What is your p4p top 20 ever in order, take time

[RonnyJ]

i ll do mine

[margaret thatcher]

TBH, I think very few people have the historical knowledge to properly do a list like this. The amount of people who will instantly rank SRR #1 is far greater than the number who actually know much about him or have seen much , for example. Then there are all sorts of not so famous fighters of the past who were nonetheless exceptional

[Onetimeonly]

1. Greb
2. Langford
3. Robinson
4. Armstrong
5. Charles
6. Ali
7. Duran
8. B Leonard
9. Moore
10. R Leonard
11. Canzoneri
12. Louis
13. Griffith
14. Gavilan
15. Tunney
16. Ross
17. Mcclarnin
18. Pep
19. Floyd
20. Hearns

[lazboy]

Let me guess, no.1 is either Roy Jones jr or Pac-Man.

[RonnyJ]

TBH, I think very few people have the historical knowledge to properly do a list like this

its easy, is this boxrec, home of the experts or boxrec home of the casuals?

i can do a top 20 out of my head right away, how historians have it

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Langford
6. B. Leonard
7. Pepp
8. Pacquaio
9. Duran
10. Charles

11. Louis
12. Leonard
13. Mayweather
14. Foreman
15. Chavez
16. Moore
17. Pryor
18. Hagler
19. Frazier
20. Hearns

something like this, its not my list, just what historians would have march 2020

[Onetimeonly]

[RonnyJ]

i remember like 20 years ago a historian had fitzsimmons as the greatest boxer p4p ever. time changed

[margaret thatcher]

Show us your list bruh, do you

[RonnyJ]

Show us your list bruh, do you

you want an honest list of mine, okay. but let me tell you i rate by who beats who, i rate by quality of a boxer and not so much by record and if he fought 100 cab drivers.

i rate by peak prime, meaning, i take the best boxer ever, look how good they were when they were during their peak prime and those versions play a role in my ranking. the best boxers in prime version! than i think about which prime version would far against another prime version and at the end i got the best quality boxers ever.

all prime

1. Jones Jr
2. Lomachenko
3. Robinson
4. Leonard
5. Pacquiao
6. Inoue
7. Hearns
8. Mayweather
9. Tyson
10. Whitacker

11. Clay
12. Hagler
13. Duran
14. Rigondeaux
15. Usyk
16. Trinidad
17. Mosley
18. Gonzales
19. Lopez
20. GGG

it would take me some more time to do it better, but 90s jones the GOAT, loma during 2016-2017 was a boxing god. leonard, robinson obviously phenomenal.

[gilgamesh]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Harry Greb
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Willie Pep
7. Roberto Duran
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Archie Moore
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Benny Leonard
13. Gene Tunney
14. Mickey Walker
15. Barney Ross
16. Joe Gans
17. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
18. Charley Burley
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Sandy Saddler

[candyslim]

TBH, I think very few people have the historical knowledge to properly do a list like this. The amount of people who will instantly rank SRR #1 is far greater than the number who actually know much about him or have seen much , for example. Then there are all sorts of not so famous fighters of the past who were nonetheless exceptional

I agree and I am not one of those very few. There are probably at least a hundred fighters who might have a reasonable claim to being an ATG, of whom I haven't seen even the most fleeting of grainy film footage, and I've been a fan for fifty years next year.

Maybe I should just treat it as a bit of fun but I struggle to take the subject anything other than seriously, so I'm going to leave this to the 'experts'.

[RonnyJ]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Harry Greb
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Willie Pep
7. Roberto Duran
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Archie Moore
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Benny Leonard
13. Gene Tunney
14. Mickey Walker
15. Barney Ross
16. Joe Gans
17. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
18. Charley Burley
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Sandy Saddler

Move up in weight like 11 times and beating all these atg and still being a important factor to this day isnt enough for him being in the top 20?

I like your list. A classic historian list

[RonnyJ]

Marciano beat up charles & louis and is not in the top 20

[jas80s]

Marciano beat up charles & louis and is not in the top 20

Aren't you the one who is always talking about looking beyond names on a resume and considering when the fights took place and how close to prime were the combatants when the fight took place?

I think that might inform on your point here regarding Marciano.

[Cent0089]

I did not really follow boxing pre 50s so my list is here:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ray Robinson
4. Manny Pacquiao
5. Floyd Mayweather
6. Lennox Lewis
7. George Foreman
8. Ray Leonard
9. Mike Tyson
10. Marvin Hagler
11. Thomas Hearns
12. Larry Holmes
13. Julio Cesar Chavez
14. Roy Jones
15. Joe Frazier
16. Wladimir Klitschko
17. Bernard Hopkins
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Oscar De la Hoya
20. Kostya Tszyu

Btw amateur boxing legends are often forgotten in these lists. Teofilo Stevenson, Felix Savon, Mario Kindelan and Vasyl Lomachengo are definitely one of best boxers in history too

[RonnyJ]

Marciano beat up charles & louis and is not in the top 20

Aren't you the one who is always talking about looking beyond names on a resume and considering when the fights took place and how close to prime were the combatants when the fight took place?

I think that might inform on your point here regarding Marciano.

Louis was very old.

But charles not, to be honest i dont remember charles age against marciano.

I looked it up 33 years old was charles when he lost against marciano.

[RonnyJ]

I did not really follow boxing pre 50s so my list is here:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ray Robinson
4. Manny Pacquiao
5. Floyd Mayweather
6. Lennox Lewis
7. George Foreman
8. Ray Leonard
9. Mike Tyson
10. Marvin Hagler
11. Thomas Hearns
12. Larry Holmes
13. Julio Cesar Chavez
14. Roy Jones
15. Joe Frazier
16. Wladimir Klitschko
17. Bernard Hopkins
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Oscar De la Hoya
20. Kostya Tszyu

Btw amateur boxing legends are often forgotten in these lists. Teofilo Stevenson, Felix Savon, Mario Kindelan and Vasyl Lomachengo are definitely one of best boxers in history too

Good lost and you right about the amateurs. They dont get the recognision they deserve!!!

[jas80s]

Aren't you the one who is always talking about looking beyond names on a resume and considering when the fights took place and how close to prime were the combatants when the fight took place?

I think that might inform on your point here regarding Marciano.

Louis was very old.

But charles not, to be honest i dont remember charles age against marciano.

I looked it up 33 years old was charles when he lost against marciano.

Fair enough, but I think it goes a little deeper than just age with Charles. When Charles is included so prominently in these lists, it is more in reference to his exemplary skills and achievements as a light-heavyweight. Now, he did have the frame to compete as a heavy in his era, but his record as a heavy while quite good (he did become champion after all), was not the stuff of top 5-10 all time.

Moreover, Charles participated in a fight where his opponent sustained injuries that, sadly, ended his life; that opponent was Sam Baroudi. After that fight, Charles was reticent to really let himself go in the same way in subsequent fights. Obviously, he still threw punches and scored KO's, but his heart was never in it the same way again; he wasn't quite the same fighter. So, just slapping an age on Charles and drawing a firm conclusion might be a little short-sighted.

But, in the end, we could go back and forth on every fighter's resume. How old was this opponent? Was he passed his best? Was he as good as people say? Had he lost focus at that time for this or that reason? And, when all that fails, there is the utterly maddening, "none of it matters, because that guys whole era sucked!" Yes, that's right, evidently a whole generation can be devoid of anyone who can fight (smh). And finally, we'll disagree on the answers to all these questions. Doesn't all this raise the possibility that arguing resumes is a bit of a waste of time?

Of course, I just took the time to write this post, so what the hell do I know?

[Onetimeonly]

Louis was very old.

But charles not, to be honest i dont remember charles age against marciano.

I looked it up 33 years old was charles when he lost against marciano.

Fair enough, but I think it goes a little deeper than just age with Charles. When Charles is included so prominently in these lists, it is more in reference to his exemplary skills and achievements as a light-heavyweight. Now, he did have the frame to compete as a heavy in his era, but his record as a heavy while quite good (he did become champion after all), was not the stuff of top 5-10 all time.

Moreover, Charles participated in a fight where his opponent sustained injuries that, sadly, ended his life; that opponent was Sam Baroudi. After that fight, Charles was reticent to really let himself go in the same way in subsequent fights. Obviously, he still threw punches and scored KO's, but his heart was never in it the same way again; he wasn't quite the same fighter. So, just slapping and age on Charles and drawing a firm conclusion might be a little short-sighted.

But, in the end, we could go back and forth on every fighter's resume. How old was this opponent? Was he passed his best? Was he as good as people say? Had he lost focus at that time for this or that reason? And we'll disagree on the answers to those questions. Doesn't that raise the possibility that arguing resumes is a bit of a waste of time?

Of course, I just took the time to write this post, so what the hell do I know?

Never hurts to try and educate. You're wasting your time with jip. Tarver beat Roy twice, and now come the excuses. Lol

[jas80s]

You are probably right, but in the end, I'm not trying to persuade. Just throwing it out there for what it's worth.

Ironically, I think Marciano is underrated by many, so I agree with his underlying point.

[boxing_rocks]

First of all, you need to define if this is relative to time or absolute. Greb wouldn't win a round against Calzaghe and would be smashed by Beterbiev.

[Onetimeonly]

You are probably right, but in the end, I'm not trying to persuade. Just throwing it out there for what it's worth.

Ironically, I think Marciano is underrated by many, so I agree with his underlying point.

I'd have rock in the top 100.

[jas80s]

You are probably right, but in the end, I'm not trying to persuade. Just throwing it out there for what it's worth.

Ironically, I think Marciano is underrated by many, so I agree with his underlying point.

I'd have rock in the top 100.

I don't have the depth of knowledge to put together much of a list, but that seems reasonable. He is too accomplished to omit and since he never lost, it's hard to pinpoint what precisely the shortcoming is for him.

He is an extraordinarily hard fighter to rate. He doesn't blow you away on the eye test, so it's hard to avoid assuming he wouldn't be as successful in fantasy match ups as he was in real life. On top of that, he gives away seemingly every physical advantage possible, so that leaves you with one of two possible conclusions:

A. He was lucky to avoid tough opponents who would have exposed him, or..

B. He was just a lot better than the crude appearance and was a legitimately outstanding fighter.

His opponents tended toward B, so I'll go with B.

Sorry for the thread hijack, hopefully someone can bring it back around to the P4P top 20?

[Onetimeonly]

I'd have rock in the top 100.

I don't have the depth of knowledge to put together much of a list, but that seems reasonable. He is too accomplished to omit and since he never lost, it's hard to pinpoint what precisely the shortcoming is for him.

He is an extraordinarily hard fighter to rate. He doesn't blow you away on the eye test, so it's hard to avoid assuming he wouldn't be as successful in fantasy match ups as he was in real life. On top of that, he gives away seemingly every physical advantage possible, so that leaves you with one of two possible conclusions:

A. He was lucky to avoid tough opponents who would have exposed him, or..

B. He was just a lot better than the crude appearance and was a legitimately outstanding fighter.

His opponents tended toward B, so I'll go with B.

Sorry for the thread hijack, hopefully someone can bring it back around to the P4P top 20?

I'd much rather talk about Marciano than the ops abysmal list. He just missed Floyd and ingo. Not that they would push him top 20, but they would have done a lot to dissuade the age of his opponents stance.

[RonnyJ]

Louis was very old.

But charles not, to be honest i dont remember charles age against marciano.

I looked it up 33 years old was charles when he lost against marciano.

Fair enough, but I think it goes a little deeper than just age with Charles. When Charles is included so prominently in these lists, it is more in reference to his exemplary skills and achievements as a light-heavyweight. Now, he did have the frame to compete as a heavy in his era, but his record as a heavy while quite good (he did become champion after all), was not the stuff of top 5-10 all time.

Moreover, Charles participated in a fight where his opponent sustained injuries that, sadly, ended his life; that opponent was Sam Baroudi. After that fight, Charles was reticent to really let himself go in the same way in subsequent fights. Obviously, he still threw punches and scored KO's, but his heart was never in it the same way again; he wasn't quite the same fighter. So, just slapping an age on Charles and drawing a firm conclusion might be a little short-sighted.

But, in the end, we could go back and forth on every fighter's resume. How old was this opponent? Was he passed his best? Was he as good as people say? Had he lost focus at that time for this or that reason? And, when all that fails, there is the utterly maddening, "none of it matters, because that guys whole era sucked!" Yes, that's right, evidently a whole generation can be devoid of anyone who can fight (smh). And finally, we'll disagree on the answers to all these questions. Doesn't all this raise the possibility that arguing resumes is a bit of a waste of time?

Of course, I just took the time to write this post, so what the hell do I know?

Good post.

Moving from lh to hw is a great achievemant. Ezzward charles was a tall lh, i think ezzard was around 6'2. Luckily hw during his era were
not taller than that. Marciano and louis were around were like 5'10 and 6'1. So charles didnt have no height and rea h disadvantage like todax with usyk moving up in weight.

Charles has an impressiv record and i can understand historians having him top 10 ever.

What u think about fitzsimmons. I remember a historians list having him #1 ever, nowadays i rarly see fitzsimmons in anybody top 20.