Emanuel Steward: I think Tommy and Ray are superior fighters than the fighters today"

[ModernTalking]

Pac will go down as a better ATG than Ray or Tommy. The only reason why peoples are ****ting on him right now is because he's active, you just wait 20 years from now when he's all done a everything settle in.

[Vadrigar.]

No, the P4P rankings might be more like this:

1. "Sugar" Ray Leonard: Better than anyone else on this list by a long-shot; even better than Hearns.
2. Thomas Hearns: He would destroy Floyd and Manny, and probably win a U.D. against Cotto.
3. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.: He would outskill and be able to stay away from Cotto and out-box Manny, but he would be destroyed by Hearns and Leonard.
4. Miguel Cotto: My surprise inclusion. The fact of the matter is, Miguel Cotto vs. Antonio Margarito may not have happened because Margarito might have gunned for the higher-ranked fighters like Hearns and Leonard. And, if plaster-packed Margarito hadn't brutalized him, Cotto would be ranked here in my opinion.
5. Manny Pacquiao: The obvious inclusion, but his rank comes not from his fighting ability but his ability to maintain effectiveness while scaling the weight classes.

I disagree. Pacquiao will always be ranked higher on any list, due to his previous victories. Really surprised you put Cotto higher than Pacquiao.

[Heru]

Like you said, they would have been elite, I honestly feel both Floyd and Manny would be able to beat some of those guys, but they wouldn't go through them undefeated.

I think they might even be able to beat not only some, but most of the fighters I listed. But they would not be doing what they're doing or what they've done.

A great smaller man can beat good bigger man, but what about a great bigger man? His chances decrease by a lot. There are more than 3 fighters in the list of names I mentioned that would have matched their level of elite and had the right style to prevent them from doing what they've done.

[Safety]

Of course.

[Heru]

Pac will go down as a better ATG than Ray or Tommy. The only reason why peoples are ****ting on him right now is because he's active, you just wait 20 years from now when he's all done a everything settle in.

Nobody's ****ting on him or his accomplishments (at least I'm not), but there will be people that disagree with your rating and have good points to back their claim.

Sugar Ray Leonard went 4-1-1 (2 KO) against top 50 ATGs and 2 of them were at their best weight, 1 of them at least clearly in their prime.

Pacquiao has yet to face a fighter that you or "boxing experts" would place in the top 50.

[Vadrigar.]

Of course.

I concur......

[fabie]

In my honest opinion, we can only compare the techniques/styles that are tangible and within our cognitive intelligence. But this is largely a subjective and mythical issue.

That is why boxing is so great because it can be settled within the ring. Unfortunately we cannot due to the different eras/epoch. The sad part is that Floyd and Manny are from the same era and still couldn't fight each other.

And so yes, one can be "considered" the best in the ring but in my humble opinion, the real winner is probably an unknown fighter or fighter not even mentioned from these 4 great fighters.

It's like pitting the 1967 Green Bay Packers led by legendary coach Vince Lombardi vs. the 1989 San Francisco 49ers led by the most innovative football guru in Bill Walsh.

Take your pick.

And so we cannot even compare the "comparables" or the "tangibles"...why? Because of different mentality and make up physically.

Same thing with boxers. It is like James "Buster" Douglas whipping "Iron" Mike Tyson, who would have "thunked" that Bustes Douglas, a relatively unknown pugilist would do that to a "monsters" in Mike Tyson?

Such is life. We can be as objective or scientific as we want to but life have it's own mystery that would creep up on us and shock us all.

So bottomlin is, sure we can talk "who is the best"...but it is still purely mythical and at best, wild speculations, albeit educational.

[Tyson.]

Pacquiao loses to both unless he can get Ray to trade with him, then he might stand a chance.

Mayweather loses a close decison to Hearns. I see Mayweather having problems with Hearns jab. Mayweather has some problems with Leonard early on, makes some adjustments and coasts to a wide UD.

Mayweather is the most skilled fighter of all time. Mayweathers prime is at 130, in a P4P sense hes ahead of Leonard and Hearns.

[Vadrigar.]

In my honest opinion, we can only compare the techniques/styles that are tangible and within our cognitive intelligence. But this is largely a subjective and mythical issue.

That is why boxing is so great because it can be settled within the ring. Unfortunately we cannot due to the different eras/epoch. The sad part is that Floyd and Manny are from the same era and still couldn't fight each other.

And so yes, one can be "considered" the best in the ring but in my humble opinion, the real winner is probably an unknown fighter or fighter not even mentioned from these 4 great fighters.

It's like pitting the 1967 Green Bay Packers led by legendary coach Vince Lombardi vs. the 1989 San Francisco 49ers led by the most innovative football guru in Bill Walsh.

Take your pick.

And so we cannot even compare the "comparables" or the "tangibles"...why? Because of different mentality and make up physically.

Same thing with boxers. It is like James "Buster" Douglas whipping "Iron" Mike Tyson, who would have "thunked" that Bustes Douglas, a relatively unknown pugilist would do that to a "monsters" in Mike Tyson?

Such is life. We can be as objective or scientific as we want to but life have it's own mystery that would creep up on us and shock us all.

So bottomlin is, sure we can talk "who is the best"...but it is still purely mythical and at best, wild speculations, albeit educational.

Well we go for probability and the more plausible explanation, which is not a definite as you pointed out. Excellent post though.

[Vadrigar.]

In my honest opinion, we can only compare the techniques/styles that are tangible and within our cognitive intelligence. But this is largely a subjective and mythical issue.

That is why boxing is so great because it can be settled within the ring. Unfortunately we cannot due to the different eras/epoch. The sad part is that Floyd and Manny are from the same era and still couldn't fight each other.

And so yes, one can be "considered" the best in the ring but in my humble opinion, the real winner is probably an unknown fighter or fighter not even mentioned from these 4 great fighters.

It's like pitting the 1967 Green Bay Packers led by legendary coach Vince Lombardi vs. the 1989 San Francisco 49ers led by the most innovative football guru in Bill Walsh.

Take your pick.

And so we cannot even compare the "comparables" or the "tangibles"...why? Because of different mentality and make up physically.

Same thing with boxers. It is like James "Buster" Douglas whipping "Iron" Mike Tyson, who would have "thunked" that Bustes Douglas, a relatively unknown pugilist would do that to a "monsters" in Mike Tyson?

Such is life. We can be as objective or scientific as we want to but life have it's own mystery that would creep up on us and shock us all.

So bottomlin is, sure we can talk "who is the best"...but it is still purely mythical and at best, wild speculations, albeit educational.

Exactly, we go for the probability and the more plausible explanation, which is not a definite as you pointed out. Excellent post though.

lol I don't think you belong in NSB, you shouldn't reduce yourself to this batch of superficiality. I think boxing history is a more suited place for you.