Thread: Your All Time Top P4P top 5

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Hey bro... is it possible to defend one fighter without denigrating the other? IMHO... they're both ATG's. But you're dismissing a couple of excellent fighters in their own right: DeJesus and Buchanan.

I'm not denigrating Duran, he's without question an ATG. I'm just saying that if people want to go through one guy's legacy with a fine toothed comb, at least be consistent and do it for everyone.

No doubt DeJesus and Buchanan were very capable, probably excellent fighters. I just wonder how they were any better than a Jose Luis Castillo, Diego Corrales, ect, who I also consider to be excellent fighters.

Just seems to be a lack of critical thinking when it comes to a lot of these old greats. Why was Duran great? Because he beat DeJesus. Why was DeJesus great? Because he beat Duran. I dunno.

Originally Posted by Mr140

Quick question for you bean not saying your wrong or right but what do you make a of Holyfeild as a pound for pound guy. Would you say winning titles in a lot of divisions is better or would you consider a man who started out at lhw and went up to to become one of the best hw of all time. Sometimes beating guys who's weight was almost 80 pounds higher then his starting weight and do you feel his comp is as good as Jones and Mayweathers. Are you picking a fighter on how good they all be if they were the same weight right then what about some one that was not a true heavyweight who beat giants. I mean is that what pound for pound is right if they were all the same size who would win right and if was made pretty much because the heavyweights would always consider best because they beat the fuck out of other divisions.

To me p4p is simply a way to pick the best fighter in boxing, regardless of weight class. I don't think about who would beat who if they all weighed the same: that's IMPOSSIBLE to guess with any degree of accuracy because all boxers craft a style based on their physical capabilities: if Manny Pacquaio was 230lbs and 6'3'', he would bare no resemblance to the Manny Pacquiao we know in terms of the way he fought. p4p is the power us fans give ourselves to isolate boxing's best at any given time. I laugh at people who say "oh p4p rankings mean nothing". Title belts mean next to nothing now a days, so to be considered one of boxing's current (or all time) best by the fans and boxing media is arguably the greatest honour a boxer can get.

Holyfield was a great p4p boxer. He had a great career, was the man at 2 weight divisions and fought and beat a lot of excellent fighters with a lot of different body types and styles. As far as his competition, definitely better than Jones and probably better than Floyd's. I don't really know. What I do know is that I don't believe fighting better competition than a guy makes you a better fighter than him. Holyfield was not a better fighter than either of those guys.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Hey bro... is it possible to defend one fighter without denigrating the other? IMHO... they're both ATG's. But you're dismissing a couple of excellent fighters in their own right: DeJesus and Buchanan.

I'm not denigrating Duran, he's without question an ATG. I'm just saying that if people want to go through one guy's legacy with a fine toothed comb, at least be consistent and do it for everyone.

No doubt DeJesus and Buchanan were very capable, probably excellent fighters. I just wonder how they were any better than a Jose Luis Castillo, Diego Corrales, ect, who I also consider to be excellent fighters.

Just seems to be a lack of critical thinking when it comes to a lot of these old greats. Why was Duran great? Because he beat DeJesus. Why was DeJesus great? Because he beat Duran. I dunno.

You're right Bean, which is why I consider both Duran and Floyd to be ATG's. Castillo and Corrales were, in fact, excellent fighters. And so were DeJesus and Buchanan. Duran respected DeJesus more than just about any other opponent he ever had. Their fights were epic. Both were around in one of the golden eras of boxing. Yeah I totally disagree with double standards. Criteria that applies to one should apply to the other. Of course it helps when you've seen the fighters fight, which I had the privilege of watching Duran do.

I would say that Holyfeild was a better boxer then Jones because even in his old age he could still hold out while Jones drop off was really bad. I feel that Holyfeilds wins over all are better then both Jones and Mayweather and if they fought some as skilled as a Lennox or Bowie and were out weighed by 40 pounds come fight night they lose. I dont know how you could say Holyfeild was not a better fighter he brawled with the best of them and how does fighting weaker comp help i mean eye test i know but look how Floyde looked in JlC and Madiana fights looked tested as fuck lost the first Jlc to a lot of people. Fighting better comp is how you see how good that fighter really is other wise whats the point of all of it really i mean i hope fighters make most money they can but when fight weaker comp i can not rate them higher for it.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Cleaned out lightweight and beat ATG top ten Ray Leonard (Ray was undefeated and in his prime) a weight class up. Not many other fighters can claim similar accomplishments. Then u throw in his close fight with Hagler and two HUGE wins over Davey Moore and Iran Barkely and I can see him being ranked in the top 5 all time.

Ok but who did he beat at LW? DeJesus? Buchanan? Were these guys so great that you earn demigod status by beating them?

It goes along with my post above about people manipulating facts for those they love and those they hate.

If I said "well Floyd has gone almost 20 years without a loss" I'd have multiple people jump down my throat and ask me who he beat that was so great and in their prime, they'd tell me how Floyd ducked and dodged this guy and that guy, and how he only fought this guy and that guy when they were vulnerable in some way. They'd talk about him "cheating", or holding, or fighting a guy at the wrong weight class, or having a ref "help" him, ect ect. They would go through his record with a fine-toothed comb and try their best to take any morsel of accomplishment and credibility out of his career.

But when someone says "Duran cleaned out the LW division", the response is "yeah, yeah he did. Isn't he great?" Nobody goes back and looks at who he fought or didn't fight, and whether or not the guys he beat made him great.

Instead, because he "cleaned out" the division and beat DeJesus and Buchanan, I'm supposed to believe he'd beat guys like Mayweather and Whitaker. I just don't buy that. It's nonsense.

Floyd's an ATG fighter, so I hate answering these posts because it comes off like I'm insulting Floyd, when I'm actually just trying to provide my perspective/opinion. That being said, Floyd has NEVER beaten ANYONE CLOSE to as challenging as prime Ray Leonard (a couple of weights up). Combine that ATG performance/win with his complete domination of lightweight and performances vs. Hagler, Moore and Barkley and I feel comfortable ranking him top 5. These lists are subjective though, so I can definitely understand and enjoy hearing alternate points of view as well. The exception is when trolls like Rocco get on and spout nonsense or act like anyone who has a different opinion is a hater. Those discussions r a waste of time.

Originally Posted by TitoFan

You're right Bean, which is why I consider both Duran and Floyd to be ATG's. Castillo and Corrales were, in fact, excellent fighters. And so were DeJesus and Buchanan. Duran respected DeJesus more than just about any other opponent he ever had. Their fights were epic. Both were around in one of the golden eras of boxing. Yeah I totally disagree with double standards. Criteria that applies to one should apply to the other. Of course it helps when you've seen the fighters fight, which I had the privilege of watching Duran do.

And although you'd never think reading what I say about him... Duran is one of my favourite fighters of all time. When I got big into boxing my two favourites were James Toney and Roberto Duran. I had (almost) every fight of theirs on DVD (before the days of Youtube) and watched all the fights OBSESSIVELY for years. To this day I still don't watch Duran/Leonard 2 or Duran/Hearns. I spent years making excuses for both guys, "if they were in shape they'd whip everyone", ect. Eventually you have to face the facts though.

Originally Posted by Mr140

I would say that Holyfeild was a better boxer then Jones because even in his old age he could still hold out while Jones drop off was really bad. I feel that Holyfeilds wins over all are better then both Jones and Mayweather and if they fought some as skilled as a Lennox or Bowie and were out weighed by 40 pounds come fight night they lose. I dont know how you could say Holyfeild was not a better fighter he brawled with the best of them and how does fighting weaker comp help i mean eye test i know but look how Floyde looked in JlC and Madiana fights looked tested as fuck lost the first Jlc to a lot of people. Fighting better comp is how you see how good that fighter really is other wise whats the point of all of it really i mean i hope fighters make most money they can but when fight weaker comp i can not rate them higher for it.

To clarify, when I say "better fighter" I just mean "better overall", not literally who was best at "fighting" or "brawling" (which was clearly Holyfield).

It's true that Holyfield was usually the smaller man, being outweighed by 20-30lbs by guys like Bowe and Lewis. It's also true, though, that as you get up to HW and are dealing with much larger men, weigh differences mean less because eventually you get into diminishing returns (ex: Riddick Bowe was 246 in the 2nd fight, as opposed to 235 in the first. Was that extra 11lbs an advantage for Bowe?). And obviously 30lbs of difference between two heavyweights is much less drastic than, let's say, the difference between a super featherweight and a middleweight, so you can't really compare HWs and smaller fighters that way. Floyd has been outweighed on fight night by just about every guy he's fought over the last 15 years.

On the competition thing... yes looking at competiton fought is important, but what if the differences are only small? You either have a world class resume or you don't. Both Floyd and Holyfield have world class resumes. The fact that Holyfield may have fought slightly better opposition doesn't make him better. There's more that goes into it.

Look at it this way: in Olympic sports like half pipe, diving, figure skating, ect you pick your trick/routine and you get graded on 1) how hard the trick/routine is and 2) your execution of that trick/routine. Lets say we're competing in diving: you pick a hard dive and you execute it perfectly. I pick a harder dive and I end up landing on my belly, totally fucking it up. Am I the better diver because I picked a harder dive? Of course not. Now if you picked an easy dive, maybe there's room for argument over what would have happened. But if we both picked hard dives, why should I get credit for failing on my slightly harder dive over you, who executed perfectly? I never got that.

Rate Mayweather up there don't get me wrong i am just saying i think Holyfeild right there with him to me beating Bowe in the rematch is a feat greater then Mayweather has ever done. I know you maybe disagree but not just the weight its the height and reach Holyfeild dealt with. Mayweather reach has been a huge factor in a lot of of his fights with his style not taking anything away from him but say he fought Hopkins at 160 thats like Holyfeild fighting Bowe or Lennox not sure he could pull it off. I know Holyfeild got things against him to the Moorer fight even though Holyfeild avenged it he lost and Bowie fights even got the Lennox fight even though in rematch i though Holyfeild had very good fight for a man 37 years old and alot millage on it. You could always attack the Holyfeild losses even though most of them he was like over 40 but i think people underate the man in pound for pound in most cases i might be wrong. Also when it comes to these list it all kinda bs any with atg or pound for pound because tearing down a fighter is like the easy thing to do if look at it hard enough.

Originally Posted by Mr140

Rate Mayweather up there don't get me wrong i am just saying i think Holyfeild right there with him to me beating Bowe in the rematch is a feat greater then Mayweather has ever done. I know you maybe disagree but not just the weight its the height and reach Holyfeild dealt with. Mayweather reach has been a huge factor in a lot of of his fights with his style not taking anything away from him but say he fought Hopkins at 160 thats like Holyfeild fighting Bowe or Lennox not sure he could pull it off. I know Holyfeild got things against him to the Moorer fight even though Holyfeild avenged it he lost and Bowie fights even got the Lennox fight even though in rematch i though Holyfeild had very good fight for a man 37 years old and alot millage on it. You could always attack the Holyfeild losses even though most of them he was like over 40 but i think people underate the man in pound for pound in most cases i might be wrong. Also when it comes to these list it all kinda bs any with atg or pound for pound because tearing down a fighter is like the easy thing to do if look at it hard enough.

Hmm... maybe you're right!

Nobody,

Can come up with the 'perfect' Top 5 Pound-for-Pound list.

Half the posters don't even have Sugar Ray Robinson on the their list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know what you mean. For awhile {1966 thru 1970}, I was on everybody's Top 5 list."

Barbara Eden as 'Jeannie'

Well bean we dont agree on a lot of things when i comes to boxing at times but i feel you know your shit at least from my point of view. Like i may not have Mayweather as the best of all time but i have him no lower then 15 no higher then 11 but i can see a place for him. By the same token i rate Leonard, Hearns, Holyfeild and Micheal Spinks probably higher then you or most people would to its all about what you like or view things. Anyway always good hear peoples views on boxing why been on this sight more then others because some boxing sites are just plain trash dude some of shit i can not believe people say. Like they just started watching boxing and they have not seen like the past 100 years of the sport or even tried to learn about it which is like a huge chuck of what people should look at use youtube for god sake when i read some of there shit.

Originally Posted by Mr140

Like i may not have Mayweather as the best of all time but i have him no lower then 15 no higher then 11 but i can see a place for him.

I can kind of respect that, I think Mayweather is at the very least top 10 ATG but some people don't have him in the top 20 or 30, which is just silly.

I think Mayweather is the kind of guy who won't be fully appreciated until he's long gone from the sport. When all the bullshit and drama is long forgotten and people judge him on his ability and accomplishment alone. In terms of in-ring ability, there's really nobody who has had the full package quite like Mayweather has.