Who you regard as the 2nd greatest P4P?

[Sugarj]

Why?

The only possible way I could see it is if you were ranking your fighters based purely on Height To Height match-ups and skill. Other-wise he is only just in the Top 50.

Primarily based on skill for me. Height to height isn't a factor at all though, weight to weight is in my own analysis. After skills, resume plays a part as well as longevity and dominance over key opponents. I am also impressed by attributes such as footwork, combination punching, defense.

I will compliment your own top 20 P4P, some great and very worthy guys in there. Its just that I would happily state that to me the likes of Hagler and Monzon belong very much amongst the Grebs, Ketchells and Robinsons too even when their resumes are not quite as impressive.

[Barn]

Primarily based on skill for me. Height to height isn't a factor at all though, weight to weight is in my own analysis. After skills, resume plays a part as well as longevity and dominance over key opponents. I am also impressed by attributes such as footwork, combination punching, defense.

I will compliment your own top 20 P4P, some great and very worthy guys in there. Its just that I would happily state that to me the likes of Hagler and Monzon belong very much amongst the Grebs, Ketchells and Robinsons too even when their resumes are not quite as impressive.

Hagler is at #28 and Monzon at #26 I believe or the other way around but, thanks.

[StarshipTrooper]

Bob Fitzsimmons or Sam Langford for me

Poet

[Sugarj]

Hagler is at #28 and Monzon at #26 I believe or the other way around but, thanks.

Ha ha, not far off then. Good stuff.

[Barn]

I was going to put my Top 50 in the signature but, it had too many characters in it apparantly (no pun intended).

Here is the link if you want it.
--------------------------> http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=427894

[bklynboy]

I went with Harry Greb but could easily have Hank Armstrong above him. It really was a toss-up. I'm fascinated that a middleweight could beat Tunney who, if he had not retired early, would have been remembered as one of the all-time greats. He would have beat all comers from Dempsey until Joe Louis came along.

[I am tyler]

picked henry armstrong but archie moore deserves a mention

[TheGreatA]

Henry Armstrong out of whom I've seen quality footage of. Harry Greb and Sam Langford are up there, but I have difficulties placing them at the top without being able to view footage of them. But their records speak for themselves, and their opposition has been filmed.

[d0n]

Is John L. Sullivan clouded with romance or was he really that good? Maybe he's never mentioned in these lists because he didn't have a long career using gloves? Can anyone with a better boxing background clear this up for me.

[Ivansmamma]

I probably have a skills bias if I'm honest......its probably why I'd favour Pep and Ali over the others too. Its probably how I primarily evaluate 'pound for pound'. Rightly or wrongly I look at the classification as who would likely prevail if size and weight were not a factor, but I wouldn't criticise anyone to have differing views on this.

I do of course rate resume, but I dont think Jones has a bad resume at all, granted its not as good as the others listed, but his division hopping was impressive (Champion at middleweight, super middleweight, Light heavyweight, heavyweight and again at light heavyweight over the best part of a decade), as was his domination of the opposition......and his winning record isn't without the odd future hall of famer too.

Exactly how i see it, i understand pound for pound as who beats who if everyone was equal size. I you rank on resume Roy will probably not be in the top twenty but if you look at it like who beats who Roy should be in the absolute top.