There is no need. The question asks for the pound for pound "ATG" (Artur T. Grigorian). In other words, pound for pound who the most Grigorianlike.
This list is ridiculous, ezzard Charles number 5? Sprinks above mayweather? Every person that got their asses kicked by marciano are somehow higher than him??!!?!!?!!?!?!?! Ali is in the top 10 when Larry Holmes near the bottom when they were practically identical? Come on whoever made this list really played favorites instead of actually going by how good the fighter was in their era. Mike Tyson isn't even on this list!!!
I don't see how Mayweather can be considered outside of the top 20. We're talking about the best fighter of his era and a guy who beat around 10 HOF/HOF bound fighters. He's obviously a polarizing figure but he has a very strong case of being firmly inside the top 20: - Arguably the greatest SFW in the history of the sport who is arguably a top 10 WW in the history of the sport as well. That's a tremendous feat when recognizing that's 3 divisions apart. - Was recognized by many outlets as the fighter of the year in 1998 and won that distinction again in 2013 and 2015. If that doesn't scream longevity, I don't know what does. - Was the lineal champion in 4 weight classes including simultaneous lineal champ at WW and JMW. I don't think he could crack top 10 given how many fights other guys fought, but he didn't take on tomato cans in his career. Once he got his first title in his 18th pro fight, he was only taking on top 10 guys in his division. Every great old fighter including my favorite- Ray RObinson- took on many guys with .500 records- guys who had no business sharing the ring with him. Obviously they needed the money more back than so they took on as many fight as possible, but they weren't taking on the quality of opponents on a fight by fight basis that currents champions do. I don't think Mayweather would've went up to 147 in certain eras; rather I see him probably starting off as a FW and also campaigning at LW. At his very best, he can beat any fighter at FW and LW history and that includes Willie Pep, Sal Sanchez, Benny Leonard and ROberto Duran.
The list was created in 2013, before Mayweather had defeated Alvarez and Pacquiao. I believe McGrain has him ranked considerably higher now than he did previously.
Ezzard Charles at number 5 is well within reason, given that he may well be the best light heavyweight in history and ruled at heavyweight. Spinks is an easy Top 5 at light heavyweight and also ruled at heavyweight. He deserves to be rated highly. Ali has Liston, Frazier and Foreman on his resume. Holmes doesn't. As for Mayweather, this list was created in 2013. At that time, his rating was appropriate.
Immediate observations, Ali has to be in the top 5 especially as Cassius Clay in his prime, Ray Leonard top 10, Marciano top 25, etc...this list was not really thought out very well based on skill set and competitive fire. I could go on and on about other boxers, but these oversights stood out to me.
To be fair; the pioneers of the sport should be placed in a separate category in terms of ranking; for example, in the history of Major League Baseball where there are Dead Ball era HOFers from the 1800's not being measured or scrutinized in the same fashion as the modern game HOFers of baseball after the live ball era started...... Greb, Fitzsimmons, and Langford; illustrating my point for a moment, a couple of them losing 17 bouts and 29 bouts respectively in their careers; the fact they fought a couple hundred times in their career, should not be ranked ahead of the modern day boxers because they paved the trail. I find the list to be narrowly focused and not defined solely on heart, skill, and the "actual" legacy they left behind. The list is garbage in my opinion.
Langford started at Welterweight, and beat top heavyweights, even well past his prime. Greb has the record for wins over HOFs. Greb is regarded by many the greatest Middlweight ever, he also was a top Light Heavyweight, and even Heavyweight contender. Fitz was the champion at Middleweight, Heavyweight, and Light Heavyweight. Fitzsimmons and Langford are likely the two biggest punchers ever. It's P4P all time, not arbitrarily cut off at a date to make space for modern boxers.
I see your point and you make good arguments for this list in supporting it; but like I mentioned a bunch of losses for several of them; and we would put them in the top ten of all-time? That has to be considered, too. I would consider George Foreman one of the biggest punchers ever; and he isn't even on the radar screen with this list; and he fought against the very best in his era. Just using this as an example, to illustrate my point further on the subject.
