PeteThePrince's Top 50 P4P Greatest Fighters Ever - ROUGH DRAFT!!

[PetethePrince]

Clearly I'm trying to steal some thunder from Stonehands. Just kidding, but I have been inspired a little bored. So I thought I'd share this list I made. It's not a list among the greatest fighters ever. I'm not knowledgeable enough, nor will anyone convince me that I am.

This list is a bit of a different list. It's a list of the Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters ever. It's list that takes a whole lot of subjectivity, although I tried to be honest, objective, and logical about the choices. If you conquer multiple divisions you get bonuses for clearly staking your claim as a Pound 4 Pound type fighter. Certain styles clearly do better in more divisions. Although if you're dominant in just 1 or 2 divisions it won't hurt you too bad. There are a few interesting choices. I admit, many could very well not even make my top 25 of Greatest Fighters ever list... let alone top 50. It's hard to compare heavyweights to featherweights, but I did anyone. Also, it's fighters from 1920 onward. I did this because boxing has changed and my knowledge is clearly much more lacking the further back you go. So share your thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc. I'm sure there could be some omission that I overlooked. Okay ladies and gents... here we go.

Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters (1920’s onward)


Criteria:


1. Resume/Level Of Opposition – 50% of the criteria factors this in. Consistency is important as it tells us the truth about a fighter, but the goal is to find the peak. It's more about how dominant a fighter is, rather than how long their reign last. Level of opposition is important because greatness is determined by who you rub up against. How you do against a lot of styles and a lot of great fighters tells what your ability is. Beating Bigger men helps big time. Proving yourself when with a weight disadvantage, and proving yourself through multiple weight classes is a way to reiterate your status on a P4P level.

2. Skills/Ability (Potential H2H) – 50% is based on your skills and abilities and how you potentially match up to other fighters in terms of H2H. This doesn't have to be textbook boxing, folks. What you bring in the ring... from natural factors such as power punching and chin, to your developed skills such as footwork and feinting. How versatile you are to prove your skills and ability in more ways than one in case Plan A goes wrong. All the intangibles, resilience will get factored. This is what you can do in the ring from what we've seen from footage and newspaper reports.


1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Charley Burley
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Joe Louis
9. Benny Leonard
10. Willie Pep
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Archie Moore
14. Mickey Walker
15. Michael Spinks
16. Roy Jones Jr
17. Sugar Ray Leonard
18. Sandy Saddler
19. Gene Tunney
20. Carlos Monzon
21. Manny Pacquiao
22. Alexis Arguello
23. Tommy Hearns
24. Pernell Whitaker
25. Marvin Hagler
26. Barney Ross
27. Julio Cesar Chavez
28. Evander Holyfield
29. Jose Napoles
30. Mike Tyson
31. Bernard Hopkins
32. Kid Gavilan
33. Tony Canzoneri
34. Salvador Sanchez
35. Carmen Basilio
36. Tommy Loughran
37. Billy Conn
38. Ike Williams
39. Floyd Mayweather Jr
40. Emile Griffith
41. Aaron Pyror
42. Joe Frazier
43. Ruben Olivares
44. Tiger Flowers
45. Eder Jofre
46. Larry Holmes
47. Jimmy McLarnin
48. Panama Al Brown
49. Miguel Canto
50. Wilfredo Gomez

[MAG1965]

Clearly I'm trying to steal some thunder from Stonehands. Just kidding, but I have been inspired a little bored. So I thought I'd share this list I made. It's not a list among the greatest fighters ever. I'm not knowledgeable enough, nor will anyone convince me that I am.

This list is a bit of a different list. It's a list of the Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters ever. It's list that takes a whole lot of subjectivity, although I tried to be honest, objective, and logical about the choices. If you conquer multiple divisions you get bonuses for clearly staking your claim as a Pound 4 Pound type fighter. Certain styles clearly do better in more divisions. Although if you're dominant in just 1 or 2 divisions it won't hurt you too bad. There are a few interesting choices. I admit, many could very well not even make my top 25 of Greatest Fighters ever list... let alone top 50. It's hard to compare heavyweights to featherweights, but I did anyone. Also, it's fighters from 1920 onward. I did this because boxing has changed and my knowledge is clearly much more lacking the further back you go. So share your thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc. I'm sure there could be some omission that I overlooked. Okay ladies and gents... here we go.

Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters (1920’s onward)


Criteria:


1. Resume/Level Of Opposition – 50% of the criteria factors this in. Consistency is important as it tells us the truth about a fighter, but the goal is to find the peak. It's more about how dominant a fighter is, rather than how long their reign last. Level of opposition is important because greatness is determined by who you rub up against. How you do against a lot of styles and a lot of great fighters tells what your ability is. Beating Bigger men helps big time. Proving yourself when with a weight disadvantage, and proving yourself through multiple weight classes is a way to reiterate your status on a P4P level.

2. Skills/Ability (Potential H2H) – 50% is based on your skills and abilities and how you potentially match up to other fighters in terms of H2H. This doesn't have to be textbook boxing, folks. What you bring in the ring... from natural factors such as power punching and chin, to your developed skills such as footwork and feinting. How versatile you are to prove your skills and ability in more ways than one in case Plan A goes wrong. All the intangibles, resilience will get factored. This is what you can do in the ring from what we've seen from footage and newspaper reports.


1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Charley Burley
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Benny Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Mickey Walker
13. Archie Moore
14. Willie Pep
15. Michael Spinks
16. Roy Jones Jr
17. Sugar Ray Leonard
18. Sandy Saddler
19. Manny Pacquiao
20. Gene Tunney
21. Carlos Monzon
22. Alexis Arguello
23. Tommy Hearns
24. Bernard Hopkins
25. Evander Holyfield
26. Marvin Hagler
27. Pernell Whitaker
28. Mike Tyson
29. Jose Napoles
30. Barney Ross
31. Kid Gavilan
32. Carmen Basilio
33. Billy Conn
34. Aaron Pyror
35. Floyd Mayweather Jr
36. Tommy Loughran
37. Julio Cesar Chavez
38. Tony Canzoneri
39. Ike Williams
40. Emile Griffith
41. Joe Frazier
42. Salvador Sanchez
43. Ruben Olivares
44. Salvador Sanchez
45. Eder Jofre
46. Larry Holmes
47. Jimmy McLarnin
48. Shane Mosley
49. Miguel Canto
50. Oscar De La Hoya
I like your list.. I just think you overrated both Floyd and Roy Jones, but a good list. Floyd over Chavez and Holmes cannot work? And Jones over Leonard is impossible. But it is good list. I think you overrated Duran also.

[Boxed Ears]

Some of your list is really, really close to mine but some just boggles me. Mayweather over Canzoneri? Pryor over Chavez? Conn over Sanchez, etc. It something how we can be so different from each other when we fill these lists out. Interesting to see though.

[PH|LLA]

I believe a fighter's ranking should be based uniquely on his ability, and that his official resume should just be viewed as a tool used to assess that ability. Where it gets harder is to balance prime & longevity, but as you say one sometimes reveals something about the other.

I'd have Duran a little lower. Ali higher. Leonard higher. Marciano a little lower. Whitaker higher. Jones lower. Chavez higher. Hopkins lower. Mayweather lower. Oscar out. Lewis in

[Addie]

Aaron Pryor too high
Roy Jones Jr too high
Michael Spinks too high
Manny Pacquiao too high
Jack dempsey too high
Rocky Marciano too high
Floyd Mayweather Jr too high
Oscar De La Hoya too high

...Don't like your list.
Bernard Hopkins too high

[Boxed Ears]

Aaron Pryor too high
Roy Jones Jr too high
Michael Spinks too high
Manny Pacquiao too high
Jack dempsey too high
Rocky Marciano too high
Floyd Mayweather Jr too high
Oscar De La Hoya too high

...Don't like your list.
Bernard Hopkins too high

Hey, it's just a rough draft...I'm sure he'll get around to MAB eventually.:yep

[Addie]

Hey, it's just a rough draft...I'm sure he'll get around to MAB eventually.:yep

:lol: Shit off, Boxer Ears.

Marco probably wouldn't feature in my top 50 either, but some of those picks are outrageously high. Rocky Marciano above Ali? ...Calm down.

[Boxed Ears]

:lol: Shit off, Boxer Ears.

Marco probably wouldn't feature in my top 50 either, but some of those picks are outrageously high. Rocky Marciano above Ali? ...Calm down.

STFU Noob! Marciano was the heavyweight Willie Pep! :lol:

[Addie]

Marciano wasn't as skilled as Ali which is half of his criteria, and his resume isn't on Ali's level...which is the other half of his criteria. Help me out here.

[bodhi]

I believe a fighter's ranking should be based uniquely on his ability, and that his official resume should just be viewed as a tool used to assess that ability. Where it gets harder is to balance prime & longevity, but as you say one sometimes reveals something about the other.

I'd have Duran a little lower. Ali higher. Leonard higher. Marciano a little lower. Whitaker higher. Jones lower. Chavez higher. Hopkins lower. Mayweather lower. Oscar out. Lewis in

How do you compare a fighter who beat mediocre opposition to a fighter who struggled with atg opposition? How does a fighter who fights down to the level of his opponents fit in? How do you rate abiliy? A swarmer needs and has different abilities than a boxer. How do you compare that? And then there is the problem with fighters with little or no footage like Greb. How do you judge his abilities?

Most lists based on abilities just show which styles and fighters the guy who compiled the list likes, mixed with some obvious choices.

Too much trouble, speculation and subjectivity for my liking.

[PetethePrince]

Some of your list is really, really close to mine but some just boggles me. Mayweather over Canzoneri? Pryor over Chavez? Conn over Sanchez, etc. It something how we can be so different from each other when we fill these lists out. Interesting to see though.

I think you're right about Canzoneri. But could you imagine Canzoneri beating Mayweather? This is part of the factor. If I made a top 50 Greatest Fighters list then Mayweather might not make it. Roy Jones Jr wouldn't, and Rocky Marciano wouldn't be in the top 10. I see your point, and I think you may be right.

Chavez was up near the 20's at one point, but I felt I was overrated so I put him back a few spots. I think I'm going to have to re-correct that. Chavez was clearly a H2H P4P monster due to his attributes. Pyror, a much better boxer though.

Sanchez fought in 1 division, albeit was one of the best in that division. Conn was a terrific LHW and nearly beat Joe Louis. Maybe I factored that in but that was important to me. Nobody dominated a prime Joe Louis more thoroughly than Conn. Says tons about his abilities.

[PetethePrince]

Marciano wasn't as skilled as Ali which is half of his criteria, and his resume isn't on Ali's level...which is the other half of his criteria. Help me out here.

Marciano did have skills but he made up for it in will, a terrific chin, and non-stop stamina. He ate up big slow guys that and out-brawled nearly everyone regardless of how much bigger they were. He beat HOF fighters like Walcott, Moore, and Charles. So he showed he can handle a lot of styles. Lastly, I pick Ali to beat Marciano H2H but this is P4P. If Ali was anywhere near Marciano's weight, Marciano would eat him up. It's as simple as that.

I rank Ali as the GOAT among HW and around the bottom of the top 10 if I was making a Greatest Fighters of All Time List. If I made a list like that, rather than this P4P type list than I would have Marciano around the 30-50 range. Make sense?

[essexboy]

As long as guesswork and bias isnt involved there is no right and wrong with these lists as some will lead you to believe. There are a few placements I disagree with heavily but if you've watched them and garnered your own opinion who am I to tell you you're wrong. Personally I would have Duran lower, Dempsey alot lower, Jones Jr alot lower, Manny Pacquiao alot lower, Mayweather alot lower. Ike Williams, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Kid Gavilan and Willie Pep higher. Also you have Sanchez twice.

[PetethePrince]

:lol: Shit off, Boxer Ears.

Marco probably wouldn't feature in my top 50 either, but some of those picks are outrageously high. Rocky Marciano above Ali? ...Calm down.

You have Marciano barely in your top 100 among an ATG list so you would never understand.

Roy Jones would never feature this high unless I was factoring in H2H and ability in the ring so much. The Resume is supposed to reflect more perspective on their P4P ability. If you win multiple belts, and beat up bigger man you get featured higher on the list. Plus you can't have just a one fight Buster Douglas night to feature on the list. So a good career matters.

[Boxed Ears]

I think you're right about Canzoneri. But could you imagine Canzoneri beating Mayweather? This is part of the factor. If I made a top 50 Greatest Fighters list then Mayweather might not make it. Roy Jones Jr wouldn't, and Rocky Marciano wouldn't be in the top 10. I see your point, and I think you may be right.

Chavez was up near the 20's at one point, but I felt I was overrated so I put him back a few spots. I think I'm going to have to re-correct that. Chavez was clearly a H2H P4P monster due to his attributes. Pyror, a much better boxer though.

Sanchez fought in 1 division, albeit was one of the best in that division. Conn was a terrific LHW and nearly beat Joe Louis. Maybe I factored that in but that was important to me. Nobody dominated a prime Joe Louis more thoroughly than Conn. Says tons about his abilities.

Sanchez fought in one division but so did Ali and Marciano. I don't think a fighter has to go outside of one weight class to be a p4p great. I never penalize Hagler for it. About Canzoneri beating Mayweather? Did Mayweather fight anyone on Canzoneri's level that were in their prime years? I wouldn't put any of his opponents in that boat. Tough call.

[PetethePrince]

I believe a fighter's ranking should be based uniquely on his ability, and that his official resume should just be viewed as a tool used to assess that ability. Where it gets harder is to balance prime & longevity, but as you say one sometimes reveals something about the other.

I'd have Duran a little lower. Ali higher. Leonard higher. Marciano a little lower. Whitaker higher. Jones lower. Chavez higher. Hopkins lower. Mayweather lower. Oscar out. Lewis in

This is basically what I did, rather than Greatness based on experience, longevity, resume, etc.

It's P4P so Lewis didn't make the list. Ali is pretty damn high I think. Jones Jr went from 160 to HW winning. In his prime he has the style to beat tons of fighters. Chavez could be higher.

[PetethePrince]

Sanchez fought in one division but so did Ali and Marciano. I don't think a fighter has to go outside of one weight class to be a p4p great. I never penalize Hagler for it. About Canzoneri beating Mayweather? Did Mayweather fight anyone on Canzoneri's level that were in their prime years? I wouldn't put any of his opponents in that boat. Tough call.


But Ali and Marciano fought with weight disadvantages constantly. Ali had the style to beat a man of any size.

Your right, I'll probably be moving Tony up though. WTF was I thinking underrating an Italian fighter? It's reverse discrimination, obviously on my part. :lol: (LoL I almost spelled pasty instead of part. I just can't help myself.

[Addie]

Marciano did have skills but he made up for it in will, a terrific chin, and non-stop stamina. He ate up big slow guys that and out-brawled nearly everyone regardless of how much bigger they were. He beat HOF fighters like Walcott, Moore, and Charles. So he showed he can handle a lot of styles. Lastly, I pick Ali to beat Marciano H2H but this is P4P. If Ali was anywhere near Marciano's weight, Marciano would eat him up. It's as simple as that.

I rank Ali as the GOAT among HW and around the bottom of the top 10 if I was making a Greatest Fighters of All Time List. If I made a list like that, rather than this P4P type list than I would have Marciano around the 30-50 range. Make sense?

Ali didn't show he could beat a wide range of styles? Ali didn't possess all-time great will and punch resistance? I think Ali has more success with the consensus top 10 Heavyweights of all time than The Rock.

[Boxed Ears]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Charley Burley
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Benny Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Mickey Walker
13. Archie Moore
14. Willie Pep
15. Michael Spinks
16. Roy Jones Jr
17. Sugar Ray Leonard
18. Sandy Saddler
19. Manny Pacquiao
20. Gene Tunney
21. Carlos Monzon
22. Alexis Arguello
23. Tommy Hearns
24. Bernard Hopkins
25. Evander Holyfield
26. Marvin Hagler
27. Pernell Whitaker
28. Mike Tyson
29. Jose Napoles
30. Barney Ross
31. Kid Gavilan
32. Carmen Basilio
33. Billy Conn
34. Aaron Pyror
35. Floyd Mayweather Jr
36. Tommy Loughran
37. Julio Cesar Chavez
38. Tony Canzoneri
39. Ike Williams
40. Emile Griffith
41. Joe Frazier
42. Salvador Sanchez
43. Ruben Olivares
44. Salvador Sanchez
45. Eder Jofre
46. Larry Holmes
47. Jimmy McLarnin
48. Shane Mosley
49. Miguel Canto
50. Oscar De La Hoya



The green are the ones I'd say we're closest on. Pretty close. Four of your top ten are in mine.

[PetethePrince]

How do you compare a fighter who beat mediocre opposition to a fighter who struggled with atg opposition? How does a fighter who fights down to the level of his opponents fit in? How do you rate abiliy? A swarmer needs and has different abilities than a boxer. How do you compare that? And then there is the problem with fighters with little or no footage like Greb. How do you judge his abilities?

Most lists based on abilities just show which styles and fighters the guy who compiled the list likes, mixed with some obvious choices.

Too much trouble, speculation and subjectivity for my liking.

It is, but that's what makes it fun. So settle down and take a xanie.

[PetethePrince]

Ali didn't show he could beat a wide range of styles? Ali didn't possess all-time great will and punch resistance? I think Ali has more success with the consensus top 10 Heavyweights of all time than The Rock.

When did I say that? Stop using the McGrain style of arguing by trying to make a point from a statement that I never said (Sorry Mcgrain :lol:).

What part of Pound for Pound don't you understand? Ali is the H2H #1 among HW. And he's in my top 10 among the greatest fighters that ever laced up gloves. This is a Pound 4 Pound list. Comprehendo?

[PetethePrince]

As long as guesswork and bias isnt involved there is no right and wrong with these lists as some will lead you to believe. There are a few placements I disagree with heavily but if you've watched them and garnered your own opinion who am I to tell you you're wrong. Personally I would have Duran lower, Dempsey alot lower, Jones Jr alot lower, Manny Pacquiao alot lower, Mayweather alot lower. Ike Williams, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Kid Gavilan and Willie Pep higher. Also you have Sanchez twice.

Ah... Sanchez listed twice. I need another fighter. Who did I miss?

Note, I did this in like an hour or so too.

[bodhi]

It is, but that's what makes it fun. So settle down and take a xanie.

What's a xanie?

No, I don't think it's fun, it's stress and if I would try his I would end in a lunatic asylum :lol: but hey, luckily we are all different.

[Addie]

I don't comprehend. A P4P list to me is the exact same as Greatest Fighters list.

Elaborate?

[PetethePrince]

What's a xanie?

No, I don't think it's fun, it's stress and if I would try his I would end in a lunatic asylum :lol: but hey, luckily we are all different.

LoL that's why you need a xanax.

[BENNY BLANCO]

I love Mosley and all but his resume of wins is not top 50 material and he shouldn't be rated over De La Hoya either.

[bodhi]

LoL that's why you need a xanax.

I still don't know what this is :huh

[PetethePrince]

I don't comprehend. A P4P list to me is the exact same as Greatest Fighters list.

Elaborate?

Yea. I think there's some confusion on what the term P4P is. Some people throw it around as if it just means Greatest Fighters ever. But if it did why wouldn't people just say "Greatest Fighters Ever List." Everyone knows you shouldn't rank based on H2H anyway. So saying that doesn't mean your saying you think Pac could be Wlad.

Pound 4 Pound in my case (In the case that it's original meant to be used for I believe) is by taking all the fighters and evening their weights and evaluating them based on their abilities. I take resume in to case as a perspective to evaluate fighters (As who you fight helps proves your greatness). I know P4P is lame, childish, and dumb but I was bored and decided to do this on a whim.

[PetethePrince]

I still don't know what this is :huh

A pill that helps your anxiety.

[bodhi]

A pill that helps your anxiety.

Pills are for women :bart

[PetethePrince]

Pills are for women :bart

:lol:

Even vitamins?

[Boxed Ears]

I have to say I admire your guts in posting your list. I've got one. I wouldn't post it. Because there's always too much explaining to do. I'm still working on mine though. But when I decided to do one, I was insane for going to 250. This is lunacy. I should've done fifty. But I pretty much wrote down every one I could think of over an hour or two and then went back and laughed at a third of the names for the next couple days. It really makes you use your logic muscle when you seriously critique your own placements though.

[Sweet Pea]

Not too thrilled with it, but props for posting anyway.

[PetethePrince]

I have to say I admire your guts in posting your list. I've got one. I wouldn't post it. Because there's always too much explaining to do. I'm still working on mine though. But when I decided to do one, I was insane for going to 250. This is lunacy. I should've done fifty. But I pretty much wrote down every one I could think of over an hour or two and then went back and laughed at a third of the names for the next couple days. It really makes you use your logic muscle when you seriously critique your own placements though.

I tried being serious about it with the time being. I could never do some full-fledged list because I'd go back and forth like a mad man. I wasn't really worried about posting it though. It was supposed to a be fun little thing. Unique too because of the criteria, but so what if people don't like it. I'm not even sure if I like it but I tried and I think it's alright. It's definitely difficult to do. It's pretty hard to say he's above him. There's really no boundary or end to it all. That's why I don't fancy full fledged lists as oppose to the Top 10 divisional ratings. And even that can be frustrating...

[PetethePrince]

Not too thrilled with it, but props for posting anyway.

It's the end all to be all so get thrilled with it. :twisted: :lol:

[Gesta]

Good list Pete,

Good to see the Rock so high, as my understanding of a PFP list is that who would be the best if they were all the same weight?, if so the Rock would be very hard to beat.

[WhataRock]

I disagree with a lot of in Pete but you have up front about your criteria, so I know where you are coming from.

Much love for sharing it.

[Addie]

It's inconceivable to me that Winona didn't make the cut but other than that, someone care to explain to why The Rock is so fuckin' good?

[P4P]

Pills are for women :bart
:thumbsup

[Boxed Ears]

It's inconceivable to me that Winona didn't make the cut but other than that, someone care to explain to why The Rock is so fuckin' good?

Because he's Ryder's great grand uncle. Ohhhhh, you didn't see that coming, did ya? Yeah, I didn't think so. Awesomeness by relation, Addie. It hasn't worked for Chavez Junior and some other ones but it came through here. That's the important thing.

[PetethePrince]

Good list Pete,

Good to see the Rock so high, as my understanding of a PFP list is that who would be the best if they were all the same weight?, if so the Rock would be very hard to beat.

Yep, this was my logic and understanding of it to. Would be very tough to beat even with a weight advantage, let alone without one.

[PetethePrince]

It's inconceivable to me that Winona didn't make the cut but other than that, someone care to explain to why The Rock is so fuckin' good?

Have you seen film of him? It's awe-inspiring for me to watch. Unparreled stamina, two-fisted power, offensive-minded, granite chin (Moore and Walcott could punch and hit him with some terrific shots), underrated defense. Highest KO percentage among retired Heavyweights. Only one fighter went 15 rounds with him, and that was the one of the all time best in Ezzard Charles. Yes, maybe he could've fought for a bit longer but what is not to love? The resiliency. Down on the cards and needing a knockout and does it against Walcott. Terrific fighter in rematches. Had a split nose and probably needed 1 round to KO his opposition to retain his belt and does it. Rocky embodies the American story of work and win. If Joe Louis fought for 14 years among many HW fighters that were 20-40+ pounders heavier and said Marciano hit the hardest than you know he could hit. A great fighter, regardless if he gets mythologized a bit.

[Gesta]

Yep, this was my logic and understanding of it to. Would be very tough to beat even with a weight advantage, let alone without one.

:good:good:good

Great stamina, great chin, great power, great will power.

A boxer that throws a lot of hard punches for every minute for 15 rounds, keeping his power and has a great chin is going to be very hard to beat.

[PetethePrince]

Okay, took a lot into consideration. Added a few fighters, removed a few fighters (Most of the contemporaries). I think it's alright based upon the criteria. I may be missing someone. Dempsey could be too as well. But honestly, how many people here pick him against Wlad, Frazier, Rocky, Ali, etc. Dempsey has the attributes and skill to certainly beat a lot of bigger men, and he did in his time.

I contemplated putting Armstrong above SRR. But it comes down to SRR having the better style in the H2H fantasy matches. Armstrong had the weight-climbing achievements, though.

[Addie]

Okay I understand now. I'd take out Gomez and put in Barrera. Kidding.

So this is a list where we strip everyone down to the same weight and we rank them purely on their abilities?

I'd have Chavez a little higher.

[PetethePrince]

Okay I understand now. I'd take out Gomez and put in Barrera. Kidding.

So this is a list where we strip everyone down to the same weight and we rank them purely on their abilities?

I'd have Chavez a little higher.

Pretty much. I moved Chavez up a tad, but I still contemplate how much he should be moved up. He's a tough one for to judge.

[Addie]

Do you think he'd have trouble dealing with the skillful boxers among the top 50?

[Addie]

I like your placing of Michael Spinks. Would have been a nightmare for anyone to beat, pretty damn complete. Good handspeed, good chin, power in both hands, and never lacked stamina or toughness. On an even playing field (unlike the Tyson and Holmes fights), It'd be tough to bet against the man.

[Boxed Ears]

Yeah, it's looking much better to me. I might consider moving Holmes up though because he was so complete and had underrated power, great speed, chin, etc. H2H at HW it seems like Holmes is thought of as being on very close terms to Ali when people discuss fantasy match-ups.

Okay I understand now. I'd take out Gomez and put in Barrera. Kidding.

So this is a list where we strip everyone down to the same weight and we rank them purely on their abilities?

I'd have Chavez a little higher.

You do know how they say many a truth is often said in jest...

[Addie]

H2H at HW it seems like Holmes is thought of as being on very close terms to Ali when people discuss fantasy match-ups.
Despite being given hell by Norton and Shavers.


You do know how they say many a truth is often said in jest.
:lol: I do think Barrera was a complete fighter at his best, but there's more than 50 better fighters in history than him. The losses to Jones and Pacquiao make it hard to argue for him here.

[PetethePrince]

Do you think he'd have trouble dealing with the skillful boxers among the top 50?

A little bit considering what a past prime Whitaker could do. But I definitely think he could be up a bit more... it's just a question of where.

Comparing him to Basilio is interesting. Basilio was a great welterweight but beat SRR at middleweight while having a 10 lb disadvantage. Robinson was past his prime but still Ray Robinson. Basilio had stamina, chin, toughness... all like Chavez. P4P I think Chavez was more brutal a puncher, but I think Basilio had better inside-skills.

I like your placing of Michael Spinks. Would have been a nightmare for anyone to beat, pretty damn complete. Good handspeed, good chin, power in both hands, and never lacked stamina or toughness. On an even playing field (unlike the Tyson and Holmes fights), It'd be tough to bet against the man.


Thanks yeah. Oh yeah, Michael Spinks was a beast at light-heavyweight. I think he had the style to deal with many different fighters. He was awkward too, and one of the few light-heavyweights to win the HW championship. Beating an old Cooney and Holmes is still impressive enough for me considering the rest of what he did. Spinks is the best name on Tyson's resume. And some forget how great of a fighter he was.

Despite being given hell by Norton and Shavers.


:lol: I do think Barrera was a complete fighter at his best, but there's more than 50 better fighters in history than him. The losses and Jones and Pacquiao make it hard to argue for him here.


The Shavers giving him hell is an exaggeration. It was a white-wash one-sided affair. Holmes got caught big time but got up, ran around the ring via Tunney vs Dempsey II and went on to win. It says a lot about his recovery. At the same time, an ancient Ali wasn't even dropped by Shavers... A better Shavers too!

I considering Barrera for about 15 seconds. Just couldn't do it, but knew you would love it. :lol:

Yeah, it's looking much better to me. I might consider moving Holmes up though because he was so complete and had underrated power, great speed, chin, etc. H2H at HW it seems like Holmes is thought of as being on very close terms to Ali when people discuss fantasy match-ups.

I considered it, still do. I don't subscribe to Holmes being as good as Ali H2H. Ali was faster with his hands and feet. Had stronger legs, a better chin, better staminaand I figure he was smarter. I think Ali had the intangibles and a better ability to find a way to overcome. Holmes, though, had a better left jab and a bit more power, and is better technically. A great fighter... I feel Holmes almost played down to his competition a bit. Ali dominated better for me with better winning opposition too. I have confidence Ali is capable of beating every Heavyweight on his best night. Holmes... not so much.

People forget about his stamina. He threw tons of punches in his 60's fights. People talk about his legs or lack of hand-speed when he came back. But he also didn't punch with his as much activity. Chuvalo talks about this, too.

[Addie]

I know Angelo Dundee, who was involved with Basillo, once said Chavez was the toughest fighter he'd ever seen. That might count for nothing, but I think Chavez had more technique than Basillo in addition to his toughness.

[PetethePrince]

I know Angelo Dundee, who was involved with Basillo, once said Chavez was the toughest fighter he'd ever seen. That might count for nothing, but I think Chavez had more technique than Basillo in addition to his toughness.

Dundee says a lot of things man. Hear what he said about Cotto recently and why he thought he would beat Pac?

What about him thinking Douglas would beat Tyson AFTER the fact? :lol:

I love Angelo, but the guy tries to shine in the spotlight a little bit.

Better punching technique? Perhaps. But do you think he was a better inside fighter? I don't. Chavez will be moved. It's probably just where...

[Addie]

Dundee says a lot of things man. Hear what he said about Cotto recently and why he thought he would beat Pac?

What about him thinking Douglas would beat Tyson AFTER the fact? :lol:

I love Angelo, but the guy tries to shine in the spotlight a little bit.

Better punching technique? Perhaps. But do you think he was a better inside fighter? I don't. Chavez will be moved. It's probably just where...

I think Chavez was the better composite puncher, probably was better defensively, and was comparable to Basillo in terms of punch resistance and toughness at his peak. I'm probably biased because I tend to find Chavez more aesthetically pleasing and that sways my judgment. We're nitpicking, perhaps?

[PetethePrince]

I think Chavez was the better composite puncher, probably was better defensively, and was comparable to Basillo in terms of punch resistance and toughness at his peak. I'm probably biased because I tend to find Chavez more aesthetically pleasing and that sways my judgment. We're nitpicking, perhaps?

Yes and no.

Chavez is the better, harder puncher. I think Basilio gave your more composite punching over a 15 round time. Basilio was one of the best trained fighters. Out-working SRR while giving away 10 pounds at MW impresses the shit out of me. Chavez matches punch-resistance and toughness. While I admit Chavez was more brutal a puncher, I am not so sure he's better skilled on the inside, nor am I sure he's better defensively. If anything, maybe his punch-resistance was slightly better, but his defense was worse.

Where would you place Chavez?

[Boxed Ears]

Despite being given hell by Norton and Shavers.


:lol: I do think Barrera was a complete fighter at his best, but there's more than 50 better fighters in history than him. The losses to Jones and Pacquiao make it hard to argue for him here.

I don't know about "despite". Neither of those guys made Ali look like the GOAT either. Norton is one of those guys whose style is so unorthodox that he can give one guy who's not that good no unusual trouble, then make a more textbook talented guy who is great seem kind of average. Hard to predict how his style is going to effect a fighter. And I believe Holmes went in injured. Can't remember, torn bicep or something like that. Holmes still won though. And as far as Shavers, I think if he catches you flush and start to damage you, he can give you hell as long as you can take it. No shame there.

[keith]

I believe a fighter's ranking should be based uniquely on his ability, and that his official resume should just be viewed as a tool used to assess that ability. Where it gets harder is to balance prime & longevity, but as you say one sometimes reveals something about the other.

I'd have Duran a little lower. Ali higher. Leonard higher. Marciano a little lower. Whitaker higher. Jones lower. Chavez higher. Hopkins lower. Mayweather lower. Oscar out. Lewis in



If yours is based uniquely on ability, then how is Jones at 16 too high?

Keith

[keith]

Yes and no.

Chavez is the better, harder puncher. I think Basilio gave your more composite punching over a 15 round time. Basilio was one of the best trained fighters. Out-working SRR while giving away 10 pounds at MW impresses the shit out of me. Chavez matches punch-resistance and toughness. While I admit Chavez was more brutal a puncher, I am not so sure he's better skilled on the inside, nor am I sure he's better defensively. If anything, maybe his punch-resistance was slightly better, but his defense was worse.

Where would you place Chavez?


I have Chavez in the top 10. 90+ straight wins is nearly impossible, no matter who you are fighting.

Keith

[Flea Man]

I've gotta say, I like petetheprince, but not his list.

[Mendoza]

Aaron Pryor too high
Roy Jones Jr too high
Michael Spinks too high
Manny Pacquiao too high
Jack dempsey too high
Rocky Marciano too high
Floyd Mayweather Jr too high
Oscar De La Hoya too high

...Don't like your list.
Bernard Hopkins too high


Pete would lose two vowel's in his name if he moved Marciano down any further.

I agree an all of your too high picks. In addition, Holyfield is too high, and Tyson who lost all of his legacy fight should not crack the top 50.

[anarci]

I think Chavez was the better composite puncher, probably was better defensively, and was comparable to Basillo in terms of punch resistance and toughness at his peak. I'm probably biased because I tend to find Chavez more aesthetically pleasing and that sways my judgment. We're nitpicking, perhaps? I like Basillio he is one of my favorite old timers but CHavez should be waaaaaaaay above him, no excuse for putting Chavez so low pete. And im not being biased, causeIm not a Whittaker fan and i think he is also to low on your list.

[Popkins]

Clearly I'm trying to steal some thunder from Stonehands. Just kidding, but I have been inspired a little bored. So I thought I'd share this list I made. It's not a list among the greatest fighters ever. I'm not knowledgeable enough, nor will anyone convince me that I am.

This list is a bit of a different list. It's a list of the Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters ever. It's list that takes a whole lot of subjectivity, although I tried to be honest, objective, and logical about the choices. If you conquer multiple divisions you get bonuses for clearly staking your claim as a Pound 4 Pound type fighter. Certain styles clearly do better in more divisions. Although if you're dominant in just 1 or 2 divisions it won't hurt you too bad. There are a few interesting choices. I admit, many could very well not even make my top 25 of Greatest Fighters ever list... let alone top 50. It's hard to compare heavyweights to featherweights, but I did anyone. Also, it's fighters from 1920 onward. I did this because boxing has changed and my knowledge is clearly much more lacking the further back you go. So share your thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc. I'm sure there could be some omission that I overlooked. Okay ladies and gents... here we go.


Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters (1920’s onward)





Criteria:




1. Resume/Level Of Opposition – 50% of the criteria factors this in. Consistency is important as it tells us the truth about a fighter, but the goal is to find the peak. It's more about how dominant a fighter is, rather than how long their reign last. Level of opposition is important because greatness is determined by who you rub up against. How you do against a lot of styles and a lot of great fighters tells what your ability is. Beating Bigger men helps big time. Proving yourself when with a weight disadvantage, and proving yourself through multiple weight classes is a way to reiterate your status on a P4P level.

2. Skills/Ability (Potential H2H) – 50% is based on your skills and abilities and how you potentially match up to other fighters in terms of H2H. This doesn't have to be textbook boxing, folks. What you bring in the ring... from natural factors such as power punching and chin, to your developed skills such as footwork and feinting. How versatile you are to prove your skills and ability in more ways than one in case Plan A goes wrong. All the intangibles, resilience will get factored. This is what you can do in the ring from what we've seen from footage and newspaper reports.



1. Sugar Ray Robinson


2. Henry Armstrong


3. Harry Greb


4. Roberto Duran


5. Ezzard Charles


6. Charley Burley


7. Jack Dempsey


8. Rocky Marciano


9. Muhammad Ali


10. Benny Leonard


11. Joe Louis


12. Mickey Walker


13. Archie Moore


14. Willie Pep


15. Michael Spinks


16. Roy Jones Jr


17. Sugar Ray Leonard


18. Sandy Saddler


19. Manny Pacquiao


20. Gene Tunney


21. Carlos Monzon


22. Alexis Arguello


23. Tommy Hearns


24. Evander Holyfield


25. Pernell Whitaker


26. Marvin Hagler


27. Bernard Hopkins


28. Mike Tyson


29. Jose Napoles


30. Barney Ross


31. Kid Gavilan


32. Tony Canzoneri


33. Salvador Sanchez


34. Carmen Basilio


35. Julio Cesar Chavez


36. Billy Conn


37. Tommy Loughran


38. Aaron Pyror


39. Floyd Mayweather Jr


40. Ike Williams


41. Emile Griffith


42. Joe Frazier


43. Ruben Olivares


44. Tiger Flowers


45. Eder Jofre


46. Larry Holmes


47. Jimmy McLarnin


48. Panama Al Brown


49. Miguel Canto


50. Wilfredo Gomez



I applaud anyone who takes the time to do something like this, but with all due respect I think this is a pretty poor list. The choices I've highlighted in red are unjustifiable (ie too high!) and urgently require a re-think IMO. :good

PS: Barney Ross absolutely MUST be much higher than that mate, surely to God!

[Bill Butcher]

Robinson at no1 is 100% correct but Marciano & Dempsey are too high for starters.... Ali, Leonard, Chavez & a few others are too low also.

I only rank fighters that Ive seen enough of because there is only so much you can tell from old newspaper articles + Ive only ever did a top 10, thats hard enough & no poster has ever came up with even the exact top 10 but here`s mine anyway......

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Willie Pep
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Roberto Duran
6. Sugar Ray Leonard
7. Joe Louis
8/9. Pernell Whitaker/Julio cesar Chavez
10. Thomas Hearns

[anarci]

I applaud anyone who takes the time to do something like this, but with all due respect I think this is a pretty poor list. The choices I've highlighted in red are unjustifiable (ie too high!) and urgently require a re-think IMO. :good

PS: Barney Ross absolutely MUST be much higher than that mate, surely to God! Actually of the ones u highlighted i think only the heavyweights were to high Dempsey (for sure) ridiculously high imo,Marciano too high but i understand the pFP theory on Marciano so maybe he wasnt to high but still a little bit. Also im a huge Tyson fan but he was too high by about 20 notches. Maybe Pryor was rated a little high. Delahoya was too low he should switch spots with Mike Tyson.

But i agree with Pete on his opinions on many modern fighters, some guys here disagree with his high placings of them but not here most of them are pretty accurate. Especially like how he placed Evander and Michael Spinks high as many tend to underrate those 2.

Put still cant get over Chavez being so low:-(

[anarci]

Robinson at no1 is 100% correct but Marciano & Dempsey are too high for starters.... Ali, Leonard, Chavez & a few others are too low also.

I only rank fighters that Ive seen enough of because there is only so much you can tell from old newspaper articles + Ive only ever did a top 10, thats hard enough & no poster has ever came up with even the exact top 10 but here`s mine anyway......

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Willie Pep
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Roberto Duran
6. Sugar Ray Leonard
7. Joe Louis
8/9. Pernell Whitaker/Julio cesar Chavez
10. Thomas Hearns not a bad list Bill:think

[PH|LLA]

How do you compare a fighter who beat mediocre opposition to a fighter who struggled with atg opposition? How does a fighter who fights down to the level of his opponents fit in? How do you rate abiliy? A swarmer needs and has different abilities than a boxer. How do you compare that? And then there is the problem with fighters with little or no footage like Greb. How do you judge his abilities?

Most lists based on abilities just show which styles and fighters the guy who compiled the list likes, mixed with some obvious choices.

Too much trouble, speculation and subjectivity for my liking.
well noone said it would be easy :smoke

all those things you wrote, you have to take them into account.

Also, you have to make an effort to put personal style preferences, if you have any, aside.

[teeto]

It's not fond around here but for me Ali over Marciano and Dempsey all day.

[PetethePrince]

Pete would lose two vowel's in his name if he moved Marciano down any further.

:lol: At least that was funny rather than your constant bore.

I agree an all of your too high picks. In addition, Holyfield is too high, and Tyson who lost all of his legacy fight should not crack the top 50.

Tyson feasted upon bigger, taller men. I'm looking at his absolute pinnacle, too.

[PetethePrince]

I applaud anyone who takes the time to do something like this, but with all due respect I think this is a pretty poor list. The choices I've highlighted in red are unjustifiable (ie too high!) and urgently require a re-think IMO. :good

PS: Barney Ross absolutely MUST be much higher than that mate, surely to God!

None of those are unjustifiably too high when considering the criteria. Did you accidentally read the Pac name instead of bold? You're one of his biggest fans. So you don't think Pac for his multiple division wins, and ability should be ranked that high on a P4P scale?

[PetethePrince]

It's not fond around here but for me Ali over Marciano and Dempsey all day.

If it weren't a P4P list it would be that case. If it were just a greatness list Dempsey doesn't make the top 50, probably.

[teeto]

If it weren't a P4P list it would be that case. If it were just a greatness list Dempsey doesn't make the top 50, probably.
See the 'when i was green' thread for my opinion on this.

[PetethePrince]

Actually of the ones u highlighted i think only the heavyweights were to high Dempsey (for sure) ridiculously high imo,Marciano too high but i understand the pFP theory on Marciano so maybe he wasnt to high but still a little bit. Also im a huge Tyson fan but he was too high by about 20 notches. Maybe Pryor was rated a little high. Delahoya was too low he should switch spots with Mike Tyson.

But i agree with Pete on his opinions on many modern fighters, some guys here disagree with his high placings of them but not here most of them are pretty accurate. Especially like how he placed Evander and Michael Spinks high as many tend to underrate those 2.

Put still cant get over Chavez being so low:-(

Exactly. Notice it's P4P.

This isn't the general... but you guys are telling me that older fighters were superior regarding their technique and ability? Not talking resumes here really.

[teeto]

Sorry to be awkward PetethePrince, i just need to ask though. You see it is possible to have a p4p list that means greatness, meaning the greatest p4p rather than the greatest in different divisions. So does your list mean p4p in the sense of simply who was better, disregarding legacies etc?

[PetethePrince]

I've gotta say, I like petetheprince, but not his list.

:oops:

[PetethePrince]

Edited the list. Can't see myself making too many more changes from here on out.

[PetethePrince]

Sorry to be awkward PetethePrince, i just need to ask though. You see it is possible to have a p4p list that means greatness, meaning the greatest p4p rather than the greatest in different divisions. So does your list mean p4p in the sense of simply who was better, disregarding legacies etc?

Mine isn't a list based on greatness with resumes, accomplishments, longevity, etc.

My list is based on P4P in the literal sense of the word. If we took the fighters and evulated their skills/abilities and had them all weigh the same. I know it's silly, but the goal is to evaluate how great fighters are regardless of weight. Resume is there to see the greatness you rub up against. So I can't obviously but Douglas via Tokyo on the list. At the same time, it's more about reaching a peak with your skills rather than achieving greatness throughout. Hence Dempsey being so high. Hope that clears things up.

[anarci]

Whats up with Pep being so low:huh What kind of Italian are you:lol:
You should have left Holyfield where you had him, Also id put Oscar above quite a few fighters in there some of the fighters id rate him above Gomez,Canto.Brown,Fraizer,Tyson and a few others.

Especially regarding your criteria of pfp list, All of Delahoyas weight jumping should count for a lot especially considering your criteria.

[PetethePrince]

Whats up with Pep being so low:huh What kind of Italian are you:lol:
You should have left Holyfield where you had him, Also id put Oscar above quite a few fighters in there some of the fighters id rate him above Gomez,Canto.Brown,Fraizer,Tyson and a few others.

Especially regarding your criteria of pfp list, All of Delahoyas weight jumping should count for a lot especially considering your criteria.

Well Pep would be a bit higher if this was a list that was focused on greatness based on lonjevity, resume, experience, accomplishments, etc. Probably in my top 10.

In this case, Pep was a 1 weight class type fighter. I guess he could be a few parts higher. I'll have to re-evaluate it. It's hard to put him above Moore. Who was clobbering Heavyweights 25+ pounds heavier, and beating men from MW to HW his entire life.

Oscar lost most of his big fights. There's no way that I can put him above Frazier or Tyson on a P4P list factoring mainly skills/ability.

[Boxed Ears]

Well Pep would be a bit higher if this was a list that was focused on greatness based on lonjevity, resume, experience, accomplishments, etc. Probably in my top 10.

In this case, Pep was a 1 weight class type fighter. I guess he could be a few parts higher. I'll have to re-evaluate it. It's hard to put him above Moore. Who was clobbering Heavyweights 25+ pounds heavier, and beating men from MW to HW his entire life.

Oscar lost most of his big fights. There's no way that I can put him above Frazier or Tyson on a P4P list factoring mainly skills/ability.

Here we go with Oscar lost most his big fights again. I get tired of arguing that for a guy I don't even particularly like (Oscar, I mean) so I won't. :nut

[PetethePrince]

Here we go with Oscar lost most his big fights again. I get tired of arguing that for a guy I don't even particularly like (Oscar, I mean) so I won't. :nut

I'm sorry. Teddy Atlas has brainwashed me. Who should Oscar be above? And don't say Frazier or Tyson.

[McGrain]

When I see Dempsey in a top 10 it just tunes me out. Probably from years of tearing my hair out at Bert Sugar/Nat Fleishcer type lists.

[ricardoparker93]

Clearly I'm trying to steal some thunder from Stonehands. Just kidding, but I have been inspired a little bored. So I thought I'd share this list I made. It's not a list among the greatest fighters ever. I'm not knowledgeable enough, nor will anyone convince me that I am.

This list is a bit of a different list. It's a list of the Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters ever. It's list that takes a whole lot of subjectivity, although I tried to be honest, objective, and logical about the choices. If you conquer multiple divisions you get bonuses for clearly staking your claim as a Pound 4 Pound type fighter. Certain styles clearly do better in more divisions. Although if you're dominant in just 1 or 2 divisions it won't hurt you too bad. There are a few interesting choices. I admit, many could very well not even make my top 25 of Greatest Fighters ever list... let alone top 50. It's hard to compare heavyweights to featherweights, but I did anyone. Also, it's fighters from 1920 onward. I did this because boxing has changed and my knowledge is clearly much more lacking the further back you go. So share your thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc. I'm sure there could be some omission that I overlooked. Okay ladies and gents... here we go.


Pound 4 Pound Greatest Fighters (1920’s onward)





Criteria:




1. Resume/Level Of Opposition – 50% of the criteria factors this in. Consistency is important as it tells us the truth about a fighter, but the goal is to find the peak. It's more about how dominant a fighter is, rather than how long their reign last. Level of opposition is important because greatness is determined by who you rub up against. How you do against a lot of styles and a lot of great fighters tells what your ability is. Beating Bigger men helps big time. Proving yourself when with a weight disadvantage, and proving yourself through multiple weight classes is a way to reiterate your status on a P4P level.

2. Skills/Ability (Potential H2H) – 50% is based on your skills and abilities and how you potentially match up to other fighters in terms of H2H. This doesn't have to be textbook boxing, folks. What you bring in the ring... from natural factors such as power punching and chin, to your developed skills such as footwork and feinting. How versatile you are to prove your skills and ability in more ways than one in case Plan A goes wrong. All the intangibles, resilience will get factored. This is what you can do in the ring from what we've seen from footage and newspaper reports.



1. Sugar Ray Robinson


2. Henry Armstrong


3. Harry Greb


4. Roberto Duran


5. Ezzard Charles


6. Charley Burley


7. Muhammad Ali


8. Joe Louis


9. Benny Leonard


10. Jack Dempsey


11. Rocky Marciano


12. Mickey Walker


13. Archie Moore


14. Willie Pep


15. Michael Spinks


16. Roy Jones Jr


17. Sugar Ray Leonard


18. Sandy Saddler


19. Gene Tunney


20. Carlos Monzon


21. Manny Pacquiao


22. Alexis Arguello


23. Tommy Hearns


24. Pernell Whitaker


25. Marvin Hagler


26. Barney Ross


27. Julio Cesar Chavez


28. Evander Holyfield


29. Jose Napoles


30. Mike Tyson


31. Bernard Hopkins


32. Kid Gavilan


33. Tony Canzoneri


34. Salvador Sanchez


35. Carmen Basilio


36. Tommy Loughran


37. Billy Conn


38. Ike Williams


39. Floyd Mayweather Jr


40. Emile Griffith


41. Aaron Pyror


42. Joe Frazier


43. Ruben Olivares


44. Tiger Flowers


45. Eder Jofre


46. Larry Holmes


47. Jimmy McLarnin


48. Panama Al Brown


49. Miguel Canto


50. Wilfredo Gomez



The guys in bold are the ones i have a real problem with. Obviously it's your own opinion but I cant comprehend how Dempsey and Burley are that high.

[anarci]

Here we go with Oscar lost most his big fights again. I get tired of arguing that for a guy I don't even particularly like (Oscar, I mean) so I won't. :nut I agree this argument has been done a zillion times that im actually tired of it, Ill just accept the fact that he has become severly underrated by haters:-( Despite really winning 2 of those big fights people still want to hang on that weak argument.

Im not gonna pick apart Fraizer and Tysons ( i am fans of both)record to prove how much better Delahoya was. Based on Petes criteria he should even be higher than would i first originally thought.

And if you wanna talk about HTH matchups well then Ricardo Lopez should be here.

[anarci]

I'm sorry. Teddy Atlas has brainwashed me. Who should Oscar be above? And don't say Frazier or Tyson.
At least 10 other guys.:yep

[PetethePrince]

When I see Dempsey in a top 10 it just tunes me out. Probably from years of tearing my hair out at Bert Sugar/Nat Fleishcer type lists.

Maybe you should stop picking him over Wlad then. :good

[McGrain]

Maybe you should stop picking him over Wlad then. :good


He could actually beat Wlad still belong nowhere near the top ten of such a list.

[PetethePrince]

The guys in bold are the ones i have a real problem with. Obviously it's your own opinion but I cant comprehend how Dempsey and Burley are that high.

Burley at his best was genius. Archie Moore said the best fighter he ever fought was Burley. He fought Marciano, Patterson, Ali, and Charles.

I kind understand why some have trouble with the ones you bolded. It's quite controversial. Spinks was one of the few LHW to become HW champion. Jones went from MW to HW champion. One of the only ones to do it (Along with Charles) and he did it in era where most Heavyweights weigh much more than 215. Both those guys were beasts physically, and proved themselves in multiple weight classes.

Dempsey feasted on bigger fighters. Imagine a peak Dempsey at 210 pounds. He would be a terror. Marciano took all comers.

[PetethePrince]

He could actually beat Wlad still belong nowhere near the top ten of such a list.

Not really. Considering how many here pick him and give him great chances against many Heavyweights due to his ability at his pinnacle. Many of the times he's undersized, and most think he has a great style to chomp bigger men down.

So... why wouldn't Dempsey not be a fitting high candadite? Contemporaries rave about him at his peak. This isn't a list about greatness due to longevity, resume, accomplishments, etc.

[McGrain]

Of the top HW's most-raved about at their peak, i'd suggest Jim Jeffries is the most lauded pre-Louis.

[PetethePrince]

Of the top HW's most-raved about at their peak, i'd suggest Jim Jeffries is the most lauded pre-Louis.

Well the list is 1920's onward. Now I can really tell you didn't read the info in the description. That's okay McGrain.

[McGrain]

Well the list is 1920's onward. Now I can really tell you didn't read the info in the description. That's okay McGrain.


I didn't mean that you should include Jeffries on your list.

[PetethePrince]

I didn't mean that you should include Jeffries on your list.

So you're saying contemporary thoughts don't mean much?

*Edit*

Pep bumped up.

Dempsey over Marciano... that is the question... :think

[Cmoyle]

No Sam Langford? He belongs way up there on this list.

[PetethePrince]

No Sam Langford? He belongs way up there on this list.

1920's onward.

[Abdullah]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson


2. Henry Armstrong


3. Harry Greb


4. Roberto Duran


5. Ezzard Charles


6. Charley Burley


7. Muhammad Ali


8. Joe Louis


9. Benny Leonard


10. Willie Pep


11. Jack Dempsey


12. Rocky Marciano


13. Archie Moore


14. Mickey Walker


15. Michael Spinks


16. Roy Jones Jr


17. Sugar Ray Leonard


18. Sandy Saddler


19. Gene Tunney


20. Carlos Monzon


21. Manny Pacquiao


22. Alexis Arguello


23. Tommy Hearns


24. Pernell Whitaker


25. Marvin Hagler


26. Barney Ross


27. Julio Cesar Chavez


28. Evander Holyfield


29. Jose Napoles


30. Mike Tyson


31. Bernard Hopkins


32. Kid Gavilan


33. Tony Canzoneri


34. Salvador Sanchez


35. Carmen Basilio


36. Tommy Loughran


37. Billy Conn


38. Ike Williams


39. Floyd Mayweather Jr


40. Emile Griffith


41. Aaron Pyror


42. Joe Frazier


43. Ruben Olivares


44. Tiger Flowers


45. Eder Jofre


46. Larry Holmes


47. Jimmy McLarnin


48. Panama Al Brown


49. Miguel Canto


50. Wilfredo Gomez


Not a bad list. I disagree with you in some areas, but that's to be expected. It's nice to see the right guy at #1 and also to see Greg so high. A lot of people sleep on Greb.

[Abdullah]

1920's onward.

Why? Didn't you say greatest fighters EVER?

[McGrain]

So you're saying contemporary thoughts don't mean much?


I think they are crucial for fighters of whom there is very limited film, less so in Dempsey's case. But my overall point was that contemporary opinion on Dempsey seems less forceful than contemporary opinion was on Jeffries and Sullivan too, actually. I do think that his standing was enhanced right after his retirment. His popularity took a huge boost, too.

[Mendoza]

1920's onward.

Sam Langford fought in over 50 matches in the 1920's. His resume in the 1920's includes a KO win over hall of fame heavyweight George Godfrey, a Win over Hall of fame heavyweight Sam MCvey, and a win over Jeff Clarke, who should be in the hall of fame.

[PetethePrince]

Why? Didn't you say greatest fighters EVER?

Because my knowledge is a bit scattered that farther back you go. And boxing changed a bit. It really has more to do with the former than latter, although my criteria here is more about ability/skill rather than proven greatness through a resume and longevity.

[PetethePrince]

I think they are crucial for fighters of whom there is very limited film, less so in Dempsey's case. But my overall point was that contemporary opinion on Dempsey seems less forceful than contemporary opinion was on Jeffries and Sullivan too, actually. I do think that his standing was enhanced right after his retirment. His popularity took a huge boost, too.

Contemporary thought was quite good after the Williard bout I think. I don't see your post, since we're talking about fighters who career spanned 1920's and onward. So you're just circling around about nothing, really.

[PetethePrince]

Sam Langford fought in over 50 matches in the 1920's. His resume in the 1920's includes a KO win over hall of fame heavyweight George Godfrey, a Win over Hall of fame heavyweight Sam MCvey, and a win over Jeff Clarke, who should be in the hall of fame.

He was 37, and well past his prime. If anything, it would be Willis who is more deserving of a mention as being Dempsey's #1 contender and constantly re-enforcing his worth while Dempsey wasn't fighting.

[McGrain]

Contemporary thought was quite good after the Williard bout I think. I don't see your post, since we're talking about fighters who career spanned 1920's and onward. So you're just circling around about nothing, really.


I think you're getting defensive/confused about your list. I'm not talking about your list. I'm talking about boxing in your thread about your list in that post. I'm not circling (circling what?) about nothing (rather something specific).

[PetethePrince]

I think you're getting defensive/confused about your list. I'm not talking about your list. I'm talking about boxing in your thread about your list in that post. I'm not circling (circling what?) about nothing (rather something specific).

I know you don't like Sugar and Fleisher. And Jim Jeffries was raved about during his time. So...?

You can't just make a comment like that and just try to leave it as that.

[McGrain]

And what?