By Robert “Big Moe” Elmore: That’s right I said it. There is no greatest boxer of all time. No matter how many list come out from journalists who’ve been in the boxing game for years or fans simply putting together their own list. To take one man and put him on top of boxing is down right out disrespectful to those who put in blood, sweat and tears.
It’s disrespectful to those who have sacrificed family time, personal time, and put their life on the line every time they stepped in the ring; and especially to those who have died trying to achieve such greatness. The boxer that says he is the greatest of all time is more of psychological thing in two ways. The first is for the fighter.
Every fighter thinks rather highly of himself and they have to. A champion is made inside himself before a belt is strapped around his waist. Two, it’s for marketing purposes. It gets people talking both negatively and positively and that’s when the “why don’t this fighter fight so and so” or “why didn’t fighter fight so and so” comes in.
Most fans throw out this term in efforts to down grade other fighter’s accomplishments while others have legitimate reasons why they make such a claim. But what do they base these claims on? A fighter’s record? The quality of his opponents? What their lives were like outside the ring? Most say Muhammad Ali is the greatest because of the times he fought in, what he believed in, and the quality of opponents. But I could easily counter that and say Joe Louis is the greatest. My claim? Louis had to follow behind Jack Johnson essentially “clean up” the image of what the black fighter really was.
His mark of 25 title defenses still stands today. And as many big fights that have taken place in boxing, none has ever come close to the night of June 19th 1936 when Louis took on Max Schmeling (the second fight). It was bigger than boxing. It was the United States versus Germany that night and the whole world was watching. Or I could say Jack Johnson was the greatest of all time based on the times he fought in. He fought in a time where the gloves had little to no padding.
He also fought where a fighter could stand over another boxer while the referee counted. And if the fighter stood on his feet, but was not fully erected, he would be battered mercilessly to the canvas. See how easy that was? And as far as people using the “he fought everybody” phrase; I simply say they fought who they were supposed to fight or who was available to them (that would bring in the most money).
I believe past champions did give others a chance to take their title be it an A,B, or C level fighter. Deserving or not. I will say this however; there have been standouts where certain names were always being mentioned and others didn’t catch the spotlight so much. I will use the 80’s. When fans mention Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, and Thomas Hearns they use that term “they fought everybody”. Reading comments on blogs though, I have come to realize that “everybody” is narrowed down to those fighters taking on each other. But there was what I like to call the undercurrent fighters that kept boxing moving along. These fighters don’t get mentioned in the same breath as the Fab Four, but they made a difference to me.
The original Magic Man Marlon Starling (one my favorite fighters), Mark Breland, Donald Curry, Lloyd Honeyghan, Greg Haugen, Mike McCallum, Milton McCrory, Simon Brown, James “Buddy” McGirt and the list goes on. In the heavyweight division, we had Pinklon Thomas, Tony “TNT” Tucker, Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon, Tony “TNT” Tubbs, Trevor Berbick, and many more. And what do these fighters have in common? They were all champions at one point in time and I dare anyone to tell these fighters that they weren’t great whether they made the hall of fame or not.
I can’t really say that Leonard or Hearns “defined” a certain weight class because they moved around so much. Duran defined the lightweight division and Hagler defined the middleweight division. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson defined the heavyweight class. But after Tyson lost to James Douglass, the titles were passes around like a crowd surfer at a rock concert until they fell into the hands of the Klitschko brothers.
But could we be talking about Mike McCallum in the same light as the Fab Four had Duran fought him in 1984 instead of fighting Hearns? McCallum was the number one challenger to Duran’s WBA belt, but Duran fought the more popular Hearns and received more pay to boot. Would we be talking about Hagler had he answered the challenge of then light heavyweight champion Michael Spinks? And he did (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19831127&id=OoVTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=14YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5182,226180). Would Pryor have been more prominent had he taken on Leonard? What about Charles Burley? This is the man who was avoided by the likes of Ray Robinson, Billy Conn and Jake La Motta and never received a title shot. Who knows. These fights and so many more didn’t happen; so be it.
I love boxing and will continue to do so. There is nothing wrong with the crop of fighters today. They work hard, train hard, sacrifice family time and put their lives on the line every time they step in the ring. We have been blessed to have eras where many big names and fights occurred. But I refuse to bring myself to crown one man bigger than the sport. Boxers from yesteryear have paved the way for fighters today and the boxing will until the end of time.
Comments are closed.