box rec P4P list

[TBear]

Boxrec has never been known for their ratings. Thank goodness!

[Capaedia]

The names in bold print are my unedited version of fighters that don't belong under any criteria.

And don't get my started on the glaring omissions... Duh!

Ezzard Charles?

Most people have him at number 5, at the worst.

How could you possibly disregard him completely? To say nothing of Langford (Langford is also usually top 5 at worst, #1 at best)

[Scott9945]

Boxrec is great for what it is, but the only thing worse than their ratings is their schedule.

[SBleeder]

Ezzard Charles?

Most people have him at number 5, at the worst.

How could you possibly disregard him completely? To say nothing of Langford (Langford is also usually top 5 at worst, #1 at best)

Charles, Moore, and Langford are all easily top 20. I have Charles in my top 5, Langford in my top 10, and Moore in my top 15.

Moore and Monzon are borderline top 10 for me.

[Panamaniac]

The names in bold print are my unedited version of fighters that don't belong under any criteria...

Ezzard Charles?

Most people have him at number 5, at the worst.

How could you possibly disregard him completely? To say nothing of Langford (Langford is also usually top 5 at worst, #1 at best)

People always ask, how could you this or that? My broad answer is, simply by being me (or someone other than you). That said, I didn't mean to trample on any sacred cows, which is why I said "unedited version" (see above). That meant that names were not etched in stone and could be subject to change.

I agree that Ezzard Charles would crack the top ten as a heavyweight, but as a P4P ATG, I rank him below 20. Upon further review, I would rank Sam Langford somewhere between 11 and 16.

How could I? Well, you should know the answer by now...

[Scott9945]

People always ask, how could you this or that? My broad answer is, simply by being me (or someone other than you). That said, I didn't mean to trample on any sacred cows, which is why I said "unedited version" (see above). That meant that names were not etched in stone and could be subject to change.

I agree that Ezzard Charles would crack the top ten as a heavyweight, but as a P4P ATG, I rank him below 20. Upon further review, I would rank Sam Langford somewhere between 11 and 16.

How could I? Well, you should know the answer by now...

IMO, I can't see Charles as a top 10 heavyweight, but not a top 20 in the P4P list. His best years were clearly at 175 and below. No sacred cows with me, but I am curious about your reasoning.

[Panamaniac]

Boxrec is best for records and such. As an alleged authority in ranking ATG's P4P, a more suitable name would be BoxWRECK!

[SBleeder]

People always ask, how could you this or that? My broad answer is, simply by being me (or someone other than you). That said, I didn't mean to trample on any sacred cows, which is why I said "unedited version" (see above). That meant that names were not etched in stone and could be subject to change.

I agree that Ezzard Charles would crack the top ten as a heavyweight, but as a P4P ATG, I rank him below 20. Upon further review, I would rank Sam Langford somewhere between 11 and 16.

How could I? Well, you should know the answer by now...

Charles is nowhere near a top 10 heavyweight... but he is the greatest light heavyweight of all time, which at the very least makes him a top 20 P4P.

[Panamaniac]

IMO, I can't see Charles as a top 10 heavyweight, but not a top 20 in the P4P list. His best years were clearly at 175 and below. No sacred cows with me, but I am curious about your reasoning.

I said Charles "would," when I meant he could crack the top ten as heavyweight. I'm not that passionate about Charles one way or the other, but if anyone opined that he should be within the top ten heavies, I wouldn't have a problem with that. You say his best years were a 175 or below (I'll take your word for it as I don't care enough to fact check), but his claim to fame is as heavyweight champion, the only title he ever won.

[SBleeder]

I said Charles "would," when I meant he could crack the top ten as heavyweight. I'm not that passionate about Charles one way or the other, but if anyone opined that he should be within the top ten heavies, I wouldn't have a problem with that. You say his best years were a 175 or below (I'll take your word for it as I don't care enough to fact check), but his claim to fame is as heavyweight champion, the only title he ever won.

Wow... that's the spirit.

His "claim to fame" is that he was, without a doubt, the greatest light heavyweight (possibly the most competitive weight class in history) who has ever lived. The heavyweight crown was just icing on the cake.

I can't imagine being that lethargic about boxing history.