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

[RonnyJ]

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.

Thats why i got my list focused on quality and
not focused on record.

You right boxers of today > 100 years ago

The lists historians mage are only focused on record.

What they dont understand is these records are filled with fights against average or cab drivers.

But when leonard has like 35 fights and beats 3 of the most legendary boxers ever than he cant even make the top 10. Why? Cause he didnt fought no 100 cab drivers on top of his 35 fights. Makes no sense.

Also louis was much to slow and unagile, just too small for a 80s tyson. But obviously louis is amongs the 10 best boxers ever and tyson at best top 50. Makes no sense either.

Historians are stubborn. Than u got a boxer of today who boxes just like the boxers in the past were famous for 1) high number of fights and 2) moving up in weight.

Pac has like 80 fights and did the unthinkable no boxer has ever done, something historical,
He moved from minimunweight too light middleweight. He moved up ~11 divisions.

Beat legend after legend. But of course he needs to have addionaly 100 cab driver fight. With 180 fights pac would be considered top 5 worthy

[RonnyJ]

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.

I wounder how a top 20 ever from you looks like.

At least a top 10

[jas80s]

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.

Well, my knowledge of Fitz is pretty limited, so I won't wade too far into it. There are others who certainly know a lot more about him.

But, my limited take on Fitz is that he was one of the original big punchers in the game as his KO record would certainly attest. I think he gets good mileage from the wins over Corbett and Sharkey, and splitting with a guy like O'Brien is impressive. But, I think the thing that is most instructive about Fitz is that he was obviously good enough that he had to challenge far bigger men to really challenge himself. Against O'Brien, Sharkey, Corbett, and Choynski he was dealing with guys that were slightly smaller to slightly larger than himself (Corbett weighed 19 pounds more which could be construed as a lot); and against those guys, he fared pretty damn well. So, one should probably conclude that he was really good and that the accounts of his greatness by those who saw him first hand shouldn't be discounted as mere mythology.

However, detractors might point to going 0-3 against Jeffries and Johnson. But, in those fights, he gave away between 30 and 50 pounds! I mentioned he was instructive and this is why. It would appear that he was a talented little man that struggled against talented but much bigger men. Does this mean anything in cross era comparisons? Who can say...

In the end, I think he's an all timer, but it's hard to say when you haven't actually seen him fight. In the end, I think any guy who achieves legit greatness in his era can seriously fight. I don't choose to believe individual eras differ so greatly as to say a great fighter from any era has no place in an all time list. Great fighters are great fighters, the era just means they fight differently.

[Paci]

Hmmm... I can't make my mind up on even my top 5 so. Well, no. But, Im going with saying that every era has its flavour.

Old block before 1960 is easy thou. Going by their records.

1.Robinson
2.Louis
3.Pep
4.Moore
5.Armstrong
6.Leonard
7.Langford
8.Johnson
9.Dempsey
10.Panama Brown

Doing a 1961 to 2015 rating. Cause it is easier. Also, eras are what they are. Going by 2015 after what happend in that year for the heavyweights that where started to coming back big time and Mayweather drops his belts and goes into a pseudoretirement.

1.Mayweather
2.Pacquiao
3.Ali
4.Duran
5.Monzon
6.Hearns
7.Leonard
8.Hagler
9.Whitaker
10.Jones.Jr
11.Chavez
12.Tyson

Something like this. But, meh ain't easy making a list from the first gloved matches to the present day. Easier when people are retired. Sort of. Well, lets see what happens this coming years, if the pandemic don't kill us or somebody gets nuke cause of Trump didn't get too score with this one hot chick down at the office.

Edit
I forgot Manny! F*ck

[RonnyJ]

I found it.

this is the list of the historian i meant.
Tracy G. Callis
Historian
International Boxing Research Organization (IBRO)


Pound-For-Pound (Click for Criteria):

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charlie Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien

[Enlightened-One]

It makes me laugh to see people passionately asserting the “all-time-greatness” of certain fighters they’ve never seen compete, whilst being unfamiliar with the vast majority of their opposition, being considered somehow “better” than others that they actually possess knowledge of.

People are seriously claiming that fighters like Benny Leonard, Mickey Walker, Sam Langford, Joey Gans and Harry Greb, who all made their pro debut more than 80 years ago, are better than others, based solely on the opinions of others who (like themselves) have never seen these guys fight.

I’ll give you an example of the point I’m making…

Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

However, the very same people who claim that Harry Greb is an “all-time-great”, will be unable to answer most (if not all) of these questions!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

[RonnyJ]

It makes me laugh to see people passionately asserting the “all-time-greatness” of certain fighters they’ve never seen compete, whilst being unfamiliar with the vast majority of their opposition, being considered somehow “better” than others that they actually possess knowledge of.

People are seriously claiming that fighters like Benny Leonard, Mickey Walker, Sam Langford, Joey Gans and Harry Greb, who all made their pro debut more than 80 years ago, are better than others, based solely on the opinions of others who (like themselves) have never seen these guys fight.

I’ll give you an example of the point I’m making…

Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

However, the very same people who claim that Harry Greb is an “all-time-great”, will be unable to answer most (if not all) of these questions!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

just because you cant see something, doesnt mean it cant be great.

what is your list EO

[Enlightened-One]

It makes me laugh to see people passionately asserting the “all-time-greatness” of certain fighters they’ve never seen compete, whilst being unfamiliar with the vast majority of their opposition, being considered somehow “better” than others that they actually possess knowledge of.

People are seriously claiming that fighters like Benny Leonard, Mickey Walker, Sam Langford, Joey Gans and Harry Greb, who all made their pro debut more than 80 years ago, are better than others, based solely on the opinions of others who (like themselves) have never seen these guys fight.

I’ll give you an example of the point I’m making…

Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

However, the very same people who claim that Harry Greb is an “all-time-great”, will be unable to answer most (if not all) of these questions!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

just because you cant see something, doesnt mean it cant be great.

What do you mean by that? Please explain.

Boxing is a sport based on events that occur in the real-world.

It’s not a religion, whereby opinions are based on faith alone.

It might be politically-incorrect to criticise religions, but I’m pretty certain it’s OK to question the validity of people’s opinions about fighters they’ve never even seen compete (or at least know very little of).

For the record, I’m not criticising old-timers like Harry Greb, but it would be dishonest of me to argue for or against his all-time-great credentials, just because some historian (who never saw him fight either) claimed he was “great” (based on having read old newspaper articles).

Like anything in life, if I don’t know very much about a topic, then I refrain from having an opinion about it. Why can’t others do the same?

[Paci]

We could go by eye-witness reports and stories by the old guard and interviews from the really old guard. Keeping track of pre-tv is hard.

But, everyone is talking up Robinson. Greb by rep, Is my take on it. Or just lock at who they fought throu the years. But pre-tv just starts speculation on how good some where and well, boxing has changed since the 60s to 80s among other things.

Still silly fantasy lists.

[RonnyJ]

just because you cant see something, doesnt mean it cant be great.

What do you mean by that? Please explain.

Boxing is a sport based on events that occur in the real-world.

It’s not a religion, whereby opinions are based on faith alone.

It might be politically-incorrect to criticise religions, but I’m pretty certain it’s OK to question the validity of people’s opinions about fighters they’ve never even seen compete (or at least know very little of).

For the record, I’m not criticising old-timers like Harry Greb, but it would be dishonest of me to argue for or against his all-time-great credentials, just because some historian (who never saw him fight either) claimed he was “great” (based on having read old newspaper articles).

Like anything in life, if I don’t know very much about a topic, then I refrain from having an opinion about it. Why can’t others do the same?

i somebody is good, than he is good, regardless of somebody saw him live or on tv. if you saw him on tv, he proved you he is good, but it doesnt need to prove it to you, because his quality stands for itself.

if you benchpress 300 pounds, than i cant say you didnt. all i can say is i dont know. but me not knowing, doesnt mean you didnt do it.

you right, there is no footage of harry greb, same like there is no footage of robinson during his prime in 1949. i also judge on what i see, thats why i rate greb and others with 0 footage very high.

nevertheless i 100 % think that boxing, just like any other sport progressed over the years and boxers became better over time. the technique part changed, but more important than technique is, the body, th physic changed and in boxing just like most sports the body is everything. the old saying "the brain is the most important part in sport" simply aint true. lebron james with the same brain, the same baskeetball IQ would not be able to do much in the NBA if he be 5'10 slow unathletick slob. he is super athletic standing 6'7, thats the reason why he so good.

1980 was a important decade for boxing. from 1900-1980 there were only 2 very atthletic skilled boxer clay & robinson. since 1980-2020 the amount of athletic skilled boxers have rapidly incresed. leonard, whitacker, hearns, tyson, jones jr, mayweather, pacquiao, lomachenko, inoue. evolving of DNA and boxing being global now are the 2 reasons why boxing became so much better over the last 40 years.

[RonnyJ]

We could go by eye-witness reports and stories by the old guard and interviews from the really old guard. Keeping track of pre-tv is hard.

But, everyone is talking up Robinson. Greb by rep, Is my take on it. Or just lock at who they fought throu the years. But pre-tv just starts speculation on how good some where and well, boxing has changed since the 60s to 80s among other things.

Still silly fantasy lists.

robinson is a talent, ones every century. chin, power, speed, he had it all. his footage shows 1 punch power, shows speed, shows footwork. he is amongs the best ever for real. i saw footage of langford or amstrong and they were far away from the talent robinson had.

[Enlightened-One]

We could go by eye-witness reports and stories by the old guard and interviews from the really old guard. Keeping track of pre-tv is hard.

People’s opinions should be deemed as being worthless if they’re unable to answer rather simple questions about fighters whom they claim to be “all-time-greats”.

What I’ve found is... most people cite jargon, obscure terminology, names and acronyms, in order to dishonestly pretend they possess “expert” knowledge.

They do so in a lemming-like manner, simply because “if other people reckoned these guys are ‘great’, then they must be”, despite themselves knowing almost nothing whatsoever about the subject matter.

It’s almost as if they feel they cannot consider themselves as being a hard-core fan of the sport of boxing if they don’t regard the likes of Harry Greb as being an “all-time-great”, which I feel is an utterly bizarre attitude to have.

It’s obvious there are double standards being applied, because:

• If I criticise or praise any modern-day fighter, without having seen them compete, then I’d be labelled a “moron.”

• If I criticise the validity of someone’s opinion about a fighter that competed 80+ years ago, whom they knew very little about and probably hadn’t even seen them compete, then I’m somehow labelled a “hater.”

They simply can't have it both ways.

[Paci]

We could go by eye-witness reports and stories by the old guard and interviews from the really old guard. Keeping track of pre-tv is hard.

But, everyone is talking up Robinson. Greb by rep, Is my take on it. Or just lock at who they fought throu the years. But pre-tv just starts speculation on how good some where and well, boxing has changed since the 60s to 80s among other things.

Still silly fantasy lists.

robinson is a talent, ones every century. chin, power, speed, he had it all. his footage shows 1 punch power, shows speed, shows footwork. he is amongs the best ever for real. i saw footage of langford or amstrong and they were far away from the talent robinson had.

Indeed. Also, he is why we have p4p-lists.

[Enlightened-One]

i somebody is good, than he is good, regardless of somebody saw him live or on tv. if you saw him on tv, he proved you he is good, but it doesnt need to prove it to you, because his quality stands for itself.

you right, there is no footage of harry greb, same like there is no footage of robinson during his prime in 1949. i also judge on what i see, thats why i rate greb and others with 0 footage very high.

The problem I have is many people pretending they “believe” certain fighters are great, even though they know almost nothing whatsoever about them, with the same individuals unable to answer even the simplest of questions.

And let’s face it, every time I’ve had this discussion with anybody, they’ve ultimately conceded to knowing very little about the “legends” they’d passionately discussed – they were simply trusting the opinions of anonymous historians that (like themselves) had never even seen these guys fight.

[Paci]

We could go by eye-witness reports and stories by the old guard and interviews from the really old guard. Keeping track of pre-tv is hard.

People’s opinions should be deemed as being worthless if they’re unable to answer rather simple questions about fighters whom they claim to be “all-time-greats”.

What I’ve found is... most people cite jargon, obscure terminology, names and acronyms, in order to dishonestly pretend they possess “expert” knowledge.

They do so in a lemming-like manner, simply because “if other people reckoned these guys are ‘great’, then they must be”, despite themselves knowing almost nothing whatsoever about the subject matter.

It’s almost as if they feel they cannot consider themselves as being a hard-core fan of the sport of boxing if they don’t regard the likes of Harry Greb as being an “all-time-great”, which I feel is an utterly bizarre attitude to have.

It’s obvious there are double standards being applied, because:

• If I criticise or praise any modern-day fighter, without having seen them compete, then I’d be labelled a “moron.”

• If I criticise the validity of someone’s opinion about a fighter that competed 80+ years ago, whom they knew very little about and probably hadn’t even seen them compete, then I’m somehow labelled a “hater.”

They simply can't have it both ways.

I have written what dumb sh*t I go by. We are lurking into what is boxing history and it ain't easy and having a number one guy is ehat people are going after. And the lists changes all the time.

By your logic we can only rate some fighters that we have on film. Sort of.

Also, beating up bigger guys like Ruby Robert gave him a rep. Sometimes it is hype sometime it is not. Ain't easy with all that padding sometimes. But, works better if you beat other guys with rep that are contending for the belt. That is my logic. I hope. Don't really take this to hard. Just fun to see who got the most known name. Some people will put Mike Tyson as Nr.1 or in Amir Khan's case himself.

[Enlightened-One]

By your logic we can only rate some fighters that we have on film. Sort of.

Nope.

By my logic, we can only evaluate the "all-time-great" credentials of fighters, if we know an awful lot about them.

To most fight fans, the likes of Harry Greb are “great”, simply because others said so. They don’t use any other criteria, and nor do they possess any knowledge themselves.

If people are unable to answer even the simplest of questions about the fighters’ they’re discussing, then their opinions are utterly worthless.

[RonnyJ]

i somebody is good, than he is good, regardless of somebody saw him live or on tv. if you saw him on tv, he proved you he is good, but it doesnt need to prove it to you, because his quality stands for itself.

you right, there is no footage of harry greb, same like there is no footage of robinson during his prime in 1949. i also judge on what i see, thats why i rate greb and others with 0 footage very high.

The problem I have is many people pretending they “believe” certain fighters are great, even though they know almost nothing whatsoever about them, with the same individuals unable to answer even the simplest of questions.

And let’s face it, every time I’ve had this discussion with anybody, they’ve ultimately conceded to knowing very little about the “legends” they’d passionately discussed – they were simply trusting the opinions of anonymous historians that (like themselves) had never even seen these guys fight.

the answer is nostalgia, people love nostalgia and thats why they have non footage boxers or boxers from 100 years ago so high. i dont, boxers from the last 40 years are the best.

[Onetimeonly]

robinson is a talent, ones every century. chin, power, speed, he had it all. his footage shows 1 punch power, shows speed, shows footwork. he is amongs the best ever for real. i saw footage of langford or amstrong and they were far away from the talent robinson had.

Indeed. Also, he is why we have p4p-lists.

We ain't seen his prime.

[Paci]

By your logic we can only rate some fighters that we have on film. Sort of.

By my logic, we can only evaluate the "all-time-great" credentials of fighters, if we know an awful lot about them.

Have to find legit rep then BS hype that floats around, then again boxingfans hate hypejobs overall since back in the day. But, this is why Im not going with your conclusion.

Makes everybody with out film are out then. Since we know sh*t about most guys other then rep and reports from ringside before the TV. With some films. Then we can't rate guys before lets say the 50s. And how many fightsfilms are their around? Other then for the heavyweights? Where we have early movies. Many fallout of favour sort of. Like the first 3-div champ.

Might do a Star wars and put everybody in some legendary folder then. That is their and is really canon for boxing history, but fits the legendary category since otherwise I can't make my stupid ratings.

TL;DR - You are more cynical then me.

[Paci]

Indeed. Also, he is why we have p4p-lists.

We ain't seen his prime.

Bert Sugar lights up like a kid every time he talks about seeing him during the 40s.

[Paci]

We could go by eye-witness reports and stories by the old guard and interviews from the really old guard. Keeping track of pre-tv is hard.

But, everyone is talking up Robinson. Greb by rep, Is my take on it. Or just lock at who they fought throu the years. But pre-tv just starts speculation on how good some where and well, boxing has changed since the 60s to 80s among other things.

Still silly fantasy lists.

robinson is a talent, ones every century. chin, power, speed, he had it all. his footage shows 1 punch power, shows speed, shows footwork. he is amongs the best ever for real. i saw footage of langford or amstrong and they were far away from the talent robinson had.

Yeah, he looked great in his comeback and he fought the best around still. Would love too see him in action during his prime. Like all his fights with Lamotta, read and heard that they where real wars.

[Enlightened-One]

By my logic, we can only evaluate the "all-time-great" credentials of fighters, if we know an awful lot about them.

Have to find legit rep then BS hype that floats around, then again boxingfans hate hypejobs overall since back in the day. But, this is why Im not going with your conclusion.

Makes everybody with out film are out then. Since we know sh*t about most guys other then rep and reports from ringside before the TV. With some films. Then we can't rate guys before lets say the 50s. And how many fightsfilms are their around? Other then for the heavyweights? Where we have early movies. Many fallout of favour sort of. Like the first 3-div champ.

Might do a Star wars and put everybody in some legendary folder then. That is their and is really canon for boxing history, but fits the legendary category since otherwise I can't make my stupid ratings.

TL;DR - You are more cynical then me.

I’m not sure if I understand your response, but I stand by what I’ve said.

The opinions of those who passionately claim a certain fighter(s) should be regarded as being an all-time-great, has to be ignored if they’re unable to answer basic simple questions about the aforementioned guys they are advocating for or alternatively, have never seen them compete (or only seen snippets of them in action).

By the way, you claimed my post was “TL;DR”, but your response contained 142 words, whereas mine only had 73.

[Paci]

Have to find legit rep then BS hype that floats around, then again boxingfans hate hypejobs overall since back in the day. But, this is why Im not going with your conclusion.

Makes everybody with out film are out then. Since we know sh*t about most guys other then rep and reports from ringside before the TV. With some films. Then we can't rate guys before lets say the 50s. And how many fightsfilms are their around? Other then for the heavyweights? Where we have early movies. Many fallout of favour sort of. Like the first 3-div champ.

Might do a Star wars and put everybody in some legendary folder then. That is their and is really canon for boxing history, but fits the legendary category since otherwise I can't make my stupid ratings.

TL;DR - You are more cynical then me.

I’m not sure if I understand your response, but I stand by what I’ve said.

The opinions of those who passionately claim a certain fighter(s) should be regarded as being an all-time-great, has to be ignored if they’re unable to answer basic simple questions about the aforementioned guys they are advocating for or alternatively, have never seen them compete (or only seen snippets of them in action).

By the way, you claimed my post was “TL;DR”, but your response contained 142 words, whereas mine only had 73.

Im agreeing and disagreeing with you, dummy. I go by rep, you go on pure hard facts about boxers that you can see for yourself. That is my response. In simple english.

[Enlightened-One]

I’m not sure if I understand your response, but I stand by what I’ve said.

The opinions of those who passionately claim a certain fighter(s) should be regarded as being an all-time-great, has to be ignored if they’re unable to answer basic simple questions about the aforementioned guys they are advocating for or alternatively, have never seen them compete (or only seen snippets of them in action).

By the way, you claimed my post was “TL;DR”, but your response contained 142 words, whereas mine only had 73.

Im agreeing and disagreeing with you, dummy. I go by rep, you go on pure hard facts about boxers that you can see for yourself. That is my response. In simple english.

To be fair, I did say I didn’t understand your response.

And after reading your previous post a few times, I still don’t quite understand it, but it’s good we at least share some common ground.

[Onetimeonly]

We ain't seen his prime.

Bert Sugar lights up like a kid every time he talks about seeing him during the 40s.

Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.