my all time p4p top 10

I'd say your list is not bad at all. Of course there will always be far more people who will disagree with you than agree, because your list is your own personal preferences, but I like your list as I tend to think these lists always suffer from olden-days bias, and yours doesn't. To be honest, I don't think Sugar Ray Leonard should be as high as you have him, and I wouldn't have RJJ or JC Chavez in my top 10, but I like your placing of Duran and your inclusion of Whitaker- two guys often placed too low because they didn't fight out their careers in grainy black-and-white. However, you should do what I've been doing these last few weeks- watching anything you can get hold of about Willie Pep and reading up on the guy and learning about him. I didn't know all that much about Pep until another poster on here sent me a private message advising me to swat up on Pep because I'd left him out of my own top 10- and now I cannot accept a top 10 without him. A unique talent. A far better fighter than Sandy Saddler IMO, despite the H2H.

I think if you replaced Moore, Jones Jr and Chavez with Pep, Langford and Ezzard Charles, and swapped the positions of Leonard and Greb, you'd have a very good top 10.

Then you are left with the choice of Pernell Whitaker or Joe Louis for 10th position. Up to you...

 

Well how can guys with about 40 fights like SRL or Pernell Whitaker can be ranked above guys like Benny Leonard, Barney Ross, Sam LAngford and so on who have mostly more than 100 fights, LAngford had over 300, who fought more HoFers and beat more ranked fighters?

Don´t get me wrong I´m a huge Whitaker fan but I don´t think he deserves a Top 10 or even Top 15 spot. He lacks the longevity most of the old time greats have. That´s not dwell in the past but stick with the facts.

 

Not too bad, but as much as I love the guy Jones does not deserve to be top 10, Chavez does not either.

But I have seen worse....unbeatablefloyd....:blood

 

The thread starters list was not bad, some good guys on the list while some good guys nowhere to be seen.

Here is my list of boxers that Ive seen & know enough about.....

1. Robinson
2. Ali
3. Pep
4. Duran
5. Leonard
6. Chavez
7. Louis
8. Whitaker
9. Arguello
10. Hagler (Not sure here but the rest are pretty solid)

 

Sorry, but I just don't understand this type of logic at all.

How can you say a guy who fought in the 1910s is automatically better than someone who fought in the 1980s, because he had 100+ fights and the guy in the 1980s had 40 fights?

Having 100+ fights in those times was standard, that was what a boxing career was. In the 1980s and 1990s, this was simply impossible- it could not be done in reality for social and economic reasons outwith the power of the fighter. It's like saying a boxer from the 1910s is automatically better because he fought on black-and-white tv and the 1980s boxer fought in colour- because it is just a circumstance that is outwith either fighter's control.

Benny Leonard had 217 fights.
Sam Langford had 314.
Willie Pep had 241.

It genuinely is IMPOSSIBLE for a boxer nowadays to fit this many fights into a career, it literally cannot be done. So how can this be a reason for ruling that the fighters from the old days are better?

I guess you'll reply by stating it was the opposition that made them better, but if you look at your post you do seem more concerned with numbers and 'longevity' than resume.

If you think these guys are better then that's perfectly valid, but because they had that many fights is not a legitimate reason IMO.

Sandy Saddler is an ATG with 162 fights under his belt, but I would have Leonard and Whitaker above him.

Conversely, James Toney has had 81 fights and Stanley Ketchel only had 64. I would have Ketchel above Toney in all-time p4p standings.

Taking each case on its own merits means more than imposing the conditions of one era onto another.