The Top-10 All Time Greatest P4P List

[QueensburyRules]

Athletes are who they are when they were active.
Can't bring them to the future and trade them out for superior fighters.
At their height, they are who they were.
At some point in the future, those we think are ATG's now may be laughing stocks.

Those in the future will at least have every fight to watch and judge without needing someone to tyell them how great they were.
No room for ambiguities when seeing is believing.

- - Toe Tag thinking he know how to score fights...priceless!!!

[DeeMoney]

That's why each "athlete" should be evaluated for his/her own era. Not only boxers.

The top 5 men on my list are generally considered untouchable in boxing history. Canelo had a chance. The H2H problem (Bivol, Beterbiev) you mentioned got in the way. It is true that it is much more difficult to be great today. But, you don't need to insult these guys. All of them fought everyone and lost their health at an early age to improve boxing. (CTE, eye loss, death etc..)

I disagree with this to an extent, and I think lots of fans like to discuss the premise with parameters being 'athlete straight from his time'.

You take prime Michael Jordan from 30 years ago and put him in this era, he is still the best overall guard (if not player) in the league. No need to adjust or give him better training. Pull Roberto Duran straight from his lightweight prime, 45 years ago, and put him right now; he is the best lightweight in the world. You could make similar arguments for hitters in baseball; Ted Williams from 81 years ago- still hits over .300. Wouldn't hit .400 due to the use of relievers and smaller parks, but you could absolutely discuss what he would do as was versus modern competition. This is a specific skill set that a sport is based on, and the diminished amount of athleticism required allows for a cross generational comparison.

Now that isnt to write that your point doesnt have validity, an NFL team from before the mid 1980s (though more likely 1990s) would have a hard time remaining competitive with teams today simply due to the size and athleticism of modern NFL linemen. Ditto for many individual olympic sports, though we can't discount the improvement of conditions that allow for better measurements; pull Jesse Owens directly from the 1930s and put him on a modern synthetic track and his numbers look a lot better. This isn't changing the athlete or his training, just the environment.

Additionally, there are some instances where a given individual is just naturally so gifted they transcend era. Wilt Chamberlain is possibly the greatest natural athlete in the past century. Though mid 60s NBA athletes as a whole would not be as good as those of modern teams (though not as far off as some may think) Wilt from then is still a dominating force in today's NBA.

I think there are several factors that really allow modern athletes to be dominant; foremost amongst these is increased size while maintaining athleticism. This is best seen with the aforementioned NFL linemen; you have modern NFL linemen who are 70 lbs heavier than those 50 years ago, yet somehow as fast or faster. The cool thing about boxing, is that it relies on standardized weight classes: 147 lbs is the same today as it was in the past. So this doesn't really factor in for the sport.
Next would be top line speed, best seen through sprint times. Once again though, boxing takes place in a significantly confined space where such athletic improvements are essentially confined.

You do have overall improvements in technique and strategies, but those are often a result of changes in the environment and rules. Larry Bird's first game with a 3-point line came in his rookie year in the NBA. To players of his generation that shot was just an arbitrary distance; whereas Steph Curry grew up with a 3-point shot his entire life. Tom Brady puts up amazing passing numbers, which is easier to do now with the re-emphasis of the Blount Rule that came at the start of his career, as well as various player protection rules. This too relates to boxing. For certain you could argue that Langford looks crude (though he looks like a murderous tank to me) but he was also training for 20 round fights in some cases, where it was as much wrestling as anything else.

In essence, you can make direct cross generational comparisons in many cases. And in doing so, it allows us to better learn about and respect those generations that have gone by.

[Silence]

I disagree with this to an extent, and I think lots of fans like to discuss the premise with parameters being 'athlete straight from his time'.

You take prime Michael Jordan from 30 years ago and put him in this era, he is still the best overall guard (if not player) in the league. No need to adjust or give him better training. Pull Roberto Duran straight from his lightweight prime, 45 years ago, and put him right now; he is the best lightweight in the world. You could make similar arguments for hitters in baseball; Ted Williams from 81 years ago- still hits over .300. Wouldn't hit .400 due to the use of relievers and smaller parks, but you could absolutely discuss what he would do as was versus modern competition. This is a specific skill set that a sport is based on, and the diminished amount of athleticism required allows for a cross generational comparison.

Now that isnt to write that your point doesnt have validity, an NFL team from before the mid 1980s (though more likely 1990s) would have a hard time remaining competitive with teams today simply due to the size and athleticism of modern NFL linemen. Ditto for many individual olympic sports, though we can't discount the improvement of conditions that allow for better measurements; pull Jesse Owens directly from the 1930s and put him on a modern synthetic track and his numbers look a lot better. This isn't changing the athlete or his training, just the environment.

Additionally, there are some instances where a given individual is just naturally so gifted they transcend era. Wilt Chamberlain is possibly the greatest natural athlete in the past century. Though mid 60s NBA athletes as a whole would not be as good as those of modern teams (though not as far off as some may think) Wilt from then is still a dominating force in today's NBA.

I think there are several factors that really allow modern athletes to be dominant; foremost amongst these is increased size while maintaining athleticism. This is best seen with the aforementioned NFL linemen; you have modern NFL linemen who are 70 lbs heavier than those 50 years ago, yet somehow as fast or faster. The cool thing about boxing, is that it relies on standardized weight classes: 147 lbs is the same today as it was in the past. So this doesn't really factor in for the sport.
Next would be top line speed, best seen through sprint times. Once again though, boxing takes place in a significantly confined space where such athletic improvements are essentially confined.

You do have overall improvements in technique and strategies, but those are often a result of changes in the environment and rules. Larry Bird's first game with a 3-point line came in his rookie year in the NBA. To players of his generation that shot was just an arbitrary distance; whereas Steph Curry grew up with a 3-point shot his entire life. Tom Brady puts up amazing passing numbers, which is easier to do now with the re-emphasis of the Blount Rule that came at the start of his career, as well as various player protection rules. This too relates to boxing. For certain you could argue that Langford looks crude (though he looks like a murderous tank to me) but he was also training for 20 round fights in some cases, where it was as much wrestling as anything else.

In essence, you can make direct cross generational comparisons in many cases. And in doing so, it allows us to better learn about and respect those generations that have gone by.

I wish you had quoted BodyBagz while writing this essay. Because you posters are the terrifying antithesis of each other. I'm in the perfectly middle.

[DeeMoney]

I wish you had quoted BodyBagz while writing this essay. Because you posters are the terrifying antithesis of each other. I'm in the perfectly middle.

HAHA Oops, quoted the wrong person. Oh well

[BodyBagz]

I wish you had quoted BodyBagz while writing this essay. Because you posters are the terrifying antithesis of each other. I'm in the perfectly middle.

The eye criteria is flawed to some extent....but not in this case.
Looking at some so called ATG's, I find it hard to believe they were great in the 1st place.
I can't blame historians because they didn't know better. That caveman style was tops of the charts to them.
Present day fans should know better.

And we call present day fighter bums if they dare take on a tune up.
How many tune ups did those Old Time MFers do ?
No way in hell did they fight 10 credible opponents a year.
Yet, boxing ''purists'' would try and push that narrative.
''1000 W's and 900 KO's !!!!''

Good thing these lists are pure table talk.

[DeeMoney]

The eye criteria is flawed to some extent....but not in this case.
Looking at some so called ATG's, I find it hard to believe they were great in the 1st place.
I can't blame historians because they didn't know better. That caveman style was tops of the charts to them.
Present day fans should know better.

And we call present day fighter bums if they dare take on a tune up.
How many tune ups did those Old Time MFers do ?
No way in hell did they fight 10 credible opponents a year.
Yet, boxing ''purists'' would try and push that narrative.
''1000 W's and 900 KO's !!!!''

Good thing these lists are pure table talk.

I agree with that, I would never try to claim otherwise. But I kind've like the idea of a fighting a few bums a year on top of the quality opponents, as opposed to not fighting. Give fans something extra to watch

[BodyBagz]

I agree with that, I would never try to claim otherwise. But I kind've like the idea of a fighting a few bums a year on top of the quality opponents, as opposed to not fighting. Give fans something extra to watch

Us present day fans would most likely decimate a guys resume if they had too many tune ups.
Tune ups are for when a guy is building his name.
After a certain level, tune ups should be frowned upon (Unless a guy has been fighting tough comp for a while).
Just my 2 bits.

[DeeMoney]

Us present day fans would most likely decimate a guys resume if they had too many tune ups.
Tune ups are for when a guy is building his name.
After a certain level, tune ups should be frowned upon (Unless a guy has been fighting tough comp for a while).
Just my 2 bits.

Maybe I am looking at it differently, I look at JCC in the late 80s and early 90s and kind of like that. 5 or so fights a year, requisite two against top tier guys, but then a few against lower level guys. Not really padding the resume, just giving fans more fights. Nobody is trying to claim those fights are proof of his greatness, but I think its good for the sport.

I know thats different than what you were citing, you were looking at early 20th century fighters, but I think JCC provides a good modern example

[BodyBagz]

Maybe I am looking at it differently, I look at JCC in the late 80s and early 90s and kind of like that. 5 or so fights a year, requisite two against top tier guys, but then a few against lower level guys. Not really padding the resume, just giving fans more fights. Nobody is trying to claim those fights are proof of his greatness, but I think its good for the sport.

I know thats different than what you were citing, you were looking at early 20th century fighters, but I think JCC provides a good modern example

People loved Gatti and he wasn't famous because he was beating top level guys asses

But I understand how fans want more per year.

A top level guy has to ask himself what does beating this guy get him (besides a pay check)
If the answer is a flimsy one, chances are the opponent is too ?

I'd say a top level guy should look at the rankings and see who's available in the bottom half at least.
To dig up some unknown guy, nah.

[QueensburyRules]

The eye criteria is flawed to some extent....but not in this case.
Looking at some so called ATG's, I find it hard to believe they were great in the 1st place.
I can't blame historians because they didn't know better. That caveman style was tops of the charts to them.
Present day fans should know better.

And we call present day fighter bums if they dare take on a tune up.
How many tune ups did those Old Time MFers do ?
No way in hell did they fight 10 credible opponents a year.
Yet, boxing ''purists'' would try and push that narrative.
''1000 W's and 900 KO's !!!!''

Good thing these lists are pure table talk.

- - Good thing U got U toe tag on for the morticians to cut into to see what made U stop ticking.