The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Feb 15, 2013.


  1. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    84
    May 30, 2009
    Is that 51 names. What exactly is the criteria. Purely record-based or a mix of record and how I evaluate them H2H and their skills. I still don't understand how Louis is ahead of Pep. His advocators can't acknowledge he had a less then stellar boxing IQ and genuinely had trouble ad******g mid-fight. Not to mention his multiple struggles with smaller boxers. Schemling actually beat him, Conn nearly did but credit to Louis for catching him and Walcott arguably did but it was a close affair and Louis was not at his best. Pep had two ridiculous unbeaten streaks, and Pep losing to Angott is forgivable, especially considering how close it was, how active Pep was, how good Angott was, and the mere fact it was only a 10 rounder. Question Pep's quality of opposition if you desire, haven't you even said the HW division is the weakest division of them all? Yes, Louis 14 year record of going undefeated and long establishing reign of twenty five defenses is impressive, but is it more impressive than either streak of Pep's? Is it more impressive than Pep's past prime win over Saddler? I think not.

    Site won't let me say A D J U S T I N G ...
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'd offset that by saying his weight jumping is absolutely elite. He only really lost to Mosley in a fight he really avenged. Everyone who stepped in the ring with a prime version of Oscar lost to him (on my cards anyways)
     
  3. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    84
    May 30, 2009
    Seconded. Maybe Jones Jr behind Conn.

    On the Oscar note, I'd remove him.
     
  4. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,577
    11,622
    Jan 6, 2007


    A quick review of the list and the tiers forces one of two inescapable conclusions; either there is a significant bias favouring the distant past of the sport, or 'greatness' in the sweet science is in sharp decline.

    I've watched the sport since 1965 and only one fighter from each of the top three tiers have fought in that time (Ali, Duran and SRL).

    That's 12 % of the top 25 in a period that covers roughly 40 % of the period under question.

    Most of the recent and semi recent entries are in the seventh tier.



    I'm not much of a student of the sport pre-Louis, but even looking at some of the placements since that time raises question as to the criteria.

    Holyfield, Mayweather and Pac all below Griffith and Napoles ?

    Do you think future generations will rank RJJ based on his inability to hang 'em up when he was over the hill ? They certainly don't count Spinks, Holmes and Berbick against Ali.


    Any expansion on the criteria would be appreciated, and apologies if they're there and I've missed them.
     
  5. Vic-JofreBRASIL

    Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,477
    5,720
    Aug 19, 2010
    I don´t see a problem with DLH.....though I would put definitely Mandell and not him if I had to pick one.
     
  6. Mr Butt

    Mr Butt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,678
    183
    May 16, 2009
    I would take Oscar out as well
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,116
    48,342
    Mar 21, 2007
    I agree that there are some ****-tits decision in there but...i'm not talking about that. Is he greater than Marquez? We're not ready for Marquez yet. But Oscar lets Marquez into the argument.

    Is Oscar greater than Kid Lavigne? All of a sudden there are a swarm of names around where previously that wasn't the case. I think i'll sleep on it but i'm feeling the burn here.

    You have Oscar clearly above Benny Lynch?
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,116
    48,342
    Mar 21, 2007
    The main criteria has ended up being about who dudes actually beat. That will heave the bias across to the old-time eras because these poor guys had so many fights and the great ones tended to gather more cracking wins. Look at Griffith's win resume. It's pretty crazy.

    The problem i'm having isn't how I feel about that particular ranking but rather the fighters he lets into the argument. It's like, if I said Calzaghe, all of a sudden someone wants to talk about Eubank. You get me? Oscar lets a huge swathe of guys into his tier that IMO we aren't ready for yet. What i'm saying is that this is an indicator that he might be in too early.

    I'm all ears though.
     
  9. LittleRed

    LittleRed Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,850
    239
    Feb 19, 2012
    How do you feel about controversial decisions. Like Gavilan where a lot of people feel he won dogs fights that are Ls, but we don't have footage (as opposed to someone like Whitaker). Does that count towards them or is the official record more important?
     
  10. Mr Butt

    Mr Butt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,678
    183
    May 16, 2009
    Perhaps you should get rid of the holding area altogether and keep them fighters in a box in your head until you are settled on the tiers already established then if you want to start a new tier you have names already in mind
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,116
    48,342
    Mar 21, 2007
    Basically, if you can make a cognitive and definitive argument I'll hear that. But like you say, if fights aren't on film you have to go a very long way to make that argument work. Generally, when it comes to these lists, fighters leave a general impression that we as fans can work with. When everybody agrees, and they seem to where KG is concerned, that settles neatly. Of course the whole house of cards can effectively come tumbling down if someone with an axe to grind starts swinging but generally these things sort themselves out, I think. The general impression survives.

    As a general guide - I prefer the official decision. That's my position, generally speaking.
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,116
    48,342
    Mar 21, 2007
    No I do like it the way it is now, I think it's organic and healthy. The more transparent the process the better.



    I'd like to add that there are sixty-six names on that list. Which means we are more than half way to a hundred most people agree upon. That's ****ed up. An all form a drunken post I made on BS.
     
  13. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,577
    11,622
    Jan 6, 2007
    Yeah, the oldtimers fought a lot more (and for a lot less dough), and consequently had a lot more good wins. They also had a lot more losses (overall).

    The difficulty with selecting criteria that are judiciously applicable over 120 years or so, is what makes such lists so interesting.

    And so subjective.



    BTW, on a question not directly related, will there be a p4p list in the Transnational rankings in the near future ?
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,116
    48,342
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah, shouldn't be long at all. Conservatively i'd say end of next month, but on the qt should be before that. Interesting process. To say the least.
     
  15. Mr Butt

    Mr Butt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,678
    183
    May 16, 2009
    Fair enough , the last twenty or so could well be the most difficult so many fighters could come into contention