Who's higher P4P: Ali or Duran?

Precisely. Although the HW will be an ATG Heavyweight for some of us. The LW will probably be more tested.

 

That's precisely my point though. Heavyweights are Heavyweights for life, for the most part anyway. Thus, with their careers spanning a single weight class, they are obviously able to build up a better showing at that weight.

While someone like Whitaker was more skilled than any HW, does that mean he was a better 140 pounder than any HW was a HW? No, because he simply didn't accomplish as much at a single weight class.

That's the point I think we've gotten away from, and the only point I was originally trying to make. HW's are the best SINGLE weight class. Duran's/Whitaker's/Armstrong's accomplishments at other weights don't mean a thing, because my argument was about single weight classes stacking up to HW's.

And again, in terms of skill, I see your point, they all fought at LW, therefore they possibly had more skilled fighters, but someone like Armstrong doesn't rate higher as a LW than Ali rates as a HW, due to the fact that Ali accomplished much more at the single weight than Armstrong did at that single weight.

True, that doesn't mean they couldn't stack up.

 

Who was more tested? Duran at LW or Ali at HW?

Both are arguably the best to have ever fought in their respective division. Who was more tested at that single weight? Ali for HW, Duran for LW.

It's obviously Ali. In a P4P sense, the fact that Duran moved up helps him, but for the argument I'm making, Ali was a better(or at least a more accomplished, probably not better head to head) single weight class fighter than Duran.

 

Personally, I feel that Ali had the best competition throughout the 70's. Weak comp in the 60's but EXCEPTIONAL in the 70's-certainly much better than the talent starved division of the 30's and 40's.

The lightweights and middleweights of the early to mid 70's kind of weak so my pick is ALi.

 

Okay, but, I would still argue that if you look at the 10 greatest Feathers, LWs, WWs, or MWs for example, those guys outshine the HWs in terms of skill and probably accomplishments too because their challenges are of higher quality.

Let me put it another way --you ranked your top 7 all time. 1 was a HW -Ali, and I would still argue strenuously that Duran is at least 5 guys up from him. And there are no other HW between them or before Duran, or Greb, or Robinson, or Charles, or Armstrong, etc.

Ah... but they were more highly skilled and were coming out of fields that were deeper. They also develop better because what do giants rely on? Power! Power is the great equalizer but it also stunts development. It makes for lazy technique. Watch HWs on ESPN. What are they doing? Trying to land the big shot. They are less conditioned and often fat with the butt cracks showing, hell, they're punch output is about 25% of some of the smaller guys.

...I don't deny that they were great. But as a rule, guys that size will not stack up to the larger giants, ceterus parabis. Which is one reason among many that Shake's position (about the open field of the HWs) is untenable if you look closely.

 

Each of those fighters either were multi weight class fighters of made their living at different weights than any of the others though, so it doesn't prove that any single weight class is better than Heavyweight. However, the fighters that fought at weights around there were likely the better fighters, I have always agreed on that.

Yes, but none of the greats I named. The best of the best of the HW bunch are fantastic, at least comparable to most divisions top fighters, the worst of the worst are generally worse than any other division due to the points you made though.

 

Smaller guys are better. I stand by that. The reasons for that are legion -from a historical standpoint, physics, socio-economic realities, population sample/statistics, and so on. They have to work harder.

If you measure Duran's accomplishments in one division then I would grant you that Ali's accomplishments outshine him. But that is really unfairly limiting the scope in favor of Ali. Mano e mano, Duran's accomplishments do not pale compared to Ali. And if you look at both of them in toto, I just can't see Ali standing above Duran for the purist.

 

Out of the original 8, heavyweights are better than flyweights, bantamweights, and light heavyweights.

Ali beat more ranked fighters, his top 12 wins are better than duran's top 12 wins.

 

So...you feel Ali is more accomplished (defeated better opposition at Heavy than Duran at lightweight) but you think Duran is better head to head.
Shouldn't Duran be above Ali in your P4P list then? (or maybe we are thinking different criteria for what means "p4p"...?)

 

My criteria is not a head to head criteria, I judge based on accomplishments and resume first and foremost, whoever has the best in relation to their weight class and level of competition they faced, holds the edge. Obviously dominance and in ring performance account as well.

 

Hannibal is widely considered the greatest general ever. The reason is because of the severity of his battles and the formidability of his foes.

His brother Harry may have been a better general, but he was unfortunate enough to satisfy himself fighting savages in the Congo who threw rocks at him.

That's a dumb analogy, but the point is sound. No HWs list of conquests is even close to Ali's and Ali's is not even close to Greb's or Charles' or Bivins' or arguably, Duran's. I am not sure that Ken Buchanan wasn't greater than Frazier and I know that Buchanan was greater than Norton. In terms of sheer skill, DeJesus was better than Foreman and Cooper put together and surely better than Liston's skill level.

 

Tell me what you think of these critieria:

level of skill
dominance
record (w/l ratio)
quality of competition
longevity
performance against larger men

 

But that is the only argument I was making. We didn't start arguing because I said there is no way Duran belongs above Ali, we started arguing because I strongly disagreed with your point about Heavyweights being the worst division. There is no other single weight class as rich as the Heavies, that was my argument.

The argument for Duran and Ali was not discussed. As for that, I just think Ali beat better comp. Ali fought and beat all the best, all of them, which is something very few in any era or weight class can say. There are obviously arguments for Duran, I know them very well, I just choose Ali's top wins over Duran's as my deciding criteria.

 

I see no faults in it.

Mine is based on, in order of which is taken into consideration most:

1) Accomplishments/Resume
2) Dominance/In-ring performance

Originally, I considered head to head ability as a criteria, but I decided to go with more of an 'era by era' basis for ranking greats, otherwise old timers like Fitzsimmons would be greatly effected by that criteria, which isn't fair in my view, because the sport has evolved since then. Thus, the 'era by era' criteria.

In head to head terms, my ATG list would probably be a lot different.

 

Fair enough!