Top 10 Greatest Fighters of All Time

[IronDanHamza]

Was going to say the same thing apart from me and Ruben have them in the same order and if I made a serious list I'd probably have the same 9 and 10 as him, could change them for Gans or Ross though.
Both didn't put a number to the first 3.

I know Archie Moore would 100% be in my Top 10 no matter what. I just can't see how he isn't a Top 10 ATG.

Gans is definitely closing in, Ross up there also.

Mickey Walker and Jimmy Mclarnin also have an argument IMO.

[Barn]

So are you saying that any of the other titleholders in the weightclasses could stop prime Pacquiao when he was in the same weight class as them? No way IMO.

Manny beat Barrerra, Morales, Marquez (at least once), etc. Manny has beat every great fighter he has stepped into the ring with.

BTW it's easy for you to talk about "being a unified champ", there was only 1 belt in each class when Armstrong was around he couldn't become a unified champ when he held a belt.

Pacquiao is still an active fighter so people don't rank him at the minute, give it a rest man.

[StarshipTrooper]

So are you saying that any of the other titleholders in the weightclasses could stop prime Pacquiao when he was in the same weight class as them? No way IMO.

You don't get credit for winning fights you don't take just because fan-bois think you'd win anyway. You only get credit for beating peeps by actually getting in the ring and doing it.

Manny beat Barrerra, Morales, Marquez (at least once), etc. Manny has beat every great fighter he has stepped into the ring with.

Armstrong beat Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Lew Jenkins, and Fritzie Zivic.....So what's your point?

BTW it's easy for you to talk about "being a unified champ", there was only 1 belt in each class when Armstrong was around he couldn't become a unified champ when he held a belt.

See point #1. You don't credit for doing something you didn't actually DO just because some fan-bois think you'd have done it anyway. You get credit for actually DOING it. Don't act like there hasn't been any unified champions since the sanctioning bodies started proliferating because there has been.

And by the way, in Armstrong's day a fighter had to fight a lot of tough fights against top opponents just to get a shot at that one belt. There was no picking off a beltholder here and there and then claiming you're "The Champ".

Poet

[RubenSonny]

I don't know if you noticed but we have the exact same list just different order.

Was going to say the same thing apart from me and Ruben have them in the same order and if I made a serious list I'd probably have the same 9 and 10 as him, could change them for Gans or Ross though.
Both didn't put a number to the first 3.

You know what they say about great minds

I know Archie Moore would 100% be in my Top 10 no matter what. I just can't see how he isn't a Top 10 ATG.

Gans is definitely closing in, Ross up there also.

Mickey Walker and Jimmy Mclarnin also have an argument IMO.

The top 5 I'm relatively comfortable with, 6-10 is up for grabs for anyone, Moore could easily be 6, he will always have to tail Charles though.

[IronDanHamza]

The top 5 I'm relatively comfortable with, 6-10 is up for grabs for anyone, Moore could easily be 6, he will always have to tail Charles though.

Top 5 I'm very comfortable with. They are the Top 5, I could easily have any 5 of them as #1 and that includes Charles.

Top 6-10 is definitely harder, could swap a few guys for some others.

[SBleeder]

I wonder if many people will have Pacquiao in their top 10 lists soon in the near future.

He has won more linear titles than Henry Armstrong. Pacman won titles from flyweight up to light-middle. Just saying if people rate Armstrong that high then Pacman should be there too.

Refresh my memory... was there a Super Featherweight division in Armstrong's day? How about a Junior Welterweight division?

I'm not going to penalize Armstrong for failing to win titles that didn't exist.

Armstrong was more skilled and had an infinitely better resume than Pacquiao will ever have. And head to head? Armstrong would leave Manny looking up at the lights mumbling about international economics.

Pacquiao's an ATG and is the greatest Asian fighter of all time IMO... but he'll never sniff top 10 P4P status.

[AntonTheMeh]

Refresh my memory... was there a Super Featherweight division in Armstrong's day? How about a Junior Welterweight division?

I'm not going to penalize Armstrong for failing to win titles that didn't exist.

Armstrong was more skilled and had an infinitely better resume than Pacquiao will ever have. And head to head? Armstrong would leave Manny looking up at the lights mumbling about international economics.

Pacquiao's an ATG and is the greatest Asian fighter of all time IMO... but he'll never sniff top 10 P4P status.

i wouldn't say he wouldn't sniff top 10 p4p status. he'd need to beat mayweather, and marquez legitimately and sergio for that though.

[SBleeder]

i wouldn't say he wouldn't sniff top 10 p4p status. he'd need to beat mayweather, and marquez legitimately and sergio for that though.

Top 25 if he does all that. Based on his recent performances, it ain't gonna happen anyways.

As I said, Pacquiao's a sensational fighter... but you guys are not fully grasping just how great a fighter must be to be a TOP 10 P4P. We're talking the likes of Robinson... Charles... Armstrong... Gans...

Pacquiao's just not quite good enough to be mentioned in that company. And for that matter, neither is Mayweather, or anyone other active fighters.

Pernell Whitaker is the most recent fighter who could potentially be ranked that highly.

[AntonTheMeh]

don't "you guys" me dude. i don't agree with that guy about anything. and i'd have to see who you'd rank 14 spots higher above apart from the ten you posted IF he beat, floyd, marquez and Martinez legitimately.

[Capaedia]

i wouldn't say he wouldn't sniff top 10 p4p status. he'd need to beat mayweather, and marquez legitimately and sergio for that though.

Throw in Wlad