BoxRec

Where would you rank him on the ATG list?

I have him around 25-30.

1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

I'd probably have him somewhere around #25.

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

If you posted this in BOTP, it'd be the busiest thread that forum has ever seen.

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran

...you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather

I know opinions are free and anyone can have one, but you're really abusing the privilege with this tripe.

Laughable list, and you honestly don't think there have been 25 boxers who would've beat Floyd? Keep in mind this is P4P all time...

Floyd being No 7 isn't even the weirdest thing on the list.

I don't do all time P4P lists, my historical knowledge isn't exactly deep. Watching older fights doesn't really interest me in the slightest - I'll watch a fight on recommendation but looking through boxing history really doesnt interest me. Like most, I'm a fan of nostalgia so I'll see things again that I saw in the mid 90s, but anything before that I don't go out of my way to bother about.
Though that's not to say that I think anything in my time is better. Having Rigondeaux at 4 is fookin' nuts.

Lenny Cravats wrote:Floyd being No 7 isn't even the weirdest thing on the list.

I don't do all time P4P lists, my historical knowledge isn't exactly deep. Watching older fights doesn't really interest me in the slightest - I'll watch a fight on recommendation but looking through boxing history really doesnt interest me. Like most, I'm a fan of nostalgia so I'll see things again that I saw in the mid 90s, but anything before that I don't go out of my way to bother about.
Though that's not to say that I think anything in my time is better. Having Rigondeaux at 4 is fookin' nuts.

Floyd being number 7 wasn't the problem...

But things like RJJ number one, Rigoneaux at 4, and the massive names that are missing make it incredibly laughable.

Makes me laugh how people tend to forget the likes of Salvador Sanchez. What a fighter he was.

Cheppaaa your list reads like a who's who of mainstream modern bias.

1 Jones - It's the "cool" thing presently to rate Jones so highly but fair do's he was a hell of a boxer in his day. All time P4P number one though? Not for me.
2 Robinson - No argument, he must feature highly.
3 Leonard - Excellent fighter but probably a bit over-rated as he came from an era where TV's were relatively newly available to people and brought people first real heroes they could see compete. You always have to be slightly dubious when there are FOUR legends from the same era (Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns). However exciting, when four are so closely matched it usually means there wasn't anyone outstanding.
4 Rigo - No, just simply no. Who has a pro has he beaten or what has he achieved to be P4P all time number 4? Nowhere near.
5 Hearns - See Leonard - Hearns not as good.
6 Pacquiao - Too many defeats and Mayweather schooled him. Nowhere near a top ten all time P4P.
7 Mayweather - You can't knock his record. The one thing that nags away is that first Castillo fight. Mayweather lost that fight so his "0" is bogus. However the rest of his career he's been magnificent.
8 Ali - Another from the dubious "golden era". Ali did a lot for the sport and for humanity and people admire him as much for who he was as for what he was as a fighter. You could argue that Ali and Frazier only met once when both were at peaks and Frazier won. You could argue against that too. I think although a great heavyweight champion Ali will always be a bit over-rated in terms of what he was as a boxer. Very, very good but all time top ten P4P? No.
9 Hagler - See Hearns
10 Duran - See Hearns

Everyone you've listed is a household name and most of them from the US. Whilst they are all extremely popular in a boxing sense some of them are nowhere near top ten fighters of all time. Pacquiao, Duran, Rigondeaux to name three without even needing to think about it.

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

Chepppaaa recently alleged that he was a boxing expert. He now has posted a list in which Guillermo Rigondeaux is the #4 boxer pound-for-pound of all time. I would like the support of everyone on this forum in informing Chepppaaa that he is utterly clueless about boxing.

Lackeos wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

Chepppaaa recently alleged that he was a boxing expert. He now has posted a list in which Guillermo Rigondeaux is the #4 boxer pound-for-pound of all time. I would like the support of everyone on this forum in informing Chepppaaa that he is utterly clueless about boxing.

May be the only time boxrec would be unanimous about something

Ali at 8?? Hagler and Duran behind Floyd??? Rigondeaux at 4?? Lists are great discussion starters etc. but c'mon. ALI AT #8!! Pullleeeze!

its so funny, you all act so intelligent, but most of you are so stupid. the classic options for top 10 atg, like willie pepp, benny leonard or henry armstrong, all between 80 and 200+ fights. i think you never took the time to actualy look at their record and skills!!! basicly 65 % of the fights were paid sparring sessions against 11-6-2 opponents and you act like these big records have to determin if someone is better than the other one.

willie pepp, benny leonard are slower, weaker, less punching power, totaly unathletic compared to floyd and pac, why should i than rate them higher?
floyd is equaly defensive gifted as them and would wins easily, because same in boxing like in any other sports, athletes became better, boxers became better!!!

Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis all are weaker, less powerful, dont have the chin or not close to be as fast or good as prime 86' tyson, so why should i rate them higher? tyson would demolish them. so prime tyson has chin, speed, power, strength on his advantages, but i cant rate him higher, because dempsey is better because he got more wins over 6-8-2 opponents and therefore a record with more fights hahaahahahaha....

VG_Addict wrote:Where would you rank him on the ATG list?

I have him around 25-30.

I bet at least half a dozen of your top 25-30 wound up broke or destitute. For that reason alone I would place him considerably higher than that. I'd probably say he's in the top 10 or 12 boxers of all time - and even that's probably too low.

Chepppaaa wrote:
Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis all are weaker, less powerful, dont have the chin or not close to be as fast or good as prime 86' tyson, so why should i rate them higher? tyson would demolish them. so prime tyson has chin, speed, power, strength on his advantages, but i cant rate him higher, because dempsey is better because he got more wins over 6-8-2 opponents and therefore a record with more fights hahaahahahaha....

I didn't think Iron Mike's chin got tested all that much whilst he was in his prime years, did it? Bruno rocked him once and he absorbed that. I wonder what would have happened had Bruno put him over with it, because it's been observed that Tyson never picked himself up off the floor to beat a man that put him there.
On his best day, a formidable attacking force, no question!

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

No Henry Armstrong?

Chepppaaa wrote:its so funny, you all act so intelligent, but most of you are so stupid. the classic options for top 10 atg, like willie pepp, benny leonard or henry armstrong, all between 80 and 200+ fights. i think you never took the time to actualy look at their record and skills!!! basicly 65 % of the fights were paid sparring sessions against 11-6-2 opponents and you act like these big records have to determin if someone is better than the other one.

willie pepp, benny leonard are slower, weaker, less punching power, totaly unathletic compared to floyd and pac, why should i than rate them higher?
floyd is equaly defensive gifted as them and would wins easily, because same in boxing like in any other sports, athletes became better, boxers became better!!!

Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis all are weaker, less powerful, dont have the chin or not close to be as fast or good as prime 86' tyson, so why should i rate them higher? tyson would demolish them. so prime tyson has chin, speed, power, strength on his advantages, but i cant rate him higher, because dempsey is better because he got more wins over 6-8-2 opponents and therefore a record with more fights hahaahahahaha....

Oh my god....you really are ignorant aren't you?

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

Cheppy, you do realize that Pacquiao is 3-3 in his last 6 fights, right? 2 out of 3 guys that beat him were past their prime.

Badhusker wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

Cheppy, you do realize that Pacquiao is 3-3 in his last 6 fights, right? 2 out of 3 guys that beat him were past their prime.

How anyone could rate Mayweather below Pacman is beyond me. Mayweather has only come close to losing in 1 fight, Pacquaio has been beaten by Morales, and was flattened by Marquez, and frankly, was gifted 2 decisions against Marquez also. The Bradley fight we will ignore as that was just horseshit.

I'm not sure either man makes top 10, Mayweather perhaps just about, Pacquaio not.

Chepppaaa wrote:its so funny, you all act so intelligent, but most of you are so stupid. the classic options for top 10 atg, like willie pepp, benny leonard or henry armstrong, all between 80 and 200+ fights. i think you never took the time to actualy look at their record and skills!!! basicly 65 % of the fights were paid sparring sessions against 11-6-2 opponents and you act like these big records have to determin if someone is better than the other one.

willie pepp, benny leonard are slower, weaker, less punching power, totaly unathletic compared to floyd and pac, why should i than rate them higher?
floyd is equaly defensive gifted as them and would wins easily, because same in boxing like in any other sports, athletes became better, boxers became better!!!

Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis all are weaker, less powerful, dont have the chin or not close to be as fast or good as prime 86' tyson, so why should i rate them higher? tyson would demolish them. so prime tyson has chin, speed, power, strength on his advantages, but i cant rate him higher, because dempsey is better because he got more wins over 6-8-2 opponents and therefore a record with more fights hahaahahahaha....

Every time you speak it just gets worse. What an "expert"

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
How anyone could rate Mayweather below Pacman is beyond me. Mayweather has only come close to losing in 1 fight, Pacquaio has been beaten by Morales, and was flattened by Marquez, and frankly, was gifted 2 decisions against Marquez also. The Bradley fight we will ignore as that was just horseshit.

I'm not sure either man makes top 10, Mayweather perhaps just about, Pacquaio not.

Because Mayweather lacks a single win against a prime atg fighter, not to mention clear loses to Castillo and Maidana, and a debatable results vs Pacquaio, Castillo 2 & DeLaHoya. Pacquaio's body of work up to Margarito is a substantially stronger resume than Floyd's. Throw in the nature if his victories and performances Pacquaio is quite simply greater.

Ian1973 wrote:Makes me laugh how people tend to forget the likes of Salvador Sanchez. What a fighter he was.

Cheppaaa your list reads like a who's who of mainstream modern bias.

1 Jones - It's the "cool" thing presently to rate Jones so highly but fair do's he was a hell of a boxer in his day. All time P4P number one though? Not for me.
2 Robinson - No argument, he must feature highly.
3 Leonard - Excellent fighter but probably a bit over-rated as he came from an era where TV's were relatively newly available to people and brought people first real heroes they could see compete. You always have to be slightly dubious when there are FOUR legends from the same era (Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns). However exciting, when four are so closely matched it usually means there wasn't anyone outstanding.
4 Rigo - No, just simply no. Who has a pro has he beaten or what has he achieved to be P4P all time number 4? Nowhere near.
5 Hearns - See Leonard - Hearns not as good.
6 Pacquiao - Too many defeats and Mayweather schooled him. Nowhere near a top ten all time P4P.
7 Mayweather - You can't knock his record. The one thing that nags away is that first Castillo fight. Mayweather lost that fight so his "0" is bogus. However the rest of his career he's been magnificent.
8 Ali - Another from the dubious "golden era". Ali did a lot for the sport and for humanity and people admire him as much for who he was as for what he was as a fighter. You could argue that Ali and Frazier only met once when both were at peaks and Frazier won. You could argue against that too. I think although a great heavyweight champion Ali will always be a bit over-rated in terms of what he was as a boxer. Very, very good but all time top ten P4P? No.
9 Hagler - See Hearns
10 Duran - See Hearns

Everyone you've listed is a household name and most of them from the US. Whilst they are all extremely popular in a boxing sense some of them are nowhere near top ten fighters of all time. Pacquiao, Duran, Rigondeaux to name three without even needing to think about it.

Cant agree that Leonard was overrated.

Also, i think you are saying that Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns were not outstanding???? can't say i agree with Chepp's list but i'd not have picked on these points i have to say.

Lackeos wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

Chepppaaa recently alleged that he was a boxing expert. He now has posted a list in which Guillermo Rigondeaux is the #4 boxer pound-for-pound of all time. I would like the support of everyone on this forum in informing Chepppaaa that he is utterly clueless about boxing.

Where do you think this is, the school playground? It's HIS list, get off his back.

I can't stand Floyd. He is though a legendary fighter and makes an all time top 20 easy and maybe a top 10.

magwitch wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:
Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis all are weaker, less powerful, dont have the chin or not close to be as fast or good as prime 86' tyson, so why should i rate them higher? tyson would demolish them. so prime tyson has chin, speed, power, strength on his advantages, but i cant rate him higher, because dempsey is better because he got more wins over 6-8-2 opponents and therefore a record with more fights hahaahahahaha....

I didn't think Iron Mike's chin got tested all that much whilst he was in his prime years, did it? Bruno rocked him once and he absorbed that. I wonder what would have happened had Bruno put him over with it, because it's been observed that Tyson never picked himself up off the floor to beat a man that put him there.
On his best day, a formidable attacking force, no question!

interesting question

i think the prime tyson who was training like a mad man, would have recovered from a knock down, the buster douglus tyson version only had cheeseburgers & women on his mind, his condition would not have lasted long after the knock down hehe

magwitch wrote:

VG_Addict wrote:Where would you rank him on the ATG list?

I have him around 25-30.

I bet at least half a dozen of your top 25-30 wound up broke or destitute. For that reason alone I would place him considerably higher than that. I'd probably say he's in the top 10 or 12 boxers of all time - and even that's probably too low.

I think that's pretty poor reasoning. Given the choice, 100 times out of 100 I would choose to live the life of Max Schmeling over Joe Louis, but that doesn't mean that Joe Louis wasn't the greater boxer.