top 5 pound for pound fighters ever - your opinion

[Ambling Alp]

Alp, read it once more. I said they aren't worthy of consideration because none of the individual Heavyweights are good enough (IMO) to be considered amongst the top five fighters of all-time. I never, ever said I precluded the division.

I'm sorry. I though when said that none were worth being considered, that you meant that none were eligible. I guess you are now saying that none are remotely close. (I guess that way you don't have to consider you know who.)

More importantly, you still skipped over my comments about what exactly we mean by pound per pound?

Do we simply mean who had the best career? (That is how I do it.)

Does it matter if a fighter fought in more than one weight class? (I don't think that it's necessary but some people apparently do.)

If you take the term "pound for pound" literally you would think that we trying to imagine how Pep would do as a lightheavyweight and how Charles would do as a featherweight when comparing them. Is that what we are doing?

What about heavyweights? Are they all considered the same? For example are we supposed to take into consideration that Patterson only weighed 185 and that Lennox Lewis weighed 240-250?

I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything. It just seems that people use the term but we aren't talking about the same thing.

[bjermaine]

The only heavyweight title holder of the true undisputed championship, that i could ever rank among the greatest fighters p4p of all time would have to be Bob Fitzsimmons...other than that I cant make a very convincing argument for anyone else at heavyweight.

the only problem is fitzsimmons didnt fight black guys when he was champ. he finally fought jack johnson when he was old a got taken out in 2. how do you not fight an entire race of people and expect to be considered an all-time great? with that said, he did win the middle, light heavy and heavy titles, an amazing accomplishment even back then.

[pound per pound]

The only heavyweight title holder of the true undisputed championship, that i could ever rank among the greatest fighters p4p of all time would have to be Bob Fitzsimmons...other than that I cant make a very convincing argument for anyone else at heavyweight.

the only problem is fitzsimmons didnt fight black guys when he was champ. he finally fought jack johnson when he was old a got taken out in 2. how do you not fight an entire race of people and expect to be considered an all-time great? with that said, he did win the middle, light heavy and heavy titles, an amazing accomplishment even back then.

Fitz beat a top black light heavy in Harris Martin, and was one of the best over 35 fighters in the history of the ring. We will never see another true tripple crown lineal guy who won middle, light heavy, and heavy titles. In addition, Fitz could give up 60 pounds and knock his man out. Who else could do that?

[bjermaine]

The only heavyweight title holder of the true undisputed championship, that i could ever rank among the greatest fighters p4p of all time would have to be Bob Fitzsimmons...other than that I cant make a very convincing argument for anyone else at heavyweight.

the only problem is fitzsimmons didnt fight black guys when he was champ. he finally fought jack johnson when he was old a got taken out in 2. how do you not fight an entire race of people and expect to be considered an all-time great? with that said, he did win the middle, light heavy and heavy titles, an amazing accomplishment even back then.

Fitz beat a top black light heavy in Harris Martin, and was one of the best over 35 fighters in the history of the ring. We will never see another true tripple crown lineal guy who won middle, light heavy, and heavy titles. In addition, Fitz could give up 60 pounds and knock his man out. Who else could do that?

ok, he beat one black guy. sam langford gave up more weight than that in his fights and put guys to sleep. he never got to fight for titles because he was black. he could have possibly won titles at welter, middle, light heavy and heavy. i also have footage of both these guys. fitz was great for his day but i don't think he would fair well today. langford was a destroyer and would be great in any era.

again with that said what fitz accomplished is still awesome.

[Jaclem]

..fitzsimmons went down in weight division from heavyweight to light heavy, where he won the title.

though not a champion, joey maxim went down from heavyweight division to light heavy, where he won the title.

[elmersalsa]

..fitzsimmons went down in weight division from heavyweight to light heavy, where he won the title.

though not a champion, joey maxim went down from heavyweight division to light heavy, where he won the title.

Good observation Jaclem...People forget that Joey Maxim had more fights at heavyweight than he had at light heavyweight.

[elmersalsa]

..fitzsimmons went down in weight division from heavyweight to light heavy, where he won the title.

though not a champion, joey maxim went down from heavyweight division to light heavy, where he won the title.

Good observation Jaclem...People forget that Joey Maxim had more fights at heavyweight than he had at light heavyweight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Alp, read it once more. I said they aren't worthy of consideration because none of the individual Heavyweights are good enough (IMO) to be considered amongst the top five fighters of all-time. I never, ever said I precluded the division.

I'm sorry. I though when said that none were worth being considered, that you meant that none were eligible. I guess you are now saying that none are remotely close. (I guess that way you don't have to consider you know who.)

More importantly, you still skipped over my comments about what exactly we mean by pound per pound?

Do we simply mean who had the best career? (That is how I do it.)

Does it matter if a fighter fought in more than one weight class? (I don't think that it's necessary but some people apparently do.)

If you take the term "pound for pound" literally you would think that we trying to imagine how Pep would do as a lightheavyweight and how Charles would do as a featherweight when comparing them. Is that what we are doing?

What about heavyweights? Are they all considered the same? For example are we supposed to take into consideration that Patterson only weighed 185 and that Lennox Lewis weighed 240-250?

I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything. It just seems that people use the term but we aren't talking about the same thing.

I'm sorry if it offends you so, but I don't see Ali as being one of the top five best pound-for-pound fighters in boxing history. Remember, we're not discussing the best five of the last twenty or thirty years (as subjective as that in itself would be), nor is this a talk on all-timers in a given division's history (even more exclusive). This is about the top five ever. That is extremely elite company we're talking about here.

As far as pound-for-pound rankings go, I just flat-out will always give an edge right off the bat to non-Heavyweights. Why? Because the two (Heavies & non-Heavies) live in different worlds, where it's a lot easier being the former than the latter. You never have to worry about making weight, you needn't concern yourself with facing an opponent who's, in all reality, out of your weightclass (in many cases, by more than one division), you never have to worry about passing through multiple divisions, & the (generally) superior quality of opponent --- in terms of ability, size, & stylistic variation --- this dilemma presents.

For these reasons, I allow lower-weight fighters more losses as a general rule I'm willing to write off than I do for their Heavyweight counterparts. Further, the smaller men flat-out have to develope a broader skill-set, because no other division is as dependent upon --- or has so many elite legends whose main weapon is --- punching power. Across the board, the smaller men (who typically also develope faster & go downhill slower, further strengthening their case) are reliant on being able to do more than hit, they're better boxers, superior defensively, & are more resistant (not by choice) to falling out of shape.

None of this, I might add, precludes as a rule Heavyweights. It's just this simple --- I don't see any Heavyweight good enough to crack the top five, whether your measurement is literally pound-for-pound, career accomplishment, both, or something altogether different (Mine is weight + career). As you can see for yourself by my list, I don't see any Cruiserweight good enough either, or any Bantamweight, or any Light-Heavyweight, & so on, so why aren't you pulling me up on those points?

Ray Leonard barely cracks my list for the top five all-time Welterweights. I can't imagine how anyone could place him in the top five of all-time, though I don't accuse you of bias as you do me with Ali (though I think you have a plain blindspot for Leonard, if we are going to get into it).

Nice discussing with you, by the way

[elmersalsa]

1) Henry Armstrong

2) Sugar Ray Robinson

3) Willie Pep

4) Roberto Duran

5) Eder Jofre

At least, I am not the only who thinks that Henry should be #1 all-time...Any others, besides Syntax Error and me?

[walshb]

Alp is dead on....

Surely saying that a heavy cannot be considered
because he cannot move up is quite silly.

Obviously he can't move up. He's at the bloody top isn't he...

So maybe we need two lists....the greatest non heavyweights and the greatest heavyweights....

[Goodnight, Irene]

I give up

[Ezzard]

although nobody seems to know what exactly is the definition of eligible fighters, the basic scores on a 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points basis are

Robinson 56
Armstrong 42
Langford 17
Greb 17
Duran 12
Pep 9
Ali 7
Fitzsimmons 6
Charles 5
Leonard 4
Wilde 2
Hagler 1
Gans 1
Jofre 1

[walshb]

I give up

Irene, I see your point and I know you weren't saying what I was
against. You simply don't consioder the heavies to be good enough, fair enough. I think elsewhere in the thread it was implied that because the heavies don't move up in weight, that they cannot be considered.
This I found to be ridiculous....

[Seamus]

The obvious reason for having few heavyweights in a PFP is the great weight disparities in the division. For instance, at least 22 of Sonny Liston's 50 wins came against opponents 15 or more lbs lighter, at least 33 of George Foreman's 76 wins came against guys he outweighed by 20 or more lbs. So head to head they'd annihilate a guy like Bob Fitzsimmons, but pound for pound they're not even close.

[Elton John]

Ray Leonard in the top five? Someone tell me this is just a bad joke! I've never seen a professional fighter guilty of ducking so many fighters in one decade. You must mean Benny Leonard.

[Elton John]

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...

Ray Leonard, the man who was floored by Kevin Howard

[dempseyfire]

Ali among the top 5 PFP boxers EVER? Strongly disagree.

My top 5:

1) Sam Langford

2) Sugar Ray Robinson

3) Harry Greb

4) Henry Armstrong

5) Willie Pep

[Ezzard]

Whilst moving up in weight is indicative of someone being on a P4P list it is not definitive. You can stay in one division and be the greatest p4p. I don't think it makes a difference.

Elton John does make a point on Benny Leonard. He hasn't got a single vote. Seems odd that nobody has gone for him.

[Ambling Alp]

Alp, read it once more. I said they aren't worthy of consideration because none of the individual Heavyweights are good enough (IMO) to be considered amongst the top five fighters of all-time. I never, ever said I precluded the division.

I'm sorry. I though when said that none were worth being considered, that you meant that none were eligible. I guess you are now saying that none are remotely close. (I guess that way you don't have to consider you know who.)

More importantly, you still skipped over my comments about what exactly we mean by pound per pound?

Do we simply mean who had the best career? (That is how I do it.)

Does it matter if a fighter fought in more than one weight class? (I don't think that it's necessary but some people apparently do.)

If you take the term "pound for pound" literally you would think that we trying to imagine how Pep would do as a lightheavyweight and how Charles would do as a featherweight when comparing them. Is that what we are doing?

What about heavyweights? Are they all considered the same? For example are we supposed to take into consideration that Patterson only weighed 185 and that Lennox Lewis weighed 240-250?

I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything. It just seems that people use the term but we aren't talking about the same thing.

I'm sorry if it offends you so, but I don't see Ali as being one of the top five best pound-for-pound fighters in boxing history. Remember, we're not discussing the best five of the last twenty or thirty years (as subjective as that in itself would be), nor is this a talk on all-timers in a given division's history (even more exclusive). This is about the top five ever. That is extremely elite company we're talking about here.

I realize that we aren't just judging by the last 20 or 30 years. If you notice, I had Greb,Robinson,Armstrong, and Charles in my list not including heavyweights. I think Ali should atleast be considered. In his prime, he was 10-0 in title fights against pretty good competition. He scored 8 knockouts and won two lopsided decisions. No other fighter in any other weight class had a title reign this dominant. That alone shows he worth consideration. Past his best, he was the best heavyweight in the best era in the history of the division, and one of the best of any division.
Pound for pound, who had better speed, and reflexes?



As far as pound-for-pound rankings go, I just flat-out will always give an edge right off the bat to non-Heavyweights. Why? Because the two (Heavies & non-Heavies) live in different worlds, where it's a lot easier being the former than the latter. You never have to worry about making weight, you needn't concern yourself with facing an opponent who's, in all reality, out of your weightclass (in many cases, by more than one division), you never have to worry about passing through multiple divisions, & the (generally) superior quality of opponent --- in terms of ability, size, & stylistic variation --- this dilemma presents.

You flat give the edge right off the bat to non heavyweights? Obviously you shouldn't do that.
I disagree that it's harder to be in a lighter weight class. I agree that you have to make weight, but in other ways it's harder to be a heavyweight.
The fact that you face opponents of vastly different sizes is more difficult, not less. If you are a heavyweight, you may have to fight a speedy opponent that is much lighter than you in one fight and then fight a bigger opponent in the next fight. You actully have a great variety of opponents than a fighter in lower weight classes.
Perhaps most importantly, the talent pool isn't divided. With so many weight classes that aren't that far apart, the talent is usually divided up. There is seldom a lot of depth in any one weight class at one moment in time. ie if there was no Jr Welterweight class, the lightweight and welterweight classes would be stronger. Take Willie Pep. A truly graet fighter, no question about it. However, how deep was the featherweight division during his career? Certainly not as deep as the heavyweight division during Ali's career.
Historically, the heavyweight division has been as deep as the other weight classes.

I don't understand your point about worrying about passing through different weight classes? So what?

For these reasons, I allow lower-weight fighters more losses as a general rule I'm willing to write off than I do for their Heavyweight counterparts. Further, the smaller men flat-out have to develope a broader skill-set, because no other division is as dependent upon --- or has so many elite legends whose main weapon is --- punching power. Across the board, the smaller men (who typically also develope faster & go downhill slower, further strengthening their case) are reliant on being able to do more than hit, they're better boxers, superior defensively, & are more resistant (not by choice) to falling out of shape.

Actually that heavyweights have to worry about their punching power more often is an arguement that it's more difficult to be a heavyweight.

It's also certainly not a given that fighters in lower weight classes automatcially have a stronger skill set.
I certainly don't agree at all with the notion that smaller men go downhill slower. In fact it's usually quite the contrary. Heavyweights usually are closer to their prime at a later age than fighters in lower weight classes.

None of this, I might add, precludes as a rule Heavyweights. It's just this simple --- I don't see any Heavyweight good enough to crack the top five, whether your measurement is literally pound-for-pound, career accomplishment, both, or something altogether different (Mine is weight + career). As you can see for yourself by my list, I don't see any Cruiserweight good enough either, or any Bantamweight, or any Light-Heavyweight, & so on, so why aren't you pulling me up on those points?

Of course you don't have any heavyweights in the top 5 for atleast a couple of reasons. One is that you are biased right off the bat against heavyweight (which you yourself has admitted) because of ill concieved ideas and haven't really looked at them. The other is that would have to consider Ali, which obviously you don't want to do.

I agree with many who say that heavyweights get too much attention. However, that doesn't mean that in specific cases, there weren't great heavyweights who should be considered when doing various pound for pound lists.
I haven't "pulled you up" for not including fighters in some other weight classes because you atleast considered them. Since we are only talking about a Top 5, of course you can't have someone from every weight class.

Ray Leonard barely cracks my list for the top five all-time Welterweights. I can't imagine how anyone could place him in the top five of all-time, though I don't accuse you of bias as you do me with Ali (though I think you have a plain blindspot for Leonard, if we are going to get into it).

You can imagine rating Ray Leonard in the top 5 pound for pound of all time if you simply look at what he did and compare him to everyone else. You can imagine it if you are willing to put aside what you think about him personally. You can imagine it if you just looked at what he did in the ring. Now I know a lot of people like to talk about the BS about him ducking people or whatever. However, just look at what he did in the ring, which is what counts.

-He was 9-0 against Top 10 contenders before he fought for the title.
-He had only one loss in his prime. A tough loss to a great fighter and he avenged it.
-He beat 4 truly great fighters. Benitez,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler. Those were the best of his time and he beat them all. Compare those 4 with the top 4 opponents that anyone else beat. There are only a few fighters in history that would top this.
-Look at him on film. He had it all,great speed,reflexes,power,every punch,chin, defense, stamina,heart, smarts.

-The only real negative is that he didn't have the longevity as some other greats because of his eye problems. However, just look at the quality wins he did have.

You could imagine it if you evaluted his career as you would anyone elses.

I don't have a blind spot for Leonard or Ali. I look at what they did in the ring when they were at their best or atleast close to it. Just like I do with anyone else. A blind spot is where you don't see things, such as the film of Leonard and Ali when they were atleast close to their best, and looking at their accomplishments.


Nice discussing with you, by the way

Nice discussing with you as well.

[Ezzard]

To anyone who did not put Langford in the top 5, what is your rationale?

[Ambling Alp]

Obviously Langford was one of the greatest fighters of all time. I have him in my Top 10, but not quite my Top 5.

He certainly fought great competition and was very successful. However, when you compare him to other legends, you have to nitpick. Here are the negatives:

-Yes, he beat McVey and Jeannette. However he also lost to them. Head to head as a heavyweight, they were very close to him.

-The loss to Gunboat Smith. A good, but not great fighter, who weighed less than Langford. Yes he did avenge the loss, and this is just one fight out of 300. However, you have to look at everything.

-Draws against good but not great fighters like Colin Bell,Jim Johnson, and Sandy Ferguson.

Again, he had so many wins over good, very good, and great opponents that far outweigh these negatives. I just think that when you weigh everything, and weigh what others have done, there are a few other fighters who had slightly better careers. It's certainly arguable either way.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Whilst moving up in weight is indicative of someone being on a P4P list it is not definitive. You can stay in one division and be the greatest p4p. I don't think it makes a difference.

Elton John does make a point on Benny Leonard. He hasn't got a single vote. Seems odd that nobody has gone for him.

Not really, when you consider it. I think people are understating how little room there is to move with this list. You could make a list of the top five in a given division's history & people would argue for days, if not weeks. Now, here, we're talking about the best five fighters in the entire history of boxing. There's almost no room to move, someone, no matter how exceptional, is going to miss out. Leonard is but one of dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of guys who could make the list who thus far haven't been mentioned.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Alp, simply put, I have considered the Heavyweights, because as I noted, they're not precluded from my considerations. However, I have come to the conclusion that none are good enough. It's that straight-forward.

I can see how if this thread asked for, say, (just as an example) a top thirty assessment of all-time pound-for-pounders, you would have a problem with me not mentioning Ali. But the top five? Ever? Ali is #2 on my all-time Heavyweight list (though I do not have a problem with him being #1). It'd be a tall order for him to make the five best ever. I'm hardly the only one taking that stance, btw.

I think there is a perception that I am anti-Ali because I am usually the one arguing against, however, this is because I truly do feel he has become overstated to this untouchable degree, & maybe no one notices when I have something positive to say (one of a few examples, months ago, I wrote a three paragraph acknowledgement of his ability & just how good I thought he was in the scheme of things --- only Granberry replied).

Again, I've considered him. I've considered Louis, & Holmes, & Fitzsimmons. I don't think any are good enough. I don't have a, "bias" against Heavies. I just think it's harder to be a little man, & for that I assign more points.

As for Leonard, I've never said a single bad word about him on the forum. I wrote that short spiel about him to bait Granberry, & you seem to think because I wasn't serious, that I have no respect for him. But if we are going to play the bias card because Ali isn't in my top five, I think it only fair that we assess Leonard (one of your favourites, by coincidence?) being in your top five, when it's easily arguable that he isn't the best in Welterweight history, & could quite obviously only just slip into the top five in the history of that division, much less all boxing.

[bjermaine]

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...

Ray Leonard, the man who was floored by Kevin Howard

yes, that ray leonard. the same ray leonard that stopped benitez, duran, and hearns at welter. even ray robinson didn't beat that level of comp at welter.

[bjermaine]

..fitzsimmons went down in weight division from heavyweight to light heavy, where he won the title.

though not a champion, joey maxim went down from heavyweight division to light heavy, where he won the title.

fitz weighed only 167 lbs when he won the heavy title. he didn't go have to go down in weight physically but the guys he fought got smaller.