BoxingScene's members top 10 P4P all-time

[JAB5239]

i would base a all time p4p list on pure talent. not who they fought in what era...just pure talent!!!

and i belive alot of modern fighters are being over looked because people dont want to take a chance because the best might still be to come...

on pure talent i think modern fighters like RJJ, bernard hopkins,calzaghe,mayweather,de la hoya,castillo,pacman,berrera should be in some lists.

i just think people need to see that on talent alone we are in a better time!!!

I have a couple of problems with, my friend. First, while ranking fighters all time is subjective, I believe its imperitive to take the era and competition into consideration. I KNOW Roy Jones was more talented than Micheal Spinks. But Spinks beat a better level of fighter over and over at 175. He PROVED he could conquer different styles from excellent fighters. Jones as talented as he was, was never subjected to the same level of talent as Spinks, therefore we have no clue how he would have responded in the same situation. Me personaly, I won't dismiss the greater accomplishments of one fighter to guess how another fighter MAY have done and rank him higher.

Next, and I may be wrong, but I don't think you have seen to much footage of many of the old time greats. While fighters like Jones, Barerra, Whitaker, Hopkins etc are fantastic, their counterparts from byegone era's were just as good and fought in tougher times, for less pay, with more professional boxers and half the overall weight classes with about a quarter of the championship belts. Fighters like Robinson, Pep, Canzoneri, Greb and Tunney also didn't have the advantages of film to study their opponents over and over. They were also 15 round fighters. And While I have no question that the before mention modern fighters could fight in any era, I also have no doubt that the greats of yesteryear would be equally good today with the advantages of fighting less often (reducing the chance of fighting injured greatly) with advancements in nutrition, and the addition of more weight classes and four times as many championship belts, as well as being able to study their opponents like a book.

You see, there is just so much more to look at when anylizing fighters. What I think a lot of fans don't understand when they see other fans rank the old timers higher is, we're not putting the fighters of today down, we atre just recognizing they are less accomplished. I don't blame that on the fighters, its the A, B, C organizations, its the money involved and a host of other things. But this doesn't mean we should dismiss the greats of the past either. Peace.

[StarshipTrooper]

I have a couple of problems with, my friend. First, while ranking fighters all time is subjective, I believe its imperitive to take the era and competition into consideration. I KNOW Roy Jones was more talented than Micheal Spinks. But Spinks beat a better level of fighter over and over at 175. He PROVED he could conquer different styles from excellent fighters. Jones as talented as he was, was never subjected to the same level of talent as Spinks, therefore we have no clue how he would have responded in the same situation. Me personaly, I won't dismiss the greater accomplishments of one fighter to guess how another fighter MAY have done and rank him higher.

Next, and I may be wrong, but I don't think you have seen to much footage of many of the old time greats. While fighters like Jones, Barerra, Whitaker, Hopkins etc are fantastic, their counterparts from byegone era's were just as good and fought in tougher times, for less pay, with more professional boxers and half the overall weight classes with about a quarter of the championship belts. Fighters like Robinson, Pep, Canzoneri, Greb and Tunney also didn't have the advantages of film to study their opponents over and over. They were also 15 round fighters. And While I have no question that the before mention modern fighters could fight in any era, I also have no doubt that the greats of yesteryear would be equally good today with the advantages of fighting less often (reducing the chance of fighting injured greatly) with advancements in nutrition, and the addition of more weight classes and four times as many championship belts, as well as being able to study their opponents like a book.

You see, there is just so much more to look at when anylizing fighters. What I think a lot of fans don't understand when they see other fans rank the old timers higher is, we're not putting the fighters of today down, we atre just recognizing they are less accomplished. I don't blame that on the fighters, its the A, B, C organizations, its the money involved and a host of other things. But this doesn't mean we should dismiss the greats of the past either. Peace.

As a side note I would add that pure talent doesn't mean you'll win. Buster Douglas had all the talent in the world but ultimately it went unused except for one night in Tokyo. I think that ultimately the proper gauge should be who would win. I do believe the name of the game is winning so when compiling these lists I like to take all the fighters under consideration and consider what the final standings would be if they all fought each other.

Poet

[Hearnsz]

After watching more footage I made my personal list:

1. SRR: He had it all: speed, power, combinations, accuracy. Except his defence and oposition is questionable. Nevertheless his left hook combos are simply beautiful.
2. SRL: He fought in a time with Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez and beat them all. He mastered many different styles and even almost had a draw fighting Duran's fight. Too bad his 2 latest comebacks failed.
3. Joe Louis: His great power, accuracy and combinations allowed him to be very dominant by Kayo'ing the best and biggest men of his time. Many people say he lacked footwork but to me he seemed to be in perfect range almost all the time.
4. Ali: He also fought great oposition and beat them all. Perhaps he would be higher on my list if he was allowed to fight during his true prime. Someone needs to explain to me how he lost to Leon Spinks, though.
5. Gene Tunney: Not only did he beat Dempsey and Greb. He beat them 5 times combined. He also beat other names like Carpentier. The 10kgs he gained to go from lightheavy to heavy didn't seem to bother him at all. He was very succesful at both divisions.
6. Roberto Duràn: I've seen more footage of him now and I was impressed. He may very well have the sweetest right hand in the business as they say. Just ask Ken Buchanan and Ray Leonard. He's also a technical idol to many of today's fighters like Ricky Hatton.
7. Henry Armstrong: The master of the weight classes. He had incredible stamina aswell; he's the most active fighter I've ever seen. He's exactly what today's boxing needs. His last name is no lie, he just kept on punching.
8. Sam Langford: Or is this guy the master of the weightclasses? Perhaps I'd rank him higher if I'd seen clearer footage of him. I wish I could, too! People who say Evander Holyfield was the bravest must have not heard about Sam Langford.
9. Floyd Mayweather Jr.: Say what you want but this guy's defence is simplu amazing. And we can see that his father is Floyd Mayweather Sr not only by his name, but also by his incredible speed. Not the most exciting fighter but a true boxing fan should get hooked on his skills. Too bad he had the personality of a ten-year-old.
10. Pernell Whitaker: He has the kind of style you expect only to work against rookies. But JCC and JCV aren't rookies in my book. He's the kind of fighter that might also do great in the old days; because he didn't need to use his gloves or arms to prevent from getting hit!

My personal list will probably change soon. But there is no point in waiting to post it; because it will change again and again and again...

[Hagler★]

1. Ali
2. SRR
3. Duran
4. Armstrong
5. Louis
6. Pep
7. SRL
8. Sweet Pea
9. Hagler
10. RJJ ( If it was based on purely talent he would be first but level of competition must be taken into acount )

closest to mine i can think of

[them_apples]

I wish people would stop putting Robinson at no.1 just because Ali said he was.

Lots of fighters have done more than he and don't get any honorable mentions just because they aren't old enough.

Roy Jones needs to be up there, he went all the way from middleweight to heavyweight, dominates at both MW and LHW, takes a belt from a HW. Arguably the most skilled middleweight of all time.

SRL moved up in weight also, took on the best middleweight who was much bigger than he.


Joe Louis shouldn't even be close to this list, he's a heavyweight that lots of other good heavyweights could beat.

Last but not least, I think the most deserving character to date that needs to be up there is Roberto Duran, he jumped weight several times and still dominated, took on people twice his size and won sometimes. He also has a solid resume.

give it a few more years and Pacquiao is a serious contender whether you like it or not, Mayweather possibly..although I'm not convinced by his resume as much as Pacquiaos, I just have a feeling he'd beat a lot of the p4p fighters on most people's list from 130-147.

[wpink1]

I have a couple of problems with, my friend. First, while ranking fighters all time is subjective, I believe its imperitive to take the era and competition into consideration. I KNOW Roy Jones was more talented than Micheal Spinks. But Spinks beat a better level of fighter over and over at 175. He PROVED he could conquer different styles from excellent fighters. Jones as talented as he was, was never subjected to the same level of talent as Spinks, therefore we have no clue how he would have responded in the same situation. Me personaly, I won't dismiss the greater accomplishments of one fighter to guess how another fighter MAY have done and rank him higher.

Next, and I may be wrong, but I don't think you have seen to much footage of many of the old time greats. While fighters like Jones, Barerra, Whitaker, Hopkins etc are fantastic, their counterparts from byegone era's were just as good and fought in tougher times, for less pay, with more professional boxers and half the overall weight classes with about a quarter of the championship belts. Fighters like Robinson, Pep, Canzoneri, Greb and Tunney also didn't have the advantages of film to study their opponents over and over. They were also 15 round fighters. And While I have no question that the before mention modern fighters could fight in any era, I also have no doubt that the greats of yesteryear would be equally good today with the advantages of fighting less often (reducing the chance of fighting injured greatly) with advancements in nutrition, and the addition of more weight classes and four times as many championship belts, as well as being able to study their opponents like a book.

You see, there is just so much more to look at when anylizing fighters. What I think a lot of fans don't understand when they see other fans rank the old timers higher is, we're not putting the fighters of today down, we atre just recognizing they are less accomplished. I don't blame that on the fighters, its the A, B, C organizations, its the money involved and a host of other things. But this doesn't mean we should dismiss the greats of the past either. Peace.

What a great post.......... That aside I do think that SRR, then Ali, later Leonard, Whitackr, Jones, Mayweather did have styles that would pose major major challenges for the fighters of yesteryears. Just look at when those styles clashed in the very few chances we where able to see them

Clay - liston -----Beat him like he was his daddy.
Leonard -Duran----- when ray was smart enought to box and not go toe to toe.
Whitacker - chavez --- Everyone knows Whitacker won that fight even Chavez
Jones --- his speed and power at Middlweight in any era would almost certainly have him the odds on favorite to beat any fighter he faced..hmm monzoon had a great chance at beating him based on styles, and McClellan too. But your average shorter hard hitting straight ahead Middleweight great would not have a chance vs the instincts of a prime Roy Jones. He was faster at Middleweigh thant Leonard was at welterweight and hit hard, and was unorthodox Leonard even said himself that he, hearns, and hagler where lucky they did not have to face him. Duran told Vinny that anyone fighting Roy at that time especially moving up is simply asking for suicide...

Mayweather ----is such a good technician, that lightweight he would beat almost every figher ever, maybe duran could have done some damage, but look at how frusterated Duran was vs Leoanrd in their 2nd fight, and Leonard was not the defensive fighter Mayweather was or the technical precision counter puncher. He could counter but that is all Mayweather does. I think at welter Mayweather would be in for some beatings thought.

My top ten

Robinson'
Ali
Armstrong
Greb
SRL
Duran
Jones
Pep
Louis
Whitacker

[Hearnsz]

I wish people would stop putting Robinson at no.1 just because Ali said he was.

Lots of fighters have done more than he and don't get any honorable mentions just because they aren't old enough.

Roy Jones needs to be up there, he went all the way from middleweight to heavyweight, dominates at both MW and LHW, takes a belt from a HW. Arguably the most skilled middleweight of all time.

SRL moved up in weight also, took on the best middleweight who was much bigger than he.


Joe Louis shouldn't even be close to this list, he's a heavyweight that lots of other good heavyweights could beat.

Last but not least, I think the most deserving character to date that needs to be up there is Roberto Duran, he jumped weight several times and still dominated, took on people twice his size and won sometimes. He also has a solid resume.

give it a few more years and Pacquiao is a serious contender whether you like it or not, Mayweather possibly..although I'm not convinced by his resume as much as Pacquiaos, I just have a feeling he'd beat a lot of the p4p fighters on most people's list from 130-147.

How can you say Duràn deffinetaly deserves a high spot and SRR doesn't? They both had similair dominant carreers. Moving up in weight and losing alot at the end by fighting at old age.
SRR fought better opponents imo than Duràn during their dominant reign.
I'm not bashing Duràn btw, he's on my personal top10 aswell!

For a long time SRL was my #1 but not long ago I realized had to give it to Robinson. I've never seen any fighter like him. He throws with great speed and power, even his combo's are so accurate that they almost always land, his footwork and timing was great.
I've seen a KO by him where he throws like 5 punches and lands them ALL. His final 2 punches was a beautiful double left hook WHILE TURNING his opponent. That's ****ing incredible.
There are lots of other great fighters like SRL who also throw alot of combos but none were as accurate as SRR. Appart from Louis' but he threw them slower.

I deffinately put Joe Louis on the list too because not only did he beat many all time greats during his carreer, he knocked them out. Sure maybe his opposition may have seemed poor but that's only because Louis' made it look poor.

The fighter that's on most people's top5 I don't agree with is Willie Pep. He barely fought good opposition until Sandy Sadler, whom he got beat by 3/4.
All my respect to Willie Pep though, I love to see him fight, but I expected more of him after all the fuss I had heard.

[wpink1]

first off Duran did not dominate any weight classes north of lightweight. He beat Leonard in their 1st fight, by a narrow margin. 1 round scored for Leonard on 2 of the 3 judges you have a draw. Then you have duran overall record vs the best at welter, jr middle & middle standing @ 1-4. If you want 2 count Moore barkly & Leonard the 3rd fight it is 3-5.

That is not dominance.

[wpink1]

Them apples, SRR is considered the best because he beat the best at 135, then beat the best at 147, then beat the best at 160, & realistically was beating the 175 pound champ until the heat stopped both he & the ref.

He also beat alltime greats @ one time his record was 121-1-1. , having beat the guy that beat him 5 out of 6 times. That record combined with the fact that he beat fighters such as gavilan, Armstrong, basillio, lamatta, anicott, etc. Was never stopped til that light heavy weight fight.

Who else can say that! Leonard can't, he did not campaign at any weight class above welter, even though he won titles. There. I love ray, but his detached retina shortened his career. When comparing the two who beat legends you have 2 go with Robinson when you look at his dominance over 3 weight classes two & record.

Roy jones true on talent is up there, but quality of opposition is what hurts him. Duran, is great, clearly the most dominant lightweight ever, but repeatedly got his hair combed when he ventured north vs the great of his era.

Mayweather may be undefeated but his quality of opposition @ light welter & above is weak.

[StarshipTrooper]

How can you say Duràn deffinetaly deserves a high spot and SRR doesn't? They both had similair dominant carreers. Moving up in weight and losing alot at the end by fighting at old age.
SRR fought better opponents imo than Duràn during their dominant reign.
I'm not bashing Duràn btw, he's on my personal top10 aswell!

For a long time SRL was my #1 but not long ago I realized had to give it to Robinson. I've never seen any fighter like him. He throws with great speed and power, even his combo's are so accurate that they almost always land, his footwork and timing was great.
I've seen a KO by him where he throws like 5 punches and lands them ALL. His final 2 punches was a beautiful double left hook WHILE TURNING his opponent. That's ****ing incredible.
There are lots of other great fighters like SRL who also throw alot of combos but none were as accurate as SRR. Appart from Louis' but he threw them slower.

I deffinately put Joe Louis on the list too because not only did he beat many all time greats during his carreer, he knocked them out. Sure maybe his opposition may have seemed poor but that's only because Louis' made it look poor.

The fighter that's on most people's top5 I don't agree with is Willie Pep. He barely fought good opposition until Sandy Sadler, whom he got beat by 3/4.
All my respect to Willie Pep though, I love to see him fight, but I expected more of him after all the fuss I had heard.

Hey Rafael! You have to keep things in perspective with them_apples: He hates any fighter pre-1980 and considers them bums. He thinks a tomato can from today would be champion in yesteryear. It's funny, he says anybody who argues that an old-time fighter was better than a "modern" fighter has "old-timer bias" when in fact he himself has an obvious "modern" bias. Can we say hipocracy? Why yes, yes we can! He so full of his own bias that he doesn't even realize it IS a bias: Rather, he thinks it's the Gospel truth and anyone who doesn't share the bias is an idiot.

Poet