BoxRec

tiny_acres wrote:

Yes We Can wrote:Floyd could certainly be compared to Sugar Leonard, whom he is behind on any Mythical all time P4P list in my eyes.

I classify Pac and Mayweather on the same level as Leonard.

p4p they are on his level, but i think he would have beaten both comfortably at Welterweight. Could you ever imagine Floyd or Pacman in with a prime Hearns at Welter!? The very best version of Mayweather & Pacquiao probably reside at around 135lb. With Pacquiao we can't grumble too much having seen his prime version more than tested against Barrera, Morales & Marquez. I'd love to have seen either of them at lightweight face Duran though. I'd make both underdogs.

Ricky_ wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

Yes We Can wrote:Floyd could certainly be compared to Sugar Leonard, whom he is behind on any Mythical all time P4P list in my eyes.

I classify Pac and Mayweather on the same level as Leonard.

p4p they are on his level, but i think he would have beaten both comfortably at Welterweight. Could you ever imagine Floyd or Pacman in with a prime Hearns at Welter!? The very best version of Mayweather & Pacquiao probably reside at around 135lb. With Pacquiao we can't grumble too much having seen his prime version more than tested against Barrera, Morales & Marquez. I'd love to have seen either of them at lightweight face Duran though. I'd make both underdogs.

Again you are correct. Neither is peak at welterweight. So what is the shame in that?
Damn people are acting like they are in their primes mow.smdh

Problem here is we tend to remember the biggest win of the superstar from other era. We all remember Leonard big win but not his losses and even the win he struggle in.
Guys who are boxing right now don t have that chance because it is to fresh in our memory.
It s like remember Floyd for Corrales, Gatti, Alvarez and forget about Castillo
Or Manny for Hatton, Cotto, Margarito but forget about JMM
These guys are the best of our era and they deserve to be in discussion with all time great.
I'm not saying they ll beat them all but they certainly be a tough customer for anyone discuss on P4P list

@ fergusg

p4p wise, meaning hearns a litle bit shorter and duran alitle bit taller, same weight, i still do believe prime hearns beats prime duran, simply because hearns was better than duran. i see you did not read what i said! it doesnt impress me duran, with all his title defences and all his fight against 18-14-3 guys.

@ man

yeah its tricky indeed

@ ricky

in p4p you can put any fighter regardless of weight in a fight in your mind. you simply let the natural bigger boxer get thinner n smaller and the natural smaller boxer get bigger and taller.
but yeah, its true, it would realy be interresting how lower weights atg like prime morales does against prime chavez, prime pacquiao against prime duran etc and in higher weight prime X against prime hagler, prime trinidad against prime hearns etc.

but down the line, what it comes down to and that is the point we as real boxing experts have to figure out how a fight plays out based on dis- and advantage boxer a has over boxer b. and that is more important than records and all that.

Chepppaaa wrote:@ fergusg

p4p wise, meaning hearns a litle bit shorter and duran alitle bit taller, same weight, i still do believe prime hearns beats prime duran, simply because hearns was better than duran. i see you did not read what i said! it doesnt impress me duran, with all his title defences and all his fight against 18-14-3 guys.

I agree that Hearns beats Duran, but that doesn't mean he's better p4p. Boxing is rock-paper-scissors - styles make fights.

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:@ fergusg

p4p wise, meaning hearns a litle bit shorter and duran alitle bit taller, same weight, i still do believe prime hearns beats prime duran, simply because hearns was better than duran. i see you did not read what i said! it doesnt impress me duran, with all his title defences and all his fight against 18-14-3 guys.

I agree that Hearns beats Duran, but that doesn't mean he's better p4p. Boxing is rock-paper-scissors - styles make fights.

yeah because you rate on record, i get the point, had hearns well over 100 fights like duran, with 80 % garbage on the record, than you would rate hearns certainly above duran. but i dont go that way. look at floyd, he will finish his career having around 49 fights, just because of this reason i should rate him behind duran, because duran got more title fights and overall fighters, yet knowing that prime mayweather's style is all 100 % wrong for prime duran and that duran might only win a few rounds. no way.

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.

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.

NateJR wrote:There's so many things that can taken into consideration which makes the whole idea of a ATG P4P list fun but 100% speculative.

I'd agree with everything cept fun. I'd exchange fun for silly as its a lil more insulting.

The number of fights thing is interesting. That heavily plays into your era. If Ray Robinson was around today he'd have retired at maybe 50-3 or something like that, but grabbed a few more divisional titles. Take Floyd back to Ray's era & he'd probably had retired at 130-6-3 or something like that, but wouldn't gotten less opportunities for divisional titles. Throw Tyson back to those Dempsey days & he mighta retired undefeated or had a L or two after a ill timed comeback. So many things going on in each era & you can't really put guys into a sterile environment & compare them.

Bottom line is ATG is such a silly fantasy conversation to have when you really try being honest & looking at all possible variables.

I stopped reading when I saw Wilder as an all time great

Classic stuff

punchoutsb wrote:I stopped reading when I saw Wilder as an all time great

Classic stuff

come on man, he set me up. and i am an honest dude. if we go by record, sure wilder no galaxys away from being an atg, but if we go straight by what he brings to the table. extrem power in both hands, tall, athletic, strong build, good movemants for a guy that big and tall. at the end looking totaly untouched after a fight against some guys here talk about as the biggest puncher at heavyweight after wlad, stiverne. i mean, wilder is just very good and keeps improving. i tell you just one thing. foreman is around 10-20 in mostly everybodys p4p all tiem gearts list and he at his prime weight around 100 kg, wilder now enterting his prime is also around 100 kg, so its a good comparison. one, foreman is bigger physicly and stronger on the shulders, more bulked. the wilder is taller, has far more reach, but both weigh the same. well, let me tell you, foreman would have his hands full with wilder! so why nt say somebody is an atg, when he is able to beat a guy who is even in somebody top 10 atg lists? foreman hits harder than wilder, but wilder punches faster. foremans hooks, you could count the secondes before he hit his opponent, well when he hit him clear than good night, but foreman was super slow. wilder is a fast puncher for a heavyweight, with power of its own. who is more athletic? hands down, wilder all day. can move much better, upper body and footwork than foreman. i am not saying wilder would clearly easily ebat foreman, i am justs aying that wilder has some advantages over foreman, more than the other way around.

Chepppaaa wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:I stopped reading when I saw Wilder as an all time great

Classic stuff

come on man, he set me up. and i am an honest dude. if we go by record, sure wilder no galaxys away from being an atg, but if we go straight by what he brings to the table. extrem power in both hands, tall, athletic, strong build, good movemants for a guy that big and tall. at the end looking totaly untouched after a fight against some guys here talk about as the biggest puncher at heavyweight after wlad, stiverne. i mean, wilder is just very good and keeps improving. i tell you just one thing. foreman is around 10-20 in mostly everybodys p4p all tiem gearts list and he at his prime weight around 100 kg, wilder now enterting his prime is also around 100 kg, so its a good comparison. one, foreman is bigger physicly and stronger on the shulders, more bulked. the wilder is taller, has far more reach, but both weigh the same. well, let me tell you, foreman would have his hands full with wilder! so why nt say somebody is an atg, when he is able to beat a guy who is even in somebody top 10 atg lists? foreman hits harder than wilder, but wilder punches faster. foremans hooks, you could count the secondes before he hit his opponent, well when he hit him clear than good night, but foreman was super slow. wilder is a fast puncher for a heavyweight, with power of its own. who is more athletic? hands down, wilder all day. can move much better, upper body and footwork than foreman. i am not saying wilder would clearly easily ebat foreman, i am justs aying that wilder has some advantages over foreman, more than the other way around.

Michael Grant has those same advantages over George Foreman. How about we wait until Nicolai Firtha ISN'T one of Wilder's best wins before we call him an all time great

Wilder isn't even the best of this minute...but of course you discount Wlad because of his "crabbing"

ReggieDiggs wrote:

NateJR wrote:There's so many things that can taken into consideration which makes the whole idea of a ATG P4P list fun but 100% speculative.

I'd agree with everything cept fun. I'd exchange fun for silly as its a lil more insulting.

The number of fights thing is interesting. That heavily plays into your era. If Ray Robinson was around today he'd have retired at maybe 50-3 or something like that, but grabbed a few more divisional titles. Take Floyd back to Ray's era & he'd probably had retired at 130-6-3 or something like that, but wouldn't gotten less opportunities for divisional titles. Throw Tyson back to those Dempsey days & he mighta retired undefeated or had a L or two after a ill timed comeback. So many things going on in each era & you can't really put guys into a sterile environment & compare them.

Bottom line is ATG is such a silly fantasy conversation to have when you really try being honest & looking at all possible variables.

why?

if you take a lot of things into account, you pretty accurate.

Chepppaaa wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

NateJR wrote:There's so many things that can taken into consideration which makes the whole idea of a ATG P4P list fun but 100% speculative.

I'd agree with everything cept fun. I'd exchange fun for silly as its a lil more insulting.

The number of fights thing is interesting. That heavily plays into your era. If Ray Robinson was around today he'd have retired at maybe 50-3 or something like that, but grabbed a few more divisional titles. Take Floyd back to Ray's era & he'd probably had retired at 130-6-3 or something like that, but wouldn't gotten less opportunities for divisional titles. Throw Tyson back to those Dempsey days & he mighta retired undefeated or had a L or two after a ill timed comeback. So many things going on in each era & you can't really put guys into a sterile environment & compare them.

Bottom line is ATG is such a silly fantasy conversation to have when you really try being honest & looking at all possible variables.

why?

if you take a lot of things into account, you pretty accurate.

Because boxing has changed.

punchoutsb wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:I stopped reading when I saw Wilder as an all time great

Classic stuff

come on man, he set me up. and i am an honest dude. if we go by record, sure wilder no galaxys away from being an atg, but if we go straight by what he brings to the table. extrem power in both hands, tall, athletic, strong build, good movemants for a guy that big and tall. at the end looking totaly untouched after a fight against some guys here talk about as the biggest puncher at heavyweight after wlad, stiverne. i mean, wilder is just very good and keeps improving. i tell you just one thing. foreman is around 10-20 in mostly everybodys p4p all tiem gearts list and he at his prime weight around 100 kg, wilder now enterting his prime is also around 100 kg, so its a good comparison. one, foreman is bigger physicly and stronger on the shulders, more bulked. the wilder is taller, has far more reach, but both weigh the same. well, let me tell you, foreman would have his hands full with wilder! so why nt say somebody is an atg, when he is able to beat a guy who is even in somebody top 10 atg lists? foreman hits harder than wilder, but wilder punches faster. foremans hooks, you could count the secondes before he hit his opponent, well when he hit him clear than good night, but foreman was super slow. wilder is a fast puncher for a heavyweight, with power of its own. who is more athletic? hands down, wilder all day. can move much better, upper body and footwork than foreman. i am not saying wilder would clearly easily ebat foreman, i am justs aying that wilder has some advantages over foreman, more than the other way around.

Michael Grant has those same advantages over George Foreman. How about we wait until Nicolai Firtha ISN'T one of Wilder's best wins before we call him an all time great

Wilder isn't even the best of this minute...but of course you discount Wlad because of his "crabbing"

michael grant had 0 chin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wilder fought stiverne. a lot of people said, that stiverne is one of the biggest hitters in boxing. wilder took his punches.

wilder would totaly wreck grant. just because wilder can take some punches of grant and grant would sleep after clear punches from wilder.

yes, i discount somebody for excessive holding and crabbing and 60 % of wlads fights should be losses for wlad based on disqualification, based on the rules of boxing.

Chepppaaa wrote:

michael grant had 0 chin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wilder fought stiverne. a lot of people said, that stiverne is one of the biggest hitters in boxing. wilder took his punches.

wilder would totaly wreck grant. just because wilder can take some punches of grant and grant would sleep after clear punches from wilder.

yes, i discount somebody for excessive holding and crabbing and 60 % of wlads fights should be losses for wlad based on disqualification, based on the rules of boxing.[/quote]

So he fought one guy that some people on a boxing forum said hit hard?

Ok, you've convinced me. Wilder p4p all time #1!!!!!!111!!!!!

yes, it changed. boxer became more athletic. faster, stronger, better. just like all athletes over the whole world did in all sports. dna improves, training improves. back than it was fast running 10 secondes in 100 m, no extrem athletic guys like bolt run 9,58. and not just because of training, but also because dna got better. like i said, man became stronger, taller more athletic over time.

punchoutsb wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

michael grant had 0 chin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wilder fought stiverne. a lot of people said, that stiverne is one of the biggest hitters in boxing. wilder took his punches.

wilder would totaly wreck grant. just because wilder can take some punches of grant and grant would sleep after clear punches from wilder.

yes, i discount somebody for excessive holding and crabbing and 60 % of wlads fights should be losses for wlad based on disqualification, based on the rules of boxing.

So he fought one guy that some people on a boxing forum said hit hard?

Ok, you've convinced me. Wilder p4p all time #1!!!!!!111!!!!! [/quote]


yeah put words into my mouth i didnt said

Chepppaaa wrote:I studied records of all time great like armstrong, wilder,

This is as far as I got...

Chepppaaa wrote: yeah put words into my mouth i didnt said

Is that any different that rating Wilder off things he hasn't done? You listed his physical advantages over Foreman. Michael Grant had those same advantages (heck, Grant's victim Tye Fields also had those advantages). Grant didn't have the best chin...perhaps Wilder wouldn't either if he fought a better caliber of fighters than the C list of boxing

koolkc107 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:I studied records of all time great like armstrong, wilder,

This is as far as I got...

now i get what all you guys mean hahahaha......seriously, there is a big misunderstood I meant jimmy wilde....and maybe i was tipping at the keyboard to fast and put an R at the end without knowing it.

punchoutsb wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote: yeah put words into my mouth i didnt said

Is that any different that rating Wilder off things he hasn't done? You listed his physical advantages over Foreman. Michael Grant had those same advantages (heck, Grant's victim Tye Fields also had those advantages). Grant didn't have the best chin...perhaps Wilder wouldn't either if he fought a better caliber of fighters than the C list of boxing

you simpy dont get it, do you.

its and embarrasemant for yourself whe talking about a quality dude like wilder who has a good future at heavyweight and you talk nobodys like an unathletic, fat, slow fields

wilder fought an champion, with power and teckled him for 12 rounds. stiverne couldnt even speak clearly after the fight and you talk about c-level opponents, just stop your BS

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:I studied records of all time great like armstrong, wilder,

This is as far as I got...

now i get what all you guys mean hahahaha......seriously, there is a big misunderstood I meant jimmy wilde....and maybe i was tipping at the keyboard to fast and put an R at the end without knowing it.

Thank God you cleared that up.

Up til then, you were subject A in my new research paper called "Rational Insanity: a look at boxing messageboards"

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:I studied records of all time great like armstrong, wilder,

This is as far as I got...

now i get what all you guys mean hahahaha......seriously, there is a big misunderstood I meant jimmy wilde....and maybe i was tipping at the keyboard to fast and put an R at the end without knowing it.

Jimmy Wilde is indeed one of the best.

But if you meant Wilde, why did you then defend and make points for Wilder?

i was irritated at first. but than i like wilders fighting style, his aggressive style and his kos, thats way i defended him. but no, no he is not an atg.