Customer Reviews

Boxing's Greatest Fighters

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

First things first: You are NOT going to agree with 100, 75 or possibly 50% of his ranking positions. Some fighters will be far too high in your eyes, or bafflingly low.

Or in the case of a Micheal Spinks or a Fighting Harada (#87 on his original list in 1984 and in my opinion THEN, too low), missing altogether from the top 100.

You may puzzle over why Ruben Olivares did not make the cut in 1984 but is sitting at #36 in the 2006 edition. How can Larry Holmes be behind Holyfield and Foreman and (gasp) Tunney! And what is Beau jack doing one spot ahead of Ike Williams who "owned" Jack, much in the same way Archie Moore is rated ahead of Ezzard Charles, despite losing to the Cinncinati Cobra all three times they fought.

Two things: The stories and detail of each fighter only sparks the desire to learn more about these fighters who make Bert's list. And the overall disagreement that you WILL have with Bert, makes the read fascinating. You almost have an argument and a debate with yourself!

Lists will do that to you. One man's list is ONLY perfect to the man who wrote it. Everyone else will have issues with it.

But I defy any boxing enthusiast who buys this book, to NOT have it by your side literally everywhere you go.

Boxing History, in one small package.

Priceless and maddening at the same time.

Hawk

Bert Randolph Sugar, he of the everpresent fedora and unlit cigar, is one of the best known "talking heads" in the boxing media. He is articulate, writes well, and is very passionate about boxing, the greatest, truest, and purest of athletic competitions. However, he is more a boxing writer than a boxing historian, as is demonstrated by the fact that he believes (and promulgates) many of the myths that have floated around for years about this or that fighter without having bothering to check any primary sources to confirm these stories (Sugar relates many of these fairy tales in this book, but states them as fact, such as Willie Pep having won a round in a fight with Jackie Graves without having landed a single punch [Pep himself, in most of his accounts of the bout, said that he did, in fact, throw and land more than a few punches in that round], that Harry Greb's last name was Berg [Greb's birth certificate says otherwise], that Jack Dempsey broke Jess Willard's jaw in their 1919 battle [an injury that none of the reporters who interviewed Willard in the hours and days after the bout seemed to notice], that Greb broke Gene Tunney's nose with a headbutt in the first round of their first of five wars [Greb and many ringside reporters attributed the break to a left hook and Tunney himself stated that it was probably the result of a Greb right and definitely not from a butt], that Sam Langford gave Jack Johnson all he could handle in their fight [Langford admitted more than once that 'Lil Arthur had whipped him)], etc, etc).

More importantly, Sugar's understanding of boxing technique is good but not impressive, which is aptly illustrated whenever he demonstrates (and butchers) a technique that he is relating and by the fact that he rarely describes in great detail the particular TECHNIQUES that made this or that fighter effective, but, instead, waxes on the boxer's STYLE of fighting. For these reasons, it's hard to take his ranking of boxing's greatest fighters too seriously, especially since, like most boxing fans when they produce fighter rankings, he places far TOO MUCH weight in determining a fighter's "greatness" on the boxer's popularity, "historical importance"/legacy, the "name" fighters whom he fought, the number of titles that he won, etc and NOT ENOUGH weight on the fighter's willingness to take on all comers and his effectiveness against all of the basic boxing "styles" (e.g. outboxers, pressure fighters, stalkers, stick and movers, etc) and against opponents who possessed a certain skill or attribute (e.g. handspeed, footwork, reach, power, punch volume/stamina, etc) to an exceptional degree (indeed, among the reasons why I do not place Sugar Ray Robinson - whom Bert Sugar and many others deem the best boxer pound-for-pound of all time - at #1 on MY all-time lb4lb list is the fact that he went to great lengths to avoid fighting good stick and movers [Robinson liked to be the matador] and legitimate powerpunchers [which should be obvious given that, despite fighting in the talent-rich 1940s & 50s, the hardest hitters that the Sugarman could boast of facing were Artie Levine and "blown-up" welterweight Rocky Graziano, who was well past his peak by the time he fought Sugar Ray - to get an idea of how many great punchers Robinson AVOIDED during this era, check out the list of opponents FOUGHT by Robinson's outstanding peer Charley Burley, whom Sugar Ray, of course, "ducked" - then again, if I were put on "queer street" by good but far from great hitters like Levine, Georgie Abrams, and Jimmy Doyle, I'd probably want to avoid thunderous punchers like Burley and Lloyd Marshall, too.)

Another problem with the book is that it is littered with typographical, grammatical, and factual errors (that is, the ones aside from the myths Mr. Sugar embraces). Furthermore, boxing fans who have read some of Sugar's other books will feel a sense of deja vu because he tends to recycle his best bon mots in most of his books. And, there is also the fact that Sugar, given the brevity of each of the boxer profiles, invariably relates the boxer's most famous fight or most well-known characteristic, which is beneficial to boxing "newbies" but boring for knowledgable fans.

All in all, BOXING'S GREATEST FIGHTERS is a decent enough book for new or "casual" boxing fans, but hardcore fans will not find it anything special (except to argue over Sugar's rankings). For the benefit of casual fans, I present the following list of great fighters whom Sugar did not include in his book: Eddie Booker, Fighting Harada, Frankie Genaro, Owen Moran, Jimmy Bivins, Fidel LaBarba, Billy Petrolle, Young Peter Jackson, Mysterious Billy Smith, Freddie Steele, Lloyd Marshall, Ken Overlin, Holman Williams, Michael Spinks, Jack Blackburn, & Lew Tendler.

This latest edition of "Boxing's Greatest Fighters" is an update from the 1984 edition. I have both copies, mainly because I was curious to see how Bert Sugar re-ranked some of my favorite fighters. For example, Sugar Ray Leonard moved from #56 to #25. Overall, this is a well-written, entertaining book. It's probably not logical to rate fighters from different eras, but the concept is hard to resist for a boxing fan, especially one interested in its early history. As with many others reviewers, I don't agree with some of Sugar's rankings, but overall his list makes good sense.

Very easy way to learn the basics about the greatest boxers in history. Burt Sugar is the best for a reason. Some nice stories and details. But basically just 100 thumbnails.

I purchased this book for my brother in law as a gift! He is really into boxing and was so excited to receive it, after he read it he told me it was the perfect gift he loved it.

Bert Sugar is a legenday sports writer, and boxing writer especially. His tremendous knowledge of the history of boxing enables him to make surprising and interesting comparisons of fighters, fights of different times and eras. He is colorful and quick, and not at all shy in providing the lowdown on various aspects of the game.
There has to be subjectivity in a list of this type, and real fans of boxing will certainly have lists of their own. I do not know boxing very well, in fact tuned out of what was going on a long time ago. But I did know about boxing from the Gillette Cavalcade of Sports' in the old days and so saw many of the greatest fights and fighters.
Sugar picks here a hundred of the best. His top five are Sugar Ray Robinson( A pick my guess is most would agree with. It used to be a cliche years ago that Sugar Ray pound- for- pound is the greatest) His second pick is Henry Armstrong the only three- division , and almost four in the history of boxing. It is hard to quarrel with this one either. The next two Harry Greb, and Willie Pep seem to me very disputable indeed. The fifth is Benny Leonard.
I think many will be surprised to find that Muhammed Ali is not in the top five. In fact Sugar considers Jack Dempsey the greatest heavyweight of all, followed by Joe Louis.
Sugar writes with flair and is a pleasure to read.
One thought. Boxing is not what it used to be, and has gone way down in its place in the sports' pantheon. One reason for this as Sugar makes clear is the multiple- titles, organizing groups, the whole mess of the thing. But I suspect it is also because many people wonder about the morality of two people trying to knock each other's brains out for the amusement of a crowd. Thinking about this in the perspective of the years, and having seen a couple of punch- drunk fighters in my time I wonder if this moral objection does not have something to it.

If you like boxing and its glorious history, this book is for you. Bert Sugar is the recognized king of boxing writers, and he knows his stuff. A must for the boxing fan.

This book 'reads' as if Mr. Sugar spoke into a recording device rather than actually writing the words. In other words, much of the book sounds like spoken rather than written words. Also, Mr. Sugar places some fighters at a ranking that is hard to understand. For example, Gene Tunney defeated Jack Dempsey twice and fought Harry Greb. Jack Dempsey was famously battered by Greb in sparring sessions, fought infrequently after becoming champion, did not fight black fighters. Yet Mr. Sugar places Dempsey ahead of Tunney. Ultimately the ranking of fighters is a difficult proposition, but consider that Mr. Sugar places Dempsey well ahead of Larry Holmes. Can you imagine the thoughts Mr. Dempsey might have had, if he looked across the ring and stared at Larry Holmes in his prime, rapier jab intact?

All Top 10, Top 25, Top 100, etc. lists are designed to provoke arguments, and this one does. All of the fighters in the book deserve to be here (I guess, there are a lot from before 1920 that are waaaay before my time). The disagreements come with the rankings, why fighter A is ranked higher than fighter B. But Bert Sugar backs up his opinions with facts, which is all you can ask, agree with him or not. Great reading for any fan of the squared circle.

I've always admired and respected Bert Sugar for his intelligent and often humorous analyst of boxing history and the great fighters of the past, however, I must sadly say this book was terrible. Aside from an occasional comical quote or commit the book was simply silly and insulting to any boxing aficionado. For example, Bert actually ranked Joe Frazier higher than Carlos Monzon and Marvelous Marvin Hagler in this publication. He did this despite the fact that Carlos Monzon and Hagler were vastly more dominate fighters in their eras as well as having far longer and more glorious title reigns. Also his decision to not include all-time greats such as Lennox Lewis and Michael Spinks was ridiculous especially when you take into consideration some of the fighters that did make the list. Overall, this book is a mediocre read that offers information on many turn of century fighters but I wouldn't recommend it for any serious boxing fan.