Which List Means Most To You, ATG or all-time P4P?

Don't put this onto "some guys". I don't know who "some guys" are. This about your opinion and my opinion.

Anyone who thinks that Duran would have easily beat Gans or Leonard is stupid. And anyone who thinks that Duran would easily defeat recent lightweights like Mosley or Whitaker is just as stupid.

 

Don't try to tell me what I mean.

I said that in my opinion Carlos Monzon is the greatest middleweight of all-time. And by saying that I am also saying that Carlos Monzon is the greatest middleweight of all-time pound-for-pound.

Where did I say anything about Sugar Ray Robinson in there? And if you are going to make a statement like "robinson's best years were 48-51" you should preface it by saying In My Opinion. Don't say it like it's a fact.

 

What's the diffrence?

 

So if the number 5 guy is a flyweight and the number 6 guy is a light heavyweight, you think a 112 lber is going to defeat a 175 lber?

 

90% of fans on ESB dont even know the difference.

 

The only way they are both prime is in an all-time list. You didn't say anything about all-time in that post.

And I find it interesting how you use a latin phrase like that when you can't even get many of these fighters' names correct.

"Jack Demsey"? Who is that? You mean Jack Dempsey?

I don't know who "Emille Griffin" is. Maybe you meant Emile Griffith?

When you do things like that you show me that you are a real wit (at least by half).

 

Your premise is border-line idiotic. A fighter can be fighter of the year and not be an all-time great. It depends on how good a year he had. You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

 

I don't know if you read my earlier post about how I define what makes a fighter a "great" fighter as opposed to an all-time great.

I rate fighters in one weight class only and I rate the eight traditional weight classes first. SO I start with eight top tens with a total of eighty fighters.

I think of boxing greatness as being like a pyramid. At the top is one fighter. The greatest fighter of all-time pound-for-pound. Another level down are the top ten fighters of all-time pound-for-pound (including that number one fighter). The all-time greatest fighter from each of the eight traditional weight classes belongs in that all-time pound-for-pound top ten.

IF they don't belong, they aren't the all-time greatest fighter in that weight division. I compare my 8 top tens by balancing them against 10 top eights.

All the number ones from each division on one top eight, all the number twos from each weight class on the next top eight and so forth. My top ten fighters from each of the traditional weight classes makes up my top 80 fighters of all-time pound-for-pound.

The loss of Oscar to Pac-man didn't effect my all-time ratings because I never rated Oscar in my top 100.

Foreman's second career could only improve his all-time rating because he was expected to lose to any one at the world class level and because the heavyweight division is historically the weakest in boxing anyways.

 

IMO Eder Jofre is the greatest bantamweight of all-time, so IMO he is the greatest bantamweight of all-time pound-for-pound.

IF I didn't think he belonged in the top ten pound-for-pound, I would have to reconsider rating him as the number one 118 lber.

But it doesn't matter who, if someone thinks Panama Al Brown or Carlos Zarate or Manuel Ortiz or Ruben Olivares is number one. IF they don't also rate them in their all-time pound-for-pound top ten, I would question their rating of them.