So the question I have is, based on the opposition they fought who had a shot at being p4p #1? Alot of fighters don't have the opposition around to beat to get ranked highly in the all time lists. Take someone like Floyd Mayweather, whilst he is very good, in the era he fought there is not enough names or class for him to have a shot at #1. Maybe he could have added Golovkin and that would put him up there? Whereas a fighter like Roberto Duran, with the opposition around at the time, if he won all his fights he has a pretty good claim for it. Wins over Benitez, Hearns and Hagler. Mike Tyson is another good example, if he won his fights against Holyfield and Lewis I think he has a pretty good case for #1 heavyweight. Obviously for a lot of fighters, the very fact that they got beaten by a certain fighter and then avenged that or whatever boosts both fighters. Ken Norton fits this description. I think some fighters can't really improve without adding extra names altogether. Firstly I nominate De La Hoya, if he won all his fights without even adding any extra fighters he ranks pretty damn well. Wins over Hopkins, Trinidad, Mayweather and Pac. Thats pretty impressive
Ezzard Charles. He's up there already but change some L's for W's and he would have risen via hindsight even more. Lots of guys from that era fought an incredible array of talent, Archie Moore etc. Tommy Hearns? If he clears SRL and Hagler without the Barkley loss he'd be sitting ok. Wins all the way from 147 to 175 and a fine list of talent. Of course there's dozens of trail horses that fought near everyone. Imagine Laporte with Sanchez, Pedroza, Gomez, McGuigan, Chavez, Nelson, Tszyu but that's starting to get a tad silly.
