The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Graham looks high at first glance. No real qualms here though.

 

Ok I know this is really only one place but Mandell should be above kid chocolate his wins over canzoneri and mclarnin should be enough to bump him up at least that one place

 

What about Jack's over Montgomery, Armstrong, Zivic, Jenkins, Joyce, etc?

 

Jack over chocolate is fine by me

Mandell could even leap over graham also

 

Have it done

 

Because I don't care what you factor. You clearly said it because it is a factor, not just accomplishments. If I'm wrong you can show me where I missed out on some criteria mentioning or something.

Cool

Not my take. Agree to disagree or disagree to disagree?

Well I think it's pretty obvious he had more potential at the weight considering what his biggest deficit was. But yeah, I can't prove it. You agreed though.

 

Yes, greatest fighters regardless of weight. That's how P4P works. Perhaps this is a greatest fighters list instead.

You make it sound like this is all the more easier. As if we can quantify this guys resume over that guy. It's impossible to begin with. Of course, P4P is complicated. What's the slightest sliver to dinstigiush him versus him. What's the grain that leaves this guy ahead (Well, he's a monster on film, etc).

The very fact that Marciano is a monster vs sub 200 lb opposition, and fought bigger men is why he's P4P worthy. Frazier was practically just as great at HW for all intensive purposes, but his opposition was more or less closer to his own size than Marciano, and Marciano's perception of a sub 200 P4P quality fighter.

We all know how high McGrain ranks Liston. If what I'm suggesting is not how the list goes then why did Liston not make the top 100? Since when did Foreman or Frazier ever rank higher on a HW list for McGrain?

 

This is a misunderstanding of things.

 

This is what I was actually going to suggest. Jeffries does not need to make the 100-150. Willis doesn't either. I think in terms of P4P Dempsey has the best case out of the four to make it, but it's okay if he doesn't. Personally could see Dempsey near Liston. Of course, it appears I've got some wildly bizarre understanding of P4P according to some others. It's merely an evaluation of a fighter's skills/ability.

Why does midgets jumping 4 pounds in weight give them P4P credentials but not a 180lb HW blasting a giant? That's my case for why guys like Dempsey and Tyson should be higher on P4P than maybe a Liston or Jeffries (Liston and Dempsey are close, mind you).

For example, Dempsey definitely ahead of Willis on P4P. Just a much better fighter, and a smaller HW that could weave and punch. Our evaluations of his skills suggests he's probably superior and would beat Willis. But in terms of the de facto, what have you done, Willis can be rated higher on a HW list. But Willis was a bigger HW, and less impressive on film.

 

Mandell at 105 at the lowest, probably should be 102 or 103. Tyson above Mongomery.

 

Agree with Mr. Butt. Billy Graham was a great fighter but I'd rank Mandell ahead of him.

[yt]oLp9qaFuYhE[/yt]

 

Never heard o' Mongomery :huh

 

I wasn't suggesting you were contradicting yourself in regards to your criteria. I'm saying it's obviously a factor in regards to McGrain's evaluation (At least that's what you're saying now which makes no sense since you said I wasn't playing by the game. HENCE THIS WHOLE ****ING DISCUSSION. I actually know **** all about the actual criteria. Hence your quotes), and most peoples evaluations of P4P greatness. I mean, how else do we discern between fighters without analyzing our opinions of their strengths, weaknesses, the era, etc.

So back full circle. Yes, versatility and **** is all apart of the ballgame. It's not purely a he beat, she beat contest. Accomplishments can mean a dick with multiple divisions and porous eras/competition.

 

You're still misunderstanding. You can call me unfair for being cruel to SHW's in a P4P ****ing discussion. I'm sorry but it's pretty simple logic to follow.

Are you actually trying to assert that natural size differences is meaningless in a P4P discussion? We're analyzing skills regardless of weight. It's not an A beats B same size nonsense scenario. We give Roy Jones Jr credit for going up and beating Ruiz while being the smaller man. I don't see what is so difficult to understand, why shouldn't we give credit to Dempsey for being a small HW and doing the same? There is zero limit to protect him from such opposition in ways that other fighters from lower classes don't have to deal with. This is how HWs get mistreated in P4P discussions if you care to know. And why shouldn't we discredit Jeffries for beating up smaller men when we're talking about Pound For ****ing Pound? I'm sorry, Jeffries wearing down an old Fitzsimmons doesn't elate nor impress me in regards to his pugilistic aptitude. He is an incredibly tough, strong, and competent boxer who can fight and adequately use his size well. And it shouldn't tarnish his HW position too much (Mainly because that's how it was back then). But he's no master or P4P stud. You're going to tell me he should rated ahead of Oscar De La Hoya (RHETORICAL)?

*Edit* I apologize for the tone.

 

Fair enough, but it does seem strange now. Like you were suggesting I was trying to contort with the coherency of P4P.

I'll be honest. I probably over-factor this. In my mind, Patterson built himself up. We know him as a HW but it's sort of like seeing Pac & Floyd at WW+. They're great, but that's not their peak. It was never their best fighting weight.

However, I still think you can sort of say that Patterson was naturally smaller than Bonavena & Chuvalo without being too fussy. If Wlad's better wins are Haye, Byrd, Chambers etc. And Frazier's best win is Ali, and Lewis might be Holyfield. I think it's a little relevant to what we're discussing when we're talking best fighters. The best skills regardless of... you know.

It's pretty simple actually. Nowadays plenty rate Wlad top 5 P4P. I would rate him 7-10 probably at the highest if I did. To me in terms of skill & ability from a P4P standpoint Wlad can't hold a candle to Rigo, Ward, Martinez (He's clearly on the decline). His accomplishments and dominance suggest he's worthy, however.

He's next best win are Byrd & Chambers too. One guy that just moved down to CW.

I probably wouldn't put Patterson in the top 150 so this all is sort of been for **** all.

Yeah, Wlad-Patterson are close in a P4P ranking. I'm not sure how far I'd rate them between each other. I'd clearly rate Wlad ahead in a HW list, though I hate ranking active fighters.

I get in a little tizzy in my post above, just take it with a grain of salt.

I pushed for Tyson to make the top 100.