The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Yeah. **** it. Saad. Beat up a solid division.

 

Delaney pounded out Flowers decisively twice, Loughran, and I think Maxie as well.

I'm all in on JD.

 

It's hard to rank Saad over Delaney and the bell hop. Who has the best win you think?

 

Well hell...

 

Out of them all it's Dejesus over Duran surely? Out of Saad/JD it's JD

 

True, and as I've already said, I rank Pedroza for consistency. But...

Well, he didn't beat Taylor. I'm not taking much credit off him for it, as I've said many a time great fighters can look poor against such a non-performer as Taylor was that night.

Fair enough.

I just rank their quality of win better. It's enough for me to not only make up the ground but run over it. Those title matches were big deals too, regardless of them being more isolated incidents. And against better fighters, they look incredible on film, as much, or moreso than Pedroza in his best performances.

I am stunned even moreso in exactly the same way. As someone who is in no way a natural athlete or fighter, I am bowled over enough to dedicate this much of my life to discussing and discovering different aspects of the sport. But again, that shouldn't be taken into account when we're ranking from the fighters from a different perspective. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be over-awed in that way.

See above, I don't think I am doing that. I'm just putting more love out there for the sweat and blood needed to beat better opponents in equally breath taking fashion.

Class.

 

I may have overrated Fred Apostoli, but I'd be suprised if he didn't edge the top 150. Wasn't Matt pushing Battling Levinsky awhile back. Was he ever discussed?

 

As was Pedroza.

 

Another thing i see a lot in lists is that it seems people find it easier to give higher ratings to pre-60s fighters that scored numerous top-notch wins, but maybe weren't champ for long (or at all)and weren't ahead of the pack in a stacked era, when compared to more modern guys that have long title runs, consistency, loads of defences etc but maybe not too many really top notch fighters beaten.

And that's fair enough.But the same thing seems far more warily extended to more modern versions of that previously mentioned first category when compared to modern long reigning champions.Guys like the 60s-early 70s feather borderline greats or the 70s light heavy borderline men....the latter half of the 80s to early nineties middles etc...and other modern divisions that had stacked era's.

These guys seem to struggle far more often as far as being given a high placing compared to the many title defences guys.Due to the vagaries of modern matchmaking they don't usually have enough quality 2nd-tier wins, unlike the classic era pre-60s guys.

Maybe that's just the way it should be, if you're really favouring getting as balanced a criterion as possible i think it probably is.

I'm not a decent enough person for that though, so **** rating someone like Calzaghe over conteh, Morales over Legra\famechon, Mitchell over Kalule etc I'm at that stage where i just think if i've seen enough of two fighters and think one is just better than the other, then i'll rate him higher.Nothing else even comes into it anymore, it just seems more honest.

 

I don't know. If you take them at face value, two wins over Armstrong = one win over Duran.

 

Ok I feel I have done ok in pushing Mitchell the last point I think i can make for him is that he avenged his only loss not once but three times and even the three fights he drew he rematched and won so has the distinction of defeating every man he ever met in the professional ring

If I could of done better could someone please tell what I might of missed

 

Cocoa Kid beat Williams like 5 times? :conf