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

Surely Deontay Wilder is worth a mention.

 

Yeah, he made more title defences than any other HW champ bar Ali and Louis.

(Seriously, those that compare defences of one out of four major belts to undisputed defences should be banned.)

 

Good Lord.

I started with a question: Why do you have a guy who never won anything, who lost/drew or simply had no results in one-third of his fights, who looked mediocre on film, who has bad losses to terrible fighters littered throughout his entire career, the top pound-for-pound fighter EVER?

Because Teddy Atlas and Bert Sugar and Tracy Callis do ISN'T AN ANSWER.

They've seen all the same stuff we have. WHY? If I asked you why you ranked George Foreman highly, would your answer be "because Teddy Atlas and Bert Sugar do?"

No. Like any SANE PERSON, you'd say you ranked George in this specific spot because you saw him beat this guy and that guy, and you don't rate him higher because he lost to this fellow and that one. You might even add you didn't agree with the official results and you thought Foreman won this fight against Briggs (even though Briggs got the decision) but you thought he lost to Shulz (even though George got the decision), so that affected where you placed him. And you may say you hold his loss to Morrison against him, because he should've won that. But he did become the oldest man to win the World Heavyweight title. That was good.

And there's some back and forth. An actual conversation.

With Langford, I asked why do you have him #1 pound-for-pound all-time and it started off okay ...

You said he went on an astonishing 8-year run that included as many fights as Hagler's whole career ...

And when I said, "Yeah, but Hagler fought nearly all his bouts in an eight-year span, too, won a world middleweight title, defended it, avenged all his losses and ties in that eight-year span, and Hagler accomplished more in the same period ... and I bring up Langford didn't win anything and also notched nearly 20 losses/draws during that "astonishing run" (more than Hagler did in his entire career) ...

Your reply was generalizations and there was some poll on here where others rated him highly, too.

And if I say, "Right, but why do YOU have him #1 when he lost so much and never won anything, and which rounds were his best or which performances did you agree or disagree with the scoring" - (stuff we'd do for any boxer - like the Foreman example above) ...

Suddenly I'm told I need to read more or go back to the general forum (when I've probably been watching boxing and reading about it longer than you've been alive).

That's when I know it's just more hipster nonsense. YOU can't tell me because it doesn't make sense to have him #1, not with all the bad lossses all throughout his career and his failures to win anything.

You clearly don't believe, like Tracy Callis and the IBRO, that only one fighter (Sugar Ray Leonard) born in the last 70 years is a top 25 fighter pound-for-pound, right?

Because you've seen fighters born in the last 70 years, and you've said you rate some in the top 10, and you know excluding them is complete and utter bull****.

So then tell me why you believe this BULL**** that Langford is #1. Who else with 70 losses/draws and looks like Langford on film would you rate that highly?

NOBODY. And he shouldn't be there either.

And you can't even debate it like you would someone more modern, like Foreman.

How can you rate a guy #1 all-time who lost or drew with Billy Chisholm, Luther Manuel (twice), Johnny Johnson, Stonewall Allen, Andy Watson (five times), Danny Duane, Dave Holly (three times) or Sandy Ferguson?

How many spots would you deduct from someone on an all-time listing like Foreman if he failed to beat guys like that on 15 separate occasions?

How did Langford's NC with George Cole, where it was stopped because both were holding and neither would punch, affect his all-time standing? How did Langford getting his ass kicked by 'absolute nobody' Larry Temple affect how you viewed Langford? Why are these be so easily dismissed by ANYONE?

If a Foreman fight against anybody was effectively stopped and the referee ruled it a no-contest because neither guy would fight, might that hurt his standing? OF COURSE, it would. What if George got his ass-kicked by a complete nobody like Larry Temple instead of by, let's say, Tommy Morrison? Would that hurt his standing even more? DAMN RIGHT it would.

What about Langford getting knocked out by Clem Johnson, a guy with a losing record? Lots of fighters lose to bad opponents later in their career, but getting stopped by a guy with a losing record, even Archie Moore and Roy Jones (who lost a lot at the end) didn't do that. How do you rationalize that with his #1 rating?

If George Foreman was knocked out by a guy with a losing record, would that hurt his standing all-time? HE WOULD PLUMMET.

Because it certainly didn't hurt Langford's standing. You have him #1 pound-for-pound over anyone who ever lived. Why is that?

Give me ANYTHING. Anything instead of this trite "Well others rate him high. And they know boxing." WE ALL KNOW BOXING. I can't have a debate with people who can't explain why they even rank someone at THE VERY top.

You should have a clear reason why you think he's #1 pound-for-pound above everyone else in the history of the whole goddamn sport.

All I did was ask you why, because I don't see it in a MILLION years. There have been far too many great fighters in the last 100 years to rate ALL OF THEM BELOW him.

If you want to ignore me because you can't answer, fine. Ignore away. Great way to support your #1 pound-for-pound rating of Langford.

With that, I'm done.

Oh, wait, I could give two shits what Trent Frayne thinks. (Like he sat ringside for all Langford's fights and has inside knowledge.) What the hell kind of answer is that?

Now, I'm finished.

 

From a reading of the thread, that why has been answered.

In detail.

Several times.

You just don't like the answers.

Done ?

Finished ?

Did you ever start ?

Still not going to give us the right answers ?

Your own list is top secret ?

We've heard, many times now, why Langford (and Greb and Wills etc) shouldn't be anywhere close to an ATG list.

But we're still in the dark as to which fighters you feel SHOULD make the top ten ATG list.

Any chance of seeing YOUR top ten ?

 

McGrain: Clearly Sam Langford is number one pound-for-pound all-time.

Dubblechin: Don't believe the propaganda. You're all being lied to.

This content is protected

 

You brought up Russia in one of your snide comments. Always passing the buck.

Teddy Atlas says he was the best. Good enough for you. Apparently.

Sam Langford - 70 losses/draws/to hell what he looks like on film ... #1 over everyone who ever lived.

Got it.

Makes all the sense in the world. I totally get it now. Thanks.

 

70 losses/draws including a KO loss to (in Michael Buffers' best announcers voice) Clem "Losing Record Mr. Nobody" Johnson, no problem.

Getting staggered by Shane Mosley on your way to beating Mosley ... drop him 50 positions in the standings.

Got it. Totally makes sense.

Modern fighters suck. Guys who lost/drew in a third of their fights 120 years ago who look mediocre, INCREDIBLE.

I totally see it now. Thanks for opening my eyes.

They should've just banned boxing 70 years ago. Only one guy has been any good since then. Right?

I'm I getting it?

 

Apparently not.

You keep putting words in other posters' mouths and ignoring answers and explanations you don't like.


Anyway, I'm still waiting for your input on the question.

If I were to see your list, it might lead me to reconsider mine, based on your fresh insights.

You don't even need to provide rationale or explanations as to the how you chose.

If you post your top ten ATG list, your reasoning will probably be self-evident.

So, if you're not frightened or ashamed of it, post your top ten list.

I'm waiting.

 

Canelo, possibly? Depending on how the rest of his career goes.

Say he beats Bivol and Beterbiev for all the LHW belts, making him undisputed in TWO weight classes, then beats Makabu at CW to win titles in 5 weight classes.

 

And then Mayweather would have wins over "champions" from super featherweight to cruiserweight, instead of just super featherweight to light heavyweight.

Like Hearns has wins over "champions" from Lightweight to Cruiserweight.

Like Hopkins has wins over "champions" from Super Featherweight to Heavyweight.

Like Roy Jones has wins over "champions" from Lightweight to Heavyweight.

Like Leonard has wins over "champions" from Lightweight to Light Heavyweight.

Like Hector Camacho had wins over "champions" from Super Featherweight to Light Heavyweight.

Like Manny Pacquiao had wins over "champions" from Flyweight to Middleweight.

Like like Rubin Carter, who never won anything, has wins over champions from welterweight to heavyweight.

And on and on and on and on.

It's almost like, over the last 100 years, beating champions from one end of the spectrum to the other end, and maybe even actually winning world titles (lots of world titles) along the way, and actually looking good doing it (and not losing/drawing 70 times along the way) has happened QUITE A BIT.

And someone beating scrawny, clutsy Joe Gans in addition to some smallish heavyweights who never won anything, isn't quite the big deal it probably was, say, 100 years ago.

Weird. Who knew things had changed over the last 100 years?