cannot see how Cotto would ever make a 100 best list.

    That’s what this type of article is all about though—
    Different opinions.


  31. Matt Mosley 06:58am, 03/30/2013

    BTW, calling it a disgrace is not really choosing your words carefully.
    They had a lot of the same sort of picks as your list, especially when talking modern day boxers.

  32. Matt Mosley 06:57am, 03/30/2013

    I think it’s a bit ridiculous and arrogant of you to call the BN list a “disgrace”.
    I really don’t see what was so bad about it.
    Nothing that i saw on there was anymore “disgraceful”  than what i see on your list.
    I mean, i’ve never, ever seen any list with no Jack Dempsey on it.

  33. Eric 05:52am, 03/30/2013

    @tuxtucis, If we were to include partial champs like Bruce Seldon, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, etc., then fighters like Willard and Carnera probably wouldn’t be ranked at the very bottom but they wouldn’t be ranked much higher. I would rank Leon Spinks higher than both Willard and Carnera. Spinks did beat the much larger power punching Bernardo Mercado in 1980 and many thought he actually had a chance to topple Holmes in their 1981 title bout. If Spinks would have abandoned the party lifestyle, taken the sport more seriously, and stayed in the cruiserweight division for the rest of his career, I don’t think his record would be nowhere near as spotty. No excuses for Leon when Coetzee and Holmes made short work of him, Spinks was in shape, young, and focused(well at least focused for Leon.) I would rank a prime Leon Spinks circa 1978-1981 over Willard, Carnera, Tubbs, and Seldon.

  34. Matt McGrain 04:53am, 03/30/2013

    I’m a fan, and i’ll be asking them for a favour soon, so i’ll choose my words carefully: the Boxing News list was a disgrace.  As for which fighters make the top 40 or don’t…no clues, aside to say, Mr.Miller, you are incorrect to say that nobody from the last 15 years in the top 40.

  35. tuxtucis 01:59am, 03/30/2013

    Jess Willard was not the greatest heavyweight champion, but for sure was far better than Leon Spinks…so how many peoples downgrade Alì for Spinks lost as someone on here suggests to do with J.Johnson for the Willard’s lost? Jack Johnson, for racial issues, was probably after prime when he got the title…his best successes were before he was champion, against the likes of Langford, McVea, Jeannette…Anyway i would have some problem to rank him in top 3 or even top 5 all-time heavies for his chin…Dempsey in his prime was a beast…he trashed many heavier and taller opponents (Willard, Fulton, Firpo)  and won against lighter quick foes (Carpentier, Miske, T.Gibbons)...

  36. Matt Mosley 01:15am, 03/30/2013

    Also agree with Eric about one generation low balling the next.
    I remember Nigel Benn, only 5 or so years after retiring saying that, all of a sudden, “boxing is not as good as it used to be.”
    Probably his ego saying “because i retired” to itself.

  37. Matt Mosley 01:11am, 03/30/2013

    Matt Miler - I think you make some excellent points, especially regarding racism in the old days (Jack Dempsey being the prime example of avoiding black fighters) and padded records.
    I had forgotten about those big issues and they are extremely relevant here.
    I guess it’s sometimes a case of “the good old days” not always being quite what they are cracked up to be, in both life and sports.
    Just like they do today, a lot of bad things happened in “the good old days”, imo.

  38. GlennR 10:11pm, 03/29/2013

    @Eric, spot on with Dempsey IMO, there’s a lot of sentimentality associated with him that seems to put him up there as one of the best. I can think of 10 HW’s that he cant get near.
    Its about personality, people are attracted to him for whatever reason and then elevate him accordingly….. if he wasnt popular he’d be long forgotten.

    Ill go back to my previous comment about Aaron Pryor, a beast but not popular and seems to be quickly forgotten, however Alexis A (who he beat twice) is in this very list….... guess what, he’s popular.

    Jack Johnson is a funny one, everyone seems scared to actually challenge whether he was really that great.

  39. Matt Miller 08:10pm, 03/29/2013

    @Eric: Regarding your first point about each generation lowballing the next, I agree completely. This is exactly what I see going on in many current lists of this nature. And your second point about Johnson is persuasive. I think I may be one of the people you mention who overestimate him. I’ll have to think about it more. Good points!

  40. Matt Miller 06:58pm, 03/29/2013

    I wrote a longer post that the system here seems to have flagged as spam for some reason. Here’s a shorter one. Matt Mosley: that list is interesting. It’s not much different, but it IS a little closer to my estimation. I read these lists avidly, and I’m aware they tend to reflect each other. But I don’t think this is necessarily a good thing. Your point about the listmakers’ ages is well taken. I guess I disagree with them, too, though I’m not calling for some radical reshuffling or downgrading of older fighters—I do think late nineteenth and early twentieth century boxing culture faced its own set of problems, and these problems seem to get a pass from boxing writers, while our own, so readily apparent in the present tense, are weighted heavily (more on that in my other post awaiting moderation). I bet Mayweather ranks a lot higher on these lists in 40 years, and it won’t be because of his career henceforth.

    GlennR: maybe I should have just said “current greats” instead of giving a date span. I like to forget about Roy and Mike’s late careers. I suppose Evander also qualifies by this standard…

  41. Cesar Jana 06:41pm, 03/29/2013

    Floyd Mayweather in the 40’s and Roy Jones ranked in the 30’s is crazy.
    It took 12 years for anyone to even hurt Roy…and the only reason it did happen was because he went up and won the Heavyweight Belt then tried to come down in weight to face Tarver.  He lost his speed factor but in his prime, he would have beat anyone in the history of boxing.  Floyd has beat everyone, not pretty as his nickname but never the less he has dominated every one he has fought and he has fought some formidable opponents.. many Hall of Famers.
    Manny has won belts in a plethora of weight classes, no flyweight has ever acccomplished what Manny has…..that puts him in the top 15 of all time.

  42. Eric 06:05pm, 03/29/2013

    @Matt Miller,

    It has always been this way with current fighters. Marciano, when he was actively fighting couldn’t last a round with Dempsey according to his critics, and was just a lucky bum with a punch. Early on many “experts” didn’t rank Ali with past heavyweight greats and felt Louis, Dempsey, and others would make short work of him. Ali was never ranked alongside the greats like Dempsey, Louis, and Jack Johnson. Hell, Ali was beaten in a computer tournament by Jim Jeffries in the late Sixties. Larry Holmes was never held in high esteem early on during his championship reign and many criticized his competition as probably being the worst era in heavyweight history. Does this all sound familiar? BTW, I consider Jack Johnson to be one of the most overrated heavyweights of all time. He beat a 5’7 1/2” 178-180lb Tommy Burns for the title,  and defended it against some lackluster competition. He would beat two legendary names of the sport like Ketchel and Jeffries, but Ketchel was all of 5’9” and 165lbs, and Jeffries came out of 5-year retirement at 35 years old, and weighed about 300lbs when he started training. Jeffries didn’t even take a tune up but went straight for the title against Johnson despite not having fought in over 5-years. Jack Johnson would lose his title to one of the worst heavyweight champs of all-time in Jess Willard. Johnson was was in his late thirties by then and overweight, but to lose to a fellow like Willard is a pretty glaring spot on this legend’s record. Despite all this,  Jack Johnson has been regularly rated as a top 5 all time heavyweight on many boxing expert’s lists for decades now and it seems it is almost automatic to include Johnson with names like Louis, Ali, Dempsey,  and Marciano. A great deal of people rank only Ali and Louis higher and some even feel Johnson is the greatest heavy of all time.

  43. Matt Miller 05:57pm, 03/29/2013

    @Matt Mosley: Personally, I don’t see how age has much to do with it. A 30 year old can do the same kind of research as a 60 year old, and neither of the two will have personally seen the majority of the fighters they are ranking fight live.

    I think you’re right about Scott, but I still would like to see what he would come up with, and I am confident he would put the needed research in if he were to tackle such a task.

    “At the end of the day the old timers fought way more often and there was only one world champion in each division. Plus the best fought the best much more often.”

    I don’t necessarily disagree, but perhaps you overstate it a bit, and perhaps there are other factors worth considering. They did fight more often, but a lot of those records are padded with local yokels and cans. Great fighters in early eras fought more often because of financial necessity, and that meant lots of compromises—fighting whoever was available on short notice while traveling. In between the good fights are often several total nobodies that a fighter of the same caliber today wouldn’t have to bother with.

    And in the early eras, racism is the elephant in the living room. The best fighting the best more often in the early eras? Not if one of the two was of minority descent.

    Another elephant in the living room: whole portions of the globe were boxing no man’s lands because of ethnocentrism, lack of international media, greater language barriers, lack of airlines, etc. The pool was smaller, whiter, and mainly limited by racism. These are big problems with ranking fighters from the the older eras and are worth considering deeply in these rankings.

  44. GlennR 05:38pm, 03/29/2013

    @ Matt Miller.

    Regarding no fighters from the last 15 years going to be in the top 40, i think you’ve forgotten RJJ and Tyson….oh and how about Lewis?

    I think they have to be in because they both have to be in the top 100 and are yet to be mentioned.

  45. GlennR 05:34pm, 03/29/2013

    Id think so Clarence.

    He was one tough, dangerous SOB. Just watched the AA fight with him again and ,IMO ,he never looked like losing that fight.
    But….. from memory he wasnt that popular, and i cant help thinking unpopular fighters fade from the memory quicker than others.

  46. Matt Mosley 04:08pm, 03/29/2013

    Boxing News’ ranking were compiled last year and nowadays the staff are all in their late 20’s-late 30’s, including the editor Tris Dixon.
    Here is how they rated the modern day fighters:

    5/ Sugar Ray Leonard
    6/ Roberto Duran
    14/ Marvin Hagler
    23/ Julio Cesar Chavez
    24/ Pernell Whitaker
    25/ Larry holmes
    27/ Evander Holyfield
    30/ Thomas Hearns
    35/ Lennox Lewis (i’m sure some will say there’s some national bias here - and i would agree)
    36/ Roy Jones Jr
    41/ Floyd Mayweather
    42/ Manny Pacquiao
    48/ Ricardo Lopez
    49/ Azumah Nelson
    57/ Khaosai Galaxy
    71/ Mike Tyson
    77/ Bernard Hopkins
    78/ JMM (this was before JMM-Pac IV)
    79/ Marco Antonio Barrera
    80/ Erik Morales
    86/Oscar De la Hoya
    95/ Joe Calzaghe
    96/ Shane Mosley

  47. Clarence George 03:46pm, 03/29/2013

    You know, I hadn’t thought of Pryor.  Good for you, Glenn.  If Matt’s going to include him, it’s likely to be in the next installment, no?

  48. Matt Mosley 03:45pm, 03/29/2013

    Ok, i just realised Pacquiao and Mayweather did crack the top 50.

  49. Matt Mosley 03:41pm, 03/29/2013

    Matt Miller - Much as i respect Scott Christ’s work i imagine he himself would admit that he really doesn’t have enough knowledge of the eras before, say the 1970’s to make a fair and unbiased list.
    I may be wrong but IIRC correctly he has said before that he would never even try to compile one.
    My personal belief is that the writer has to be above a certain age and/or have done hours and hours of painstaking research and fight footage analysis to be able to make a list which would be realistic.
    At the end of the day the old timers fought way more often and there was only one world champion in each division.
    Plus the best fought the best much more often.
    Someone like Mayweather, while a brilliant talent, have just not done enough of this and has avoided many of the toughest challenges, imo.
    I really have no complaints about any of today’s fighters not cracking the top 50.
    If i would rank anyone slightly higher it would be Hopkins for all he has achieved at such an advanced age.
    BTW, UK magazine Boxing News, which has been covering boxing since before the Ring (1909) had very similar rankings to these.

  50. GlennR 03:10pm, 03/29/2013

    “That said, the difference between the two, in terms of quality, is very much a matter of millimeters.”

    Nicely put Clarence, they are both terrific fighters and i think either would have thrived in any era.

    I agree that Pac hits harder and is a bit faster, but i feel FM’s reaction time is a bit quicker, he is the more versatile .of the two and can adjust better given the situation.

    And personally, i just like to watch him .

    Heres someone no one has mentioned yet…. Aaron Pryor.
    Think he will appear?
    And if he doesnt how has he been left of this list

  51. raymack 12:44pm, 03/29/2013

    How can you rate fighters you never saw fight. That is like saying how good someone is in bed whom you never met. Senseless, dependent on heresay.

  52. Matt Miller 12:25pm, 03/29/2013

    As I mentioned previously, I have really been enjoying this list, so take this criticism in that spirit. That said…

    It looks like there will no be a single fighter from the last 15 years (or possibly more) in the top 40. I think this is an overly pessimistic assessment of the current era—and also an overly conservative one, reflecting the tendency of such lists to refuse introduction of younger fighters.

    While hardly the greatest era in boxing ever, I have a hard time believing that this era—which internationally is extremely active—can possibly be so bad that a period spanning about 15% of the entire timeline surveyed fails to produce a single top 40 fighter and barely cracks the top 50. It’s an incredibly negative assessment if you think about it.

    Nostalgia (even for eras when one was not alive) is a powerful force, and the negative forces of past eras, such as the influence of racism and of the mob, may not be sufficiently considered, while contemporary factors, such as the unfortunate habit top fighters only fighting a couple times a year (if that) may be over-weighted. Are any of the major boxing top 100 lists created by someone under 40? under 50? I wonder what such a list would look like if a dedicated younger fan like Scott at BLH were to make one. As a side note, I really have no idea what Matt’s age is, so I may be eating crow here. Also, I am not saying the perspective of older fans is wrong, just that a breadth of perspective is desirable. (I’m 43 for what it’s worth.)

    I have never made a list like this, but if I did my guess is that Mayweather would wind up somewhere around 20th and Pacquiao somewhere around 25-30th. Bhop and and Marquez would be higher. Calzaghe might have cracked the bottom of the list. I would have given Cotto some serious thought. Also Calderon. Mosley would have been there somewhere, etc.

  53. tuxtucis 10:29am, 03/29/2013

    About Mayweather/Pacquiao: both dominated their way Mosley, Hatton and Cotto…Pacquiao did better against past prime De La Hoya…Pacquiao started at smaller weight than Mayweather (flyweight instead jr.lightweight)...but Mayweather didn’t lost a single minute against Marquez, while Pacquaio probably never won a fight againts the Mexican…I think the American would have won easily a matchup with the Filippino…Resume: Mayweather some place ahead Pacquiao…I think maybe Mayweather ahead of Arguello too…

  54. tuxtucis 10:18am, 03/29/2013

    Anyway I agree about Dillon and Tommy Ryan…

  55. johnny yuma 10:16am, 03/29/2013

    Dillon,Ryan low according to RING all-time ratings.Maybe I lean on Ring too much,my all-time favorite,for info,results,news,ratings

  56. tuxtucis 07:55am, 03/29/2013

    And Mayweather must be ranked ahead of Pacquiao…he was never defeated and he won handily against Marquez…no way…

  57. tuxtucis 07:05am, 03/29/2013

    And I’ve seen not yet Marvin Hagler…so, or he is out of 100 or he is in top 40: either way totally wrong…

  58. tuxtucis 07:04am, 03/29/2013

    Jimmy Bivins in top 50? No, no, no…

  59. Clarence George 04:19am, 03/29/2013

    Darcy was outstanding.

    As for Butterbean…a little birdie tells me that he’s #6 on Matt’s list.  We’ll have to wait and see.

  60. Mike Casey 04:14am, 03/29/2013

    If Butterbean doesn’t make it, Matt, I’ll be very disappointed in you.

  61. Mike Casey 04:13am, 03/29/2013

    Nat Fleischer suggested that had Darcy lived, he might have have eclipsed Ketchel. But Les died at the peak of his powers, much like Salvador Sanchez. Very difficult, and perhaps a little dangerous, to surmise what these guys would have gone on to do.

  62. Clarence George 04:10am, 03/29/2013

    In a nutshell, Glenn…Pacquiao’s more experienced, hits harder (albeit, granted, not by much), and I think he’s a bit faster.  Also, he’s arguably cleverer and somewhat more versatile.  And his is a more elegant style and approach, don’t you think?  That said, the difference between the two, in terms of quality, is very much a matter of millimeters.

  63. GlennR 03:35am, 03/29/2013

    Haha, ill bite Clarence.

    He’s better because?

  64. Clarence George 02:48am, 03/29/2013

    Happy to return the compliment, Glenn.

    Right—if Darcy hasn’t made it on by now, he probably won’t.

    I think most fans consider “Money” better than “Pacman.”  They’re wrong, but, hey, what can I do?

  65. GlennR 02:42am, 03/29/2013

    Gee Clarence, you do know your boxing. Im thinking he (Darcy) wont appear, thats why i didnt mention him, but as an Australian i put Fenech above him.

    Well we disagree on MayPac….. i put Floyd ahead of Manny!

  66. Clarence George 02:35am, 03/29/2013

    Ha!  It’s Matt’s fault, Glenn, not ours.

    I’m sure those two will make the cut.  Speaking of Australians…Les Darcy hasn’t made it on yet, has he? 

    No, I think Pacquiao is superior to Mayweather.

  67. GlennR 02:26am, 03/29/2013

    Yeh, none from 6 hey Clarence, l we arent going so good!

    Im similar in that i think 2 of my 3 will still get in (Tyson and Whitaker), and that my lone Australian is going to be left out.

    Question for you, you think Mayweather is right one position ahead of Pac?

  68. Clarence George 02:18am, 03/29/2013

    Me too, Glenn!

    My guess now is that Matt won’t include Bob Montgomery, but will include—higher, of course—Charley Burley and (hurray!) Sam Langford.

  69. GlennR 01:54am, 03/29/2013

    Well i got that wrong Clarence!

    I like all the guys mentioned in this 10, im a particular fan of Loughran so glad to see him there.

  70. Matt Mosley 01:44am, 03/29/2013

    Nice order of greatness here.

  71. Clarence George 01:39am, 03/29/2013

    Not much in the way of upbraiding from me, Matt.  With one or two exceptions (Michael Spinks, for example), I’d have these men on my own list.  I’m particularly pleased to see the inclusion of Ike Williams, Tommy Loughran, and especially the outrageously neglected Jimmy Bivins.  And the placement is about right for most of them, though some should be a bit higher. 

    Well done, though I miss having my blood pressure raised…as is your wont.

Leave a comment