Who do you have higher on your All time P4P list Duran or Armstrong

Yep. And I think RJJ, PBF and Pac have an argument as well.

Duran has an argument for top 10, but he's no lock.

 

Beating quality fighters is important, of course. I do happen to put a lot of value in beating bigger fighters too, I don't disagree with that.
I'll state again, I don't even think Duran was a "small" welterweight for that era, he outgrew the lightweight division. It's not as if SRL was significantly bigger, nor Benitez.
Duran had been a lightweight since he was 19 or 20 and moved up to welterweight at 26. This is natural.
Let's not pretend he was dwarfed by SRL.
Above welterweight Duran's success waned.

Benny Leonard beat lots of quality fighters.
I rate him above Duran at lightweight and p4p.
You are free to disagree.
Still, even without Leonard I have 10 names right there, and perhaps more.

Louis beat some good big heavyweights. Max Baer, for example. Primo Carnera.

Duran beat Iran Barkley. Lost to Robbie Sims, Kirkland Laing, Hearns and Benitez, but that's okay too.

 

Certainly, he has an argument for top 10.
If he does make a top 10, I'm thinking he ought to be no higher than 8th on the list. Whereas Armstrong would probably be no lower than 4th.
That's my opinion, if I were trying to squeeze them as close together as possible to appease Duran fans.

 

I rank Benny Leonard based on his extensive career, I base it on his multiple wins over great fighters and top-flight fighters. Duran can go ahead of him, yes. But there's no right or wrong.

Duran was a legitimate welterweight. He was just a bit smaller than SRL. I think we can both agree on that.
I don't consider the sizes of Duran and SRL to be much of a factor at all. It's a great win regardless.

Baer and Carnera were both world champions. Maybe we can say they weren't particularly good HWs, but I don't think Robbie Sims was a particularly good middleweight, I don't think Kirkland Laing was a particularly good welterweight. These were fighters Duran LOST TO when he moved up, so that kind of balances things out a bit.
People often want to give fighters credit for moving up and beating someone good but turn a blind eye when they lose to someone not-so-good. I'd argue, in such a case perhaps staying in one division undefeated would count for as much or more.

 

This is more or less how I see it as well.

 

I don't base moving up as any criteria at all tbh.

Hagler is in my top 20, as is Monzon, Ali, Louis and Pep.

 

They would all make my top 20 too, I think.

I don't see why "moving up" in considered so special either.
I do value beating bigger men, like for example, where a 163 Harry Greb beats a 195 heavyweight contender like Bill Brennan or whoever, where a fighter is clearly and truly fighting with a significant weight handicap on the night.
But when both guys weigh the same and look about the same size, I don't care how many or which divisions they've previously fought in, it is irrelevant.

 

Henry Armstrong is so great because of all the great fighters and ranked fighters of his era he defeated in such resounding fashion. He fought every champion he could find. And the guys that troubled him he fought them again, usually managing a win or more over them.
His schedule was insane.

The only knock I can put on his record is the 20 welterweight defences featured some very poor choices among them while a couple of excellent contenders waited on the shelf.

 

I disagree on your premise.

For me p4p is all about skill level and who the most skilled man is at his best.

Hagler, Monzon, Gomez, Ali, Louis, Pep, Saddler, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans are all amongst the most skilled fighters in history imo.

That's what I rank on.

 

Or p4p as in who has the most skill pound for pound. Like Golovkin and Kovalev have a high p4p ranking right now because the people ranking believe they are amongst the most skilled boxers in the world today.