whats your top ten p4p rating of all time?

Can you name any that deserve mention? The problem with this statement is that you don't know enough about the fighters they place higher than those on your lists.

Anyways, mine would be, if memory serves correct:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Mickey Walker
8. Roberto Duran
9. Benny Leonard
10. Barney Ross

 

No, because the fighters of earlier generations will always have the more fights and deeper records, in times when the sport was much bigger than it is now. People can't expect too many recent names to be put into elite ATG lists with that kind of criteria, especially considering the modern era is only about 1/4 of boxing history anyway.

 

How can anyone have a p4p list all time wth out Roy Jones ?

 

By making it a top 10 list instead of a top 25 or 30.

 

Yeah but I saw Pea in some lists though Whitiker is one of my all time favorite fighters p4p wise he is not as accomplished as Roy imo .

And Ali since when have HW's ever been considered p4p ?Did he fight at cruiser or another weight class where he was successful ?

 

You're mistaken.

Based on dominance in their prime, they were similar, you could give Jones the slight edge, but you'd have to take into account the superior opposition that Whitaker faced and defeated. Both won titles in 4 weight classes, Whitaker racking up the better wins in the process. What edge does Jones hold, especially in accomplishments? If you wish to compare resumes we'll do that.

 

You're once again mistaken. Why would a HW not be able to be considered P4P? Because he fought at one weight class? Why is Willie Pep then considered P4P, when he only fought and accomplished at FW. Or Hagler at MW? Or Monzon at MW? Or Leonard at LW?

 

Thats what im saying ..How can you rate fighters high p4p if they only fought at 1 weight ? The criteria was meant for those fighters who have had success at diffrent weight classes . If you are going to rank them the p4p wise they should be rated accordingly ..Thats all im sayin ..Here is the perfect example could you rate Lennox Lewis higher than a Manny Pacquio p4p wise ? Both men very successful but who has done more at diffrent weight classes ?

 

are yall doing ATG lists, or fighters who were P4P #1 and rating them, im confused

 

That is not what P4P is, it's simply the greatest fighters for their size, who rates as the best and most accomplished. I'll take a fighter with a great resume at a particular weight class over someone with titles in multiple weights, but no great wins at any of the weights. You have to learn to distinguish between the two, otherwise, by your criteria, someone like Mayweather would outrank Pep, B. Leonard, etc despite having a far inferior resume and career, because he moved in weight.

You're discrediting a lot of fighters and placing certain fighters higher than they should be with that criteria. Opposition is always the top criteria.

 

No I would never discredit anyone for quality wins .My thing is p4p wise you shouldn't rank fighter A because he 's been as successful in 1 weight class as opposed to fighter B who has had quality wins and while going up in weight ..Thats all only from a ranking perspective ..Because p4p wise Jones was more succesful at diffrent weight classes than a Hagler but what he lacked was the opposition that Hagler had ..P4P wise how could Hagler be ranked higher thats all ..But if we ranked by division and we talked middle weight not many come close to Hagler ..

 

So once again, you're asking how Hagler could be ranked higher P4P than Ricky Hatton since Hatton has fought at numerous weights. Do you honestly go by that mode of thought? Success in multiple weights plays a part, but it's not the whole story, as someone like Mayweather has proven. You have to learn to take everything into account, even if it can be difficult at times.

 

This would be easy though considering that Hagler's level of comp was ten times that of Hattons ..I don't go by that I go with intabgibles first the quality of wins ..Not wins first ..