Heavyweight boxer as the greatest P4P boxer ever?

When it comes to the greatest P4P boxer of all time most boxing fans would say it's Sugar Ray Robinson. Others that come to mind are Henry Armstrong, Harry Greb, Sam Langford or maybe Ezzard Charles or Bob Fitzsimmons....

Usually, they were great fighters or world champions in several weight divisions.

If someone is a natural heavyweight fighter, he can't really fight in any other weight class, right?

What do you think Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis would have had to accomplish to be the P4P GOATs? Or should it be a fictitious HW boxer with much better skills who never existed? Is it even possible for a heavyweight boxer to be rated as highly or even higher than Ray Robinson? Or maybe someone is already rating Ali, Louis or another HW as the greatest fighter ever?

Anyways, lots of questions.

Some thoughts?

 

I think a lot of people judge by a fighter's record (number of fights, rated opponents, worldchampions, HOFs etc.).
Ray Robinson (I think that P4P concept was invented because of him) had 201 bouts. Muhammad Ali had 61 bouts. He was banned for around 3.5 years. Just in case if he wouldn't be banned and diligently defended his title...maybe he could have 70+ bouts. If he would beat Frazier and Norton more decisively...maybe he would be considered as the greatest ever...who knows...
It would be impossible for him to have over 200 fights though. He can't fight too many worldchampions, HOFs etc. because he is limited to fight other HWs or guys like Bob Foster.

I think Joe Louis couldn't be much better. If he hadn't lost to Schmeling + a more successful comeback...would he be on par with Robinson, Greb etc. I'm not sure but I doubt it.

You can't say it has to be a HW boxer: speedy like Ray Leonard, defense and reflexes like Willie Pep but as tall as Valuev + a punch like Foreman... Human nature has its limits. And If a boxer would be too superior maybe people would say that his opponents were just tomato cans and he lacked great fights.

Let's imagine there would be a heavyweight boxer nowadays with the talent and dedication to be the greatest ever...
He is limited in his number of fights, number of rated opponents, world champions, HOFs etc.
Is it possible that such a boxer will ever be considered as great as Robinson, Greb, Armstrong etc. I think probably not. Maybe Ali is already untouchable for him.

Then you can say it's just his fate. He doesn't have the circumstances and opponents to become that great.

Well, I just mean somehow that complete concept (to compare boxers from different times and weight divisions) has its flaws.

 

You're right, Tyson was awesome in the 80s and he was extremely gifted. I don't know if he could be one of the greatest of all time, but maybe:

1. There were many other great boxers in the history of the sport even if they weren't all that spectacular.

2. If he wants to be one of the best ever, I think he needs longevity. Then he would have to be the king of the 90s with wins over Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe (if he fights him, because they were from the same hood). Tyson was a short heavyweight and his peek-a-boo style needs a lot of energy. His speed and reflexes need youthful freshness, otherwise he has too many disadvantages compared to the great big fighters. In order to keep this up for some time, he would have to be very hardworking, determined, motivated and mentally strong... then it might be possible but it's very tough!

3. Let’s not forget PEDs. Who knows exactly how they distorted the competition? You might be the greater talent, but maybe someone else will benefit more from it…

 

Forget P4P or H2H, Butterbean is the best BMI fighter ever. Nobody would be so competitive with that many extra pounds.