and like most of posters here you don't know p4p meaning and not about boxing's dynamics. only about its history. young peter jackson went 12 rounds with jack johnson as a small light middleweight. he stopped sam langford. avenged his stoppage loss to mysterious billy smith with a much quicker stoppage.
And you do? Jackson was a good fighter and underrated/forgotten somewhat...But you fail to look the context of those wins you picked out...Like Langford was pre-prime and barely in his 20's when Jackson defeated him ONCE out of like 6 or 7 meetings. He repeatedly lost to the best fighters he faced...Its really as simple as that, he showed he was a level below the best fighters of that era and ranking him top 10 alltime shows you know **** all about the sport.
no. you just do not know the purpose of p4p. it is to measure skill. to secret it from facors like size. duran was the smaller man in most of his fights. robinson enjoyed size advantage almost every time. when he did not , he was TKO'd. a 5'11" duran would have demolished robinson. and qawi did better against foreman than frazier did , and better against holyfield than tyson did. and the qawi who lost to foreman was spastic and obese. still made him look bad.
stoppages mean more than decisions. and lasting 12 rounds against the heavyweight champion of the world in times when there was only one , when you are severely undersized , is a very big p4p achievement. avenging your loss is always important. and so is a stoppage against langford. he also drew with langford btw , not all losses except of the stoppage over him.
Well then I guess you rank Medgoen Singsurat over Manny Pac then..just so we got that settled. :roll: This is the last time Ill reply to you mate...you are really very uneducated on this sport and need to change your whole outlook. You seem to think that just because you believe something it must be right and thats not the way you learn. I came to this site with an open mind and have learnt an absolute ton from it...I suggest you give it a try.
1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Henry Armstrong 3. Sam Langford 4. Harry Greb 5. Muhammad Ali 6. Willie Pep 7. Ezzard Charles 8. Roberto Duran 9. Ray Leonard 10. Benny Leonard
Robinson at #1 ? i really feel sorry for puting him at #10. he and charles is a close call. maybe i should have put charles at #10 instead of him. robinson was accustomed being the bigger man in his fights. even at 160. he simply had low body percentage which is good but answers the questions about how come he was such a big ww and mw. ali ? a 6'3" in an era of 6'1"s. was defeated and went life and death with a midget frazier. went through hell with ken norton :-(. and leon spinks who was stopped by qawi. fitzsimmons ? a borderline #20 , maybe , with all his stoppage losses. and greb ? above langford ? for what ? for beating a green tunney ? and on points ? yes . you are an idiot. in a severe condition. armstrong above langford ? for what ?
haha well if Robinson was so accustomed to being the bigger man how come he gave up ten pounds when he beat La Motta first time around. Also did you forget Armstrong held the Featherweight, Lightweight and Welterweight titles at the same time is that not a good enough achievement ?
1.Ray Robinson 2.Henry Armstrong 3.Sam Lanngford 4.Harry Greb 5.Roberto Duran 6.Willie Pep 7.Benny Leonard 8.Ezzard Charles 9.Joe Gans 10.Eder Jofre
:rofl I think the you have have the answer right there, GreatA. Clue : my sense of humour is subtle to the extreme. :good
Damn, I got seeeerrrved.:scaredas: Honestly though mods, why are trolls allowed to run rampant on forums? Isn't that the kind of thing we try to keep out, especially from a well adjusted Forum like this one?
So why is knocking such a heavyweight champion out, when you are a middleweight only worth a number 20 ranking?