i assume there has already been a thread like this but i haven't seen one, so who was/is the best pound for pound fighter in their prime?
im only 18 years old and haven't seen a quarter of as many boxers as some of you so i would like to get your insight
pound for pound prime
re
In his prime no other fighter in history accomplished what Henry Armstrong did, so judging on accomplishment...I would say Armstrong, or maybe Terry McGovern, who was right behind Armstrong in accomplishing so much in such a short time! But overall, no one has ever won titles in three divisions in a span of a year...and I'm not counting any of these lame jr. divisions that water down boxing today...actually Armstrong should have had four titles, but he was jobbed out of the middleweight title and given a draw in a bout he should have won...that's actually world titles, not the splintered trinkets of today, but real world titles at 126, 135, 147 and 160...no one else in history can compare to those credentials...especially considering the top rate opposition that Armstrong almost always fought!
Barry, by your reasoning we are therefore dismissing heavyweights as they cannot challenge for other titles. They are the biggest of all the fighters. That's why the debate is a wee bit futile. So How can anyone say Armstrong is p4p best when he wouldn't have lasted a round V Ali, Louis, Spinks, Tyson, Marciano etec etc.
re
Do you understand the term P4P? If you do then it is rather easy to see why I would say that Armstrong is right at the top in P4P status!
If Joe Louis was a 147 pound fighter do you think he would have been as successful as he was at heavyweight? How about Lennox Lewis, or even Ali?
If Joe Louis was a 147 pound fighter do you think he would have been as successful as he was at heavyweight? How about Lennox Lewis, or even Ali?
Oh I understand the term perfectly. It's fictitiious and currently unproveable. How can you or anyone for that matter say if Armstrong was 200lbs or more he would be the best there is. The same way nobody could determine if Ali, Louis etc would be great as lighter men. IT'S FANATSY. But what is not fantasy is the fact that Louis, Dempsey and all the legitimate great Heavyweights would without doubt have beat the Robinson's, Haglers, Leonards, Armstrong's etc etc etc.
It's quite simple really!!!
It's quite simple really!!!
re
>>>It's fictitiious and currently unproveable.<<<
So is claiming that Ali, or Louis is the greatest heavyweight ever...or even that Ali, or Louis could take out Henry Arsmtrong in one round...it's not provable that they could even beat Armstrong, Robinson, or Hagler...though it's highly likely, but it's still just as unprovable as what you are claiming!!!!
So is claiming that Ali, or Louis is the greatest heavyweight ever...or even that Ali, or Louis could take out Henry Arsmtrong in one round...it's not provable that they could even beat Armstrong, Robinson, or Hagler...though it's highly likely, but it's still just as unprovable as what you are claiming!!!!
When I think of 'pound-for-pound', I don't think of a 212lbs Henry Armstrong beating the shit out of Muhammad Ali...
... I just think of who was best relative to their weight. What did they accomplish within their own weight class/es, and how good they were against their own opponents. That's what I think of when I make my lists, not whether a 175lbs Benny Leonard would have beaten Archie Moore or not.
Adding height and weight, or taking it away, is a bad idea, because so, so much would change. I say just rate the fighters within their own divisions and throw this '220lbs Ray Robinson' stuff out of the window.
... I just think of who was best relative to their weight. What did they accomplish within their own weight class/es, and how good they were against their own opponents. That's what I think of when I make my lists, not whether a 175lbs Benny Leonard would have beaten Archie Moore or not.
Adding height and weight, or taking it away, is a bad idea, because so, so much would change. I say just rate the fighters within their own divisions and throw this '220lbs Ray Robinson' stuff out of the window.
Re: re
Now Barry you are just being awkward. Armstrong was a great great fighter, but to suggest that it's not proveable that Ali or Louis would beat him is ridiculous. It is, and that's why Boxing developed weights. Because bigger men were too formidable for lighter men. If we use your arguement, very little apart from science fact is proveable.barry wrote:>>>It's fictitiious and currently unproveable.<<<
So is claiming that Ali, or Louis is the greatest heavyweight ever...or even that Ali, or Louis could take out Henry Arsmtrong in one round...it's not provable that they could even beat Armstrong, Robinson, or Hagler...though it's highly likely, but it's still just as unprovable as what you are claiming!!!!
P4P is and always will be fantasy and I rarely entertain it. What irritates me is how a lot of people make p4p claims as if they were indeed true. They actually state it.
Look we are getting bogged down on vocabulary here.
It's simple, p4p is fantasy and cannot realistically be proved.
The legitimate heavyweight chapion of his time was on general
consensus taken to be the best fighter on the planet.
Now I know nothing is impossible and if it keeps you happy
I will go as far as to say that Armstrong etc etc does have the very slightest of chances at beating the great heavies, but I think the vast vast vast majority of sensible fight fans or anyone for that matter
is going to lay there money on the Heavy. Like I said that's why
boxing has weights
It's simple, p4p is fantasy and cannot realistically be proved.
The legitimate heavyweight chapion of his time was on general
consensus taken to be the best fighter on the planet.
Now I know nothing is impossible and if it keeps you happy
I will go as far as to say that Armstrong etc etc does have the very slightest of chances at beating the great heavies, but I think the vast vast vast majority of sensible fight fans or anyone for that matter
is going to lay there money on the Heavy. Like I said that's why
boxing has weights
Re: re
barry wrote:In his prime no other fighter in history accomplished what Henry Armstrong did, so judging on accomplishment...I would say Armstrong, or maybe Terry McGovern, who was right behind Armstrong in accomplishing so much in such a short time! But overall, no one has ever won titles in three divisions in a span of a year...and I'm not counting any of these lame jr. divisions that water down boxing today...actually Armstrong should have had four titles, but he was jobbed out of the middleweight title and given a draw in a bout he should have won...that's actually world titles, not the splintered trinkets of today, but real world titles at 126, 135, 147 and 160...no one else in history can compare to those credentials...especially considering the top rate opposition that Armstrong almost always fought!
Based on accomplishments I have to agree.
When you consider the muscle/skeletel/speed/strength dynamics of humans in general at what weight do you think we are at our most effective fighting weight in general? I'm not speaking on a personal level but as a species pound for pound. I suppose you could argue the smaller the more efficient regarding humans but my opinion is around welterweight in general.
I do agree with you in that matching two fighters of different weight classes up against each other, altering their size like, for instance, George Foreman versus Ricardo Lopez, is a very silly idea - see my above post.walshb wrote:Look we are getting bogged down on vocabulary here.
It's simple, p4p is fantasy and cannot realistically be proved.
The legitimate heavyweight chapion of his time was on general
consensus taken to be the best fighter on the planet.
Now I know nothing is impossible and if it keeps you happy
I will go as far as to say that Armstrong etc etc does have the very slightest of chances at beating the great heavies, but I think the vast vast vast majority of sensible fight fans or anyone for that matter
is going to lay there money on the Heavy. Like I said that's why
boxing has weights
Re: re
I think around light heavyweight; Archie Moore-type build. Strong legs, muscular arms, thick torso, well-rounded:BoxBuzz wrote:When you consider the muscle/skeletel/speed/strength dynamics of humans in general at what weight do you think we are at our most effective fighting weight in general? I'm not speaking on a personal level but as a species pound for pound. I suppose you could argue the smaller the more efficient regarding humans but my opinion is around welterweight in general.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/ ... /moore.jpg
Are you referring to my claim in the other thread? I believe one could call him the greatest, but only by altering the criteria. In a head-to-head sense, there were better (although only a few), and there were some who accomplished more. But as a fighter he had it all, from the raw grit, determination and fighting skills, to the flamboyancy and style, professionalism and to the humour, mystique, even kindness, courtesy and generousity.BoxBuzz wrote:You may be right on this one....easy sell to this particular contributor.
Moore the all time greatest boxer? Possibly.....
I always laugh when I read about Moore's stories he told to the reporters, about all those magic syrums and solutions he used to help him gain strength or lose weight, and I loved those special robes he used to wear to each fight in his later career, as well as those dryly funny comments and that confidence that very often used to turn into harmless arrogance.
re
Regardless of criteria's, or whatever it's all opinion in fantasy match-ups...even the claims of a heavyweight beating a welterweight...it cannot be proved and if someone tries to validate one while damning the other...well they just lose all credibilty!
No one is certain of anything in these match-ups unless the fighters actually fight and even then some people will try to make a shit load of various claims, excuses and others things.
Though a person can certainly put together a very solid theory backed by facts, but as far as being undeniably right in the P4P stats, or the fantasy match-ups a person never will be...not even a Ricardo Lopez-Lennox Lewis bout...too many possibles...it would seem certain that Lennox Lewis would beat Lopez, but what if Lewis comes out of his corner at the bell, swings and misses once during which he suffers a compound-fracture of the leg...Lopez wins! Now the odds of something like that happening would be out-rageous, but there is just as much validity in that argument as there is any fantasy games!
No one is certain of anything in these match-ups unless the fighters actually fight and even then some people will try to make a shit load of various claims, excuses and others things.
Though a person can certainly put together a very solid theory backed by facts, but as far as being undeniably right in the P4P stats, or the fantasy match-ups a person never will be...not even a Ricardo Lopez-Lennox Lewis bout...too many possibles...it would seem certain that Lennox Lewis would beat Lopez, but what if Lewis comes out of his corner at the bell, swings and misses once during which he suffers a compound-fracture of the leg...Lopez wins! Now the odds of something like that happening would be out-rageous, but there is just as much validity in that argument as there is any fantasy games!