Top 20 of all times?

[IronDanHamza]

Well, it's not black and white.

It has to be a mix of course. Now, as an example, Manny Pacquiao is slightly higher on my list than, say, a Floyd Mayweather - despite Mayweather being the better fighter imo.

It's of course based on resume, taking on the bigger challenges, but also for the fact that he's just a much more exciting fighter.

See I just don't understand that at all I don't think that's a good reason to rank a fighter ahead of another.

[LacedUp]

I don't understand why that would matter.

If Fighter A is a boring spoiler but beats 10 ATG's in their primes and Fighter A is the most exciting fighter of all time and beats 5 ATG's in their prime who ranks higher? Fighter A surely? Otherwise that just defeats the object of winning and losing and just achievements in general.


Marciano is a whole lot more exciting to watch than Lennox Lewis but I think most would rank Lewis higher.

Pacquaio is a lot more exciting than Ezzard Charles but who ranks higher?

Just isn't sound logic at all IMO.

As I said above, it of course has to be a mixture, but I do take it into consideration for 'greatness'.

You are also putting up fighters against each other where one is clearly better in all categories, other than excitement. I mean, that's not really what I said, or at least not what I wanted to get to.

[LacedUp]

See I just don't understand that at all I don't think that's a good reason to rank a fighter ahead of another.

Because that's what greatness is.

You might say a Gary Neville won 2 CLs, 10 PLs, 5 FA cups etc. And Cristiano Ronaldo only won 1 CL, 1 FA cup 4 leagues (3 PL, 1 Spanish).

Who's the greater player?

Follow my logic?

[Weltschmerz]

[QUOTE=billeau2;14220793]

What do you base your list on?[/QUOTE

Uh ohh here we go!!!

Danger will robinson danger....

Weltschmertz list:

1. Tied Vlad and Vitali Klitschko
2. Lamont Brewster
3. Sam Peter
4. Corrie Sanders
5. Wacht
6. David Haye
7.Eddie Chambers
8. Shannon Briggs
9. Adamezk
10.derrick chisora
11. kevin johnson
12.sosnowski
13.charr
14.arreola
15.johnson
16. bean
17.lewis
18. louis
19. schmelling
20. prima canero/butter bean

Actually, I like Andy's list. And you don't need to pretend anything.

[IronDanHamza]

Because that's what greatness is.

You might say a Gary Neville won 2 CLs, 10 PLs, 5 FA cups etc. And Cristiano Ronaldo only won 1 CL, 1 FA cup 4 leagues (3 PL, 1 Spanish).

Who's the greater player?

Follow my logic?

I think comparing team games like Football to Boxing is not very logical at all.

[LacedUp]

I think comparing team games like Football to Boxing is not very logical at all.

Well now you're just trying to be difficult.

I'm sure you get the point.

[IronDanHamza]

Well now you're just trying to be difficult.

I'm sure you get the point.

I don't get the comparison.

Comparing Gary Neville to Cristiano Ronaldo is completely irrelevant to the point you're making and just doesn't correlate at all.

[MDPopescu]

Here's a crack at my top 20 ATG list. There are a few notables I've left out, but it is mainly down to me not being able to give an accurate enough account of their status as ATGs.

Who's on your list?

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Jack Johnson
8. Roberto Duran
9. Willie Pep
10. Gene Tunney
11. Micky Walker
12. Sam Langford
13. Julio Cesar Chavez
14. Joe Gans
15. Archie Moore
16. Sugar Ray Leonard
17. Jack Dempsey
18. Kid Chocolate
19. Jimmy Wilde
20. Barbados Joe Walcott

Gene Tunney would deserve better -- but not because he was "white"...

[LacedUp]

I don't get the comparison.

Comparing Gary Neville to Cristiano Ronaldo is completely irrelevant to the point you're making and just doesn't correlate at all.

It does!

Because player 1 has won twice as much as player 2 - yet, because the other is so more exciting, he's greater. I know it's a ****** comparison that doesn't make much sense, but I'm sure you can get where I'm coming from.

To me, it's not just winning and losing exclusively. It's also how the job got done.

[IronDanHamza]

It does!

Because player 1 has won twice as much as player 2 - yet, because the other is so more exciting, he's greater. I know it's a ****** comparison that doesn't make much sense, but I'm sure you can get where I'm coming from.

To me, it's not just winning and losing exclusively. It's also how the job got done.

That tells the story of the comparison.

I understand what you're trying to say but I still think it's not sound reasoning and your football example doesn't support it.