And here's one from last night that probably won't end up in anyone's list of classic fights
Done a Frank Bruno. Shame
The RedCafe Boxing Thread
- Thread starter CLK_FPC
- Start date
Done a Frank Bruno. Shame
This is the boxing equivalent of quitting your underpaid job and flipping the bird to your s*ithead bosses while leaving the building
Respect
ESPN fights tonight. I think Beltran-Pedraza will be excellent. Beltran doesn’t do bad fights. He’s a little old now though and I felt he lost last time to Moses. I saw Pedraza on the Crawford-Horn card and he shows good boxing but once he’s caught he can be brought into a brawl and that’s what Beltran will look for. I envision Pedraza winning the fight close but Beltran being proffered by the promoter will likely get a decision. Both guys have already signed to face Lomachenko for December 1st.
Isaac Dogboe is defending his title for the first time on the undercard. Dogboe is the latest in Ghana’s proud Boxing tradition. He has the goods. He’s facing a Japanese challenger and the Japanese always come to fight so this should be fun.
Isaac Dogboe is defending his title for the first time on the undercard. Dogboe is the latest in Ghana’s proud Boxing tradition. He has the goods. He’s facing a Japanese challenger and the Japanese always come to fight so this should be fun.
You mean to tell me you’re not watching KSI and Logan Paul?
Mikaela Mayer 
Anyone who watched Dogboe...’NAHOO NAHOO!’
Anyone who watched Dogboe...’NAHOO NAHOO!’
Enjoy this documentary
Nice list!
Stopped boxing and now senior coach at an amateur club. Preparing a fighter for a senior novices in October at the mo. The guy I came up under was head of England boxing, had Degale, Fury, BJS also was part of the decision to drop the Scouser and take Khan to the Olympics
Congrats and good luck with the coaching. Must be an incredibly rewarding feeling getting your charge(s) to achieve something. All the best with it!
It's nice but there's the other side of it. Just lost my 3 best fighters (One left for Finchley because he saw Joshua was always there then when he realised how far it is joined the closest gym to us as he felt he couldn't come back, one is trying to get into Repton and the other just left), I literally took all of them from scratch so was gutted. But that's how it goes I guess!
Where's this you boxed at mate?
I can understand that, but you set them on their journey. Still sucks I can imagine, you're still making a difference though! Can't account for young minds, and if or when they make it, they are sure to look back at who believed hlin them back in the day!
Was at Angel ABC
Exactly how I look at it, if they do anything in the sport kind of affirms that what I do works. One is having his first fight in the next few weeks so will be keeping an eye on him
So long as you don't go down the path Teddy Atlas did and decide to assassinate one of his ex fighters that left him, you'll be OK
Wanheng Menayothin just made it to 51-0. The Mayweather fans are losing it
Menayothin is a Straweight from Thailand who's been WBC for four years. Hopefully he gets to 60-0 and retires which should basically put what the unbeaten record means into perspective.
Menayothin is a Straweight from Thailand who's been WBC for four years. Hopefully he gets to 60-0 and retires which should basically put what the unbeaten record means into perspective.
Menayothin officially TBE
Technically he is especially if we go by what the know it all Mayweather fanboys say constitutes the TBE though I'm seeing some rule changes from them unsurprisingly.
Other world champion fighters that retired with more than 50 wins and no losses include :-
Jimmy Barry, lineal bantamweight champion from 1899-1905 and hall of fame inductee was unbeaten in 70 bouts with 59 wins, 9 draws & 2 no contests
Ricardo Lopez, straweight and super flyweight champion from 1990-2001 and hall of fame inductee was unbeaten in 52 bouts with 51 wins, 1 technical draw
I've never understood the fascination with this "record", I guess it's just for marketing purposes only. There's been far better unbeaten streaks. Julio Cesar Chavez didn't officially lose until his 91st fight, Ruben Olivares in his 70th fight, Jimmy Wilde went an astonishing 104 fights without a loss to start his career.
Willie Pep started 62-0, lost a non-title fight up at lightweight and then went 73 fights without another loss. Sugar Ray Robinson had an 88 fight unbeaten streak after his first loss (which was a non-title affair up in weight)
For those interested here's a post I put on the boxrec boxing history forum on a thread asking who are the top five boxers of all-time
There's no fight footage of Harry Greb. Only some brief training where he doesn't look all that impressive but on paper he has a resume that could be argued is as good as any in history. Footage of Sam Langford is sparse also but his resume is also incredible and was essentially a welterweight good enough to have been champion all the way up to heavyweight. A victim of his era. Those two surely would be in a top 5 of all-time based on resume.
I think along with Langford and Greb, you've got to put Willie Pep. pep was 134-1 entering the Saddler fight and that was already after he had a near fatal plane crash. and had started to show signs of slippage. He was so good that he managed a re-match win over Saddler, himself a ridiculously great fighter arguably #2 in featherweight history. The footage of a prime Pep is limited and what's available period show a perfect boxer, with an incredible defense, speed and reflexes. Henry Armstrong I think for sure has to be in the top 5. Only man to simultaneously hold three world titles in an era of 8 divisions, 1 champion per division. Made a record breaking 19 welterweight defenses and had a style that would simply just overwhelm most in history and then you've got Sugar Ray Robinson. Like Pep, posted some insane numbers and his style still holds up today when assessing tape. Many from that generation say he looked even better as a lightweight than as a welterweight meanwhile most the footage available is as a middleweight where he's arguably the best ever despite that being past his best and giving up advantages in age and size. His resume is incredibly deep and his highs incredibly high.
Those would probably be the five greatest IMO.
As far as some of the contenders for best then Benny Leonard may have to be included due to being way ahead of his time with a very technical boxing style. I'd have him somewhere in the top 10. Roberto Duran was the ultimate fighting machine. At his best he was incredible though I think Carlos Ortiz may have had the measure of him prime for prime at lightweight. Duran undoubtedly has the greater career due to some of his huge moments above 147. Duran I could see being top 5 with no complaints. Ortiz was a vastly underrated boxer who could do it all. He could box, he was strong & was as smart as they come. He wasn't a one punch KO artist nor was he blazing quick but but his KO over Flash Elorde was chilling and his masterpiece against Ismael Laguna in the rubber match when Laguna's youth, speed and legs were widely touted to be too much for an aging Ortiz. That's one of my favorite fights. If I had a time machine that's one of the fights I'd want to have seen live.
Eder Jofre was a perfect fighter. Technique, patience, poise, power, balance he had it all. It's really a shame that there's only been four of his full fights available and highlights of around 15 or so more. He really deserved the decision over Harada in the first fight and was hurt by the same day weigh-in's of that era because he was killing himself making 118. If the weigh-in's back then weren't same day forget about it! He'd have gotten Harada out meaning the judges would have no chance to take his belt away. In the modern era he'd have had a chance to dominate 122 as well. It's a testament to his skills and smarts that he went away and came back in his mid 30's and embarked on a 25-0 unbeaten run including an excellent win over a stylistic nightmare in Jose Legra. I view him as the most perfect boxer in history.
Ezzard Charles was another complete, almost perfect boxer with a tremendously deep resume. I find it interesting when reading views of historically great boxers from publications in the 60's, 70's and 80's he's not given the kind of kudos the likes of Moore, Louis, Pep etc; are given. Perhaps due to not holding the 175-title and a relatively short reign as HW champ? His resume has grew in time.
That's sort of my alternative five. Another name I want to mention as far as p4p and best is Jose Napoles. I'd rank his career probably around 30-40 all-time but just from a technique standpoint he's right up there with the greats. He suffered first from being avoided at 135 which would have been his ideal weight and then from brittle skin at 147 where he was undersized. In the modern day and age he'd have likely got a shot at 135 and a chance to dominate 140 before winning at 147. Considering he was a major booze hound also he still had an amazing career. I think he's one of the "best" ever as in arguably top 20 but "best" and "greatest" are different. For example I think he's the best Cuban ever but as far as greatest he may be third behind Gavilan and Chocolate.
Floyd Mayweather is another that will grow with time I feel. Not to T.B.E status that his young and overzealous fans try to force down our throats but slowly and steadily like Charles. I think he'll end up being viewed in the top 20-30. Sugar Ray Leonard is up there with the very best of them. He had it all. He just suffers from basically being a part time fighter for what should have been his prime. He got some amazing wins but his numbers are lagging far behind the likes of SRR but I can accept him being in your top 10 of all-time because he was that good. You have to mention Muhammad Ali too and Joe Louis.. That's another five.
Sorry about being long winded. It's such a hard category. It's very difficult to separate greatest from best and compare different era's. Hopefully somebody found my post enjoyable.
There's no fight footage of Harry Greb. Only some brief training where he doesn't look all that impressive but on paper he has a resume that could be argued is as good as any in history. Footage of Sam Langford is sparse also but his resume is also incredible and was essentially a welterweight good enough to have been champion all the way up to heavyweight. A victim of his era. Those two surely would be in a top 5 of all-time based on resume.
I think along with Langford and Greb, you've got to put Willie Pep. pep was 134-1 entering the Saddler fight and that was already after he had a near fatal plane crash. and had started to show signs of slippage. He was so good that he managed a re-match win over Saddler, himself a ridiculously great fighter arguably #2 in featherweight history. The footage of a prime Pep is limited and what's available period show a perfect boxer, with an incredible defense, speed and reflexes. Henry Armstrong I think for sure has to be in the top 5. Only man to simultaneously hold three world titles in an era of 8 divisions, 1 champion per division. Made a record breaking 19 welterweight defenses and had a style that would simply just overwhelm most in history and then you've got Sugar Ray Robinson. Like Pep, posted some insane numbers and his style still holds up today when assessing tape. Many from that generation say he looked even better as a lightweight than as a welterweight meanwhile most the footage available is as a middleweight where he's arguably the best ever despite that being past his best and giving up advantages in age and size. His resume is incredibly deep and his highs incredibly high.
Those would probably be the five greatest IMO.
As far as some of the contenders for best then Benny Leonard may have to be included due to being way ahead of his time with a very technical boxing style. I'd have him somewhere in the top 10. Roberto Duran was the ultimate fighting machine. At his best he was incredible though I think Carlos Ortiz may have had the measure of him prime for prime at lightweight. Duran undoubtedly has the greater career due to some of his huge moments above 147. Duran I could see being top 5 with no complaints. Ortiz was a vastly underrated boxer who could do it all. He could box, he was strong & was as smart as they come. He wasn't a one punch KO artist nor was he blazing quick but but his KO over Flash Elorde was chilling and his masterpiece against Ismael Laguna in the rubber match when Laguna's youth, speed and legs were widely touted to be too much for an aging Ortiz. That's one of my favorite fights. If I had a time machine that's one of the fights I'd want to have seen live.
Eder Jofre was a perfect fighter. Technique, patience, poise, power, balance he had it all. It's really a shame that there's only been four of his full fights available and highlights of around 15 or so more. He really deserved the decision over Harada in the first fight and was hurt by the same day weigh-in's of that era because he was killing himself making 118. If the weigh-in's back then weren't same day forget about it! He'd have gotten Harada out meaning the judges would have no chance to take his belt away. In the modern era he'd have had a chance to dominate 122 as well. It's a testament to his skills and smarts that he went away and came back in his mid 30's and embarked on a 25-0 unbeaten run including an excellent win over a stylistic nightmare in Jose Legra. I view him as the most perfect boxer in history.
Ezzard Charles was another complete, almost perfect boxer with a tremendously deep resume. I find it interesting when reading views of historically great boxers from publications in the 60's, 70's and 80's he's not given the kind of kudos the likes of Moore, Louis, Pep etc; are given. Perhaps due to not holding the 175-title and a relatively short reign as HW champ? His resume has grew in time.
That's sort of my alternative five. Another name I want to mention as far as p4p and best is Jose Napoles. I'd rank his career probably around 30-40 all-time but just from a technique standpoint he's right up there with the greats. He suffered first from being avoided at 135 which would have been his ideal weight and then from brittle skin at 147 where he was undersized. In the modern day and age he'd have likely got a shot at 135 and a chance to dominate 140 before winning at 147. Considering he was a major booze hound also he still had an amazing career. I think he's one of the "best" ever as in arguably top 20 but "best" and "greatest" are different. For example I think he's the best Cuban ever but as far as greatest he may be third behind Gavilan and Chocolate.
Floyd Mayweather is another that will grow with time I feel. Not to T.B.E status that his young and overzealous fans try to force down our throats but slowly and steadily like Charles. I think he'll end up being viewed in the top 20-30. Sugar Ray Leonard is up there with the very best of them. He had it all. He just suffers from basically being a part time fighter for what should have been his prime. He got some amazing wins but his numbers are lagging far behind the likes of SRR but I can accept him being in your top 10 of all-time because he was that good. You have to mention Muhammad Ali too and Joe Louis.. That's another five.
Sorry about being long winded. It's such a hard category. It's very difficult to separate greatest from best and compare different era's. Hopefully somebody found my post enjoyable.
@Inter Yer Nan needs a boxing related tagline. Now!
He didn't mention Marvelous so the only tag he deserves is "fraud"
Cheers. I love my Boxing. Really passionate about the history and never stop reading about it and watching old fights and always try and watch all the live fights I can. Next Saturday is a great Saturday of fights but I'll miss them all due to a wedding! That's what DVR's are for I guess.
Oh, Hagler is one of my favorites mate. In my personal top 5 favorite boxers of all-time and on a pound for pound all-time great scale he'd be top 20 IMO. Ahead of Mayweather, Pacquaio etc;.He didn't mention Marvelous so the only tag he deserves is "fraud"
Oh yeah...Ryan Garcia is fighting on Facebook on Friday night.
Discuss (25 marks).
Discuss (25 marks).
It's a showcase for Garcia but Morales should be able to give him some rounds perhaps even the distance. Garcia is fast and has natural snap in his shots but is obviously very raw. I've seen Morales live a few times at local shows here since he's a Golden Boy fighter he's often on their Belasco Club shows which are a a lot of fun ($20 tickets stand at the bar watching fights 10-20 feet in front of you) and though I don't think he'll win many rounds he can give Garcia some work like Velez did in May.
Garcia has poor defense IMO. He's very straight up and his only inside game is to clinch but he's obviously very, very young. Having said that I think there's two other prospects in his age range and weight class much more developed and with better potential in general in Teofimio Lopez (who's a cocky so & so and his dad is like Danny Garcia's) and Devin Haney.
Garcia was yapping off recently about how he was whupping Lomachenko in sparring and how the trainers pulled him out which was a lie. It's one of the reasons a lot of gyms out here don't want him in there because he goes on and on about sparring tales. Apparently what really happened was that they looked at each other for a round and then Loma put a hurting on him for 2-3 rounds and it stopped. Loma was asked about the sparring and responded with "who?". LOL. He just beats up so many guys in sparring he forgets who he's been in with. Garcia and Gervonta Davis have been instagram and twitter feuding for months and Garcia called him out for a sparring session and Davis accepted and then Garcia backed out.
I can't stand Garcia, being built up by Oscar but will come unstuck as said above his inside game is non existent. Only problem is few people have gotten there (then when you see him sparring people with quality and he gets bullied in there)
He has time to remedy his flaws but spends too much time taking selfies. He could be a goldmine for any promoter but seems to be a bit of a bell.
I'm thinking he's another Broner in the sense he'll be protected and protected and he'll be more marketed on his character than his ability which will be overblown. Ultimately I see him not getting to a truly elite level and being shown up at the top level. I don't think he'll be quite as braindead a human as Broner but also not as tough and resilient in the ring as Broner.
There's far better prospects and young fighters currently on the up. Haney is probably my favorite, Lopez, Kelly, Taylor etc; He's the most marketable though.
There's far better prospects and young fighters currently on the up. Haney is probably my favorite, Lopez, Kelly, Taylor etc; He's the most marketable though.
Garcia-Morales was closer than the scorecards. I gave Morales four rounds. Garcia got tired and tagged a lot. He did come out and have a dominant last round to seal it IMO.
The GGG Canelo 24/7 show is now up on Youtube.
Never seen GGG like this before, proper miffed about everything thats happened. Called Canelo and his team a bunch of swindlers
Never seen GGG like this before, proper miffed about everything thats happened. Called Canelo and his team a bunch of swindlers
They are and Golden Boy is just as bad perhaps even worse. I've been saying it for years there's something shady going on with the judging in their fights. I go to a lot of their smaller local shows that are either streamed or on a local Spanish channel and you'll see 5-3 type fights regularly scored 8-0 x2 7-1 scores like that. That's every show. It's always their fighter or the one they have most invested in getting the benefit too. I actually can't remember them being the lead promoter and one of their guys losing a close one.The GGG Canelo 24/7 show is now up on Youtube.
Never seen GGG like this before, proper miffed about everything thats happened. Called Canelo and his team a bunch of swindlers
Even as the co-promoter on Lomachenko-Linares that fight was scored even with one judge having it for Linares which was blatantly bad. Then there's the topic of Canelo's fights. 118-110 vs. GGG in a fight that's impossible to see more than six rounds but in reality surely no more than five rounds. 119-109, 118-110, 117-111 vs. Cotto was way off. I can maybe see 117-111 but Cotto only winning 1 or 2? Nah. Lara fight too. A 117-111 nod in a fight I think most had either 114-114 or to Lara. Trout fight was razor thin yet two cards were 118-109 and 116-111 and then there's the one that had his shutout loss to Mayweather at 114-114.
It's one of the reasons I'm still not into this fight. I don't like it when I know one guy can only win by KO regardless of what happens in the ring.
there is no 'taking away'
because those are fights that will happen later anyway.
if wilder wins then aj vs wilder becomes a bigger deal. if aj wins that, it does more for his stature than what beating wilder would right now.
same if fury bears wilder, it does more for aj if he beats fury.
this all obv depends on who bears who. Although i doubt Fury will box aj on home soil, he isnt scared to lose badly to wilder, but he would not want that from AJ given aj is the media/tv favourite.
Jesus! Too much boxing on this weekend
Khan v Vargas (Sky Sports)
Porter v Garcia card (Showtime and Boxnation)
Superfly 3 (HBO but no UK)
UFC too!
Khan v Vargas (Sky Sports)
Porter v Garcia card (Showtime and Boxnation)
Superfly 3 (HBO but no UK)
UFC too!
Remove that last bit asapJesus! Too much boxing on this weekend
Khan v Vargas (Sky Sports)
Porter v Garcia card (Showtime and Boxnation)
Superfly 3 (HBO but no UK)
UFC too!
September is going to be expensive for me, as there is loads of PPV boxing on. But I don't care, I love it.
An excellent lineup but unfortunately I'll miss it all due to being at a wedding. Will have to try and squeeze them in Sunday.Jesus! Too much boxing on this weekend
Khan v Vargas (Sky Sports)
Porter v Garcia card (Showtime and Boxnation)
Superfly 3 (HBO but no UK)
UFC too!
Garcia-Porter obviously the standout fight even though Porter's got the worst style in Boxing due to Andre Ward's retirement. I think Garcia will win a close, but clear decision.
Regardig the Superfly 3 card. This is the weakest one yet but will still give good entertainment. Estrada is one of my favorite fighters. I don't know much about Orucuta but not expecting a lot out of him. Estrada will be using this as a tune-up for what will either be the winner of Nietes-Palicte or Rungvisai II in his next fight which will be Superfly IV. Nietes-Palicte could be interesting. Palicte is the MUCH taller man and about a decade younger but Nietes is so well rounded and consistent. Amazingly, he's unbeaten in 14 years, seeking his fourth divisional title and has beaten some good fighters in addition to holding the Ring title at 108. Ioka-Arroyo I think will deliver the best action. Ioka is coming out of a brief retirement due to being inspired as a spectator at Superfly 2 and Arroyo is coming off his career best win (vs. Cuadras). Arroyo always comes to fight and Ioka seldom lets down and has an excellent track record.
The great thing about these cards is the match-ups that come out of them. The losers don't have to go home because they are all fighting the best and the winners have other attractive options waiting for the. There's Rungvisai, Chocolatito and obviously the three winners in great positions so I can see this series continuing for a while and hopefully all staying LA for logical and selfish reasons.
For those interested in Boxing history and perhaps some debate I put up my top 5's from the original 8 weight classes. Keep in mind it's not necessarily who'd beat who head-to-head more the level of accomplishments, opponents and how they measure in their era relative to all-time both skills-wise and competition-wise. I'd be interested to see others lists.
Heavyweight
1. Muhammad Ali (USA)
2. Joe Louis (USA)
3. Jack Johhnson (USA)
4. Rocky Marciano (USA)
5. Larry Holmes (USA)
Light-Heavyweight
1. Ezzard Charles (USA)
2. Archie Moore (USA)
3. Michael Spinks (USA)
4. Tommy Loughran (USA)
5. Gene Tunney (USA)
Middleweight
1. Harry Greb (USA)
2. Carlos Monzon (Argentina)
3. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA)
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler (USA)
5. Stanley Ketchel (USA)
Welterweight
1. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA)
2. Kid Gavilan (Cuba)
3. Sugar Ray Leonard (USA)
4. Jose Napoles (Cuba)
5. Emile Griffith (Virgin Islands)
Lightweight
1. Benny Leonard (USA)
2. Joe Gans (USA)
3. Carlos Ortiz (Puerto Rico)
4. Roberto Duran (Panama)
5. Pernell Whitaker (USA)
Featherweight
1. Willie Pep (USA)
2. Sandy Saddler (USA)
3. Salvador Sanchez (Mexico)
4. Abe Attell (USA)
5. Vicente Saldivar (Mexico)
Bantamweight
1. Eder Jofre (Brazil)
2. Ruben Olivares (Mexico)
3. Carlos Zarate (Mexico)
4. Manuel Ortiz (USA)
5. Panama Al Brown (Panama)
Flyweight
1. Jimmy Wilde (Wales)
2. Miguel Canto (Mexico)
3. Pascual Perez (Argentina)
4. Pancho Villa (Phillipines)
5. Benny Lynch (Scotland)
Pound for Pound top 10
1. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA)
2. Henry Armstrong (USA)
3. Harry Greb (USA)
4. Sam Langford (Canada)
5. Willie Pep (USA)
6. Roberto Duran (Panama)
7. Eder Jofre (Brazil)
8. Ezzard Charles (USA)
9. Benny Leonard (USA)
10. Carlos Ortiz (Puerto Rico)
Obviously very open for debate and occasionally the lists change a little bit since so many great fighters are hard to separate. Some modern-era fighters like Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquaio, Juan Manuel Marquez etc; are clearly great and even better than some of the fighters on the lists but due to this being a 17 division, 4 belt era often move around more and don't get the same kind of lengthy stranglehold on divisions as in the past.
Heavyweight
1. Muhammad Ali (USA)
2. Joe Louis (USA)
3. Jack Johhnson (USA)
4. Rocky Marciano (USA)
5. Larry Holmes (USA)
Light-Heavyweight
1. Ezzard Charles (USA)
2. Archie Moore (USA)
3. Michael Spinks (USA)
4. Tommy Loughran (USA)
5. Gene Tunney (USA)
Middleweight
1. Harry Greb (USA)
2. Carlos Monzon (Argentina)
3. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA)
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler (USA)
5. Stanley Ketchel (USA)
Welterweight
1. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA)
2. Kid Gavilan (Cuba)
3. Sugar Ray Leonard (USA)
4. Jose Napoles (Cuba)
5. Emile Griffith (Virgin Islands)
Lightweight
1. Benny Leonard (USA)
2. Joe Gans (USA)
3. Carlos Ortiz (Puerto Rico)
4. Roberto Duran (Panama)
5. Pernell Whitaker (USA)
Featherweight
1. Willie Pep (USA)
2. Sandy Saddler (USA)
3. Salvador Sanchez (Mexico)
4. Abe Attell (USA)
5. Vicente Saldivar (Mexico)
Bantamweight
1. Eder Jofre (Brazil)
2. Ruben Olivares (Mexico)
3. Carlos Zarate (Mexico)
4. Manuel Ortiz (USA)
5. Panama Al Brown (Panama)
Flyweight
1. Jimmy Wilde (Wales)
2. Miguel Canto (Mexico)
3. Pascual Perez (Argentina)
4. Pancho Villa (Phillipines)
5. Benny Lynch (Scotland)
Pound for Pound top 10
1. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA)
2. Henry Armstrong (USA)
3. Harry Greb (USA)
4. Sam Langford (Canada)
5. Willie Pep (USA)
6. Roberto Duran (Panama)
7. Eder Jofre (Brazil)
8. Ezzard Charles (USA)
9. Benny Leonard (USA)
10. Carlos Ortiz (Puerto Rico)
Obviously very open for debate and occasionally the lists change a little bit since so many great fighters are hard to separate. Some modern-era fighters like Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquaio, Juan Manuel Marquez etc; are clearly great and even better than some of the fighters on the lists but due to this being a 17 division, 4 belt era often move around more and don't get the same kind of lengthy stranglehold on divisions as in the past.
I don't pretend to have anywhere near the depth of your knowledge, but I find some what would be considered very controversial decisions there. Let's go:
- Johnson at 3 and Marciano at 4 in heavyweights. Would have them at best in lower part of top 10. No Foreman in top 5 is also weird, he might be the most naturally talented HW ever, and was an Alli away from being the greatest HW. He almost killed guys like Fraizer (who would also make my top 5 HW) and Norton, an another hall of famer.
- No Holyfield in light-heavyweight, why?
- Harry Greb and Monzon above Sugar Ray Original? You can probably justify Greb at a push, but Monzon above Sugar is blasphemous.
- Gavilan above Leonard? Would like to know why?
- I dislike Floyd like most people, but his record speaks for himself. Not the 49-0 overrated things, but the fact that he has defeated so many other champs. Definite top 5 in welterweight.
- Pacquiao should be in top 5 too. After Floyd, he is the best fighter of the last 20 years, and I know that nostalgia is strong and everything was better before we were born, but how the two best fighters of the last 20 years don't make a top 5 in their classes? Especially Pac who could easily be put on top 5 of two different classes.
- Duran 6 at p4p but only 4th on his category?
- Armstrong not in top 5 in any class, but No. 2 in p4p?
- Langford not top 5 in his class, but the only HW in p4p? I know that he was small, but still.
- Ali not in top 10 of p4p I guess is just to make the list controversial. He is by far the most famous boxer of all time, in by far the most followed class. I think that he should be somewhere between 2 and 5 (personally have him at 2), but there is no way that someone can justify having him outside of top 10. It is just nonsense, and even those who hate HW, have him always high on their lists.
- And the controversial one from my part: how do you put there people who have 0 videos of them. Guys like Langford, Leonard, Greb etc. It is really hard to have any idea how good they really were. When you look Sugar Ray or to a lesser degree Louis, you can still see how great they were, but for guys who there are no videos, it is extremely debatable how good their opponents were, and everyone who has seen them boxing have died 50 years ago, is a bit difficult to rate them, isn't it?
Last edited:
Regarding Eder Jofre. His footage is hard to come by. I had a friend recently upload this extremely rare title fight
I am in the process of putting together and uploading three separate highlight videos. One short clips from his Bantamweight fights, one short clips from his Featherweight fights in his "second career" and one that has two extended highlights from two of his biggest fights (one of which isn't included in those short HL films) in addition to a documentary I go years ago from Brazil that also features English subtitles.
I actually think based purely from a technical standpoint and his Boxing ability I'd probably say he's the best ever. Historian Dan Cuoco head of the Independant Boxing Research Organization opined he's the 2nd best ever and Ring founder Nat Fleischer who was notorious for favoring fighters from the 1910'-1920's said he's the best Bantamweight ever whilst watching him in the 1960's. He didn't quite have the star name opponents of some of my other top 10, but he dominated a golden era of bantamweights, retired and came back in his mid 30's to go 25-0 in his second career including upsetting the odds to win the featherweight title aged 37 - ancient in 1973. He was 72-2-4 (50). He has 4 draws* but they are of the South American variety which means he won all the fights but because he didn't win by four clear points on two of the cards they were draws. He also owns wins over all three fighters who got draws. His two losses are debatable and to the same fighter - Fighting Harada, himself a great fighter in Japan with Japanese judges. He was 30, killing himself to make weight and this is the days of same day weigh-in's and 8 weight classes. He should have gotten the win in the first fight and the second I felt Harada won 8-7 in rounds with the fight being a draw on my card due to Harada losing a point deduction (he should have lost multiple in both fights). I truly believe if it was like modern boxing of more weight classes or at least prior day weigh-ins and no dumb South American scores rule he'd have been 78-0 probably more since he may have not retired for three years.
I'll post that other stuff when I upload it. Hopefully in the next few days.
I am in the process of putting together and uploading three separate highlight videos. One short clips from his Bantamweight fights, one short clips from his Featherweight fights in his "second career" and one that has two extended highlights from two of his biggest fights (one of which isn't included in those short HL films) in addition to a documentary I go years ago from Brazil that also features English subtitles.
I actually think based purely from a technical standpoint and his Boxing ability I'd probably say he's the best ever. Historian Dan Cuoco head of the Independant Boxing Research Organization opined he's the 2nd best ever and Ring founder Nat Fleischer who was notorious for favoring fighters from the 1910'-1920's said he's the best Bantamweight ever whilst watching him in the 1960's. He didn't quite have the star name opponents of some of my other top 10, but he dominated a golden era of bantamweights, retired and came back in his mid 30's to go 25-0 in his second career including upsetting the odds to win the featherweight title aged 37 - ancient in 1973. He was 72-2-4 (50). He has 4 draws* but they are of the South American variety which means he won all the fights but because he didn't win by four clear points on two of the cards they were draws. He also owns wins over all three fighters who got draws. His two losses are debatable and to the same fighter - Fighting Harada, himself a great fighter in Japan with Japanese judges. He was 30, killing himself to make weight and this is the days of same day weigh-in's and 8 weight classes. He should have gotten the win in the first fight and the second I felt Harada won 8-7 in rounds with the fight being a draw on my card due to Harada losing a point deduction (he should have lost multiple in both fights). I truly believe if it was like modern boxing of more weight classes or at least prior day weigh-ins and no dumb South American scores rule he'd have been 78-0 probably more since he may have not retired for three years.
I'll post that other stuff when I upload it. Hopefully in the next few days.
Last edited:
1. I can see some of your point about Foreman though I don't share the talent view. He wasn't overly skilled IMO. I don't know that he was an Ali away from being the best. Jimmy Young boxed his ears off in what was basically his prime. I think Holmes was more talented but it makes sense you'd have Foreman top 5 since he blasted Frazier & Norton not to mention was successful in his comeback.
2. Holyfield never fought as a Light-Heavyweight. He was a Cruiserweight and IMO almost the perfect fighter there and undisputed #1. He'd probably be my #6 at Heavyweight too fwiw.
3. I can see a point for Robinson being #1 for sure. He's arguably (based on my p4p he is) the best fighter that's ever fought there. He did win and lose his title a lot though the competition was high and his middleweight days were past his welterweight best. Monzon was a career middleweight who in 100 fights only failed to beat one foe (a South American draw), reigned for a long and dominant period against mostly quality.
4. I think Leonard is better overall in a p4p sense but had a very limited amount of time at the championship level at that weight. Gavilan was in the golden era and had a ton of depth to his resume though and top hall of fame fighters. Leonard's wins over Benitez and Hearns are extremely great though. I can see your point.
5. Duran gets such a high p4p ranking due in large parts to his dominant lightweight reign but also his unbelievable achievements above lightweight. Beating a prime Leonard at 147, ravaging the 154 title from Moore, incredibly beating Barkley at Middleweight 17 years after the Buchanan win started the lightweight reign.
6. An oversight on my part. I'd have him in my 147 top 5 and I think he's anywhere from 4-6/7 at 126 & 135. His lofty p4p ranking is also based on the simultaneously holding all three titles whilst setting the record number of defenses at 147 in addition to probably having the best back-to-back years in boxing history from 1937-1938.
7. Langford is definitely a "pound for pound" fighter. A lightweight that was a victim of his time but whipped quality all the way from lightweight to heavyweight and often. Very often.
The last points. Ali I can see in the top 10 and don't really complain to see top 5. If we want to split hairs I do think he lost 3x to Norton and was less complete a fighter as the other fighters in my top 10 though he had some incredible attributes others can only dream of having. There's Langford and Leonard film. Leonard especially was ahead of his time. In that case it's a lot of going off what their resumes look like in addition to what was written about them in their day and a half century later when historians had a chance to put them into perspective. Unfortunately there's no fight footage of Greb but on paper his resume is arguably the best ever. I understand your point though which is why I didn't really account for head-to-head mythical matches. Lennox Lewis would be in my top 3 at Heavyweight if it was.