What is your all time P4P top 10?

[Jip]

mine is something like this and yall know i go by quality of skills/physic and not by big time records against sparring partners.

1.) Roy Jones Jr
2.) Sugar Ray Robinson
3.) Sugar Ray Leonard
4.) Manny Pacquiao
5.) Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7.) Muhammad Ali
8.) Mike Tyson
9.) Thomas Hearns
10.) Roberto Duran

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[Jip]

whats yours saad

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

[Jip]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

so you go more old school, i go new school

why do you have no ali or louis in your list, isnt that typical to any old school p4p atg list?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

so you go more old school, i go new school

why do you have no ali or louis in your list, isnt that typical to any old school p4p atg list?

I go on resumes. Ali & Louis are just outside my top 10. Your list is pretty terrible even by your own guidelines. Just bad school. Tyson and no holyfield is laughable. Same as Roy with no Whitaker. Rigondeaux, awful stuff bro.

[boxing_rocks]

Rigo ATG I almost peed my pants laughing.

[Jip]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

so you go more old school, i go new school

why do you have no ali or louis in your list, isnt that typical to any old school p4p atg list?

I go on resumes. Ali & Louis are just outside my top 10. Your list is pretty terrible even by your own guidelines. Just bad school. Tyson and no holyfield is laughable. Same as Roy with no Whitaker. Rigondeaux, awful stuff bro.

prime tyson was a better boxer than prime holyfield. also p4p means same size, same weight. so imagine tyson standing 6'2 like evander, he would get kod badly. prime roy is in a league of his own and pernell is close to my top 10. rigondeaux, yeah its awful, how can a 2 time gold medalist, box legend, undefeated pro considered a atg top 10, you so right..

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[Enlightened-One]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

You're essentially using a combination of the opinion of others, history books and record keeping as your barometer of "greatness", since you couldn't have been able to have watched many of these men in action.

I'm not criticising you, merely stating the obvious.

[HarryGrebbedMe]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

You're essentially using a combination of the opinion of others, history books and record keeping as your barometer of "greatness", since you couldn't have been able to have watched many of these men in action.

I'm not criticising you, merely stating the obvious.

Using records, second hand accounts, youtube, biographies/biopics, newspaper clippings etc is just as good as being able to watch someone live in person or on HBO for example and shouldn't be used as a barometer to not include them in a P4P list. Whether they achieved their feats in 1901 or 2001 it shouldn't matter as long as they achieved what many others didn't/couldn't. My all time would contain a mixture of Modern and Pre-WW2 fighters.

mine is something like this and yall know i go by quality of skills/physic and not by big time records against sparring partners.

1.) Roy Jones Jr
2.) Sugar Ray Robinson
3.) Sugar Ray Leonard
4.) Manny Pacquiao
5.) Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7.) Muhammad Ali
8.) Mike Tyson
9.) Thomas Hearns
10.) Roberto Duran

All time P4P list and it includes Rigo and Tyson?

1) SRR (WW/MW/2 rounds from LHW Champ if not for heat. 120+ consecutive win streak, no brainer)
2) Louis (Longest HW reign ever, lost only to Schmeling in his absolute prime, best HW of all time imo)
3) Armstrong (FW/LW/WW concurrent champ when only 8 divisions existed)
4) Greb (The quintessential pure definition of P4P. MW + LHW Champ. Only stopped twice, once by broken arm and second by giving 20+lbs both within his first 5 fights 16 HOFs fought)
5) Duran (LW/WW/MWjr/MW Champ + 5 decade fighter)
6) RJJ (World Champion in 3 different weight classes and was the first fighter MW fighter to win a HW belt in over a century. Fought and won at 6 different weights)
7) Ali (Can't leave the great man off, achieving what he did missing our on some prime years. Greatest man to ever box imo)
8) Langford (LW to HW and coloured champ of the world being only 5"7. Best fighter to never fight for or win a World belt, which he would of imo)
9) PacMan (Modern day definition of P4P - 8 weight world champion)
10) SRL (5 weight world champ, beating all of the other Faboulous Four fighters and as one of my all time favourites I had to include him. Classy operator)

Notable mentions to Floyd Mayweather, Willie Pep, Larry Holmes and Archie Moore.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

mine is something like this and yall know i go by quality of skills/physic and not by big time records against sparring partners.

1.) Roy Jones Jr
2.) Sugar Ray Robinson
3.) Sugar Ray Leonard
4.) Manny Pacquiao
5.) Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7.) Muhammad Ali
8.) Mike Tyson
9.) Thomas Hearns
10.) Roberto Duran

I know you lionise those with some combination of handspeed, overt flashiness, ability to fight at multiple weights, lots of headmovement and the more modern the better. So this list doesn't surprise me much - for better or worse your posting style and odd opinions have made you easy to remember! I do think that given the kind of fighter you like you might end up being more of a fan of Pernell Whitaker ('84-'96) and Salvador Sanchez (a little less raw speed than you might like but so so good at controlling his opponents) than you seem to be now.

Worth noting as an aside that the ATGs of yore - Greb, Moore, Langford etc etc - aren't highly regarded just because they fought a lot of times, but the amount of times they fought excellent or better opposition in their primes and at their best weights. It is all the HOFers that Greb beat (Tunney, Gibbons bros., Walker etc etc) that matter so so much more than the raw numbers. The same with (at least most of) the rest of those guys.

Jimmy Wilde is one of the only ones whose high statue is more on his numbers (99 KOs for a small strawweight against flyweights and bantamweights (and a feather or two) is kinda impressive in itself I guess) than opposition, though most don't think of his as top 10 or even close (outside the UK anyway).

[DareTBG]

mine is something like this and yall know i go by quality of skills/physic and not by big time records against sparring partners.

1.) Roy Jones Jr
2.) Sugar Ray Robinson
3.) Sugar Ray Leonard
4.) Manny Pacquiao
5.) Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7.) Muhammad Ali
8.) Mike Tyson
9.) Thomas Hearns
10.) Roberto Duran

That list is hurting my eye's.

[tiny_acres]

mine is something like this and yall know i go by quality of skills/physic and not by big time records against sparring partners.

1.) Roy Jones Jr
2.) Sugar Ray Robinson
3.) Sugar Ray Leonard
4.) Manny Pacquiao
5.) Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7.) Muhammad Ali
8.) Mike Tyson
9.) Thomas Hearns
10.) Roberto Duran

That list is hurting my eye's.

Someone once write on here that there are no right or wrong answers. Because this is just an opinion.

Well I guess they didn't know anyone would post such a crappy list.... No one could agree with this list

[Enlightened-One]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

You're essentially using a combination of the opinion of others, history books and record keeping as your barometer of "greatness", since you couldn't have been able to have watched many of these men in action.

I'm not criticising you, merely stating the obvious.

Using records, second hand accounts, youtube, biographies/biopics, newspaper clippings etc is just as good as being able to watch someone live in person or on HBO for example and shouldn't be used as a barometer to not include them in a P4P list. Whether they achieved their feats in 1901 or 2001 it shouldn't matter as long as they achieved what many others didn't/couldn't. My all time would contain a mixture of Modern and Pre-WW2 fighters.

I agree that it’s a prerequisite to possess a thorough understanding of any fighter before including them to one’s personal all time pound-for-pound top-ten, which obviously requires some form of research.

However, where the video material is extremely limited and sometimes difficult to watch the action clearly, such as viewing any of Sam Langford’s contests, then you’re evaluating their all-time-great credentials solely by reading someone else’s criteria/opinion, rather than using the proverbial “eye test”.

Reading articles whereby you’re “told” someone is great is almost certainly not synonymous to witnessing their talents first-hand, especially considering the vast majority of the authors that wrote the words that you're likely to have read weren’t even alive when these fighters competed.

Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

Like I said before, I’m not criticising SaadOffTheDeck’s personal selection of all time pound-for-pound top-ten fighters, but I do wonder if he’d be able to evaluate Floyd Mayweather’s capabilities if he’d never saw him fight?

A lot of people really like Floyd Mayweather’s fighting style and consider him an all-time-great, but a lot of other people don’t. However, based on resume and accomplishments alone, he’s one of the greatest fighter’s in history. So why do people’s perceptions differ so much when the facts contained within resume’s are irrefutable in nature? It’s because they saw him fight!

Let me give another example, SaadOffTheDeck believes that Pernell Whitaker would defeat Floyd Mayweather in a fantasy fight, but could he confidently make this claim without having ever seen either of these guys compete (or be as confident if he’d only viewed a couple of rounds)?

In my mind, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is far more technically accomplished, in terms of resume, than Pernell Whitaker. So why does SaadOffTheDeck rate the former below the latter? It’s because he saw them both fight!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

[BitPlayer]

8) Langford (LW to HW and coloured champ of the world being only 5"7. Best fighter to never fight for or win a World belt, which he would of imo)

I believe he did once fight for a belt and got robbed.

[IKSRTFO]

Rigo ATG I almost peed my pants laughing.

[Enlightened-One]

8) Langford (LW to HW and coloured champ of the world being only 5"7. Best fighter to never fight for or win a World belt

I believe he did once fight for a belt and got robbed.

According to the "The Boston Tar Baby" biography, Sam Langford was held to a draw on the 5th September, 1904, when he met the champion, Barbados Joe Walcott, for the world weltwerweight title.

The sports editor of the New York Illustrated News wrote, "My personal opinion is that Langford was entitled to the verdict, and should have been awarded the world's title."

Sam Langford and Joe Jeannette fought for the World Heavyweight Title, as recognized by the French Boxing Federation, which had stripped Jack Johnson. Sam Langford scored a decision victory.

The NSC withdrew its recognition of Johnson as their world champion when he refused to defend his belt against the British champion William "Iron" Hague. The NSC matched Hague with Canadian Sam Langford for its title on May 24, 1909. Langford won via fourth-round knockout.

Langford may actually have won more world titles recognised by the IBU and NSC across multiple weight classes, but I can't be bothered spending more time checking.

[Jip]

mine is something like this and yall know i go by quality of skills/physic and not by big time records against sparring partners.

1.) Roy Jones Jr
2.) Sugar Ray Robinson
3.) Sugar Ray Leonard
4.) Manny Pacquiao
5.) Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7.) Muhammad Ali
8.) Mike Tyson
9.) Thomas Hearns
10.) Roberto Duran

That list is hurting my eye's.

Someone once write on here that there are no right or wrong answers. Because this is just an opinion.

Well I guess they didn't know anyone would post such a crappy list.... No one could agree with this list

I could easily post a list like this

1. robinson
2. armstrong
3. ali
4. langford
5. louis
6. pepp
7. b. leonard
8. duran
9. charles
10. cerdan

but why should i when i do not believe in it. to me it is more important who would win against who in their primes, than who has the best record against mostly opponents with bad records and if you dont believe me than go to boxrec and check out henry's or pepp's record, they are mostly boxing sparring partner, like all old school boxers, paid sparring i would call it.

prime ali or prime tyson beat the sh&/(t out of prime louis and prime langford. if i watch tapes and see that langfords footwork and footspeed are much inferior to ali's or tyson's, tell me please why i should rate langford higher? because he fought a bunch of sparring partner and his record is blown up?

my list simply makes sense. nobody has ever been faster, more athletic, techniquly more sound than guys like prime jones, prime leonard or prime mayweather, or did i miss something? didnt ali said of dempsey watching a tape of him "he is sluggish, no defence, overrated" ??

nostalgia is a hell of a drug and you guys should leave it, acting like an top 10 atg can only be from 1920-1950

[Jip]

You're essentially using a combination of the opinion of others, history books and record keeping as your barometer of "greatness", since you couldn't have been able to have watched many of these men in action.

I'm not criticising you, merely stating the obvious.

Using records, second hand accounts, youtube, biographies/biopics, newspaper clippings etc is just as good as being able to watch someone live in person or on HBO for example and shouldn't be used as a barometer to not include them in a P4P list. Whether they achieved their feats in 1901 or 2001 it shouldn't matter as long as they achieved what many others didn't/couldn't. My all time would contain a mixture of Modern and Pre-WW2 fighters.

I agree that it’s a prerequisite to possess a thorough understanding of any fighter before including them to one’s personal all time pound-for-pound top-ten, which obviously requires some form of research.

However, where the video material is extremely limited and sometimes difficult to watch the action clearly, such as viewing any of Sam Langford’s contests, then you’re evaluating their all-time-great credentials solely by reading someone else’s criteria/opinion, rather than using the proverbial “eye test”.

Reading articles whereby you’re “told” someone is great is almost certainly not synonymous to witnessing their talents first-hand, especially considering the vast majority of the authors that wrote the words that you're likely to have read weren’t even alive when these fighters competed.


Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

Like I said before, I’m not criticising SaadOffTheDeck’s personal selection of all time pound-for-pound top-ten fighters, but I do wonder if he’d be able to evaluate Floyd Mayweather’s capabilities if he’d never saw him fight?

A lot of people really like Floyd Mayweather’s fighting style and consider him an all-time-great, but a lot of other people don’t. However, based on resume and accomplishments alone, he’s one of the greatest fighter’s in history. So why do people’s perceptions differ so much when the facts contained within resume’s are irrefutable in nature? It’s because they saw him fight!

Let me give another example, SaadOffTheDeck believes that Pernell Whitaker would defeat Floyd Mayweather in a fantasy fight, but could he confidently make this claim without having ever seen either of these guys compete (or be as confident if he’d only viewed a couple of rounds)?

In my mind, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is far more technically accomplished, in terms of resume, than Pernell Whitaker. So why does SaadOffTheDeck rate the former below the latter? It’s because he saw them both fight!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

one of the best post boxrec has ever seen.

and that is exactly what i am saying, people put boxer from 1920 in there atg p4p top 10 when there is no or rare footage and when you see these old school boxers you can tell they would have a hard time with the top boxers from the 90 and 2000+ like all prime jones/pac/mayweather. winning a fight in boxing is based on 5 main things: technique/footwork/speed/power/coordination. now nobody can tell me that guys like floyd, rigo, pac, jones are top of the list concerning these criterias i mentioned right now. but boxers who are in some of your p4p list that you have never seen fight have better technique than rigo, better speed than jones, how can you say it, when there is no tape, no proof?

[Impractical Poster]

I don't do all time lists because I don't know enough about older fighters to form a fair and educated list.

With that said, I disagree with enlightened one. By his criteria, modern boxing enthusiasts should omit any fighter from their lists for lack of viewing. Just not fair. With enough eye witness accounts, records, stats, etc, an educated boxing fan can form an extremely legitimate case for where they should rank a fighter depending on their criteria. Sure, it's best to watch for oneself, but it just takes a bit more research to come to valid conclusion. That's a lot more fair than abandoning an old great altogether.... wouldn't you agree?

[Impractical Poster]

Using records, second hand accounts, youtube, biographies/biopics, newspaper clippings etc is just as good as being able to watch someone live in person or on HBO for example and shouldn't be used as a barometer to not include them in a P4P list. Whether they achieved their feats in 1901 or 2001 it shouldn't matter as long as they achieved what many others didn't/couldn't. My all time would contain a mixture of Modern and Pre-WW2 fighters.

I agree that it’s a prerequisite to possess a thorough understanding of any fighter before including them to one’s personal all time pound-for-pound top-ten, which obviously requires some form of research.

However, where the video material is extremely limited and sometimes difficult to watch the action clearly, such as viewing any of Sam Langford’s contests, then you’re evaluating their all-time-great credentials solely by reading someone else’s criteria/opinion, rather than using the proverbial “eye test”.

Reading articles whereby you’re “told” someone is great is almost certainly not synonymous to witnessing their talents first-hand, especially considering the vast majority of the authors that wrote the words that you're likely to have read weren’t even alive when these fighters competed.


Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

Like I said before, I’m not criticising SaadOffTheDeck’s personal selection of all time pound-for-pound top-ten fighters, but I do wonder if he’d be able to evaluate Floyd Mayweather’s capabilities if he’d never saw him fight?

A lot of people really like Floyd Mayweather’s fighting style and consider him an all-time-great, but a lot of other people don’t. However, based on resume and accomplishments alone, he’s one of the greatest fighter’s in history. So why do people’s perceptions differ so much when the facts contained within resume’s are irrefutable in nature? It’s because they saw him fight!

Let me give another example, SaadOffTheDeck believes that Pernell Whitaker would defeat Floyd Mayweather in a fantasy fight, but could he confidently make this claim without having ever seen either of these guys compete (or be as confident if he’d only viewed a couple of rounds)?

In my mind, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is far more technically accomplished, in terms of resume, than Pernell Whitaker. So why does SaadOffTheDeck rate the former below the latter? It’s because he saw them both fight!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

one of the best post boxrec has ever seen.

and that is exactly what i am saying, people put boxer from 1920 in there atg p4p top 10 when there is no or rare footage and when you see these old school boxers you can tell they would have a hard time with the top boxers from the 90 and 2000+ like all prime jones/pac/mayweather. winning a fight in boxing is based on 5 main things: technique/footwork/speed/power/coordination. now nobody can tell me that guys like floyd, rigo, pac, jones are top of the list concerning these criterias i mentioned right now. but boxers who are in some of your p4p list that you have never seen fight have better technique than rigo, better speed than jones, how can you say it, when there is no tape, no proof?

saying this is kinda like putting Rigo on an all time P4P list.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Duran, b Leonard, Moore, Griffith, gavilan

so you go more old school, i go new school

why do you have no ali or louis in your list, isnt that typical to any old school p4p atg list?

I go on resumes. Ali & Louis are just outside my top 10. Your list is pretty terrible even by your own guidelines. Just bad school. Tyson and no holyfield is laughable. Same as Roy with no Whitaker. Rigondeaux, awful stuff bro.

No Ali but Tyson and Holyfield

[SaadOffTheDeck]

so you go more old school, i go new school

why do you have no ali or louis in your list, isnt that typical to any old school p4p atg list?

I go on resumes. Ali & Louis are just outside my top 10. Your list is pretty terrible even by your own guidelines. Just bad school. Tyson and no holyfield is laughable. Same as Roy with no Whitaker. Rigondeaux, awful stuff bro.

No Ali but Tyson and Holyfield

None of the above my adle minded swamp creature. His list is strictly opinion, easier to tackle same era errors. Understand cookie? Good

[HarryGrebbedMe]

8) Langford (LW to HW and coloured champ of the world being only 5"7. Best fighter to never fight for or win a World belt

I believe he did once fight for a belt and got robbed.

According to the "The Boston Tar Baby" biography, Sam Langford was held to a draw on the 5th September, 1904, when he met the champion, Barbados Joe Walcott, for the world weltwerweight title.

The sports editor of the New York Illustrated News wrote, "My personal opinion is that Langford was entitled to the verdict, and should have been awarded the world's title."

Sam Langford and Joe Jeannette fought for the World Heavyweight Title, as recognized by the French Boxing Federation, which had stripped Jack Johnson. Sam Langford scored a decision victory.

The NSC withdrew its recognition of Johnson as their world champion when he refused to defend his belt against the British champion William "Iron" Hague. The NSC matched Hague with Canadian Sam Langford for its title on May 24, 1909. Langford won via fourth-round knockout.

Langford may actually have won more world titles recognised by the IBU and NSC across multiple weight classes, but I can't be bothered spending more time checking.

I stand corrected and retract my statement