For my 5,000th post : My Pound-for-Pound Top 50 Fighters of All-Time..

yeah. to be honest, your list is too good to say that you made it using a formula alone. it's obvious that you have a fluid system.

 

P, don't be cute. Louis fought the best fighters from all over the world. And he DOMINATED his division for THIRTEEN YEARS,more so than any heavyweight in history. Come up with a better analogy than Ottke, P. atsch

 

Yeah there is merit in that and perhaps next time I devote a day to list making I might do so, or I could just split every 5 and say interchangeable. Some guys there's nothing in it, others there is. It's about what you feel comfortable with as well I guess. Like now I still struggle with some fighters and might go away and switch them. By and large tho i'm happy with my list and don't have any great problem defending it to some extent. Picking at individual places would be much harder I agree. Plus avid fans of most of these could argue their way up a list. I am surprised mag hasn't tried telling me off for not having hearns in my top ten lol

 

Mos def (forgive me i've been watching a lot of the wire lately and the saying is catchy haha) when I say I devoted a full weekend I don't exaggerate. It took me a long time coming up with the list and I certainly didn't just throw names into excel and see what came out. It took a lot of thought, especially with guys like griffith who was very hard to nail down, he achieved a hell of a lot yet got so brutally beaten by a not so great opponent smack bang in his prime, emile has a story I enjoy tho so it was no great hassle spending time on him.

It was very enjoyable compiling my list, i've done the same for my heavyweights as well and am looking forward to soon listing my top 40 or so lightheavyweights and middleweights.

 

Again, what did Charles accomplish in his carrer that overshadows Louis?

 

So 3 bouts doth a resume make. Over a wide range weight range. Thats your opinion. Check Louis resume sometime. Especially 1934 to 1936.

 

it's actually six bouts - and that's just the cream.

 

Alright then, 6. Louis was thrown to the Lions from the beginning of his carrer. Fighting up and comers, expierienced journeyman, and 4 former Champions in less then 2 years. Did Charles fight a better class of fighter? Lets say for the purpose of argument he did. That is only part of the criteria that is used in determinig ATG status. Charles, arguably, may have the better resume, but overall accomplishment in any other category, never.

 

i'm with ya on this one pop. maybe it's me but it seems pretty clear that charles P4P is superior. at heavy, no argument but as a career and a fight it's all charles for me

 

P, still trying to be cute. A Max Schmeling, Billy Conn, yes a Bob Pastor,
who kod Lem Franklin,an Arturo Godoy, who was as tough as a George Chuvalo, were as good a competition in general , than Ezzard Charles's
resume, and Louis absolutely obliterated these guys. As a HEAVYWEIGHT
he was MORE dominate for 13 years than Ezzard Charl was as a LH or HEAVYWEIGHT. All in the boxing business KNEW it then, so I am comfortable in my pick.....And I suspect strongly, that Ezzard Charles at that time [the 1940s ],would concur....

 

hey burt...i agree that louis was more dominant but he never beat, nor dominated, fighters of the p4p quality of moore, burley and marshall. louis was a machine at heavyweight but the all time great quality of those fighters is not on par with charles' imo