Ali, Leonard, Whitaker, Jones, and Mayweather: Who you got???

Yes, they are both defensive slick boxers, whitaker being slightly more talented. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: I know all about your pro Italian stance, Forza. But this is just ridiculous.

What a minute. Are we seriously comparing Malignaggi to Whitaker?!?!? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Yes, they are both defensive slick boxers, whitaker being slightly more talented.

Lol little floyd almost surviving there. THe public knows, they know and glad to see they do.

What a minute. Are we seriously comparing Malignaggi to Whitaker?!?!? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Malignaggi is decent and a journymen, nothing more. Every time he had a chance to step up big time, he got beat (Cotto, Hatton, Khan). I want to see Malignaggi fight Guerrero for a tune up at 147 for the Ghost. Whitaker being short is not the reason his defense was possibly the GOAT. A journeyman would never win a world title. Malignaggi is a B+ fighter that failed against A+ competition. He is still one of the most skilled technicians in boxing today. Hardly a "journeyman" And height isn;t the sole reason whitaker was good but it had a lot to do with it.

Malignaggi is decent and a journymen, nothing more. Every time he had a chance to step up big time, he got beat (Cotto, Hatton, Khan). I want to see Malignaggi fight Guerrero for a tune up at 147 for the Ghost. Whitaker being short is not the reason his defense was possibly the GOAT.

In reality he's really like 5'4 or 5'5. Malignaggi is 5'8 1/2 basically 5'10 with shoes on

sweat P was great but being a midget helped him with defense you gotta admit that :rofl::rofl::rofl: So him being 5'6 is the reason he is widely regarded as one of the top 10 defensive maestros of all time? News to me.

sweat P was great but being a midget helped him with defense you gotta admit that

I can see people having Pea at number 5. But his punching power is underrated sometimes on here. He wasn't a big puncher, but people seem to think he was like fucking Malignaggi or something. Pernell Whitaker is far and away one of the most underrated fighters of all-time. I put zero stock into his losses to Trinidad and Oscar. And he didn't lose to Ramirez, that was bulls**t just like the Chavez draw.

What's that supposed to mean I don't know. You tell me.

I can see people having Pea at number 5. But his punching power is underrated sometimes on here. He wasn't a big puncher, but people seem to think he was like fucking Malignaggi or something. What's that supposed to mean

I can see people having Pea at number 5. But his punching power is underrated sometimes on here. He wasn't a big puncher, but people seem to think he was like fucking Malignaggi or something.

I picked mayweather for the following reasons 1. Ali, great HW but overrated. Not p4p material. Picked on cruiserweights. 2. SRL, struggled with floyd's father and JR is 100x better than sr. PBF by UD 3. Whitaker. Too small, too weak. Roger was never really good. Floyd by UD 4. RJJ, great fighter great person great entertainer great athlete, look into his resume and he's overrated as well. Floyd by UD @ 154 (yes roy fought that low) So I guess Liston, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Lyle, were all CW??? Ali, in his prime, was the GOAT in my eyes. And if it Ali had never been forced to take a 3 1/2 year layoff from boxing, he never would have lost to Joe Frazier. Ali lost some of his speed, stamina, and ability to throw as lengthy of combinations are that layoff. Before the layoff, Ali had stamina to dance the whole night, was as quick with his feet and hands as he ever was, and could throw crazy combinations to get you out of there. After the layoff, as a result of losing a bit of speed and stamina, he fought off the ropes a lot more and was forced to take more punishment. George Chuvalo, who fought him in his prime in the mid 60's, as well as post layoff in 72', even said he wasn't nearly the same fighter. Ali was still good up until after the 3rd Frazier fight, but he wasn't prime at all.

That doesn't work though. It's only their resumes which truly tell you how they would have faired against other greats. Some guys look amazing against certain styles, certain levels of fighters, but when they get in against other true greats, they crumble. You cannot ever say only based on skill, because you can't prove anything that way. We can't just say "Mayeather is the most skilful" because he has shown great skill against guys who are only ok. If you show that same level of skill against greats of all styles ie. Ali, Leonard then you can talk about, but it's only resume which truly tells the story of skill. The fact is it's not skill that gets you past certain fights. No one is going to outskill Tommy Hearns at 147. Whitaker isn't going to out skill him, and neither is Mayweather. That's what resume does though. It tells you that type of stuff that otherwise might not be thought about. Leonard couldn't use his skill, he had to use his heart, will, determination, killer instinct and simple fighting ability to beat him. That's what resume is. It's everything when assessing fighters. If it's only based on skill, then why not bring all the great amateurs into it? Why not bring other guys that showed tremendous skill against lesser opposition and never made it much further? Resume is the only true measure of skill. Hey, I voted for Ali, who probably has the best resume of all, with Leonard being right there.

Strange but the Ring magazine has about six guys ranked all time over all these guys except Ali. Funny how these people haven't heard about Sugar Ray Robinson. Oh woe is the state of the supposed boxing fans in here. The poll wasn't for the GOAT, but the greatest out these. Ray Robinson was great no doubt, but I decided to make a poll of my favorite fighters, and who people thought was the best out of them, based on attributes and skills.

Oh, and I forgot to add....If this is your idea of someone struggling with an opponent, I'd hate to see what your idea of dominating someone consists of....

I picked mayweather for the following reasons 1. Ali, great HW but overrated. Not p4p material. Picked on cruiserweights. 2. SRL, struggled with floyd's father and JR is 100x better than sr. PBF by UD 3. Whitaker. Too small, too weak. Roger was never really good. Floyd by UD 4. RJJ, great fighter great person great entertainer great athlete, look into his resume and he's overrated as well. Floyd by UD @ 154 (yes roy fought that low) That's a bizarre one, but I'll bite. First, in what way is utterly dominating every single round enroute to a knock out against your first world ranked opponent in your first step up with only about 10 pro fights 'struggling' against someone? Maybe you forgot to watch the fight before talking about it.....That would be like saying that Calzaghe struggled with Lacy....except that Mayweather got knocked out and Lacy didn't. Second, Mayweather, despite not having jrs offensive skill, certainly had his defensive capabilities and what I would argue was as good as, or a better chin and as much heart. After all, he only lost to Leonard and future champion and 147 pound great Marlon Starling and highly touted, undefeated amateur Roger Turner. Third, maybe you missed it, maybe you chose to ignore it, or maybe you're just a little too thick to recognise it, but Floyd Jr and Floyd Sr have very different body types. Leonard is 5'10-11" with a 76" reach or thereabouts. Floyd Sr is taller than Leonard. Clearly. I think he would be getting close to 6'1". He also seems to have a much longer reach. He only ever fought as a welterweight and Jr middleweight. He was much bigger than Floyd Jr. Much, much bigger. That alone changes the fight entirely. But hey, let's pretend that fighting someone as tall as Hearns is the same as fighting someone as tall as Hatton shall we?

In their primes, only talking about skill and attributes. Put each guy at their absolute peak and throw them in with all the greats of each guys weight class or classes, which of these 5 do you think was the best???? Not resume, purely based on skills and attributes, and how they would have done in all era's with their weight class or classes. That doesn't work though. It's only their resumes which truly tell you how they would have faired against other greats. Some guys look amazing against certain styles, certain levels of fighters, but when they get in against other true greats, they crumble. You cannot ever say only based on skill, because you can't prove anything that way. We can't just say "Mayeather is the most skilful" because he has shown great skill against guys who are only ok. If you show that same level of skill against greats of all styles ie. Ali, Leonard then you can talk about, but it's only resume which truly tells the story of skill. The fact is it's not skill that gets you past certain fights. No one is going to outskill Tommy Hearns at 147. Whitaker isn't going to out skill him, and neither is Mayweather. That's what resume does though. It tells you that type of stuff that otherwise might not be thought about. Leonard couldn't use his skill, he had to use his heart, will, determination, killer instinct and simple fighting ability to beat him. That's what resume is. It's everything when assessing fighters. If it's only based on skill, then why not bring all the great amateurs into it? Why not bring other guys that showed tremendous skill against lesser opposition and never made it much further? Resume is the only true measure of skill.

My favorite boxers, exept Ali. in my opinion 1. Roy Jones Jr 2. Pernell Whittaker 3. Leonard 4. Floyd Mayweather 5. Ali