My top 10 P4P Fighters

I don't mind long reads! Thanks for the explanations.

I think I'd like to encourage you to flesh out your criteria. You have the following:

- 40% ability/skill
- 20% Physical attributes/toughness
- 20% Wins/competative losses over elite competition
- 10% multi-weight capabilities/success
- 10% adaptability/stylistic range

You heavily favor "ability/skill" althought that is unavoidably a subjective category. Why 40%

Why is wins/losses only 20%? Isn't that experience? Is ability/skill more important than experience? Should the talented but relatively untested FMM be favored over say, an Eddie Booker?

Hey, my hats off to you though --at least you are striving to develop a criteria (unlike these mis-named "official" "polls" of regurgitation sans reasoning).

 

Outside of Benny Leonard and alongside Willie Pep (who he's interchangeable with, IMO) he's the best one-weight champion of all time. I have those 3 rounding out my top 10. Of course the argument could be made for many others, but it's not outlandish to suggest otherwise, depending on what you prefer.

I don't see how it's absurd to so highly rank a fighter who cleaned out the toughest era of a particular division's history in a career that spanned nearly two full decades (both of which he was among the very top fighters, some would argue the best). Even well past his prime he managed to remain one of the very best fighters in the world, winning and regaining the world title 3 times upon faltering in his twilight years. It was only in those latter years that the performances started to wane and the decisions started to be questioned. The same can be said of many all time great fighters.

 

Of course you're being a snub. And any dismissal doesn't change the fact you are. Tons of other adjectives I could use too, but there's no point.

There's nothing unusual about it (Considering how the world reveres him).

 

His list, for whatever it's worth is clearly about watching the fighters on film. This is a big part of it, but at least he's honest I think. You are right, it's not about greatness within your time. It's about greatness based on what he perceives greatness to be. His mean of figuring this out is by watching these fighters. To me, it's a fair criteria for what he's trying to do. He shouldn't say "The Greatest Fighters Of All Time." For him it's a big H2H & P4P thing, and for what it is worth I think his list isn't half bad.

I'm going on a limb to say the honesty, and at least forthcoming-ness about your list and why (Specifically the film aspect) makes your list more justifiable, and makes your list even refreshing. Obviously there's a new-school bias... but if old film, which is scant and damaged doesn't show him enough about a fighter's ability then that's his prerogative.

I think the OP should at least reconsider a few fighters, though. Under HIS criteria... I think he should give these fighters a bit more thought.

Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep, and perhaps Michael Spinks.

 

He fought as a LH in the amatuers,and under the cruiser limit until his 16th fight

 

I love how Russel makes statements, gets replies, then ignores them. We've both replied and haven't had any ourselves.

 

Teeto,I judge greatness such as Louis displayed aainst Baer,Schmeling, Buddy Baer,etc,by an inate intuition,versus Ali ,at their best...After all how can we penalize Louis who fought everyone ,30 years before,soley om the basis that Ali's opponents were better than most of the men Louis destroyed?.By that logic, Benny Leonard,certainly was GREATER than Ray Robinson,because as conceded by most ,Benny Leonard for seven years licked the greatest division of lightweights ever...Should Robinson's reputation be faulted,because his opposition MIGHT not have been on the level of Benny Leonard's were?.I don,t think we should necessarily judge Ali better than a Joe Louis, because Louis,terrorized his division thirty years before...Style makes fights and my gut feeling is that Louis at peak formwould have overwhelmed Ali with his trip hammer combinations,sometimes in their fight...Ali,though great at avoiding the second bomb thrown by slower one punch at a time,ala Forman,would'nt be able to evade Louis's lethal combinations...Just my intuition telling me...keep punching...

 

I whole heartedly understand where you're coming from. I never penalised Louis for how his career panned out, i praised him, i said he was the most dominant heavyweight in history. The man is easily one of my favourite fighters. I just said that how Ali's career panned out means that he is a greater heavyweight in my opinion. Speculation can't play a part in my assessment of a fighters career, so who would have beat who doesn't come into it (even though i might pick Ali, maybe not), only what they both did and who they both beat respectively can play a part. Like i said, Ali for me.

I would never penalise Joe Louis, the greatest finisher of all time VERY possibly.

 

So, fighters who quit are summarily dismissed despite all of their achievements before and afterwards?

What then, is your opinion of Mike Tyson? Alexis Arguello? Kostya Tszyu?

 

Not to try and be funny with you Pachilles, but you don't rate Ken Buchanan as an ATG? Even with the recent website of his going up for the right reasons, he remains one of the most obscure greats outside of hardcore boxing circles.

 

Now I'm questioning myself for agreeing with you.

 

That Pachilles post is quality if you don't take it seriously though. Hahahahahaha