Fightbeat top 20 p4p of all time.

1: Ray Robinson
2: Willie Pep
3: Joe Louis
4: Muhammed Ali
5: Roberto Duran
6: Ezzard Charles
7: Archie Moore
8: Billy Conn
9: Rocky Marciano
10: Eder Jofre
11: Julio Cesar Chavez
12: Sugar Ray Leonard
13: Emile Griffith
14: Sandy Saddler
15: Alexis Arguello
16: Evander Holyfield
17: Floyd Patterson
18: Kid Gavilan
19: Thomas Hearns
20: Ricardo Lopez

 

?

 

Floyd Patterson? Really?...Really??? Please explain.

 

Spot on observation!:bears:

 

Don't forget to make room for Cintron.

 

Give us your list BroadwayJoe!

 

If Cdogg loved you as much as you love him y'all would be married...

 

I have plenty of respect for cdogg...he knows more about the sport than most. And is able to overcome his fighter likes and dislikes and offer an objective opinion...something that you are NEVER able to do.

And for those scoring at home...this little discussion was initiated by you and the "old timers" crack you made. Just thought I'd bring that up when you get tired of the pissing contest that YOU initiated and whine and complain that all you wanted to do was discuss boxing.

So shut it, Stafford, before you end up ruining yet another topic.

 

How so? Just because he has old timer bias like yourself?

According to you anyone who tends to favour contemporary or popular fighters only do so because of...er...how do you like to put it...ah yes "shilling for their favourites"..or "lacks objectivity" or some other shit.

Does it occur to you that people simply have different opinions.

by the way....is your prediction record better than mine. That's teh truth test of who knows this sport or not. Historical knowledge is one thing...but do you understand the game more than me?

 

This from the person who shoots down other people's opinions all the time. How many times have you responded to a post from someone with something like "Nonsense!" or "Rubbish!!" or "Poppycock"! or some other way of saying that said opinion is stupid. You have no respect for anyone's opinion but your own...and your opinion is hideously biased for your favorites...and that means...well, you do the math.

So save it. Don't even try to pretend like you are open minded. Or that you don't REVEL in off topic pissing matches...like the one you have initiated in this topic and will continue until we have yet another topic ruined by your insecurity and immaturity..

 

Ai Yi YI...

You win broadwayjoe. You get the last word.

 

Rubbish!!!!!

 

I"d be interested to see your list BWJ.:kidcool:

 

He doesn't want to create a list...he just wants to show his support for Cdogg and the other old timers....

 

I'm working on it. Don't want to just toss one out off the top of head.

 

Wow. It took you like 3 seconds to try to start more bullshit. Good thing you are not immature.

 

::

 

Cummon guys, group hug!! ::

 

::

Don't worry...broadwayjoe's my boy. I was Godfather to his son and everything.

 

NO...i just don't know enough..actually i don't know a thing about him....


:warning:
<object width="480" height="385">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dRrPODd1fFM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

 

Fuck Ezzard Charles and his 25 losses, never won a title at lightheavyweight and was knocked out by OLD Walcott self!

Yeah..we get it....he beat Archie Moore and Joey maxim...yeah yeah yeah.

motherfucker had losses as early as his 17th pro fight and was knocked out long before he met Moore.

Don't get me wrong...great fighter and all that....but people need to stop overrating his ass and putting him above people that didn't lose as frequently and won titles in multiple divisions and had unbeaten streaks of at least 25 fights.

Motherfucking Ezzard Charles.....:kidcool:

 

opcorn:

 

As always, if too many people disagree with your take, you'll claim that the emoticon shows that you were joking. If noone bites, you act as you were serious all along.

Anyways, you raise up a good point, not about Charles but comparing old and new, since the game has changed. Old timers fought more, had more fights and more losses. When we consider the meaning of losses, they clearly are worse for modern guys: one or two losses can change the ranking of a fighter completely, while an old-timer can have ten losses without harm because they fought more often. With the same logic, modern guys victories should mean more, since they have achieved their resumes with less fights.

Personally I don't know what is the correct way to relate these with each other. Another reason why I think I can not make a proper list

 

Far more impressive handpicking opponents to a gleaming 40-0, right?:: And I'll just point out that if your man Roy Jones keeps going the way he's going he'll end up with 25 losses in a manner similar to the way Charles did. What was Ezzard going into the Wallcott loss? Something like 70-5 or something? After coming up the hard way and fighting ALL the VERY best fighters MULTIPLE times. Fuck your shining, carefully manicured zero's give me the guys who do great things against great fighters.

 

The shear number of fights isn't the deciding factor. It's the number of fights against great fighters or failing that the number against the very best available. I doubt ANYONE will have Leonard lower than 6 or 7 and he only had 37 fights odd.....guy went OUT OF HIS WAY to get meaningful, demonstrative shit done though.

 

UGTBK...

Modern fighters are penalized for not fighting as frequently and that's not fair. If Sugar Ray Robinson were fighting nowadays he'd probably only have about 40 fights himself. So we can't go by how frequently they fight (and I know you're not saying that).

However

Win-loss ratio is still relevant.

If a guy fights 100 fights and loses just two...I consider that practically the equivalent of an unbeaten guy with 50 fights or so.
Ezzard Charles however lost more than 1/5th of his fights...win loss ratio of 4:1. That's a high losing percentage for a supposedly top 10 P4P guy.

Like I always say....

These guys are overrating because it makes the people who rate them highly feel to themselves that they are more knowledgeable than guys who would rank a Bernard hopkins, floyd mayweather or Manny pacquiao higher.


Just like Music conoisseurs (sp?) tend to rate obscure bands over guys like the Jacksons or the Beetles.

Anyway my "emoticon" wasn't to suggest that i was joking....I'm serious (except I do think Charles is an All Time great) but it was more to acknowledge the fact that many aren't going to like me scrutinizing his career like that and not blindly jumping onto the "Ezzard Charles is great" bandwagon that so many just do so that they are popular with teh elitists!

 

Sly, I understand your point here it's ostensibly a pretty good one, but there are things to consider with the whole win/loss ratio angle. Firstly, guys these days are carefully managed through their early careers to keep their zero. Sometimes very carefully. Guys back then were thrown into hard fights early. Secondly, great fighters fought each other more often. Trilogies, quadrilogies etc were far more common. Thirdly, guys fighting when they weren't in top condition was more common so aberrant results happened more often.

So I think that has to be factored in sensibly. Just like the less frequent schedules of modern guys has to be factored in sensibly. But you can't seriously sit on your chair with a straight face and tell me you think guys like Jones & Mayweather have maximized their 50 odd fight career span. They spent half their careers hustling and scheming, resenting having to fight anybody dangerous. Fighting on a modern schedule didn't stop Ray Leonard proving his mettle. If Pac finishes his career strong he'll rank high. Hell Floyd still has the opportunities to end up very high and happily he's starting to go about it right with his upcoming fight.....the modern guys can still prove their greatness, the difference is now that they have to chose to and pursue it, whereas the old guys were thrown into the fire to see who melted and we got a true sense of their greatness whether they wanted to show us or not.

Edit, Re Charles specifically. Most his losses came when he was old and beyond shot. As I said, he was something like 70-5 going into the Wallcott 'backwards left hook' loss which is a win/loss ratio of closer to 14-1. A better ratio than Hopkins going into the Calzaghe loss for instance with a vastly better resume.

 

Your post is a very good one and i respect it.

I was expecting people to just jump in and go crazy but you offered a well thought out rebuttal.

Now let's compare Ray Leonard with Floyd Mayweather

After he turned pro in 1976 the first big name he fought was Wilfred Benitez in his 25th pro fight.

2nd Defense was Against the Great Duran.

Three fights later..Thomas Hearns

He gets a title from Kalule at a higher weight class in between...but Kalule isn't really a big name.

He retires shortly after hearns.

has a brief comeback in a warm up fight against an unknown

Then comes back to fight Marvin hagler

After hagler not very active..takes on a hearns and Duran which were pst prime and each had a few losses by then.

Now this isn't about the NAMES per se...it's about the CHALLENGES. Leonard's names sound better a they are known legends from the past but we shouldn't let that be everything. It's about fighting the best people of your time according to your point.

Mayweather

Fought Generaro hernandez for the title in his 17th pro fight.

Fought Corrales...his equivalent to Hearns

Then Moved up and fought Castillo....better than Kalule as a challenge IMO

moved up and fought among others...de La Hoya (equivalent to hagler..considering teh stage of their careers...as well as the move up in weight and teh status of the challenge), hatton, Judah and now Mosley.

Now Hagler, hearns, Duran, Kalyle and Benitez sounds better than De La Hoya, Corrales, Castillo, hernandez and Hatton, Marquez

but when you comapred teh challenges at the time..they are equivalent.

Like mayweather...there were many top fighters that ray leonard never faced. When he came back from retirement he never fought...Nunn, Benn, Barkley, Eubank, toney, McCallum...prior to that he never fought Aaron pryor, Marlon Starling, Donald Curry.


You see...if we are being consistent..just with the Ray Leonard vs Floyd mayweather argument..we can see that ray can be criticized for taking on old faded greats and ignoring challengers in their primes etc.

 

Almost all the guys you list that Ray didn't fight came WAY after his prime. During his prime the only significant fights that weren't made were Pryor and Curry & frankly I'm not sure where he might realistically have fit Pryor in given how busy he was with Benitez, Duran & Hearns. I won't go through the comparable list of names during Floyd and Roy's prime that they somehow managed to not face, but needless to say we would both agree it's MUCH longer and more significant.

I'd be surprised if somebody of your intelligence really thought Floyd's resume was comparable to Ray Leonard's. I mean the tenuousness of equivalizing Corrales with Tommy Hearns can't be lost on you.....

 

Corrales was undefeated and big banger and the next best fighter in the division at that time. Same with Hearns. they are equivalent challenges (in terms of a fighter taking on challenges).

i'm not saying that Corrales was as great or as good as hearns. I hate tedious responses like this as if you're not smart enough to follow the point i was making (which i know you are)