BoxRec

Chepppaaa wrote:hahhahahhahahhahahaha.....you so stupid hahaha....

like i said....you making it very easy looking stupid and having me right. cause i said you wouldnt be able to answer a question and that you would switch to another subject.

and than you put smileys on everybodys posts who said something positiv about your ranking like a litle b.., dude, are you 15 or what.....

yeah guess so hhrrhr

You're no match for Horse, you'll get tired before he does.

palooka wrote:You're no match for Horse, you'll get tired before he does.

its not about that.. for me its no competition like for you girls.

i got my point through and see that horse is a moron.

Chepppaaa wrote:its not about that.. for me its no competition like for you girls.

i got my point through and see that horse is a moron.

You are a rude person.

I don't like or respect you.

NateJR wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

NateJR wrote:I see the normal assclowns of this forum are crying as always because Floyd is still #1 and been crushing their dreams for the last decade or more. Poor sad people let me tell you, stay mad bitches lol.

GGG hasn't fought anyone as good as Madaina in his entire professional career you phucktards lmao. Get off GGGs dick, he doesn't deserve to hold Floyds jock strap.

Go scream TBE x40 on a street corner somewhere. Pacquiao's win over Timothy Bradley alone eclipses anything in Floyd's career. He doesn't have a single win that meets the 3 following criteria;

1. ATG fighter. 2. In his Prime. 3. In his optimum weight class.

Pacman has a few of those, but at least Floyd avenged Marcos Maidana, have a nice day.

Delusional butthurt assclown you are. I hope you carry around extra large tampons for the heavy flow that pours out of your butt hurt ass.

or don't have a nice day

davie wrote:I'm with everyone else on the Andre Ward topic
Why is JMM so high? beating Alverado doesn't merit a top 4 place after the Bradley defeat
Roman Gonzalez at 5? he's only fought in 1 world title fight in his last 6 yet he leapfrogs a technical genius like Rigondeaux

Horse wrote:1. (1.) Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2. (2.) Andre Ward
3. (3.) Manny Pacquiao
4. (4.) Juan Manuel Marquez
5. (15.) Roman Gonzalez
6. (5.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7. (7.) Carl Froch
8. (6.) Timothy Bradley
9. (8.) Bernard Hopkins
10. (9.) Saul Alvarez

11. (16.) Juan Francisco Estrada
12. (10.) Wladimir Klitschko
13. (11.) Gennady Golovkin
14. (12.) Adonis Stevenson
15. (13.) Mikey Garcia
16. (14.) Nonito Donaire
17. (17.) Miguel Cotto
18. (18.) Shinsuke Yamanaka
19. (19.) Sergey Kovalev
20. (21.) Terence Crawford

21. (20.) Danny Garcia
22. (23.) Leo Santa Cruz
23. (24.) Mauricio Herrera
24. (26.) Erislandy Lara
25. (27.) Kell Brook
26. (NE.) Carl Frampton
27. (22.) Marcos Maidana
28. (25.) Akira Yaegashi
29. (30.) Marco Huck
30. (28.) Jhonny Gonzalez

Out - (29.) Takashi Uchiyama

Pacquiao, Bradley & Marquez have 3 very different styles [hence the tough triangle of results] but are all very similar in terms of level. All 3 of them should be in the top 6 or 7.

Roman Gonzalez at 5? he's only fought in 1 world title fight in his last 6

And Rigo's fought only twice in the same time frame.

One of Gonzalez's non-title fights was also an outclassing and stoppage of a current unified champion.

It's sad that this has digressed to a personal level.

Horse, while I like your rankings which are well thought out, I disagree with you about certain fighters. Lara is highly skilled and could easily have been given the decision against Canelo, but he lost fair-and-square, so he deserves to be ranked lower than Canelo, although IMO probably not as low as you have him. I also think you are seriously underrating Rigo on his ability, though I don't disagree with your ranking of him as one win over Donaire is not enough to rank him over Floyd or Ward. Pac, Marquez, Gonzales are arguable.

Chepppaaa -

you go by who you like, not by talent or skills. i dont like no boxer, because i dont know them personal, i dont give a f..... about them. i rank by what i see, how good they are. i rank by sill, you rank by "who you like more".....

you have no basis for making this accusation, I could just as easily say that same about you with regards to Floyd and Wlad. Personally, I do like some boxers more than others due to their fighting styles and personalities, however I do not let this cloud my ability to rate them based on their performances. As I've said, GGG is my favourite active fighter, yet objectively I don't believe he belongs in the P4P Top 10 because of his mediocre level of competition compared to other top fighters. I respect Floyd as a boxer, but don't like his as a person. Objectively I see that at least for now, he deserves to the the P4P #1. To have him ranked below Lara shows bias as he has demonstrated himself to be better than Lara is almost every conceivable way. I like Wlad as a person but hate watching him fight because he is so boring, but to not have him ranked at #1 at heavyweight shows a clear bias - he is the most clear cut #1 in any division in the sport.

Ricky -

Pacquiao, Bradley & Marquez have 3 very different styles [hence the tough triangle of results] but are all very similar in terms of level. All 3 of them should be in the top 6 or 7.

Good post, I completely agree with you on that. I also tend to agree with your assessment than no one at 160lb or below would beat GGG, though I think Floyd vs GGG at 154lb is an intriguing match up that depends on how much the weight loss affects GGG and how much Floyd has left. Right now I would narrowly favour GGG in that fight, but, of course, it's not going to happen.

However, I disagree that this is a solid basis for having GGG ranked as the P4P #1 because it is as much to do with how weak the MW division is, as it is about how good GGG is. It would be a bit like having Wlad as the P4P #1 because he is so dominant, despite his weak competition.

Thankyou for not stooping to Chepppaaa's level of putting others down for not agreeing with him.

jezzamundo wrote:It's sad that this has digressed to a personal level.

Horse, while I like your rankings which are well thought out, I disagree with you about certain fighters. Lara is highly skilled and could easily have been given the decision against Canelo, but he lost fair-and-square, so he deserves to be ranked lower than Canelo, although IMO probably not as low as you have him. I also think you are seriously underrating Rigo on his ability, though I don't disagree with your ranking of him as one win over Donaire is not enough to rank him over Floyd or Ward. Pac, Marquez, Gonzales are arguable.

Chepppaaa -

you go by who you like, not by talent or skills. i dont like no boxer, because i dont know them personal, i dont give a f..... about them. i rank by what i see, how good they are. i rank by sill, you rank by "who you like more".....

you have no basis for making this accusation, I could just as easily say that same about you with regards to Floyd and Wlad. Personally, I do like some boxers more than others due to their fighting styles and personalities, however I do not let this cloud my ability to rate them based on their performances. As I've said, GGG is my favourite active fighter, yet objectively I don't believe he belongs in the P4P Top 10 because of his mediocre level of competition compared to other top fighters. I respect Floyd as a boxer, but don't like his as a person. Objectively I see that at least for now, he deserves to the the P4P #1. To have him ranked below Lara shows bias as he has demonstrated himself to be better than Lara is almost every conceivable way. I like Wlad as a person but hate watching him fight because he is so boring, but to not have him ranked at #1 at heavyweight shows a clear bias - he is the most clear cut #1 in any division in the sport.

Ricky -

Pacquiao, Bradley & Marquez have 3 very different styles [hence the tough triangle of results] but are all very similar in terms of level. All 3 of them should be in the top 6 or 7.

Good post, I completely agree with you on that. I also tend to agree with your assessment than no one at 160lb or below would beat GGG, though I think Floyd vs GGG at 154lb is an intriguing match up that depends on how much the weight loss affects GGG and how much Floyd has left. Right now I would narrowly favour GGG in that fight, but, of course, it's not going to happen.

However, I disagree that this is a solid basis for having GGG ranked as the P4P #1 because it is as much to do with how weak the MW division is, as it is about how good GGG is. It would be a bit like having Wlad as the P4P #1 because he is so dominant, despite his weak competition.

Thankyou for not stooping to Chepppaaa's level of putting others down for not agreeing with him.

i dont put anybody down, because other dont aggree with me.

i put people down, because i get attacked in here and i defend myself.

also, most people out here are not capable of making an discussion that makes sense. most people go by "likes" like i said.

i said 100000 times why wlad is for me not the #1 heavyweight and nobody seem (you also jezzamondo) to listen and than yall start discussion about other sh&/()t or start downgrading what i am writing down, just because i do not aggree with you.

you guys seem to have more problem with me, with what i write, who i think is the best, than i do with you. i can acceppt anybody having floyd as #1 p4p or wlad #1 heavyweight, as long those people are able to have a good solid discussion about boxing and make sense in their statemants and not only listen to themself, but listen to others. but you guys are bad listeners and on top are very poor on making sense and last try do absurd me and say that i am a dunce or that i live in a fantasy world, and than i simply defend myself.

i go by who beats who. right now i think an prime lara beats and past prime floyd, thats why i have him higher in my rank than floyd. and where do u see the so called advantages in every way for floyd? physicly they both equal, both very athletic. powerwise lara tops floyd. footwork wise both are world class. lara has a strong jab and even strong 1+2 combination. i see it pretty even. with the huge advantage by lara, by being 6 years younger and prime and also very technical and it was impressiv how he schooled canelo, made him miss all day, until stupid lara refused punching and simply beat himself. but had he continuined schooling canelo, who had absolutly no chance, than it would have been a clearer ud than floyd did.

Chepppaaa wrote:you diont know boxing

2nd post.

Chepppaaa wrote:the amount of stupidity in this thread is so high.

most people here realy have no idea of boxing, they go by likes or records. they do not understand boxing, they do not understand who wins against who and why.

3rd post.

Chepppaaa wrote:and thats why you dont know much about boxing.

4th post.

Chepppaaa wrote:he woudl get brutalized, simple as that- and if you dont know that, than there is 1 of many reasons why you not a boxing expert.

but do you what the difference is between a boxing expert like myself and someone who know litle or nothing to boxing?

5th post.

I could go on.

exactly, you dont know boxing. thats why i write that you dont know boxing. nothing wrong with it.

and i say "you dont know bong" not because you have other people listed on the top other than i do, but because you are unable to make a discussion that makes sense and you arent unable to listen. i ask a question and you simply change the subject. when i get asked something i write down an answer, as simple as that. but i dont make an circus and change subjects, just not to answer.

Chepppaaa wrote:exactly, you dont know boxing. thats why i write that you dont know boxing. nothing wrong with it.

and i say "you dont know bong" not because you have other people listed on the top other than i do, but because you are unable to make a discussion that makes sense and you arent unable to listen. i ask a question and you simply change the subject. when i get asked something i write down an answer, as simple as that. but i dont make an circus and change subjects, just not to answer.

What is your first language?

i said 100000 times why wlad is for me not the #1 heavyweight and nobody seem (you also jezzamondo) to listen and than yall start discussion about other sh&/()t or start downgrading what i am writing down, just because i do not aggree with you.

I do 'listen' or at least, I read everything you have written before making a response. I understand your viewpoint, but based on all of the evidence available, I disagree with it. Based on what you write, it seems to me that you don't actually understand boxing nearly as well as you claim to, but it's also pretty clear that English is not your first language, so it could be that your supposed expertise is just getting lost in translation. If I think you are making a poor argument, I am going to call you out on it and I would expect the same in return. Nothing personal.

i go by who beats who. right now i think an prime lara beats and past prime floyd, thats why i have him higher in my rank than floyd. and where do u see the so called advantages in every way for floyd? physicly they both equal, both very athletic. powerwise lara tops floyd. footwork wise both are world class. lara has a strong jab and even strong 1+2 combination. i see it pretty even. with the huge advantage by lara, by being 6 years younger and prime and also very technical and it was impressiv how he schooled canelo, made him miss all day, until stupid lara refused punching and simply beat himself. but had he continuined schooling canelo, who had absolutly no chance, than it would have been a clearer ud than floyd did.

Fair enough, that's your opinion, but again, I disagree with it. In my opinion:

- At 147lb Floyd beats Lara
- At 154lb it would be a very close fight, I would narrowly favour Floyd
- Floyd convincingly beat Canelo (the draw scorecard is a joke), whereas Lara lost to him in a highly competitive fight
- They are similar in physical gifts, with Lara having the edge in size and power, but Floyd is smarter and tactically superior

Ultimately my feeling towards your view of boxing is that you prefer style over substance, whereas I prefer substance over style. I believe Lara's rating should reflect his overall performance, not his ability at his best. If he stopped punching against Canelo and beat himself, his rating should suffer for it.

IMO hypothetical who-beats-who is a poor way to rank fighters, because:

1) It is little more than guesswork
2) There are often cases where A beats B, B beats C and C beats A - who should be ranked higher? The one who has performed better and achieved more in the ring, particularly in their most recent outings.

jezzamundo wrote:
Ricky -

Pacquiao, Bradley & Marquez have 3 very different styles [hence the tough triangle of results] but are all very similar in terms of level. All 3 of them should be in the top 6 or 7.

Good post, I completely agree with you on that. I also tend to agree with your assessment than no one at 160lb or below would beat GGG, though I think Floyd vs GGG at 154lb is an intriguing match up that depends on how much the weight loss affects GGG and how much Floyd has left. Right now I would narrowly favour GGG in that fight, but, of course, it's not going to happen.

However, I disagree that this is a solid basis for having GGG ranked as the P4P #1 because it is as much to do with how weak the MW division is, as it is about how good GGG is. It would be a bit like having Wlad as the P4P #1 because he is so dominant, despite his weak competition.

Thankyou for not stooping to Chepppaaa's level of putting others down for not agreeing with him.

Well GGG has never fought below 154 so speculating a direct matchup between Floyd & GGG at that weight is pointless imo, (and i can't help but laugh at the idea of Floyd even entertaining a fight like that). It's also unfair on Floyd given GGG is significantly bigger man so isn't in keeping with the term p4p.

As for your assessment of the MW division - I guess this fustrates me. Quality of opposition is indeed a factor, but too many fans hang everything upon it. For example we all know Mike Tyson is amongst the greatest heavyweights ever, but that is based upon us witnessing his ability, technique, physical attributes, and not so much to do with the quality of his resume which you'd wipe your ass with comparing to Ali's.

Ricky_ wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Ricky -

Pacquiao, Bradley & Marquez have 3 very different styles [hence the tough triangle of results] but are all very similar in terms of level. All 3 of them should be in the top 6 or 7.

Good post, I completely agree with you on that. I also tend to agree with your assessment than no one at 160lb or below would beat GGG, though I think Floyd vs GGG at 154lb is an intriguing match up that depends on how much the weight loss affects GGG and how much Floyd has left. Right now I would narrowly favour GGG in that fight, but, of course, it's not going to happen.

However, I disagree that this is a solid basis for having GGG ranked as the P4P #1 because it is as much to do with how weak the MW division is, as it is about how good GGG is. It would be a bit like having Wlad as the P4P #1 because he is so dominant, despite his weak competition.

Thankyou for not stooping to Chepppaaa's level of putting others down for not agreeing with him.

Well GGG has never fought below 154 so speculating a direct matchup between Floyd & GGG at that weight is pointless imo, (and i can't help but laugh at the idea of Floyd even entertaining a fight like that). It's also unfair on Floyd given GGG is significantly bigger man so isn't in keeping with the term p4p.

As for your assessment of the MW division - I guess this fustrates me. Quality of opposition is indeed a factor, but too many fans hang everything upon it. For example we all know Mike Tyson is amongst the greatest heavyweights ever, but that is based upon us witnessing his ability, technique, physical attributes, and not so much to do with the quality of his resume which you'd wipe your ass with comparing to Ali's.

I believe quality of opposition and level of performance and results against said opposition are the most important things when coming up with rankings. Ultimately I don't think fighters should have high rankings until they have earned them in the ring. Tyson doesn't make my all-time heavyweight Top 10 largely due to his short prime and mediocre opposition. I would favour him to beat Marciano in a fight, but I rank Marciano higher.

In the end I think it just comes down to a philosophical difference in what we believe rankings are for.

While I don't have GGG in my P4P Top 10, I wouldn't argue with anyone who has him in the lower end of theirs. Number one though? That's a pretty far-out view - I don't believe there is enough evidence to support it and dominance over a weak division isn't exactly a strong point.

All this said, I think GGG is special and he will have earned a spot among the elite within the next year or two.

jezzamundo wrote: I believe quality of opposition and level of performance and results against said opposition are the most important things when coming up with rankings. Ultimately I don't think fighters should have high rankings until they have earned them in the ring. Tyson doesn't make my all-time heavyweight Top 10 largely due to his short prime and mediocre opposition. I would favour him to beat Marciano in a fight, but I rank Marciano higher.

In the end I think it just comes down to a philosophical difference in what we believe rankings are for.

Your last sentence sums it up pretty well.

If you rank fighters by what they achieved and the names they defeated then that's fair enough, but it's not p4p. Like your Marciano analogy, you can rank Marciano higher than Tyson, sure, I don't have a problem with that, but is he simply a better fighter, p4p? No, and i think Tyson would have did to him in his prime what he did to Holmes or Spinks. So imo you're rankings is based upon achievements, records, legacies, rather than simply who was the better fighter.

And the lines get muddied in these p4p lists. What exactly are they supposed to represent? For me it is this; As of today, who is the best fighter on planet regardless of weight?

To come to that conclusion you need to assess a number of variables but too many boxing fans air on the side of caution and just go with the guys who have proven themselves by languishing at the top for 5 or 6 years for fear of looking stupid if a guy they believe to be the best is exposed as a hypejob or has been hiding a glass jaw.

Have a read at this article with Hatton's former trainer;

http://www.BS.com/billy-graham ... elo--69632

Thanks, that was a good read. Clearly Graham views P4P the same way that you do.

jezzamundo wrote:Thanks, that was a good read. Clearly Graham views P4P the same way that you do.

Indeed it's a more out there approach by simply stating who you think is currently the best - but when you base your rankings solely on wins you end up with a conveyor belt whereby the no.1 p4p is usually a guy who is out of his prime, on the slide, but racked up very good wins in big world title fights over the previous 6 or 7 years.


He's a perfect example for you; the Ring Magazine p4p rankings from the end of 2001.

I'd argue that 2001 was possibly Mayweather's prime, having just stopped Corrales in stunning fashion. Yet he's ranked 5th, and i don't think anyone believes he is better now at 37 and sitting on the ropes vs a bum like Maidana, than he was 13 years ago putting on simply masterful displays against Corrales. But in 2014 at nearly 40 he's #1, yet in 2001 he's 5th because it was the "safe" option where proven guys on the slide can safely & justifiably rank above a better a fighter because they haven't "proven it yet". That's the flaw in your p4p approach imo.

http://www.badlefthook.com/2011/11/19/2 ... ins-mosley

jezzamundo wrote:

i said 100000 times why wlad is for me not the #1 heavyweight and nobody seem (you also jezzamondo) to listen and than yall start discussion about other sh&/()t or start downgrading what i am writing down, just because i do not aggree with you.

I do 'listen' or at least, I read everything you have written before making a response. I understand your viewpoint, but based on all of the evidence available, I disagree with it. Based on what you write, it seems to me that you don't actually understand boxing nearly as well as you claim to, but it's also pretty clear that English is not your first language, so it could be that your supposed expertise is just getting lost in translation. If I think you are making a poor argument, I am going to call you out on it and I would expect the same in return. Nothing personal.

i go by who beats who. right now i think an prime lara beats and past prime floyd, thats why i have him higher in my rank than floyd. and where do u see the so called advantages in every way for floyd? physicly they both equal, both very athletic. powerwise lara tops floyd. footwork wise both are world class. lara has a strong jab and even strong 1+2 combination. i see it pretty even. with the huge advantage by lara, by being 6 years younger and prime and also very technical and it was impressiv how he schooled canelo, made him miss all day, until stupid lara refused punching and simply beat himself. but had he continuined schooling canelo, who had absolutly no chance, than it would have been a clearer ud than floyd did.

Fair enough, that's your opinion, but again, I disagree with it. In my opinion:

- At 147lb Floyd beats Lara
- At 154lb it would be a very close fight, I would narrowly favour Floyd
- Floyd convincingly beat Canelo (the draw scorecard is a joke), whereas Lara lost to him in a highly competitive fight
- They are similar in physical gifts, with Lara having the edge in size and power, but Floyd is smarter and tactically superior

Ultimately my feeling towards your view of boxing is that you prefer style over substance, whereas I prefer substance over style. I believe Lara's rating should reflect his overall performance, not his ability at his best. If he stopped punching against Canelo and beat himself, his rating should suffer for it.

IMO hypothetical who-beats-who is a poor way to rank fighters, because:

1) It is little more than guesswork
2) There are often cases where A beats B, B beats C and C beats A - who should be ranked higher? The one who has performed better and achieved more in the ring, particularly in their most recent outings.

now thats an good boxing discussion, thats how i like it. finaly.

yeah its true sometimes boxer a losses to a c level fighter and a b level boxer beats an c level fighter, all true. but its rare, very rare.

my experience that i made over the time, is that i very good in picking fights. and i go by both, by skill/athletic ability and by record (its not like lara or rigondeaux achieved nothing in boxing and that i am saying out of the blue that they are very good). but ultimatly i vote who is better and who i rank higher in a p4p sense in who i believe would win in a fight and since i have been very good at pikcing a winner in a fight in over 10 years in boxing, thats why i see it pretty logic to me to rate boxers that way. and many examples like beterbiev beating a guy strong guy with 26 fights in his 6 fight, vasyl, beating fast garry who had 24 in his 3 fight or rigo beating p4p top 4 with over 30 fights in his 12 or 13 fight just shows me that i am correct. i had all those 3 guys winning, why, because record is impressiv, but more impressiv to me is ability, because you can have an record as great as you want, when somebody walks in the ring smarter, sharper, stronger and faster than you, than you in for a whole lot of trouble.

but i accept your way of thinking, if you like to go by reascent record and believe the guy with the best record is the best boxer than for me its still rigo, because his reascent record with donaire and just dominating good guys is more impreesiv to me than close wins and MD's. but if you got floyd #1 than okay. but going by record is also guesswork, everything is guesswork when you pick a fight that will happen in future.

but in one point i am 100 % with you, lara is dumb and yes he should suffer from for being dumb. you dont stop punching, when you have been technicly domininating the first 5 rounds easily schooling your opponent and than just stop, thats super dumb, put him out of the top 10!!!

I believe quality of opposition and level of performance and results against said opposition are the most important things when coming up with rankings. Ultimately I don't think fighters should have high rankings until they have earned them in the ring. Tyson doesn't make my all-time heavyweight Top 10 largely due to his short prime and mediocre opposition. I would favour him to beat Marciano in a fight, but I rank Marciano higher.

In the end I think it just comes down to a philosophical difference in what we believe rankings are for.[/quote]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

just a question.

isnt there a difference between atg list and p4p list? I mean, for me p4p was always who beats who same weight, simply who is p4p the better boxer, because of what he can do in the ring.

your way of ranking, isnt that more a way of ranking greatness, which only can be achieved with a great record and great performances.

we realy should distinguish between...

A p4p greatest boxer ever list

B p4p best boxer ever list

because in your logic, marciano would be higher than tyson on list a because of his greater record, but lower, since you think prime tyson beats prime marciano on list B.

for me list b is way more important than list a, because down the line i am way more impressic by athletic ability and skills, than by records, maybe it has soemthing to do with it, that when i see a top level fight lets say oscar vs mosley, i dont say "what great records they have".....j say "what a great fight, extraordinary how fast mosley is and nice left hook from oscar"

get my point =)

just a question.

isnt there a difference between atg list and p4p list? I mean, for me p4p was always who beats who same weight, simply who is p4p the better boxer, because of what he can do in the ring.

your way of ranking, isnt that more a way of ranking greatness, which only can be achieved with a great record and great performances.

we realy should distinguish between...

A p4p greatest boxer ever list

B p4p best boxer ever list

because in your logic, marciano would be higher than tyson on list a because of his greater record, but lower, since you think prime tyson beats prime marciano on list B.

for me list b is way more important than list a, because down the line i am way more impressic by athletic ability and skills, than by records, maybe it has soemthing to do with it, that when i see a top level fight lets say oscar vs mosley, i dont say "what great records they have".....j say "what a great fight, extraordinary how fast mosley is and nice left hook from oscar"

get my point =)

I get it and I think that's fair enough

I've never really attempted to make a best ever list - too subjective for my mind, not to mention the lack of quality footage of older fighters - and I've never considered the purpose of a list to be to predict who-beats-who because of the A-B-C situations I referred to earlier, which are actually very common in boxing - styles make fights. Just look at:

Cotto-Mosley-Margarito
Pavlik-Taylor-Hopkins
RJJ-Hopkins-Tarver
Leonard-Hearns-Duran
Foreman-Frazier-Ali
Forrest-Mosley-Mayorga
Pascal-Dawson-Hopkins
McCall-Lewis-Bruno

I admire all of the same things in boxers that you do - but more important to me is who they are doing it against. Prince Naseem looked amazing until he fought an A level fighter in Barrera.

jezzamundo wrote:

just a question.

isnt there a difference between atg list and p4p list? I mean, for me p4p was always who beats who same weight, simply who is p4p the better boxer, because of what he can do in the ring.

your way of ranking, isnt that more a way of ranking greatness, which only can be achieved with a great record and great performances.

we realy should distinguish between...

A p4p greatest boxer ever list

B p4p best boxer ever list

because in your logic, marciano would be higher than tyson on list a because of his greater record, but lower, since you think prime tyson beats prime marciano on list B.

for me list b is way more important than list a, because down the line i am way more impressic by athletic ability and skills, than by records, maybe it has soemthing to do with it, that when i see a top level fight lets say oscar vs mosley, i dont say "what great records they have".....j say "what a great fight, extraordinary how fast mosley is and nice left hook from oscar"

get my point =)

I get it and I think that's fair enough

I've never really attempted to make a best ever list - too subjective for my mind, not to mention the lack of quality footage of older fighters - and I've never considered the purpose of a list to be to predict who-beats-who because of the A-B-C situations I referred to earlier, which are actually very common in boxing - styles make fights. Just look at:

Cotto-Mosley-Margarito
Pavlik-Taylor-Hopkins
RJJ-Hopkins-Tarver
Leonard-Hearns-Duran
Foreman-Frazier-Ali
Forrest-Mosley-Mayorga
Pascal-Dawson-Hopkins
McCall-Lewis-Bruno

I admire all of the same things in boxers that you do - but more important to me is who they are doing it against. Prince Naseem looked amazing until he fought an A level fighter in Barrera.

yeah true on that. styles realy make fights, its funny, how forrest totaly owned a prime mosley and than got wrecked by mayorga, when a past prime mosley knocked out a mayorga, wounder would a prime mosley would have done to mayorga.

its tough to than go out and judge who is better.

well as for hamed goes, he is in the same category, like a guillermo jones. the "if category". if hamed had trained like a true professional, than ............

put it this way, he enjoyd going into the ring, making a show and ko ing guys, without much training, he was able to do so, because he was ultra talented and born with world class power. but when an exceptional talent that doesnt train hard meets some good talent, but not exceptional, but who trains hard, than usualy the man who trains harder wins.

I mean, i watched the movie of hamed, the show before the fight and you could tell that he wasnt training. he was in poor shape in sparring, he wasnt doing any running. it was just poor training, when in comparisons i see manny trainin, i see a guy constantly running hills, constantly making 1000 a day exercises to work on his abs and blisting speed in sparring. hamed was always giving 60 %. had he had a traners mentality he would have sky rocketed. but 60 isnt enough for morales and barrera.