The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Jesus Christ lad. What the ****?

I gave you my reasons, twice:

I even explained the second part of my explanation so you couldn't possibly miss it:

I have no idea why you are saying I haven't given you reasons, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. It's a list man, a pound for pound list on the ****ing internet. You're talking about being banned, accusing me of singling you out for negative attention and all sorts of crazy ****. You really, really took the fun out of this.

 

That wouldn't have been true though.

The purpose of the list was to get the wise heads on classic together to see what we could thrash out. That is, names were missing, it was a top-of-the head experiment. I didn't have a tier for Gomez. I didn't have a tier for Dixon, or a bunch of other fighters - i didn't forget them, just didn't have them.

You seemed to want me to argue why Zarate had his spot and why he should be above Gomez. I could play devils advocate but that is about all. The whole POINT of the thread was for you to make arguments for the fighters you think should be ranked. I either didn't make this clear enough in the OP or it's an idea at odds with the culture of Classic.

 

IMO, you are getting out of hand, in the sense that you are off on one, and have been for a few posts now.

What the hell else would you call it? In your last post you accused me of not providing any, now all of a sudden it's...

it's the only reasoning that matters. This is vague and uneducated sounding:

We've got Dixon being affected by racism even though you are comparing him to Walcott who was of the same colour and in the same era, and absolutely no proof. We've got it being difficult for Dixon to cross the bantamweight gap - no mention of former lightweight Walcott closing the ****ing heavyweight gap. Finally we have Dixon being the greatest boxer of his day, which is arguable anyway.

I afforded this post the respect it deserved as a neat pocket argument, but if you're going to write off my ranking Holman a good bit higher than Ike because I rank his wins a good bit higher I don't really know what to say.

but i feel exactly the same way?

But I find Holman's list of names more impressive? And said so?

I rank the men i've listed above Ike ABOVE him. SO for me, this is obviously the case. In his series with Charley Burley, who I rank about #20, Williams proved himself Burley's equal, or thereabouts. His wider resume then cements that impression. That is, he beat Burley three times proving himself the equal on paper of my #20ish fighter, and then he eliminated the possibility of a style advantage delivering this result by beating out a huge raft of contenders and greats to boot.

Williams lost his series to Gavilan, a fighter comparable to Burley but ranked lower on my list. Because there is a small weight differential - Gavilan is clearly bigger - this needn't peg him, but his next best win is over a fighter that is not even being considered for p4p honours on this list at around the 60 mark. Meanwhile, Williams has Moore. SO he has beaten two guys in or around the top 20.

This brings him clear water for me in terms of who proved themselves at the higher level and how much proof that constitutes. He's way ahead.

Additionally, I think it's likely that I would have Lloyd Marshall above anyone that Ike beat. This is arguable. Furthermore, I think that Booker and Cocoa Kid and Chase have an argument to be ranked in and around the type of placements everyone but maybe Agnott - who stopped Ike, lest we forget - and Jack might receive and there is NOT clear water there. They'd be about the same. What Ike did with Gavilan, Marshall did with ****ing Ezzard Charles who is a tier one lock - the major difference is that Marshall totally thrashed Charles where Ike only slipped past Gavilan. So IMO, Holman's SECOND TIER WINS are of a similar quality to anyone Ike proved himself the superior of. And Holman ate Marshall's lunch in a three fight series. Did Ike prove himself the superior of someone as good as Marshall? I think he arguably did not and it was close, and he at no time proved himself the approximate equal of a fighter as good as Burley, nor did he beat a fighter anything like as great as Archie Moore.

I think it is, and I think it's pretty clear. I can go into more detail but there is absolutely no changing your mind so from my perspective, what is the point? Except to get into some kind of huge row where each poster is trying to prove something about themselves more than the fighters they are talking about, which is just the sort of exchange I was hoping to avoid in this thread.

You're kind of famous for your p4p lists on here. Those threads are entertaining. But they're entertaining, in part, because you struggle with them so badly, and are honest about it. You seem unable to get past around #20 because you think yourself into knots. I think the above clip illustrates this. It is perfectly viable to have Napoles at #28 and Rodriguez at #50. I don't even know what point you are making. Are you saying Napoles is too low or too high? Is Rodriguez too low or too high? Becuase 25-45 is a perfectly reasonable range for Napoles, dependent and 45-65 is a fine range for Rodriguez, dependent. Maybe if you get futher on with your own list, you'll see some of the reasons for this and some of the problems that get kicked up that help to crystalise them.

 

Except it's not a "massive gap apart" anywhere but in your head. It's about 20 spots, probably. They can both be ranked inside the top fifty of all time. This is a differential of something like 5% if we listed all the great fighters and .001% if we listed all the really good ones.

Top 60 lists are rare, and good ones are almost unheard off. Collusions are almost unheard of which is why I was keen to do it.

Generally, I don't see Williams ranked in top 50/100 type lists. In the 80's, Bob Mee mad a top 500 in which he was not included. I doubt he would appear on any ATG lists you google or any top 100 types made up by posters on this forum, no.

I've provided as detailed a reasoning as I am prepared to give. I don't have anything to add.

 

Firstly: I don't give a ****.

Secondly: No they wouldn't, you are completely wrong.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=458918&highlight=williams+duran

This is the latest such thread and almost nobody picks Williams to beat Armstrong including you Including Burt, who loves Williams, including Surf-Bat, who was his friend. IN fact, without actually counting, I think the forum has Williams losing about 10-1.

So, without wishing to put the boot in too hard, this is nonsense and mostly irrelevant.