My stab at a top 50 all time p4p

I wanna know why ortiz isnt top 25 and chavez is though. I mean ortiz beat locce and loi 1/3 at 140. At 135 he beat laguna, brown, ramos and elorde. Im sure his resume is the superior.

 

Better wins, but worse losses I'm guessing is the reason.

Chavez was more consistent, and an argument can be made that he looks more impressive on film, though I think they are fairly evenly impressive on film. Maybe Chavez has a bit more technical craft with his infighting. Maybe.

 

What about emile griffith then, the 24 losses has no impact on his legacy?

He had a couple of losses to lane and busso when he was green, hardly a legacy diminsher.

 

Same thing applies for Emile, though Emile has a somewhat deeper resume than Ortiz, which is probably why he regularly appears higher on p4p lists. They are separated by 7 places on my p4p list, but I wouldn't call someone mad for putting Ortiz higher. It's arguable.

 

where would u put a fighter like vicente salidvar on your list then? He has wins over laguna, ramos, winstonex3, legra, rojas and famechon with only 2 legit losses past his peak. I say his resume beats that of chavez and zarate. Not to mention he beat about 5/6 guys that would have been abc champs in todays era.

 

yikesyikesyikesyikesyikes

 

You seriously rank Lennox Lewis ahead of Rocky Marciano pound-for-pound?!?!?!?!?

 

So... Why????? Lewis never beat anyone who ranks nearly so high on a pound-for-pound scale as Charles or Moore, both of whom were not terribly far above their best weights when Marciano beat them. Lewis was knocked out twice by men smaller than himself, while Marciano never lost to anyone, smaller or larger, and was the smaller man in the majority of his fights. I can see putting Lewis ahead of Marciano at heavyweight as being reasonable, given the enormous size gap, but pound-for-pound, Marciano is leagues ahead of him.

 

I don't think his resume is better than Chavez's but it's definitely better than Zarate's.

Saldivar is a very underrated fighter, and I'm probably underrating him myself (ranking him at #76) by having him a whole 26 places below Zarate (or perhaps I'm overrating Zarate), but Zarate just impressed me more on film than Saldivar did and he was a more dominant fighter.

Saldivar had some great performances no doubt, e.g. the Ramos victory was superb as was the Seki rematch, but I don't think we should go overboard with his resume.

I mean, yes, he did get a win against Ismael Laguna, but from what I've seen of that fight it could have gone either way (I didn't score it because it was missing a few rounds, but of the rounds I saw Laguna was definitely holding his own). Against Johnny Famechon I had Saldivar winning a close but clear decision (by two points) in which he boxed well, but wasn't outstanding. I had him beating Mitsunori Seki in the first encounter by 3 points, and whilst Vicente dominated in the middle rounds, he had some trouble early (getting dropped and badly wobbled in the 3rd) and late in the fight as well. His first two fights with Howard Winstone were pretty close, especially the second, which some felt Winstone won, and his third encounter with Winstone was pretty close before the stoppage as well.

What I'm trying to say is that Saldivar did well and compiled a nice wins resume, but he wasn't very dominant in a lot of the fights he fought in, often just doing enough to win. Zarate by comparison was blasting guys out of there. No, there's no Laguna on Zarate's resume, but there are quite a few competent fighters who Zarate was treating with disdain and flashing very sharp skills against. The best fighter Zarate beat (imo) was Pintor, who was probably only slighly below Laguna, but as good as Winstone, Legra, Famechon, Ramos and some others on Saldivar's resume. In that fight Zarate imo proved he was just a little bit better than Pintor. Much like Saldivar proved to be just a bit better often against the likes of Winstone and Famechon.

Should we go with the more proven fighter in Saldivar? Probably. But looking at the way Zarate was destroying opposition and how impressive he looked on film it's hard to overlook.

This is one I might change my mind on. You raise a valid point.

 

McGrain,
It is a really good list.
But I also would join the chorus of those screaming for Rocky Marciano to be in there. I take pound-for-pound in the literal sense, not just assess what divisional achievements the men made. (That's not to say that Marciano didn't have tremendous achievements).

Marciano beat two guys in your top ten, and one of them
(Archie Moore) was arguably in the peak of his career AND at his most comfortable fighting weight. Head-to-head with guys his own size Marciano must be considered one of the very best.

But then, you admit to underrating Marciano. You grossly underrate him, IMO.