A Generational Battle - Which List is Stronger?

[Willow The Wisp]

Divide the Modern (gloved) Era in half, into 65 year blocks; and make a top 30 all-time list for each.
Don't get too hung up on my selects for top 30, But focus instead on comparing the two lists.

Head to Head - Which list do you think is stronger?



1894 - 1959
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Sam Langford
4. Willie Pep
5. Joe Louis
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Benny Leonard
8. Abe Attell
9. Jack Johnson
10.Mickey Walker
11.Jack Dempsey
12.Gene Tunney
13.Tony Canzoneri
14.Joe Gans
15.Barney Ross
16.Jimmy Wilde
17.Marcel Cerdan
18.Rocky Marciano
19.Jimmy McLarnin
20.Stanley Ketchel
21.Ezzard Charles
22.Georges Carpentier
23.Archie Moore
24.Barbados Joe Walcott
25.Bob Fitzsimmons
26.Jake LaMotta
27.Terry McGovern
28.Battling Nelson
29.Billy Conn
30.Sandy Saddler



1960 - 2025
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Roberto Duran
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Manny Pacquiao
5. Carlos Monzon
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
8. Floyd Mayweather
9. Salvador Sanchez
10.Jose Napoles
11.Wilfredo Gomez
12.Bob Foster
13.Eder Jofre
14.Thomas Hearns
15.Roy Jones Jr.
16.Alexis Arguello
17.Carlos Zarate
18.Bernard Hopkins
19.Michael Spinks
20.Oleksandr Usyk
21.Ruben Olivares
22.Larry Holmes
23.Pernell Whitaker
24.Lennox Lewis
25.Emile Griffith
26.Sonny Liston
27.**** Tiger
28.Evander Holyfield
29.Wilfredo Benitez
30.Mike Tyson

[DeeMoney]

I know, I know, you wrote don't get hung up on your list. But do you really have Mayweather Sr. at #7? You got Jr at 15.

[Willie Pep 229]

Either way should that not be Roger Mayweather not Floyd Sr. ?

I think Roger's more accomplished. But just my opinion.

[Marchegiano]

I'll take the second.

IMO, despite having some excellent names the early guys are plagued with what we, including myself, excuse away. Accepting no excuses, the second are clearly higher status.


I know youse don't care for it, but like it or not, I contend as you go back in time the talent pool simply gets smaller. Whether it's colorline era names like Dempsey or cold war era names like Marciano, I feel I have a good reason to be skeptical they are or have proven themselves best. This skepticism can't be found in the modern champions.

Marciano's literally my favorite, but I can be wrong and my acceptance of my ability to error has me lean toward the men who proved beyond all doubt they are champion of the world. Not some of the world or the right race. The whole mother ****er.

[max baer]

They are great lists. But Michael Spinks??? Still I can't really argue with your choices. Just the odd one like iron mike right at the bottom i am not sure at all. I think the modern list is better. But then, modern boxers can cherry pick their opponents and fight less frequently whereas the old school had many more fights per year and less choice of suitable foes to box with.

[Willow The Wisp]

I know, I know, you wrote don't get hung up on your list. But do you really have Mayweather Sr. at #7? You got Jr at 15.

Lol. No. I must've been indecisive about Floyd while typing.

[DeeMoney]

I agree with the sentiment that the latter half is stronger top to bottom. There just seems to be more depth, and more fighters adept to the modern fighting styles.

Got me wondering which 65 consecutive year stretch would produce the best relative crop? Starting with 1920 you get prime Greb, Tunney, and Dempsey, and finish of with the Four Kings prime and Holmes in the mid 80s.

Push it back to a 1930 start you drop those from 1920s primes but get a lot of depth from the 80s up to the mid 90s. Holyfield, Tyson, Sweet Pea, Chavez, Finito Lopez, a good amount of RJJ's and really good depth at middle weight.

Go back another decade and you have post prime Joe Louis and Henry Armstrong, but add in prime De La Hoya, Lewis, Hopkins, Trinidad, and emerging Mayweather and Pacquiao.

[Willow The Wisp]

This question is a perennial one that people who follow the sport closely enough to know it's history are always arguing over: Old School vs New. Seeing a decent list of the 30 leading names from both camps helps us to visualize the question better; and therfore my post.

If you're not familiar with the names and the work done in the ring by each, you might recuse yourself from forming an opionion.

I expect pro - con discussions about old timers living tougher lives, having more quality trainers to learn from, spending more time in the ring; while the new school fighters are benefitting from modern conditioning science and nutrition, expanded internationality, and any evolution of the craft that many assume has taken place.

Do you lean towards OLD or NEW?

[Bundana]

Dividing the last 130 years up in 2 x 65 years? Hmm interesting... I don't think, we've ever done that before!

There are obviously great fighters in both groups - but in the early one, there are several who (IMO) wouldn't make the cut in "modern" times.

At #8 we have Abe Attell, who I have only seen on film vs Kilbane. Ok, I know, bad film quality and all that - but he sure doesn't look that special!

Further down the list we have Ketchel and Nelson, who were both strong, tough guys - but, other than in-fighting, so lacking in actual ability, that they would likely not make it today.

Barbados Walcott we have of course never seen, and the few clips we have of Fitzsimmons... well, I'm not impressed!

All in all, I'll have to give the nod to the modern group.


By the way, and I know this has nothing to do with this thread... but does any of you guys know, what happened to them_apples? I haven't seen him post here for several months!

[Mr Mitts]

Dividing the last 130 years up in 2 x 65 years? Hmm interesting... I don't think, we've ever done that before!

There are obviously great fighters in both groups - but in the early one, there are several who (IMO) wouldn't make the cut in "modern" times.

At #8 we have Abe Attell, who I have only seen on film vs Kilbane. Ok, I know, bad film quality and all that - but he sure doesn't look that special!

Further down the list we have Ketchel and Nelson, who were both strong, tough guys - but, other than in-fighting, so lacking in actual ability, that they would likely not make it today.

Barbados Walcott we have of course never seen, and the few clips we have of Fitzsimmons... well, I'm not impressed!

All in all, I'll have to give the nod to the modern group.


By the way, and I know this has nothing to do with this thread... but does any of you guys know, what happened to them_apples? I haven't seen him post here for several months!

Brutes hurt his feelings.