What is a realistic "p4p atg top 10" in your oppinion?

people are wow with big record. And also they are parrots and repeat what they hear and they think they are cool but saying the same thing thinking they know something.

 

I agree partially with what your saying (particularly the advancements fighters have made in athleticism nowadays) but that isn't the reason why people generally place old school fighters above more modern fighters. P4P from a historical standpoint is based largely on resume, especially since alot of film doesn't exist for several fighters prior to about the mid 1950's and, without a doubt, old school fighters fought more quality opposition over their careers.

 

Most boxers back then doesn't have an amatuer career which is why the big record. Also their pay per fights were not good either so they will fight instead of sparring which is why they fought so many bums and then against a good fighter.

 

I agree taht some people are amazed by a record of a 100+ fights but as for athletically you have a heavyweight division that is full of fat slobs other than maybe the top 5.
Most boxers now cant go the whole 12 rounds without taking a break there is very few boxrs taht can do that

 

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Joe Louis
6. Sam Langford
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Ray Leonard
10. Ezzard Charles

Something like that. Pep and Walker could even be mentioned. I also have a soft spot for Whitaker, he was such a great and dominant fighter in several weights. But politics in boxing nowadays will make it hard for boxers to take on all comers like they did back then, even when the colour line wasn't always being drawn.

 

100 percent agree great post :happy

most people think old fighters are better than new fighters automatically. While i don't doubt that they are great most of the reason that people think they are so great is because that's what everyone else thinks. Not a lot people actually have their own opinions.

 

But there is no way to appropriately judge this... P4P from a historical perspective is about accomplishment more than anything as opposed to a P4P list created for current fighters (where past accomplishments mean less, current wins mean more). H2H yes, there are lots of fighters in the last 30 years that would beat or seriously trouble fighters from the past 50-70 years but that's not necessarily what historical P4P ATG lists determine.

 

The problem with this is that people just look at old fighters and see that they had over a hundred fights and that they beat a ton of HOFs without actually looking at who they fought.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DajJMMcF5S0[/ame]

Joe Goossen's take on this topic.

 

Good until number 4, infact just a **** list

 

What is your problem with it

 

You make a great point

Boxers from the old days might have been tougher or had more heart, I'll give them that. But faster? stronger? smarter in the ring? sorry no. Athletes have gotten better over the years what makes boxers the exception? Are they better boxers? There is no way to accurately determine that head to head, there are some great champs from the past who would fight today and still whoop ass, but there are also champs today who would kick ass in those other eras as well.

I respect those ATGs but I just hate when they get overrated, like they were super human and nobody from the current era could ever beat them.

As far as your list, your right it seems like fighters today will never have a chance to crack the top 10 p4p. Not because there not good enough,but because some fans just wont let them.

 

agreed. seems like there are NO modern fighters or even fighters from the 90's get a chance to win a fantasy fight nor have a chance to get rated among them. it aint fair. :bart

 

A number of posters in classic picked Floyd to beat Benny Leonard at Lightweight. :thumbsup

And what the **** is up with that avi? :rofl