BoxRec

Fortunatelly, nobody discuss Henry Armstrong

Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:What about

Jack Dempsey

Rocky Marciano

Neither nor. There is not even consensus that these are the #3 and 4 heavyweights -- many rank them in the lower 10s or even lower.

If another heavyweight it should rather be one of Johnson/Homes/Foreman/Liston, but I don't think this would be justified.

Eder Jofre

Very plausible of course.

Pascual Pérez

Borderline, actually probably not. I'd rather include Pancho Villa.

Nicolino Locche

Hmmmm..... I guess not quite.

Stanley Ketchel

Borderline.

Tommy Ryan

Hmmmm..... not sure about this one. These 1900-fighters are often hard to rank.

Pundit, in a p4p sense Rocky and Jack, being smaller men than Liston could rate higher than Liston and Foreman even if you rate them below these guys at HW.

That is the question that I often ask when people make pound for pound lists. Are we doing this literally pound for pound?
Is every heavyweight considered the same weight, or does a 220 pound heavyweight have to be far better than a 190 pound heavyweight to be considered better than him in a pound for pound ranking?
No one ever seems to have a answer for this.

pundit wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Jimmy Wilde, Roberto Duran, Joe Gans and Benny Leonard are top 10 fighters. Bob Fitzsimmons, Charley Burley and Gene Tunney are not top 25 caliber. Where is Jack Dempsey?...He is not a top 25?

Seems the original list looks far more comptent to me than any you would assemble.

I have never said that the list was mediocre or horrible. Every body has their own criteria in rating fighters, and all lists, are subjective in a way.

And for your reply, do you really believe what have you said?

Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:What about

Jack Dempsey

Rocky Marciano

Eder Jofre

Pascual Pérez

Nicolino Locche

Stanley Ketchel

Tommy Ryan

The list is only 25. Who do you take off of it?

Yes Camacho (78-5-2) is a controverial pick but look who he beat and he was a muti-division winner plus he was undefeated in the first 10 years of his career.
Victories over Rosario, Ramirez, Howard Davis, Mancini, Pazienza, SRR, Duran. His losses were to Haugen (which he later reversed) and to Hall of Famers Trinidad, DLH, Chavez all by decision

That is deceiving.
SRL was 40 and hadn't fought in 6 six years when Camacho fought him.
Mancini wasn't old but he was was coming off of a layoff and Camacho got a break from the judges in a horrible fight.
Duran was also way past his prime when Camacho fought him.

None of these wins mean very much at all.

Ambling Alp wrote:That is deceiving.
SRL was 40 and hadn't fought in 6 six years when Camacho fought him.
Mancini wasn't old but he was was coming off of a layoff and Camacho got a break from the judges in a horrible fight.
Duran was also way past his prime when Camacho fought him.

None of these wins mean very much at all.

However they are wins over peers considering that Camacho was also past his prime when they fought. Toward the end of his career he was still fighting opponents with great records and still winning.

Duran had been fighting since the 60's when he fought Camacho. Leonard was 45 years old and apparently (I haven't seen the fight) had an injury? Please, spare us.

forreal wrote: Head to head...Monzone, Leanord, Duran, Jones, not to mention Kelly Pavlic,, Marvin Hagler and Thomas Hearns in their primes, beat SRR every time

Theres some strange opinions on this forum, but thinking that Kelly Pavlik beats Sugar Ray Robinson is possibly the most absurd thing Ive read on here

dr_devious wrote:

forreal wrote: Head to head...Monzone, Leanord, Duran, Jones, not to mention Kelly Pavlic,, Marvin Hagler and Thomas Hearns in their primes, beat SRR every time

Theres some strange opinions on this forum, but thinking that Kelly Pavlik beats Sugar Ray Robinson is possibly the most absurd thing Ive read on here

How is Monzone, Leanord and Pavlic? I don't recognize those names.