Ninja's Place All Time Boxing P4P

Birdofthad wrote:

sooner your blind and cant read good if you think we havent given good reasons

Mickey Walker, Ali, Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Whitaker, Hagler, Dempsey, Tunney, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Jack Johnson, Barney Ross, Jimmy McLarnin, TOny Canzonari,

there, theres 15 reasons why he aint even close, to top 10 , and thats off the top of my head in 35 seconds

if you have Pac in top 10 all time you are either 1. Misinformed about the great history of the sport. 2. Delusional. 3. dont understand P4P

No bird I asked for reasons not names. If you think these guys are better like Hagler then Why? I have told you guys why I think Pac should be in there.

Besides I really dont have a problem leaving him off I just think its Bull Shit to think he is not deserving and to call out guys who do think he does belong.

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

ARGH HENRY ARMSTRONG DEFENDED THE TITLE 20+ FUCKING TIMES

GOOD GOD

Hey I did not say he is greater than Armstrong I said he is being compared to him. I do not think he is greater than Henry lets get that straight right now. Secondly You guys just keep saying he doesnt belong but for some reason have not gave me a good reason. Be objective and look at what he has done. The guy has done things in his career than no one in boxing history has. I think you do not give our current fighters enough respect.

Sooner respectfully he isn't anywhere close. Not enough high quality wins, not enough extraordinary wins, not in the top five in any one division he fought in. Manny is extraordinary. but he hasn't done literally half what guys like Greb and Charles and Pep have done. His best comparable is ATG Jimmy Mclarnin. NOBODY has McLarnin anywhere close to the top ten.

The reason people compare him to Armstrong is the move in divisions and because people know who Armstrong is whereas only nutjobs like us know the real comps in MKclarnin and Canzoneri.

the golden brain known as marble strikes again

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

ARGH HENRY ARMSTRONG DEFENDED THE TITLE 20+ FUCKING TIMES

GOOD GOD

Hey I did not say he is greater than Armstrong I said he is being compared to him. I do not think he is greater than Henry lets get that straight right now. Secondly You guys just keep saying he doesnt belong but for some reason have not gave me a good reason. Be objective and look at what he has done. The guy has done things in his career than no one in boxing history has. I think you do not give our current fighters enough respect.

Sooner respectfully he isn't anywhere close. Not enough high quality wins, not enough extraordinary wins, not in the top five in any one division he fought in. Manny is extraordinary. but he hasn't done literally half what guys like Greb and Charles and Pep have done. His best comparable is ATG Jimmy Mclarnin. NOBODY has McLarnin anywhere close to the top ten.

The reason people compare him to Armstrong is the move in divisions and because people know who Armstrong is whereas only nutjobs like us know the real comps in MKclarnin and Canzoneri.

My thing is Marble that you guys are telling us that the best fighter in the last ten years can do nothing to get into the top ten. I just think that is BS. Its not Manny's fault he is fighting in this era of boxing so I do not hold it against him.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

ARGH HENRY ARMSTRONG DEFENDED THE TITLE 20+ FUCKING TIMES

GOOD GOD

Hey I did not say he is greater than Armstrong I said he is being compared to him. I do not think he is greater than Henry lets get that straight right now. Secondly You guys just keep saying he doesnt belong but for some reason have not gave me a good reason. Be objective and look at what he has done. The guy has done things in his career than no one in boxing history has. I think you do not give our current fighters enough respect.

Sooner respectfully he isn't anywhere close. Not enough high quality wins, not enough extraordinary wins, not in the top five in any one division he fought in. Manny is extraordinary. but he hasn't done literally half what guys like Greb and Charles and Pep have done. His best comparable is ATG Jimmy Mclarnin. NOBODY has McLarnin anywhere close to the top ten.

The reason people compare him to Armstrong is the move in divisions and because people know who Armstrong is whereas only nutjobs like us know the real comps in MKclarnin and Canzoneri.

My thing is Marble that you guys are telling us that the best fighter in the last ten years can do nothing to get into the top ten. I just think that is BS. Its not Manny's fault he is fighting in this era of boxing so I do not hold it against him.

Sure there are things he can do. He can go fight 20 ranked guys over the next 4-5 years. You want to reward him for things he hasn't done. In effect you are giving the guys who did more ZERO credit for actually doing more. It sure as heck isn't THEIR fault Manny only has maybe 10-15 very high quality wins.

Again, Manny is extraordinary, but he is doing nothing McLarnin didn't do before him. In McLarnin's last 13 fights, he fought HOFers 12 times and went 8-5. Think about that. And I'm not talking ordinary HOFers either. Billy Petrolle 3x, Barney Ross 3x, Tony Canzoneri twice, Young Corbett III and Benny Leonard (who was old). I mean geeze.

Birdofthad wrote:

1. Ray Robinson (89 points)
2. Henry Armstrong (61 points)
3. Muhammad Ali (59 points)
4. Joe Louis (46 points)
5. Willie Pep (45 points)
6. Harry Greb (22 points)
7. Roberto Duran (20 points)
8. Ray Leonard (11 points)
9. Jack Johnson (10 points)
10. Sam Langford and Archie Moore (tied with 9 points)

BTW, I think we got a pretty good list here. Nice goin!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

ARGH HENRY ARMSTRONG DEFENDED THE TITLE 20+ FUCKING TIMES

GOOD GOD

Hey I did not say he is greater than Armstrong I said he is being compared to him. I do not think he is greater than Henry lets get that straight right now. Secondly You guys just keep saying he doesnt belong but for some reason have not gave me a good reason. Be objective and look at what he has done. The guy has done things in his career than no one in boxing history has. I think you do not give our current fighters enough respect.

Sooner respectfully he isn't anywhere close. Not enough high quality wins, not enough extraordinary wins, not in the top five in any one division he fought in. Manny is extraordinary. but he hasn't done literally half what guys like Greb and Charles and Pep have done. His best comparable is ATG Jimmy Mclarnin. NOBODY has McLarnin anywhere close to the top ten.

The reason people compare him to Armstrong is the move in divisions and because people know who Armstrong is whereas only nutjobs like us know the real comps in MKclarnin and Canzoneri.

My thing is Marble that you guys are telling us that the best fighter in the last ten years can do nothing to get into the top ten. I just think that is BS. Its not Manny's fault he is fighting in this era of boxing so I do not hold it against him.

Sure there are things he can do. He can go fight 20 ranked guys over the next 4-5 years. You want to reward him for things he hasn't done. In effect you are giving the guys who did more ZERO credit for actually doing more. It sure as heck isn't THEIR fault Manny only has maybe 10-15 very high quality wins.

Again, Manny is extraordinary, but he is doing nothing McLarnin didn't do before him. In McLarnin's last 13 fights, he fought HOFers 12 times and went 8-5. Think about that. And I'm not talking ordinary HOFers either. Billy Petrolle 3x, Barney Ross 3x, Tony Canzoneri twice, Young Corbett III and Benny Leonard (who was old). I mean geeze.

At least you say he can do something about it. The rest of the guys here said no matter what he does he cant break the top 20. Anyways, I get what you are saying and I do agree in a lot of ways.

sooner dont include me in the rest of the guys please..for i said the same thing as marble in different words.which was yes they can crack the top ten by doing what the other guys did..

ali bird and another one also said the same thing in different words.no doubt all of them give respect to todays fighters. most of us place pac in the top 50..myself perhaps in the top 35 or so..thats huge respect and acknowledgement of accomplishments.especialy for a fighter for the vast majority of his career that had huge technical flaws..

dmar5143 wrote:

ali bird and another one also said the same thing in different words.no doubt all of them give respect to todays fighters. most of us place pac in the top 50..myself perhaps in the top 35 or so..thats huge respect and acknowledgement of accomplishments.especialy for a fighter for the vast majority of his career that had huge technical flaws..

I agree with everything you said. I remember what I said was that I take the top 20-30 guys and I put up my favorite 10. I really see no difference between any of them outside of SRR.

soonermark890 wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

ali bird and another one also said the same thing in different words.no doubt all of them give respect to todays fighters. most of us place pac in the top 50..myself perhaps in the top 35 or so..thats huge respect and acknowledgement of accomplishments.especialy for a fighter for the vast majority of his career that had huge technical flaws..

I agree with everything you said. I remember what I said was that I take the top 20-30 guys and I put up my favorite 10. I really see no difference between any of them outside of SRR.

REALLY? Greb's accomplishments aren't different from Ray Leonard's? Ali's aren't different from Arguello's?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

ali bird and another one also said the same thing in different words.no doubt all of them give respect to todays fighters. most of us place pac in the top 50..myself perhaps in the top 35 or so..thats huge respect and acknowledgement of accomplishments.especialy for a fighter for the vast majority of his career that had huge technical flaws..

I agree with everything you said. I remember what I said was that I take the top 20-30 guys and I put up my favorite 10. I really see no difference between any of them outside of SRR.

REALLY? Greb's accomplishments aren't different from Ray Leonard's? Ali's aren't different from Arguello's?

I meant in the order we put them in. Really? How many times do you change your top 10? I know every time I make a list the list changes.

IF SOMEONE HAS A REAL SOLID TOP TEN YES THERE ARE 3 OR 4 FIGHTERS THAT DESERVE TO MAKE THAT LIST BUT DONT AND YES YOU CAN INTERCHANGE MAYBE..PAC NUMBER 7 IS OUT OF THE REALM OF REASON.

dmar5143 wrote:

IF SOMEONE HAS A REAL SOLID TOP TEN YES THERE ARE 3 OR 4 FIGHTERS THAT DESERVE TO MAKE THAT LIST BUT DONT AND YES YOU CAN INTERCHANGE MAYBE..PAC NUMBER 7 IS OUT OF THE REALM OF REASON.

Hey I had him number 10. You confuse me and Frank a lot. BTW I know you think 10 is out of the realm of reason too. And thats fine thats why making these lists are so hard.

To be honest the next time I make a list it will change. It always does

Sooner,

I agree the order changes. I also think there may be as many as 15 guys with a legit argument for the top ten..
But names like grebe, b. Leonard, Armstrong, Louis and pep are pretty tough to debate..
No I don't think manny or mclarnin or canzoneri are among those top 15.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner,

I agree the order changes. I also think there may be as many as 15 guys with a legit argument for the top ten..
But names like grebe, b. Leonard, Armstrong, Louis and pep are pretty tough to debate..
No I don't think manny or mclarnin or canzoneri are among those top 15.

I understand but its not like I am saying that someone like Gatti deserves to be a top 10 I am saying that the best fighter of this era deserves some consideration. People act like its so far fetched. People mentioned Leonard and Hagler and neither have a greater resume that Manny does. Hell maybe I am wrong it happens.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner,

I agree the order changes. I also think there may be as many as 15 guys with a legit argument for the top ten..
But names like grebe, b. Leonard, Armstrong, Louis and pep are pretty tough to debate..
No I don't think manny or mclarnin or canzoneri are among those top 15.

I understand but its not like I am saying that someone like Gatti deserves to be a top 10 I am saying that the best fighter of this era deserves some consideration. People act like its so far fetched. People mentioned Leonard and Hagler and neither have a greater resume that Manny does. Hell maybe I am wrong it happens.

Leonard has wins over a top ten all-timer and arguably three other top 50's in Hearns, Hagler and Benitez. Manny's best win is over a non-top fifty guy. Ray Leonard ain't a top ten guy either.

Hagler DESTROYED the middleweight division for nearly a decade. He didn't just beat top ten middles, he KO'd them one after another. But Marvin ain't a top ten guy either, probably not a top 20.

I'm more well-versed in guys that have fought in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s so I try to stay out of the all-time discussion. My opinion on Pac though is that he needs more impressive wins. He has beaten some hall of famers: Marquez, Barerra, Morales, ODH, and 2 guys who probably get in someday, Hatton and Cotto (I don't want to start a debate about the efficacy of their enshrinement, but it is my belief that somehow they both get in).

None of those guys are top 50.
he won alot of belts, jumping weight classes late in his career, but how many of those wins are truly great??? Alot of good and very good wins, but not really great wins.

I have a real problem with greb on the list tbh, yea yea on paper he beat lots of good guys, but how can you truly analyze it if you have never seen any footage of him. I like leonard in the top 10, and also i dont like how most people constantly favour the really old fighters. My example would be, if you put jack johnson and his style of fighting in the ring with a modern heavyweight, i think he would get knocked out. Johnson had the old hands down and lean back style, fair enough he may have beaten all his competition at the time and was the best back then among men who fought like him, but all time great? you have to factor in how he would have done against todays and even recent historys heavyweights. I think he loses every time. I would have manny very near if not in the top 10 as well.

sugarrayhatton wrote:

I have a real problem with greb on the list tbh, yea yea on paper he beat lots of good guys, but how can you truly analyze it if you have never seen any footage of him. I like leonard in the top 10, and also i dont like how most people constantly favour the really old fighters. My example would be, if you put jack johnson and his style of fighting in the ring with a modern heavyweight, i think he would get knocked out. Johnson had the old hands down and lean back style, fair enough he may have beaten all his competition at the time and was the best back then among men who fought like him, but all time great? you have to factor in how he would have done against todays and even recent historys heavyweights. I think he loses every time. I would have manny very near if not in the top 10 as well.

That's a complete copout on Greb. You can watch abundant footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker and a score of others. People favor the older fighters because of the math. Twice as many fighters crammed into half as many divisions fighting the best over and over and over again. Then again, just go watch footage.

Jack Johnson's success today would be all about the rules chosen. He would DESTROY today's guys in a 20+ round fight. In a twelve rounder? Dunno.

There is not a single, objective, measurable criteria one can come up with that gets Manny anywhere close to the top ten.

johnsons far from on my favorite list but hands down leans back type of style..sounds like a muhhamad ali description also..and he by no means is even close to my top ten..the guy had talent and excellent relexes and a good defense..most of todays heavys dont have anything going for them.zero..what i cant understand we take a guy from 100 years ago fighting and poof place him in todays boxing scene without any benefits..yes will he not get the benefit of nurtiotion or suppliments that many are claiming work miracles..johnson was big sized for his era..since HWS are taller and bigger today would not johnson follow suite..since the late 20s boxing style changed into the modern era and for the most part is very similar to today except today fighters 97 percent of them are technically incompetent..in johnson s time it was the poineer era..would not johnson adapt to the new style thats been around for years..that MUST be taken into consideration when making statements like this..reverse the situation and take todays 12 round fighter back 100 years ago..how big would he be thenphysicaly .toss out all the so called modern fringe benefits or improvements..take the talent and what there capable of doing today as a baseline then strip everything i stated as fringe benefits and put them in johnsons era..they all would get there asses kicked thats what realy would happen..
i dont have any film clips of julius ceasor or alexander the great so therefore they were shit military stadegists right.

dmar5143 wrote:

johnsons far from on my favorite list but hands down leans back type of style..sounds like a muhhamad ali description also..and he by no means is even close to my top ten..the guy had talent and excellent relexes and a good defense..most of todays heavys dont have anything going for them.zero..what i cant understand we take a guy from 100 years ago fighting and poof place him in todays boxing scene without any benefits..yes will he not get the benefit of nurtiotion or suppliments that many are claiming work miracles..johnson was big sized for his era..since HWS are taller and bigger today would not johnson follow suite..since the late 20s boxing style changed into the modern era and for the most part is very similar to today except today fighters 97 percent of them are technically incompetent..in johnson s time it was the poineer era..would not johnson adapt to the new style thats been around for years..that MUST be taken into consideration when making statements like this..reverse the situation and take todays 12 round fighter back 100 years ago..how big would he be thenphysicaly .toss out all the so called modern fringe benefits or improvements..take the talent and what there capable of doing today as a baseline then strip everything i stated as fringe benefits and put them in johnsons era..they all would get there asses kicked thats what realy would happen..
i dont have any film clips of julius ceasor or alexander the great so therefore they were shit military stadegists right.

Damn, I wish I'd written that.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

johnsons far from on my favorite list but hands down leans back type of style..sounds like a muhhamad ali description also..and he by no means is even close to my top ten..the guy had talent and excellent relexes and a good defense..most of todays heavys dont have anything going for them.zero..what i cant understand we take a guy from 100 years ago fighting and poof place him in todays boxing scene without any benefits..yes will he not get the benefit of nurtiotion or suppliments that many are claiming work miracles..johnson was big sized for his era..since HWS are taller and bigger today would not johnson follow suite..since the late 20s boxing style changed into the modern era and for the most part is very similar to today except today fighters 97 percent of them are technically incompetent..in johnson s time it was the poineer era..would not johnson adapt to the new style thats been around for years..that MUST be taken into consideration when making statements like this..reverse the situation and take todays 12 round fighter back 100 years ago..how big would he be thenphysicaly .toss out all the so called modern fringe benefits or improvements..take the talent and what there capable of doing today as a baseline then strip everything i stated as fringe benefits and put them in johnsons era..they all would get there asses kicked thats what realy would happen..
i dont have any film clips of julius ceasor or alexander the great so therefore they were shit military stadegists right.

Damn, I wish I'd written that.

LOL I know I agree more with Sugar on this topic. But that was a funny ass line Dmar.

funny line alright lol but the johnson thing, well yea he would have adapted to todays style had he been fighting all those years , but the thing is that he didnt, he fought back then, and was good back then, if you put the johnson that you see in the clips against a modern style heavyweight, i think he loses, but thats just my opinion

sugarrayhatton wrote:

funny line alright lol but the johnson thing, well yea he would have adapted to todays style had he been fighting all those years , but the thing is that he didnt, he fought back then, and was good back then, if you put the johnson that you see in the clips against a modern style heavyweight, i think he loses, but thats just my opinion

I think it really depends on the rules. Five ounce gloves and a fight over 20 rounds? I'll take Johnson all day long. He'd win because most of the guys today would have a heart attack around round 15.

Today's ten ounce gloves and a twelve round fight? I don't know if Johnson can accelerate his pace because he never had to. My guess? Even given these rules Johnson whips everyone excpet maybe Vitali. But it's a WAG.