Can anyone past 1990 be reasonably put in top 5-10 AT p4p lists?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Kell Macabe, Mar 10, 2022.


Page 4 of 9
  1. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,770
    18,665
    Jun 25, 2014
    Yes, I do know who the number-one fighter was. The heavyweight champions were. Because people back then weren't prone to fantasy and they could look at two fighters and see that the heavyweight champion was better than the lightweight champion.

    That's why the heavyweight title was held in such high regard and the titles in the other divisions WERE NOT. Because that title meant you were THE BEST.

    The pound-for-pound was created to recognize Henry Armstrong and his accomplishments when Joe Louis was the dominant fighter in the sport. Because on his best day, Armstrong could NEVER beat Joe Louis.

    And, over the years, people have used all sorts of critieria to justify their pound-for-pound' ratings, but it's never consistent, never clear and it changes all the time.

    That's how you get guys who were never considered the best fighters of their day, and who no one alive now (and most people alive then) NEVER saw fight ... who often boxed in front of NO judges and could claim wins where they wanted ... and who people elevate even though they can't justify it ... are at the tops of these lists ...

    And no one can rationally explain why or even list anything specific about their fights when talking about guys they rate at the very top.

    Their praise is all in broad generalities.

    But they're quick to dismiss modern fighters and critique every minute of every round of every fight.

    It's maddening.

    Why isn't Floyd rated higher? "He got staggered that one time by an old Mosley."

    Well, what rounds did Langford or Greb look great in or which rounds lowered your opinion of them? "Can't say. Never saw those fights. No footage of that fight. Only the win counts."

    Didn't Floyd win against Mosley and EVERYONE while Greb and Langford lost? "Didn't see those losses, either. Didn't see anything. But they're the best and Floyd got staggered that one time."

    I should never click on these threads. Drives me nuts.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    #46
    Sangria, cross_trainer and quest00 like this.
  2. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,422
    11,885
    Mar 19, 2012
    Pacquiao has the best case. He could perhaps be in the top 10. He did alot. Fought alot of great fighters. Took some Ls along the way but also won more than a few. Manny took chances and spanned many divisions whipping some larger fighters. The guy started at flyweight I believe.

    I'm not a super Pacquiao fan just calling it how I see it.
     
    ETM, Mar 12, 2022
    ETM, Mar 12, 2022
    #47
  3. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,422
    11,885
    Mar 19, 2012
    Ray Leonare isn't in there on a reasonable list.
     
    ETM, Mar 12, 2022
    ETM, Mar 12, 2022
    #48
    NoNeck likes this.
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,370
    48,746
    Mar 21, 2007
    Right. So if you go back to the first post I made, this was my point. Jeffries and Johnson.

    But again, your criticism is that nobody should have Sam high now because he wasn't number one then. But he was never going to be number one then for reasons you describe. Though additionally, I'll just say, it also lifts longevity from the equation, so a guy who is #3 for 20 years is probably going to have a higher status than a guy who was number one for two years. But it doesn't really matter.

    In the end, as I said, if you don't want to do a pound-for-pound ranking, that's fine, if you don't want to rank anyone you don't have footage enough as you determine it, that's fine, and if you just think Sam was not great, I don't care, but expecting other people to adopt these perspectives is not sensible.

    I won't address this again: it is preposterous to exclude fighters who were "never considered the best fighters of their day" when we have agreed that the "heavyweight champions" were considered the best of their day. It is not sensible to me to offer both of these arguments concurrently and I dismiss it out of hand as a serious perspective.

    Additionally, Sam Langford was hugely highly rated in his own time. George Dixon, Stanley Ketchel, Joe Gans, Harry Wills and Jack Dempsey are examples of fighters who regarded him as best or one of the best fighters of this era, that they had met, etc.
    I rank Sam ATG and I certainly don't "dismiss modern fighters." In fact, that's the only "generalisation" i'm absolutely certain of.
     
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    #49
  5. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,770
    18,665
    Jun 25, 2014
    No, my criticism is he wasn't rated highly then, he lost and drew nearly 70 times, he looks ordinary on what's available on film, nobody who even rates him highly can point to any specific great rounds that impressed them ...

    Yet the same people will say they DON'T rate others as high for miniscule crap like "he got staggered that one fight" (leaving out 'but he won easily').

    Forget the 30 or 40 losses because we never saw them ... pretend they never happened because we have no memories of them anyway ... but remember when that guy got staggered? How is that an honest ranking system?

    Just judge people on the same critieria.

    That's always my complaint. Don't say I don't rate this guy highly because "I didn't agree with this decision" that he was given ... and yet rate someone above him who you never saw at all based on decisions he won (yet you couldn't say which fights were correct decisions or not because you don't know anything about them.)

    If someone says they rate pound-for-pounders on accomplishments, I'd love to see a list of the most accomplished fighters who ever lived ... using the same criteria for ALL of them.

    Don't say a stagger counts against this guy who never lost ... but 30 losses don't count against another. Don't say losing one fight makes you a loser ... but 20 years of general ineptitude should be ignored for another.

    Because nobody posts lists where all fighters are judged the same.

    IF they actually did, the lists would probably be surprising.
     
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    #50
    Blaxx and cross_trainer like this.
  6. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    30,255
    37,218
    Jan 8, 2017
    Lennox Lewis!!
     
    Fergy, Mar 12, 2022
    Fergy, Mar 12, 2022
    #51
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,370
    48,746
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well you're wrong about that. Correcting it wouldn't be difficult either. Moyle's book is a great place to start and is absolutely festooned with professional fighters and trainers annointing him.

    He did, but it needs to be kept in mind that he had a number of fights while partially blind, past-prime and also the rules of the era which clearly made draws more likely. That said, every effort should be made to properly appraise these fights on an individual basis. Certainly we're a lot further along than we were 15 years ago (though it's stalled recently).

    Between July 1906 and his keynote performance at the end of 1914, Langford's prime, he fought more fights than Marvin Hagler (who was taller and rangier than him) did in his entire career on an absolutely crazy schedule and only lost to heavyweights, most of whom he beat.

    It was an astonishing run, as astonishing as anything that happened in boxing so far as I am concerned.
     
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    #52
  8. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,165
    19,354
    Oct 4, 2016
    Ha,ha,ha,,,that's a good one
     
    Reinhardt, Mar 12, 2022
    Reinhardt, Mar 12, 2022
    #53
  9. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,165
    19,354
    Oct 4, 2016

    oh geez
     
    Reinhardt, Mar 12, 2022
    Reinhardt, Mar 12, 2022
    #54
  10. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,165
    19,354
    Oct 4, 2016

    I say you need to drop Sugar Ray Robinson off the list, I mean the guy lost 19 fights so.....
     
    Reinhardt, Mar 12, 2022
    Reinhardt, Mar 12, 2022
    #55
  11. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,770
    18,665
    Jun 25, 2014
    Hagler?

    Between 1973 and 1981 - eight years - Marvin Hagler went 53-3-2, avenged all his losses and draws and won the World Middleweight title.

    What did Langford win?

    And Hagler didn't fight for another 12 years and lose another 27 times and draw another 36 times.

    Instead, he made nine more successful middleweight title defenses, lost a disputed to Leonard, and retired.

    Who was more accomplished?

    It wasn't Langford, unless you consider winning the Mexican Heavyweight belt a bigger accomplishment than winning the World Middleweight Title and notching 12 successful Middleweight title defense.

    Being considered one of the best fighters to NEVER win anything doesn't put you #1 ALL-TIME ahead of everyone in history who actually did win.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    #56
    Sangria likes this.
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,370
    48,746
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well Langford wasn't allowed to fight for any titles, and we know why. Or you should know why. But he beat some of the best lightweights, middleweight, light-heavyweights and heavyweights of his era.

    Yes, that's the point. He was a millionaire. Langford was blind and had no other skills. He became a homeless janitor later in life. He literally fought ATG fighters while "seeing in shadows." He beat at least one by KO. It was astonishing.

    Langford by a huge distance. Langford is one of the few men who has a resume so in excess of Hagler's as to embarrass him. It's not a sensible compariosn.

    But, if you're well into titles for ratings, you might rate Hagler above Langford. And any other great black fighters who never got a title shot because of their race. But I don't even actually think that's really that ridiculous - prioritising titles is fine. But even so, and yet again, I don't think it's sensible to expect other people to adopt that position.

    I consider Langford proved himself vastly in excess of Hagler in terms of excellence in pugilism via beating the clearly superior fighters. Despite weighing exactly the same as Hagler while fully mature and in prime of life, Langford added weight as muscle and defeated some of the very best heavyweights of his era, by knockout. That's way more impressive than anything Hagler did, by great distance.
     
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    #57
  13. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,770
    18,665
    Jun 25, 2014
    No, you consider that more impressive than anything ANYONE ever did.

    You have him #1 all-time.

    A middleweight who never won anything who knocked out some heavyweights who never won anything.

    Sorry. That's ridiculous.
     
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    #58
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,370
    48,746
    Mar 21, 2007
    It's absolutely not ridiculous and youv'e a long way to go to even begin to make me feel a little uncertain.

    I don't insist he's number one - that wouldn't be sensible - but there are 4-6 guys right at the top and he absolutely belongs there.

    That's unless you have some strange criteria - prioritisation to the exclusion of non-champions, head-to-head era-on-era comparisons, footage limitations etc., some of these are a bit funky but I don't hate on anyone for them.

    But yeah, if you're appraising who beat who how, he's not outside the top ten. That is just a failure of research or understanding.
     
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2022
    #59
  15. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,770
    18,665
    Jun 25, 2014
    A middleweight from 100 years ago who never won anything who knocked out some heavyweights a 100 years ago who also never won anything ...

    Is not the best fighter who ever lived.

    What should I research? You rate him the best ever (over EVERYONE EVER) and can't even tell me which rounds he looked his best in. It's all generalizations. "He fought as many times as Hagler."
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    Dubblechin, Mar 12, 2022
    #60
Page 4 of 9