The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

I, uh... don't know what to say. Do you want a hug our something?

Anyway I don't see Mosley in here although he was a fabulous fugger.

Marcel-Pedroza... I would love to agree.with you flea but i'm not sure I can. There are about four things we use to rate guys (in lists like this at least): resume, longevity, accomplishment, and dominance/consistency. Pedroza has the edge, by a clear margin, in longevity and accomplishment and probably in dominance and consistency although that's closer. Marcel has a better resume, but is it better than Pedroza's by a wide enough margin to justify a place above him? It's not like Eusebio had a Lopezian reign: Herrera, Laporte, Lockridge, Carrasquilla, Lujan, Kobayashi, Ford. That's solid if not brilliant. Is a young Arguello (and Gomez, Caraballo, Marcano, Shibata, Serrano), who's better than anyone Pedroza beat, so much better that none of the other stuff matters.

 

I like Mosley in the top 200 !! Too bad Johnston ducked him at 135.

 

I think the difference is there to see opponent for opponent. Ford is notable only because he gave Sanchez hassle (great showing from Pedroza, but hardly better than the great filmed performances we have from Marcel) Lujan, past his best, gave Pedroza hassle.

Lockridge and Laporte are the best opponents Pedroza has. One of the opponents gave him a LOT of hassle, whereas neither Shibata nor Gomez did (I don't even need to bring Alexis into it) and the other one featured one of the dirtiest showings ever (but then again was Marcel coming in overweight for Arguello? It's certainly a possibility)

Marcel should've held both titles. Bettered Pedroza's performance against Nemoto (only man to stop him)

Look at them pre-prime; Marcel shows a lot of quality against a pre-peak Duran. Pedroza looks like a reed in the wind against Zamora.

How many defences of a legit' World title did Pedroza make? I think if you decided on that the 'accomplishments' side of things would be decidedly different.

 

I have sympathy for Johnston, who was small, against the only good at 135 because he was a massive weight cutter, Mosley.

 

He could've still posed Shane big problems IMO with his jab and angles. Shame he had to get upended by a then-unknown at the time instead of making a career high payday.

 

It is interesting that Pedroza usually ranks a fair bit higher relative to weightclass and most likely that is in large part due to a lot of credit being given to his long title run.

Laguna could justify a higher placing than he often gets, but it comes down to how you see his era.If you're not high on it he's going to struggle, where pedroza has the numbers game there to give him more credibility and perhaps crucially..visibility...even if the 80s isn't your favourite feather era either, it's probably easier to swallow rating pedroza higher for a lot of people who might not have too strong an opinion on where each ranks in their division.

Sometimes that happens when you compare two fighters that look on a similar or reasonably close level in ability in the opinions of many, but one consistently and clearly outperforms the other in lists.

Compare Nelson to marcel at feather.Nelson usually does much better in lists that i've seen.Despite the fact you can count on Django reinhardt's healthy fingers how many very good fighters he beat at the weight...and he also lost to the best man he faced.

I think there's a visiblity factor too.the amount of people likely to be voting on divisional lists that have seen loads more of the 80s guys is a lot higher + there's just a lot more footage out there.

Fighters that missed the classic era of boxing competition where everyone was proven against tons of worthy competition(say as a general rule 10s-50s) so you can to an extent safely rate them without needing to see loads and also don't have a lot of easily available footage around just don't tend to do as well, especially in big communal projects with lots of people chipping in opinions.

 

Which is why Khaosai and Pedroza get a lot of unwarranted praise for title reigns.

Which ones? Where does Pedroza's true title claim start?

Not for the whole of his 'reign'. A great champ' who never faced the no.2 whilst champ' nor beat the no.1 to earn it? Doesn't sound very impressive to me. And let's make it clear again; I really rate Pedroza. I wouldn't put loads of him on my channel so people could enjoy him otherwise. And for what it's worth, he has the perfect style to give Sanchez hassle, and in his prime had the stamina to match.

I don't think that's relevant here. About as relevant as Tommy Hearns' top ten ATG list. Or Carlos Ortiz saying Duran would've lost to journeymen in his era. We (or rather you) are looking at it as historians, surely? We should be able to make the call what constitutes a real champion.

Unless I'm reading that wrong you're punishing Laguna based on me making a case for him?

 

Oh damn didn't even see Ricky Lopez had snuck in :smoke

 

Looks like I indeed read your post wrong, apologies.

 

One spot left !

For me it's between saad , Mitchell and Delaney

Sad that galaxy has left the holding pen where's pedroza gone

Sugar Shane should of left the holding pen very overrated



Found pedroza

 

Delaney or The Kid for me. Would love Sweetwater in there but I concede.

 

Saad. Four years undefeated with 8 defences of the World title, the other belt held by a fighter he'd already beaten twice, by K.O.