The Top 20 All-Time Greatest P4P List

[Willie Pep 229]

You evaluate a fighter's greatness by comparing him to his peers.

You can try to compare fighters from different eras; if one does, it is the supposed (or at least should be) that if the fighter moves forward or back in time he will physically change relative to period moved into; and gain or lose technique based on the state of the game at that time.

As it is suggested above regarding Corbett circa 1866 or 1966.

You don't expect Caesar to lead and win a WWII tank battle - but somehow put him in the Class of 1915 at West Point (The class the stars fell on) and all that potential will measure up. A great general, is a great general.

With that said, comparing HW across time just seems less legitimate than say comparing MWs. I believe MW only changed by five pounds (from 155 to 160) since its conception, but of course you still have to throw in advancements/innovations in training, nutrition, and technique.

But when one makes a list of ATG, and one says this fighter is number one, that assessment is made by comparing him against his peers.

[JAB5239]

- -Is that why Gans was swinging for the fences trying to ko McG? And had no legs left after the first knockdown?

The first knockdown, the punch didn't appear to land, from what I could see. In my opinion it's very difficult to determine whether he threw it or not. The last knockdown he just appeared to not even be trying, which is probably Illinois banned boxing after this. The quality of film though makes it very hard to determine if he tanked or not.

[JAB5239]

How should I know? I haven't seen the fight and wasn't giving my own opinion. Are you saying Gans didn't throw the fight?

https://youtu.be/k1-5ckz94HY

[Rusty Tromboni]

Why wouldn't someone give Tyson credit if he made weight or was only a couple of pounds heavier and beat those greats as a teenager?

The same McGovern that Gans "allegedly" threw the fight against causing the state of Illinois to outlaw boxing for more than a quarter century? Im remiss though. Let's say the fight was on the up and up. Good for McGovern!

It certainly doesn't seem he would be the bigger man. But than again, and I'm not claiming this as any sort of fact... Walcott may have been more filled out. He was an immense man for his height.

Of course it's possible. But according to newspaper accounts Walcott sustained the heavier damage. Either way, Langford proved his worthiness against another ATG.

If you think the McGovern fight was a work, you don't know Boxing. We have the fight footage. Only an idiot with no fighting experience would watch that and perpetuate the myth that it was a work. McGovern the Featherweight was better than Langford the Welterweight plain and simple.

At this point, similar to the Dempsey discussion, you're clearly scrambling to save face. I've clearly illustrated that Langford cherry-picked opponents.

- Gans had just beaten Holly (who'd soon, himself, beat Langford) the DAY BEFORE. He was the better man before fading... still he heard the final bell. Not something he could say against McGovern when fully prepared and fresh.

- Walcott was the smaller man - that's indisputable. And while not as busy, inflicted the greater damage. The fight was a draw. Kid Lavigne faired a whole lot better than that.

- The Ketchel fight was 6 Rounds. Only an idiot would try to make a definitive conclusion based on how two fighters stack up based on 6 rounds. In your typical slimey fashion you try to peddle the lie that Langford decisively won... or at least any competitiveness is to be explained by Sam Sand-bagging it. Without footage there's no reason to say that. Ketchel made a fine account of himself, even having been overcome by alcohol and drugs - he'd step away from Bixing to sober up. Ironically, this effort to save his career cost him his life.

- O'Brien and McFadden were finished and should've been long-sunce retired.

- Wills and Norfolk were green.

There's no dis*****g these facts. It is also indisputable that those going to sell the legacy of Langford wil repeat these "feats" to inflate Langford's career. Because a generation-spanning career with 300+ fights, Lanford has surprisingly few big name wins, and a lot of losses to less than stellar opponents.

If you rank Langford top 10 you're inconsistent if you don't also rank Calzaghe, Camacho and Satterfield.

Again, Langford was a very good fighter, and one of the very best of his day. But his legacy has been grossly blown out of proportion. More importantly, there have been many fighters better than him who deserve recognition and to have their story told.

[Rusty Tromboni]

lol. I was just watching a program the other day that mentioned everyone knew Gans took a dive in this fight.

Too bad for them we have footage of the fight. A touched-up version here on this site.

Clearly not a dive. McGovern was a beast. It's also not the only time Gans got KO'd. In fact, a lot of his success was owed to McFadden falling off.

But anyone who's fought can see McGovern creamed all over Gans. Gotta remember Gans wasn't bred for combat. Not unlike Robinson or Louis, or Beyonce, once you hurt him he quit.

[Rusty Tromboni]

You evaluate a fighter's greatness by comparing him to his peers.

You can try to compare fighters from different eras; if one does, it is the supposed (or at least should be) that if the fighter moves forward or back in time he will physically change relative to period moved into; and gain or lose technique based on the state of the game at that time.

As it is suggested above regarding Corbett circa 1866 or 1966.

You don't expect Caesar to lead and win a WWII tank battle - but somehow put him in the Class of 1915 at West Point (The class the stars fell on) and all that potential will measure up. A great general, is a great general.

With that said, comparing HW across time just seems less legitimate than say comparing MWs. I believe MW only changed by five pounds (from 155 to 160) since its conception, but of course you still have to throw in advancements/innovations in training, nutrition, and technique.

But when one makes a list of ATG, and one says this fighter is number one, that assessment is made by comparing him against his peers.

I think the general bit is a nice comparison.

Alexander was 33 when he died... possibly at the hands of his own friends.

He led an army of often only 20-30K. At big battles he had twice that. They were an iron age army. But he was always at the front.

That doesn't sound impressive. But his combined-arms was never really replicated in the ancient world. Heraclius conquered Ctespihon, but never did the Roman empire conquer the entirety of Iranian lands and enter India. They'd even lose Syria and Egypt at times. Or get routed by Iranian armies. This was an Army of at least 500K troops. They had steel and leather armor and weapons.

Nomadic tribes, which Alexander easily routed,claimed both.

The Mongols were only 130k, but had more steel and horses and much easier terrain and less competent enemies. But they couldn't manage the siege warfare to handle primitive European castles. often generals never too part in the battle. Many times the khan never even visited the theatres where his armies were fighting.

Even in the modern era, we have generals who've never seen combat. But they have guns, bombs, and WMDs at their disposal.

Warfare has gotten easier. A regular infantry unit would easily destroy Alexander's entire army. But would anyone dare call them better?

If anything... it appears as warfare gets better the command gets weaker.

[Rusty Tromboni]

The first knockdown, the punch didn't appear to land, from what I could see. In my opinion it's very difficult to determine whether he threw it or not. The last knockdown he just appeared to not even be trying, which is probably Illinois banned boxing after this. The quality of film though makes it very hard to determine if he tanked or not.

LOL, you've clearly never fought.

So was Schmeling-Louis a work?
Fury-Wilder?
Ruiz-Joshua?
Tarver-Jones?
McCall-Lewis?
Ingo-Patterson?

Those are smaller gloves. No mouth pieces.

Fights play out like that in every UFC event. Hisining behind 12oz pillows distorts reality.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Gans claimed the McGovern fight was a work ...

Langford claimed he carried Ketchel

Johnson claimed he threw the fight to willard

Jackson claimed he hurt his ankle against Corbett

Louis claimed he had to cut 5 pounds, then ate too many bananas before fighting Conn

Robinson got hot flashes against Maxim

Charles Walcott and Moore were too old and small to be fighting Marciano - even though they out-weighed him and were at their career peaks.

Ray Leonard claimed he lost to Duran because he tried to brawl instead of Box (even thogh he gave up brawling early and lost the final rounds to Duran because Duran outboxed him)

Lennox Lewis quit Boxing rather than rematching Vitali because ya know that was the plan all along.... except that every in every interview heading up to the event he indicated otherwise.

Michael Brown was a promising young scholar.

Wilder lost to Fury because his suit weighed 45 pounds and Fury's glove was tampered with.



Nice to see some things never change.

[Willie Pep 229]

If you think the McGovern fight was a work, you don't know Boxing. We have the fight footage. Only an idiot with no fighting experience would watch that and perpetuate the myth that it was a work. McGovern the Featherweight was better than Langford the Welterweight plain and simple.

At this point, similar to the Dempsey discussion, you're clearly scrambling to save face. I've clearly illustrated that Langford cherry-picked opponents.

- Gans had just beaten Holly (who'd soon, himself, beat Langford) the DAY BEFORE. He was the better man before fading... still he heard the final bell. Not something he could say against McGovern when fully prepared and fresh.

- Walcott was the smaller man - that's indisputable. And while not as busy, inflicted the greater damage. The fight was a draw. Kid Lavigne faired a whole lot better than that.

- The Ketchel fight was 6 Rounds. Only an idiot would try to make a definitive conclusion based on how two fighters stack up based on 6 rounds. In your typical slimey fashion you try to peddle the lie that Langford decisively won... or at least any competitiveness is to be explained by Sam Sand-bagging it. Without footage there's no reason to say that. Ketchel made a fine account of himself, even having been overcome by alcohol and drugs - he'd step away from Bixing to sober up. Ironically, this effort to save his career cost him his life.

- O'Brien and McFadden were finished and should've been long-sunce retired.

- Wills and Norfolk were green.

There's no dis*****g these facts. It is also indisputable that those going to sell the legacy of Langford wil repeat these "feats" to inflate Langford's career. Because a generation-spanning career with 300+ fights, Lanford has surprisingly few big name wins, and a lot of losses to less than stellar opponents.

If you rank Langford top 10 you're inconsistent if you don't also rank Calzaghe, Camacho and Satterfield.

Again, Langford was a very good fighter, and one of the very best of his day. But his legacy has been grossly blown out of proportion. More importantly, there have been many fighters better than him who deserve recognition and to have their story told.

I ran across an article that left me feeling that it was Ketchel's manager Mizner (sp) who eventually, after Ketchel was gone, spread the rumor/info that Ketchel-Langford was based on an understanding.

I got the imprssion it was another manager self-agrandzing his own importance, i.e. touting how important he was to Ketchel. Managers seem to do that quite often.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I suggest you watch what chisora did to spilka then.....8 rounds earlier lol
Look you need to know about boxing to comment on this forum.
Breazele was knocked out by Joshua , molina was knocked out by Joshua in 2 rounds.
Stop it for **** suck Ortiz only noticeable win was jennings....as said tromboni if fury remains unbeaten against Joshua , usyk and a few of the young guns and retires as champ then he can evaluated as an all time great......wilder has been protected and would not last 4 rounds with Joshua.
He was one trick pony and now has been exposed

Chisora didn't Szpilka AFTER Wilder and Special K. He was clearly on the slide.

Joshua needed 8 rounds to stop Breazy. Wilder damn near killed him.

Ortiz is big and skilled. Better than anyone prime Tyson fought. Better than anyone Ali fight pre-exile. Possibly better than Frazier. Definitely better than Norton (the xhina-chinned chump who bested Ali; breaking his jaw, no less).

Go watch what Mercer and McCall did to Lewis. Then tell me straight-faced that you give Ortiz no chance of doing the same. 6'4", 78" reach 240 lbs. And that boy had skills. Willie Pep? No. Not at all. But he's a skilled Boxer-Puncher with a sense of fundamentals.

Really dude. You should watch more Boxing. You do yourself no favors. All those people you're parroting - they're not here to help you.