BoxRec

Marvin Hagler

Thomas Hearns

Gene Fullmer

Carmen Basilio

Bernard Hopkins

Jake Lamotta

Pernell Whitaker

Oscar De La Hoya

Roy Jones Jr

Carlos Monzon

P4P = h2h who beats who more often than not at their absolute best... all things equal of course size, weight etc!


Marvin Hagler - and Hearns could be replaced by LaMotta & Fullmer, wouldn't argue.

Thomas Hearns

Jake Lamotta - Fullmer could be reversed the lesser %, as Gene was most durable and pressing.

Gene Fullmer

Carmen Basilio - Basilio all things even p4p, h2h might surprise

Carlos Monzon - Monzon might do better, but I think the 40s & 50s were tougher.

Roy Jones Jr

Bernard Hopkins

Pernell Whitaker

Oscar De La Hoya

All top fighters… In a P4P sense… My stab would be

Monzon
Hearns
Hagler
Hopkins
Whittaker
Basilio
DLH
La Motta
Fullmer = Jones

Whitaker
Hearns
Hopkins
Hagler
Monzon
Jones
Basilio
Fullmer
LaMotta
Oscar

Oscar being last is the only definitive one. The rest are all closely grouped. I just went where I would rank them on an all time great list. It hurts my head too much to make them the same size.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Oscar being last is the only definitive one. The rest are all closely grouped. I just went where I would rank them on an all time great list. It hurts my head too much to make them the same size.

Alltime Great list ARE NOT the same as P4P...

achievement based rankings devalues P4P, which is supposed to be ALL Things considered equal, "who bests who more often than not" - h2h mano, mano!

LOL, I know it's not the same. That's why I specified what my list was.

P4P is stupid. I just read you saying they are all the same size. So Hearns doesn't have height and reach advantages p4p?

No, it's always been "an all things equal" sort of scenario,
then any fighter anyweight can be considered one against the other based on their actual skill and ability - so you can envision the greatest fighters competing.

I admit it gets very hard and impossible among most great fighters, because at the end of the day ALL Top fighters can beat one another. But it is away to "try" and consider who might actually be better than the other.

I too don't go for it, but I go for achievement based lists even less!

for me it's better to divide Boxing into Greatest periods, one ahead of the next and then figure out who were the best champions and contenders from greater periods and thier "longevity" at the top... those are the real greatest fighters!

I'm not going to get into a P4P argument. But your definition is crazier than the premise is to begin with. LMAO that Hearns is 5'6 to fight Whitaker. You can't take away a fighters dimensions or advantages that are God given.

That's why I don't bother with P4P fights. You need someone plugging in numbers to find out the average dimensions in the weight class and then work out the advantages in size that would still be there.

If you're saying they are the exact same size. You may as well give them the same hand speed and punching power. Throw in chin while you're at too. Hell, lets just have Pernell fight himself.

Pernell Whitaker

Thomas Hearns

Carlos Monzon

Roy Jones Jr

Marvin Hagler

Bernard Hopkins

Oscar De La Hoya

Jake Lamotta

Gene Fullmer

Carmen Basilio

In the pound per pound sense:
Carlos Monzon
Pernell Whitaker
Marvin Hagler
Bernard Hopkins
Carmen Basilio
Thomas Hearns
Jake LaMotta
Roy Jones, Jr.
Gene Fullmer
Oscar De La Hoya

Fullmer and De La Hoya, in my book, don't enter in my list of 100 greatest pound per pound boxers of all-time. The rest? are sure ins.

If there are 100 greater fighters than Fullmer, I must not have seen, or even heard of, 30 or 40 of them. He would easily be in the 50-75 range for me. Very underrated.

Tough list to make

1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Thomas Hearns
5. Bernard Hopkins
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Jake Lamotta
8. Gene Fullmer
9. Carmen Basilio
10. Oscar De La Hoya

This is a tough list to make.

Monzon is the clear #1. After that, it's probably between Hagler and Hearns. I have recently began to think Hearns should be higher.
Fullmer has to be above Basilio. Basilio has to be #10. Fullmer won the head to head, had a better record against common opponents, beat better overall compeition and had less losses.

There are a lot of close calls. These guys are all typical Hall of Famers. At first glance, I am going to go with:

1. Monzon
2. Hearns
3. Hagler
4. Whitaker
5. De La Hoya
6. LaMotta
7. Jones
8. Hopkins
9. Fullmer
10. Basilio

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:If there are 100 greater fighters than Fullmer, I must not have seen, or even heard of, 30 or 40 of them. He would easily be in the 50-75 range for me. Very underrated.

Under-rated definitely, but potentially top-50 of all-time? That's pretty extreme, as I see it.

As for this thread, as long as Whitaker sits atop it, the rest can sort themselves out. Man was just a freak.

I imagine I would have him somewhere between 50-75, he would definitely be well inside the Top 100. My best guess is between 60-70.

Where is he on your all-time MW list, then?

I don't really have lists other than a Heavyweight one because I've posted in so many threads over the years.

This would be my Top 5

Hagler
Greb
Monzon
Robinson
Hopkins

I'd have to look over the records to go any further with conviction. But fullmer fits with any of the others I can think of. Fitzsimmons, O'Dowd, Flowers, Zale, Valdez, Tiger, etc..

Edit: I forgot Holman and Burley, both of them would be ahead of him for sure. I probably forgot some others as well. Middle is loaded.

1. Pernell Whitaker
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Thomas Hearns
4. Carlos Monzon
5. Carmen Basilio
6. Jake Lamotta
7. Gene Fullmer
8. Roy Jones Jr.
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. Oscar De La Hoya

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I imagine I would have him somewhere between 50-75, he would definitely be well inside the Top 100. My best guess is between 60-70.

Too many great and exceptional fighters for Fullmer or De La Hoya make it in the top 100 p4p. I will give Fullmer more of a chance to make it than DLH. It is a matter of opinion.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't really have lists other than a Heavyweight one because I've posted in so many threads over the years.

This would be my Top 5

Hagler
Greb
Monzon
Robinson
Hopkins

I'd have to look over the records to go any further with conviction. But fullmer fits with any of the others I can think of. Fitzsimmons, O'Dowd, Flowers, Zale, Valdez, Tiger, etc..

Edit: I forgot Holman and Burley, both of them would be ahead of him for sure. I probably forgot some others as well. Middle is loaded.

I think Middleweight and bantamweight are the toughest divisions to rate the ATG. So many great fighters in those two divisions

As for this thread, as long as Whitaker sits atop it, the rest can sort themselves out. Man was just a freak.

Totally agree. Although i respect everyone's opinion here, Whitaker seems to me to be the clear, no doubt about it top choice here.

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I imagine I would have him somewhere between 50-75, he would definitely be well inside the Top 100. My best guess is between 60-70.

Too many great and exceptional fighters for Fullmer or De La Hoya make it in the top 100 p4p. I will give Fullmer more of a chance to make it than DLH. It is a matter of opinion.

Of course it's subjective, but you're talking about a guy who beat Robinson close to his better days at Middleweight and stopped Basilio twice in dominant fashion. There aren't many who can claim that. He also beat ray again later, Florentino Fernandez & drew with Tiger. That's just off of the top of my head, his ledger is quite impressive.

I wouldn't have a problem with Oscar in the 90-100 range. He was better than people want to give him credit for.

Monzon
Hearns
Hagler
Whittaker
La Motta
Fullmer
DLH
Basilio
Jones
Hopkins

Monzon was a combined 7-0 against Griffith, Benvenuti, Naploes, and Valdes. He never lost when he was close to his prime. No one else on this list can match his career.

Whitaker never lost in his prime. Neither did hagler or Hopkins for that matter. Carlos is an acceptable answer in the top slot. To state it as a fact is your typically biased behavior.