NateJR wrote:P4P all time listings are nothing more than peoples opinions and speculation. Nothing can be proven, there is nothing factual about saying Duran and Leonard would wipe the floor with Floyd and Pacquiao. It's ok to believe that, but it can't be proven, it's that simple.
I look at it this way, I rate Whitaker above Julio Cesar Chavez and Whitaker had less than half the fights of Julio Cesar Chavez. I rate Roy Jones Jr. over James Toney while Roy Jones Jr. had less fights than James Toney. I rate Muhammad Ali over Rocky Marciano, while Muhammed Ali had a handful of losses while Marciano finished his career undefeated. I rate Bernard Hopkins over Joe Calzaghe even though Calzaghe beat Hopkins (late in their careers) based on longevity and overall resume against much better competition. It's not always about who fought more, but who they fought, it's not always who lost the least but who they lost to, it's not always about who fought the "most" tough competition, it's about how they beat the toughest competition they were in against. One fight can determine a fighters skill set that can give us a true gauge on how great a fighter is, for example Floyd vs. Corrales, after that beautiful boxing display Floyd put on it was impossible to deny that Floyd was a "great" fighter.
I personally don't buy it that Floyd hasn't fought the best of his era. Floyd in the whole scheme of things has fought most of the biggest names in boxing. Mosley, DLH, Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Cotto, Gatti, Hernandez, Marquez, Alvarez and now Pacquiao (Tsyzu IMO is the only person he missed that should mean anything in the final scheme of things). Even with out Pacquiao the unbiased eye should be able to see how great of a career that really is, even if Floyd didn't fight them at their absolute best, a lot of great fights between great fighters didn't happen at the absolute prime of both fighters careers (Floyd couldn't have possibly also been in his prime during his entire 18+ year career). Also, how do you really gauge a fighters prime? Is it fair to compare Floyd and Pacquiao at Welterweight against the likes of Hearns and Ray Robinson at Welterweight? Hearns and Robinson weren't no 135 lb. fighters at the beginning of their careers, they were both tall rangy, full fledged Welterweights who were taller than most Middleweights, where as Floyd and Pacquiao are more on par with guys like JCC Sr., Duran, Pryor, Whitaker etc. when it comes to being small guys who moved up in weight and size wise are more comparable to most Junior Welterweights or lightweights. It's not even fair to say that Hearns and Robinson are all around greater fighters than Floyd and Pacquiao simply because they would beat them at Welterweight, they probably would they are much bigger men naturally.
It would be like Donaire moving up to 135 and then comparing him to the version of Floyd we saw at 135, how is that a fair gauge on who is really better? Of course Floyd has a far better over all career than Donaire and it's really not comparable but that isn't how you would compare them if you were trying to make a ATG P4P list. But the way some people seem to make their P4P list is based on criteria like this. Take the guy you favor and then match them up with guys you don't like as much at your favorable guys prime weight class and then guage a fighters greatness strictly on that. Or look at a guys record and see they had 100+ fights and not even consider that more than half of their opponent were scrubs with some tough fights in between where as some other fighters only have 30-40-50 fights but fought tough competition every time out with out all the filler fights to build up the number of fights. So there comes a point where skill should over shadow the number of fights or amount of tough fights a fighter has been in. There comes a point where a fighters with losses was greater than someone who finished their career undefeated, there comes a point where a fighter who didn't fight as tough of competition is greater than a fighter who fought all around better competition through out their career. There's so many things that can taken into consideration which makes the whole idea of a ATG P4P list fun but 100% speculative.
who cares if something is 100 % proven?
why does mona lisa has some kind of discomfort in her smile? nobody knows. yet costs the painting around 1 bilion dollar.
fantasy, its often times more fun to specualte about things, than 100 % knowing them.
also, experts can come close to what could happen, doesnt mean it would clearly come out this way. but if 9 ut of 10 boxing experts said prime sugar ray leonard would beat prime oscar de la hoya, than there is a big chance that they are right, because say see the advantages on sugar's side. that is also why more often the top dog wins against the underdog instead of the underdog beating the top dog.
with some things you are right. for example rating X over calzaghe. not because he had more fights against more top level boxer, but more importantly, because his absolute prime was middeweight, hew as the most ripped, the slickest at that weight, even had a good punch at that weight. so a catch weight with calzaghe or calzaghe dyhadrating to middleweight would also have been surely a different outcome. while i rate calzaghe over X, simply because i found him more athletic and over all better and the most important calzaghe's style was all wrong for X. X loves an opponent who doesnt do much and X picks him appart, school him form outside or gets in quick and than holds and punches behind the head. X hates it when opponents come at him like taylor did. calzaghe comes at you non stop, got pretty good power, equaly great chin, but just never stops throwing punches, he is just better than hopkins. he beats him regardless of weight or prime.
