Your All Time Top P4P top 5

[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.

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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!

[Bill Paxtom]

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'

[Mr140]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.