BoxingScene's members top 10 P4P all-time

[StarshipTrooper]

1. Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Roberto Duran
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Benny Leonard
7. Willie Pep
8. Pancho Villa
9. Alexis Arguello
10. Ezzard Charles

This was hard: I had to cut a LOT of guys I thought were more than deserving.

Poet

[wpink1]

Im gonna respectfully say that Neither Jones, Sanchez or Mayweather belong in the top 10. In all 3 cases none have the quality of opposition to rank so high. These lists are subjective, but I believe quality op is the first thing that has to be taken into consideration, followed by longevity, then talent. We can speculate all day who they MAY have beat based on their talent, but that still doesn't give them better careers then fighters with the first two attributes in spades, plus being ultra talented as well. Just my opinion. Peace.

Hmmm Jab5239. You have every right to use what ever variables you would like to formulate your opinion of the top 10, as do I. Let me point out a couple of things that you maybe dont figure.

First off Sanchez I agree I was reaching, but based on his short spectaculare career he IMO would have been one of the best ever...EVER. Jones I am sorry does belong, Skill, wins vs Toney and Hopkins then over 17 other world champions. He was soo dominant that he made very good fighters look bad, and he did this at light heavy, when he was a natural Middle. He only flaw is that he came along when he did. Had he came along 10 years earlier, we would not be hearing the names Hagler leonard hearns as dominating the welters to Middle...As Jones would have crushed in easy fashion Hagler, and leonard and Hearns would not have moved up to challenge Jones. Maybe Hearns, but clearly not leonard who by the way is my favorite fighter of all time. Jones is a victim of being simply too good for a entire decade. Leonard himself said during a telecast of a Jones fight, that they were lucky they did not have to face him as his combination speed, power, reach and awkwardness, made him simply virtually impossible to beat at middleweight.

Mayweather, has beaten Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Hatton, Judah, etc.. He has won titles at 130, 135, 140, 147 and 154. No he did not face the quality that Leonard faced and beat...but Leonard faced most his challenges at his normale weight. Leoanrd moved up and beat Hagler, the rest of his great wins where at welter. Now we can consider Lalond, Kalule etc...good wins but not legendary. If we consider those, then we have to count the baldomir fights and others like that, as Mayweather again is competing vs very good opposition at a weight class 17 pound north of his orginal weight. I do agree that he has to fight Margerito, and or Williams, Cotto any combination of the these fighters or at least Margerito...However he had already done enough in my book to be a top fighter.

I would challenge you if you slam my choice of Jones, to justify Duran being placed (which I placed him too). Duran did move up and beat leoanrd at welterweight. Duran did own the lightweight division for an entire decade. However over half of Durans fights were vs subpar fighters who had either losing records, are records that are not worthy of fighting for a championship vs a fighter the level of Duran. Example one fighter had a losing record and Duran fought him, after he was champ. Jones on the other hand did beat James Toney, and Hopkins two all time great fighters,,vs Duran beating Leonard, then some very good fighters in Buchanon, Marcil, the great asian fighter, Dejesus 2 out of 3 times..... Jones was undefeated (except for a dq) until he he reached the tender age of 35. Duran got repeated ass whippings..I repeate, Repeated ass whippings when he moved up in weight class,...wasnt his record vs leoanrd, hagler, hearns, benitez 1-5, and all but one of these fights were before he was age 34.

So Yes I clearly stand behind my choice of Jones, as he up until the age of 35 was being considered the greatest ever by many of the sportswriters, boxers themselves. etc. Did he face the leoanrds, haglers, hearns, NO...but he did beat 2 top fighters all time and beat a lot of very good fighters..rather easily, and showed in the one revenge fight during his career at a decent age, what he had inside, by garnering a brutal 1st round stoppage.

Pacquio is coming on strong...Many times we give way too much credit to older fighters. I think that many would have struggled mightily vs the modern fighters that have speed galore, techniques that would minimize the punches that they take from such fighters like Liston vs Ali....Ali used boxing, angles side to side to frusterate the destructive force that was killing greats like the fast Patterson. Chavez one the greatest throwback fighters ever, simply got humilated when he faced Whitacker, and really Taylor except for a horrible stoppage, then Randle...So yes a Jones at middleweight would cause isssues for anyone at any era. Leoanrd would for almost anyone at Welter if used his head. Mayweather at the lower weights, hmmm Lightweight imo may be the greatest ever. Duran fans will have a hey day, but remember duran lost to Dejesus and struggle the 2nd time for a while. Mayweather at lightweight is a more defensive specialst version of What duran faced in New Orleans.....and you saw he quit...

[theghost#1]

After seeing LeftHookTua's thread about the current top10 P4P I tought it would be interesting aswell to make a same kind of all-time thread.

The fighter on #1 of a person's list will get 10 points, #2 gets 9 points, ... #10 gets 1 point.

I'll update the official list every now and then.
Also feel free to comment each other's lists and the "official" one.

PS: I do realise that there are ALOT of fighters that will be chosen but some will be chosen more frequently; making the "official" p4p list relevant.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO: Give 10 different names, and only 1 name per number.

Current top10: (9 Posts: #2,3,5,7,9,10,11,12,14)

1. Sugar Ray Robinson (85)
2. Willie Pep (51)
3. Henry Armstrong (50)
4. Muhammad Ali (49)
5. Joe Louis (46)
6. Roberto Duràn (40)
7. Sugar Ray Leonard (32)
8. Harry Greb (24)
9. Sam Langford (24)
10. Marvin Hagler (10)

1. SRR
2. Herny Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. SRL
5. Ali
6. Hagler
7. FMJ
8. Durna
9. Louis
10. Billy Conn

[Hearnsz]

My list is an off the top ranking of who I consider the "greatest" fighters of all-time, yes (their standing in the sport or sports in general, how they're compared to their peers, etc.) , and if that's not what you were looking for, Rafael, then by all means, you have my permission to scratch my ranking off your list. I'm not big on doing these anyways.

I'm not going to cut out your list because there's a thin line between greatest and best. Because someone can be the greatest in many different ways: including the best. (also most dominant, most respect, durability, personality, recognition etc...)

Anyways guys; these are the current 11-20 runner ups:
11. Marvin Hagler (15)
12. Bob Fitszimmons (15)
13. Ezzard Charles (14)
14. Pernell Withaker (10)
15. Roy Jones Jr. (10)
16. Archie Moore (7)
17. Mike Tyson (6)
18. Salvador Sanchez (6)
19. Floyd Mayweather Jr. (5)
20. Joe Frazier (5)

[S.G.]

edit.......................................

[UnDeniable]

wpink, i completely agree with you.

Old time fighters are sometimes very overrated while more modern fighters are overlooked
if Roy was born 10 years earlier i honestly believe that he would beat Hagler, Leonard and Hearns. It may take 10-20 years for fighters like Jones and FMJ to see their true place in History but on head to head matchups their is no fighter i would pick over FMJ at 130 and no fighter i would pick over Roy at 160

Also, no surprise to see SRR at the top of the pile his mixture of talent, level of competition and achievements may never be matched

[Hearnsz]

wpink, i completely agree with you.

Old time fighters are sometimes very overrated while more modern fighters are overlooked
if Roy was born 10 years earlier i honestly believe that he would beat Hagler, Leonard and Hearns. It may take 10-20 years for fighters like Jones and FMJ to see their true place in History but on head to head matchups their is no fighter i would pick over FMJ at 130 and no fighter i would pick over Roy at 160

Also, no surprise to see SRR at the top of the pile his mixture of talent, level of competition and achievements may never be matched

Hmm RJJ might have a chance vs Hearns but I don't think he'd beat Leonard or Hagler. I think RJJ's place in the rankings is pretty righteous. (atleast top20 all time p4p)
And I agree that the longer we wait, the higher PBF will be on the list. I personally rate him top10. There are of course alot fighters that have fought and won better competition than PBF who only had 39 fights... But he's technically the best boxer I've ever seen. And I think the only kind of person in history that would beat him are physical incredible specimen such as SRL and SRR. (at WW) Perhaps a prime Duràn would beat him at LW but I'm not sure about that.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

Hmmm Jab5239. You have every right to use what ever variables you would like to formulate your opinion of the top 10, as do I. Let me point out a couple of things that you maybe dont figure.

Before I start, please understand I am not disrespecting you, I just dont agree.

First off Sanchez I agree I was reaching, but based on his short spectaculare career he IMO would have been one of the best ever...EVER.

Sanchez was a spectacular fighter who accomplished quite a bit in a short life. The LaPorte and Nelson fights are nice names on his record, yet both were green at the time they fought Sal. His biggest wins (that I find impressive) are the two fights against Lopez and the win against Castillo. Both were murderers. The rest of his resume falls short in my opinion. I would rank Julio Cesar Chave higher, out of Mexico and p4p. I agree had he lived he would have been one of the best ever. But I can't in good conscience dismiss more accomplished fighers because of what I think MAY have happened if he lived.

Jones I am sorry does belong, Skill, wins vs Toney and Hopkins then over 17 other world champions. He was soo dominant that he made very good fighters look bad, and he did this at light heavy, when he was a natural Middle. He only flaw is that he came along when he did. Had he came along 10 years earlier, we would not be hearing the names Hagler leonard hearns as dominating the welters to Middle...As Jones would have crushed in easy fashion Hagler, and leonard and Hearns would not have moved up to challenge Jones. Maybe Hearns, but clearly not leonard who by the way is my favorite fighter of all time. Jones is a victim of being simply too good for a entire decade. Leonard himself said during a telecast of a Jones fight, that they were lucky they did not have to face him as his combination speed, power, reach and awkwardness, made him simply virtually impossible to beat at middleweight.

Jones has always been a favorite of mine. But if we compare the level of competition to other fighters in the top 10 Jones falls short. as much as I like Roy I don't buy the 17 world chamions he fought. Truth is he fought and beat 17b tileists. Break that down and he really just beat top contenders. I think he had a great run, but it was a weak era. But Roy would be close to my top 10, just not in it. TheB-Hop win is good but not great. Hop was still new to the game with no real amatuer background besides prison. The Toney win at 168 is huge, as he dominated the #2 p4p fighter in the world. I' also give him more credit for the Ruiz win than others may. He had a lot of defenses and unified. But there were no real threats. Reggie Johnson was past it. Virgil Hill I thought was a good win with a spectacular stoppage. Mike McCallum was past his best by a few years, and the rest of his defenses were fighters that were really not that talented fighting in a weak division. As far as what we think MAY have happened had he been around 10 years earlier, can we really judge him on what didn't happen? I don't think so.

Mayweather, has beaten Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Hatton, Judah, etc.. He has won titles at 130, 135, 140, 147 and 154. No he did not face the quality that Leonard faced and beat...but Leonard faced most his challenges at his normale weight. Leoanrd moved up and beat Hagler, the rest of his great wins where at welter. Now we can consider Lalond, Kalule etc...good wins but not legendary. If we consider those, then we have to count the baldomir fights and others like that, as Mayweather again is competing vs very good opposition at a weight class 17 pound north of his orginal weight. I do agree that he has to fight Margerito, and or Williams, Cotto any combination of the these fighters or at least Margerito...However he had already done enough in my book to be a top fighter.

Like I said before, I mean no disrespect, but Floyd is severly overrated when it comes to all-time status in my opinion. He cleaned out 130. That was impressive. After that he was sort of rogue. He beat a couple of lightweights and than fought and beat Jose Luis Castillo in a fight many thought Castillo won. He redeemed himself in the rematch. Next he went to 140 and beat some decent guys, but nothing to write home about. He tried making a Cotto fight at this weight, but Cotto was still green. He passed up a Hatton fight at this weight if Im not mistaken. Next he went to 147. His competition here is atrocious. Judah was a decent fighter, but was just beaten and known not to be mentally tough. Sharmba Mitchell was old and shot. Baldomir was the lineal champ, but that was do more to the fact of Judah being unprepared than anything Baldomir did. Baldo wqas a tough guy, but his skills were and are highly questionable. He fought Hatton after Hatton had already struggled at 147 against a fighter in the lower half of the top 10. This might have been an impressive win if he didn't have so many tough fighters at 147 that he could have fought though, from Williams, Cintron, Margarito, Cotto, clottey, Mosely etc, all of which I would pick to beat Ricky. The DLH fight was about money. Its a bnice name on his record, but Oscar was more promoter than fighter at that point. Once again, if it was just about skills, Floyd would be in. But there is a steep drop off in the talent he fought and his longevity after 135.

I would challenge you if you slam my choice of Jones, to justify Duran being placed (which I placed him too). Duran did move up and beat leoanrd at welterweight. Duran did own the lightweight division for an entire decade. However over half of Durans fights were vs subpar fighters who had either losing records, are records that are not worthy of fighting for a championship vs a fighter the level of Duran. Example one fighter had a losing record and Duran fought him, after he was champ. Jones on the other hand did beat James Toney, and Hopkins two all time great fighters,,vs Duran beating Leonard, then some very good fighters in Buchanon, Marcil, the great asian fighter, Dejesus 2 out of 3 times..... Jones was undefeated (except for a dq) until he he reached the tender age of 35. Duran got repeated ass whippings..I repeate, Repeated ass whippings when he moved up in weight class,...wasnt his record vs leoanrd, hagler, hearns, benitez 1-5, and all but one of these fights were before he was age 34.

I wouldn't slam Jones, but I do except the challenge. Like Roy at 175, Duran dominated the lightweight division and cleaned it out for almost a decade. But Duran moved up and beat one of the greatest p4p legends of all time in Ray Leonard. His losses for the most part come at the hands of legends, many who are top 25 all time fighters themselves. He fought Marvin Hagler down to the wire and Hagler makes most peoples top middleweight list. He punished a green Davey Moore who was the favorite to beat him in brutal fashion. He took a portion of the middlweight title 21 years after turning pro. That is the very definition of longevity. He has beaten other top fighters as Pipino Quevas and Carlos Palomino. He has fought such other fighters as Hearns (yeah, I know) and Wilfred Benitez. Overall he sports better names than Jones on his resume, fought a higher level of competition for a longer period of time and id considered by most as the greatest lightweight of all time.

So Yes I clearly stand behind my choice of Jones, as he up until the age of 35 was being considered the greatest ever by many of the sportswriters, boxers themselves. etc. Did he face the leoanrds, haglers, hearns, NO...but he did beat 2 top fighters all time and beat a lot of very good fighters..rather easily, and showed in the one revenge fight during his career at a decent age, what he had inside, by garnering a brutal 1st round stoppage.

I respect the fact you stand behind Jones, even if I disagree. Personaly I don't think there has ever been a more gifted fighter, and that includes Ray Robinson. But that alone doesn't get you in with the p4p greatest fighters of all time. YHou have to prove yourself over and over as others have. I realize he didn;t have the era to do so, but I can't penelize other fighters who did, just to get Jones in based on his talent. He was a phenomenal fighter, but he ranks just a bit outside for me.

Pacquio is coming on strong...

I like Manny a lot. But he might sqeeze into the top 50 right now, but we would have to wait till the end of his career or near to it to figure out his all time status.

[JAB5239]

Many times we give way too much credit to older fighters. I think that many would have struggled mightily vs the modern fighters that have speed galore, techniques that would minimize the punches that they take from such fighters like Liston vs Ali....Ali used boxing, angles side to side to frusterate the destructive force that was killing greats like the fast Patterson.

I don't think enough credit is given to fighters from the past. Think about how much more difficult it would be having to fight more often because of less money. There were more professional fighters, half the weight classes and only one title to win in each division. Throw in same day weigh in, where totally dehydrating to get to the lowest weight would be out the window because you would never have enough time to regain your strength.
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think fighters from the past had any less speed than today? Something we know they certainly had more of was stamina.

Chavez one the greatest throwback fighters ever, simply got humilated when he faced Whitacker, and really Taylor except for a horrible stoppage, then Randle...

We can't judge fighter from the past based on the performance of someone called a throw back fighter. Chavez may have been losing on points to Taylor, but he beat him up and changed the direction of his career foever. Whitaker? I think he ranks right up there with Roy and others just outside the top 10, so there is no shame in Chavez losing that fight (yes, he did lose). And Randle? Chavez was in his 14th year as a pro with around 90 fights. Not much shame in giving up a run after all those innings, in my opinion.

So yes a Jones at middleweight would cause isssues for anyone at any era. Leoanrd would for almost anyone at Welter if used his head. Mayweather at the lower weights, hmmm Lightweight imo may be the greatest ever. Duran fans will have a hey day, but remember duran lost to Dejesus and struggle the 2nd time for a while. Mayweather at lightweight is a more defensive specialst version of What duran faced in New Orleans.....and you saw he quit...[/QUOTE]

I agree these guys have the ability to cause problems to many fighters. But they still didn't or have to prove it first, before we put them ahaed of more accomplished fighters. We can't just assume they're better when they haven't faced the same level of competition. Peace!

[Hearnsz]

I don't think enough credit is given to fighters from the past. Think about how much more difficult it would be having to fight more often because of less money.

That's deffinately true. Figthers from the past deserve alot more credit than the new ones. But I think wpink meant that people overrate fighters of the pas, which in many cases is also true imo.

Oldtimers had to fight several times per month in order to "survive", and after their retirement they mostly still were broke. Look at SRR for example.
And by fighting more than once every month they suffered alot of brain damage. Just look at Basilio and how slow he talks. (also the thinner gloves caused more permanent damage)
Most of the fighters also just couldnt control their spendings but some just weren't paid enough.

And now there are guys like PBF who have made enough money to live in a huge villa and drive fancy cars for the rest of their lives. They can actually live a very wealthy life for EACH fight they have. So every fight after a world championship bout is just a bonus.

But all this doesn't mean PBF isn't a worse fighter than some old timer just because the oldtimer had it alot more difficult.

I think boxing champions shouldn't have to work again after they retire at the age of 40 or something. But I think they should atleast fight 5-10 times a year, rather than 1 time.