So...you think we shouldn't pick holes in it yet do the same yourself? Wilfredo Gomez, at his best, is one of the best I've ever seen. But top 30 of all time? No chance. Not IMO anyway. And McGovern should surely be in there. Some love for Lopez?! He gets more love than ****ing anyone! Overrated to ****.
I think the only thing you need for a list is confidence. If you can back up your choices by your own criteria that's all that matters. It shouldn't be an aim to get a consensus amongst everyone because that's pretty boring. Probably ten or so names that everyone should share in a top thirty but the main point of a list is debate. And as long as you can debate your point well then your list is successful. The easiest example is those who put leonard above duran v those who don't. Noone's right or wrong really, it's about who ticks which boxes. My p4p list doesn't exist beyond number 5 atm as there were too many boxers I didn't know. I've undergone a huge scheme to further my knowledge on those worthy of such an accolade. One guy I have an issue with atm is my number 5 guy langford. Would anyone say he's an atg in any weight class? Is it possible to be an atg without doing so in a weight class? That's my burden atm.
I have a few guys that are pound-for-pound greats. Floyd makes the latter part of my top 100 for this reason (if you don't count ******* divisions as he's obviously a 'great' junior lightweight) And no, someone like Robert Guerrero doesn't count!
Yeah. He's def hard to rate regarding his weight. I think so. At least when you pull some crazy feats in nearly every division you compete at, which is the case of Langford.
The thing is tho, carpentier was also a top 5 contender in every division he competed in. Is that enough to warrant a place? The thing is with ******* divisions, I think it's much harder to be great because of the shallow talent pool. Like smw perhaps 5 guys or so could be called great. I dunno, it's just one of those things where the more you look into boxing history, the more you realise there're more questions than answers
I'm guessing that in your case things look even uglier than it would for other people, cause your system focus more in the division, right? Like you'll only give a guy credit as a SMW by what he accomplished against SMW's?
That's the way I have it, as well. ...And I sure do like that Holyfield/Czyz avatar, there, Vic. :yep
I don't have a list so much as I do tiers. But gun to my head: Ricardo Lopez Khaosai Galaxy Rocky Mariano Joe Calzaghe Jack Dempsey Floyd Mayweather Jr. Salvador Sanchez Michael Spinks Jack McCauliffe Sven Ottke SNV missed the list because he had too many pounds. Dempsey its the only questionable one on my list, as he doesn't fit the criteria but if he had to be replaced it would be by Edwin Valero.
This has got to be some kind of sick and twisted joke post...or are just trolling???? No Corro c'mon????
He and Ottke are interchangeable, as was revealed long ago. I'm sure what out one over the other. Had Corro beaten Hugo Corti he gets that spot.
I must say I am disappointed! usually I find your analytical skills to top notch. Corro is on a whole seperate level thnt Ottke, not to mention his impact on the sport and the way he helped to make boxing popular again in a day where it was waning! There is more to him than just his record! we must look deeper than boxrec in this case. He is basically the Dominique Wilkins of boxing....That is why he was called the human highlight film, years before Wilkens! All hail Corro, perhaps the greatest MW ever! Quite a shame that Monzon, Minter and Hagler all blatantly ducked him for years or his resume would surpass the great Harry Greb!
I can't believe i'm going to say this but he's more like Dr. J. Tremendous reputation looks fantastic on film but ultimately that resume is just too thin. But just.