p4p kings and HOF resume against notable opposition.

As for the thread, very good. I've done this with specific fighters like Arce and Calderon and came up with some good stuff.


Although Marquez was never Ring P4P #1, I'm 95% sure...

 

Now you're asserting that the 160lb Jake La Motta of that era would be a different fighter in this era. Whos to say he'd still be a fighter? Who's to say he wouldn't have what it takes in this era?

Too many "Ifs" - look at style, size and power. No boxer from the 50s beats a counterpart today. It's logical reasoning and debate.

Why do you think we have so many 35-45 yr old fighters today still performing at peak? Because training techniques, science and nutrition allows them to gain all that experience over the years while marrying it with body shape that isn't completely off peak.

Advantages boxers have today over yesteryear are major. And rudimentary sluggers like La Motta? Please.

 

This list deffinitly makes me appreciate even more De la hoya and Jones jr's careers. I know oscar would have a high count, considering he was afraid of noone. But it goes to show roy faced quite a few talented fighters in his day, he just gets no credit for it because he was in a whole other class.

 

How about we drop the contemporary counterparts in a time machine and ship him BACK in time at birth so he grows up with the same techniques of that his opponent had of that time.

LaMotta UD 15 Sergio, LaMotta KO 9 Sturm, LaMotta TKO 5 Pirog

Have you never looked at it this way? A little "universe revolves around me" syndrome?

 

I have to disagree. Lamotta against most of todays middleweights would end in lamotta breaking them down and battering them.

 

When was Tito ranked P4P #1?

 

What makes LaMotta any different from Andrade, Baldomir, Mathysse and other iron chinned brutes who occasionally stunned much slicker counterparts? I have looked at it from the mentality and will to win angle, as in what happens if you put the mental attitude of Mohammad Ali into a fighter of today but ultimately who is to stay that mental attitude doesn't exist but is simply beaten by a superior fighter?

The reason we think of fighters as being GOAT/ATG are threefold.

A: The competitions/narrative they had during their career. i.e Ali having close competitive battles with Frazier, Norton and Foreman and dominating the previous dominant champion in Liston.

B: The sheer volume, SRR beating so many fighters over so many years.

C: Nostalgia/social circumstance. Boxing was much more popular in earlier eras, much more mainstream and easily accessible by the public and fighters were revered. There weren't as many belts nor politics, the most well known fighters generally faced each other.

None of these hold stock in a competitive H2H battle. Who is to say that Cassius Clay born today doesn't become a suicide bomber? That's the "If" scenario. But lets say Cassius Clay of that age trains with the same intensity, with new technology, new everything.... whos to say he doesn't become an Arreola?

I compare like for like. I take the video footage and styles I've seen from the earlier era and match them up against what I see in this era. The fighters from yester-year are visibily slower than the fighters of this era.

Nostalgia tells us Ali should be reverred as one of the greatest of all time, yet reasoning and science tells us he likely isn't even competitive as a Top 10 HW in this era, based on 6'3, 214lbs vs 6'7, 245lbs.

 

The fact that boxing doesn't tell those major stories anymore and very few fighters have competitive triangle matches because there are too many weight classes, too much politics and too many promoters is the reason boxing is seen as weaker.

Boxing as a sport is weaker.
Boxers as athletes are not.

 

To show you what I mean.

Imagine after Vitali was stopped by Lennox Lewis due to a cut in a fight he was leading on the cards, that they had a second fight and Lennox was leading on the cards before being stopped, prompting a third fight where Lennox won by a close UD.

Despite being 2-1 down in the series, would Vitali be seen as a stronger or weaker fighter overall? Even if he went up 2-1 in the series, would Lewis be stronger or weaker?

Competitive trilogies like that make/break fighters reputations. We only rate fighters when they seem to come through adversity and win a fight, i.e Ali being beaten half to death in some contests and still winning, as much as we enjoy seeing a Calzaghe vs Lacy or Roy Jones Jr (prime) vs whoever beatdown, the majority will not respect a fighter who dominates their opposition such as that.

It's part of the reason Floyd gets limited credit, people can't remember back to the days of Castillo for his last true challenge, because his craft is so much better, he's not really giving fighters much of a chance to have trilogies and also because of the numerous belts, the fact that fighters don't have to fight each other and the fact that weight classes are so narrow these days, there is always someone else to beat.

Floyd beats Pacquaio - What about Martinez, a resurgent Cotto, Khan, Bradley, Alvarez, so on and so on and so on.

 

like i said in your hwt one this stat is very interesting and look at oscars win column

manny and floyd are about even

 

Didnt expect that number for jones:shock: You can also make floyds number 19 by adding Ortiz since he is number 2 in the division and will basically fight floyd for sure if nothing happens.

 

Great list :good

Though you've got down 24 names for Hopkins not 23 but other than that