top 5 pound for pound fighters ever - your opinion
top 5 pound for pound fighters ever - your opinion
my top 5 pound for pound fighters of all-time are (in chronological order) Sam Langford, Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, and Roy Jones. The reason for this is all of these fighters were very successful when they moved up in weight.
name your top 5...
name your top 5...
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9009
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
So heavyweights are automatically disqualified?Goodnight, Irene wrote:I don't think Louis' title reign is oversold as an accolade (if it were, it wouldn't be an all-time record, surely?), however, I don't see any Heavyweight worthy of consideration for a top five all-time pound-for-pound list, Louis included. I mean, it's top five! C'mon!
Ok, here is my top 5 non-heavyweight list
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Ray Leonard
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
-
ringsider
- Heavyweight

-
pound per pound
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1602
- Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:36
top 5 p4p
Robinson
Greb
Fitzsimmons
Armstrong
Langford
Give me guys who were the best in more than one weight class. This to me defines pound for pound.
Greb
Fitzsimmons
Armstrong
Langford
Give me guys who were the best in more than one weight class. This to me defines pound for pound.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I actually agree with this to an extent. That's why I generally consider the older heavyweights and contenders to be better in a p4p sense than the more modern guys [last 50 years or so], because you had many a division jumper and different champions of diffrent divisions moving up to face one another....so in my logic, since mixing it up with lighter men, heavier men, etc it kept the heavyweight scene more lively and with more "credability" in a sense.I don't think Louis' title reign is oversold as an accolade (if it were, it wouldn't be an all-time record, surely?), however, I don't see any Heavyweight worthy of consideration for a top five all-time pound-for-pound list, Louis included. I mean, it's top five! C'mon!
Dont think that made much sense, but I hope some can understand the jist of what I was trying to say.
But I do agree, its like RING's 80 greatest fighters of all time ranks where they had Louis and Ali in the top 5 alone, and on ESPN's Greatest Fighter of All Time they had Ali as number one, when if anything Robinson was, and even Ali said that himself...listing heavyweights anywhere near the top 10 p4p ranks and the like, just makes the whole concept seem less genuine.
That's why I had Langford as #1 because he fought from lightweight to heavyweight, and did very well in all of those weight classes, and for the majority of his career was always considered a contender in all those weight classes...he mixed it up against many, many different stylists and men of different weights and nationalities.
Middleweight and below are going to populate this field for the most part IMHO. I think the most efficient human fighters based on body mechanics and bio physics are going to be in and around the welterweight division.
The human body just operates most efficiently regarding strength/endurance, and speed at that size/weight proportions. There of course will be exceptions. But will those exceptions break into the top 5? Not likely.
And you might argue that with evolution that "prime size" may slowly increase.
The human body just operates most efficiently regarding strength/endurance, and speed at that size/weight proportions. There of course will be exceptions. But will those exceptions break into the top 5? Not likely.
And you might argue that with evolution that "prime size" may slowly increase.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
"So heavyweights are automatically disqualified?" - Alp
At what point did I say that, Alp? I said, I don't see any Heavyweight deserving of a top five pound-for-pound placing. Or top ten. Or top fifteen, for that matter. We're talking very exclusive company, here. It's nothing to do with their weight, it's to do with their ability, & the abilities of the smaller fighters vying for the positions.
At what point did I say that, Alp? I said, I don't see any Heavyweight deserving of a top five pound-for-pound placing. Or top ten. Or top fifteen, for that matter. We're talking very exclusive company, here. It's nothing to do with their weight, it's to do with their ability, & the abilities of the smaller fighters vying for the positions.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
You said that none are worthy of consideration.
That is effect disqualifying them.
Why can't a heavyweight be considered?
Why do we have to assume that a smaller fighter automatically has more ability than a heavyweight?
We can't even consider the abilities of a heavyweight? Why not?
I also think we should be more specific about what we mean by pound for pound.
If we comparing say a featherweight and a middleweight, are we imagining what the featherweight would be if he was a middleweight, and vice versa?
Someone else (ringsider) mentioned that this is about fighters who move up in weight and have success. Does that mean that the small % of fighters that stay at a particular weight (like say Carlos Monzon) shouldn't be considered?
That is effect disqualifying them.
Why can't a heavyweight be considered?
Why do we have to assume that a smaller fighter automatically has more ability than a heavyweight?
We can't even consider the abilities of a heavyweight? Why not?
I also think we should be more specific about what we mean by pound for pound.
If we comparing say a featherweight and a middleweight, are we imagining what the featherweight would be if he was a middleweight, and vice versa?
Someone else (ringsider) mentioned that this is about fighters who move up in weight and have success. Does that mean that the small % of fighters that stay at a particular weight (like say Carlos Monzon) shouldn't be considered?
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
pundit
- Heavyweight

Re: top 5 pound for pound fighters ever - your opinion
SSR, Harry Greb, Roberto Duran, Benny Leonard, Willie Pep.
But then, Langford and Armstrong are also top 5 :(
But then, Langford and Armstrong are also top 5 :(
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5348
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19