The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

No.

People don't think moving up to claim a random strap is that impressive because many fighters have beaten ranked contenders, the same thing, in different divisions.

Also, whilst those that have traversed weight boundaries to great effect will obviously be ranked amongst the very best (look at the top few tiers for **** sake) a long-reigning champion in a single division should not lose marks for not rising divisions as long as his achievements, scalps and longevity are remarkable enough to equal/better the feats of those that have fought out of their 'natural' class.

Is Adrien Broner greater than Carlos Monzon?

 

Yeah Burley and Saddler above Pea is not for me.

I remember reading a really good article on the RING P4P list back in the 90s, that it's what you do to optimize your talents and be successful at whatever weight you choose.

Because Hopkins had just upended Trinidad and Roy Jones was coasting against guys like Telesco, so they gave the spot to Hopkins based on his ability to excel with his talent in stopping Trinidad.

 

Flea, that makes no logical sense IN A P4P LIST though. Saying it's equally weighed can't be true in a p4p list. In a normal best fighters list.. sure.. but not in one geared towards giving fighters more points for beating bigger guys in higher divisions. That is the whole point of them. So yes, moving up and beating bigger guys is the name of the game on such a list, if not, just call it a top 100 best fighters list. You can say this fighter had great scalps and logevity at one division and try and extrapolate what they could've done if they moved up in wieght.. BUT HEY DIDN'T. They didn't prove themselves against bigger guys in multiple divisions beyond their starting weight. There is no getting around that fact, and it's disingenuous to say that they are counted the same in a p4p list.

 

What did Pep do in a p4p sense i.e. moving up multiple divisions that compares to Pea? how is he 2 tiers above pea when he didn't do as much as pea moving up?

 

No, P4P here doesn't mean 'most weight scaled' it means regardless of weights scaled who did the most?

That's how I see it anyway. Otherwise it would be maths and Robert Guerrero would already be a greater P4P fighter than Marvin Hagler, but we all know that's not the case.

 

So longevity doesn't mean anything in P4P then? Or quality of opposition? It's just about moving up and grabbing belts?

 

'Newspaper decision for Driscoll from NY Times, Robert Edgren (NY Evening World), NY Sun, NY Evening Telegram, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, AP ("Driscoll had a shade the better of the contest").
Newspaper decision for Attell from Bat Masterson (NY Morning Telegraph), NY Herald.
Article in The Ring magazine of January 1946 lists the following New York newspapers scoring for Driscoll: Evening Journal, Evening World, Times, Tribune, Press, Morning World, Sun, American, Evening Mail; Brooklyn Times scored it a draw; Morning Telegraph gave decision to Attell.'

I read the New York Times version which had Driscoll the clear winner although it was very, very competitive. I think NYT scored it 7-4-1 in favour of Driscoll. It was the last two rounds where Driscoll took max advantage.

Moran is a good win (not draw) for a past prime Driscoll though, so that's a big win.
For a top 50 position, it be more reasonable if he had beaten Welsh. I don't think he fought as tough opposition as Attell either? I don't know, I just get the impression that theere isn't enough names on his resume.

 

I never made such a claim... Of course, your record in EACH division your in matters. If you're only in one division.. sure your scalps and logevity factor into how we rate you as a fighter. Yet, the deciding factor between two guys close in skill, in a p4p list, must go to the fighter that proved more moving up. THEY PROVED they were p4p better by beating bigger guys. How can this not be the case... how on God's green earth does staying in one division your whole career and never PROVING you're p4p one of the best figthers by moving up and beating bigger guys is beyond me. So you don't agree that more weight should be added for guys moving up? Nobody is saying it's just based on moving up and doing nothing, nor am I claiming staying in one division and dominating means nothing... but what I am claiming is that two fighters equally skilled.. with great scalps... and one stays in one division and the other moves up and beats greats... The later MUST count for more and be rated higher. Do you disagree? So again, how is Pep two tiers above Pea? I see them as equally skilled... they both have great scalps.. they were both unbeaten and dominate for the better part of their prime. The difference is Pea moved up considerably more than Pep did. So how is Pep two full tiers above pea?

 

Whatever keeps you going.
I don't mean Sasakul, I think it's a quality win for Manny.
atsch Read what I wrote again. I fear for your writing career

 

You have to remember that Burley didn't have the benefit of all those multiple weight classes and titles floating around that Pernell did. Put him in Burley's era and you can erase two of those belts (Jr. welter and Jr. middle). Whitaker could only have competed in 2 divisions, just like Burley did. So technically Burley moved up just as much as Whitaker (Pernell from LW to WW, Burley from WW to MW). He shouldn't be penalized for not getting a chance at a belt.

 

eugh this thread is massively consuming, has me fearing for my sanity, especially this week of all weeks! need a time out from it but i'll be back in a couple of days to chip in.

gonna go away and research mike gibbons a bit, see what all the hype was, maybe even that era in MW's, try and get a clearer picture

great thread mcg, and as arnie once said

"I'll be back"

 

how about sandy and pep?

 

I didn't read your original post I was just mouthing off for the sake of it. Thanks for the sources on Driscoll-Welsh, will check them out, see if I've read 'em. NY Times I've read.

And I didn't ask for your opinion on my work, it was to refute your claims I'm 'angry' or whatnot. I'm sound pal, never in any bother.

 

Are we getting to a point where we can consider Wilfred Benitez? Record holder, three division champion, cleanly whipped two ATGs (Duran and Cervantes), some good champs in Palomino and Hope, and a slew of solid contenders (Shields, Ranzany, Curry?, Weston, Petronelli, Villa, Chiaverini, Santos).

 

What is going on heree. Its not exactly many top 50 fighters fault that they are not as fast as a mayweather or a camacho..they don't have that natural speed, likewise a napoles wasn't able to move up to beat the likes of monzon. Some can fill out and get to higher weight division..those who do will be given the benefit for it. Gomez wasn't great at 126, that does have an effect on his greatness in P4P rankings. Its hard to make my point clear as I'm very focussed on watching a champions league match, but being able to be dominant in different weight classes does help p4p ranking