LEAST deserving of the title, Pound for Pound #1, HISTORY!

Yep, someone's been tampering with it. It's apparent from the responses on this thread that Mayweather IS NOT the popular choice.

 

toney had already lost to jones by the time whitaker and oscar fought.

p4p is who you think is the best fighter in the world. i honestly dont think much of the mythical list, but whitaker imo, was always the better fighter from than toney. toney's career also went to shit after he lost to jones although it was revived years later.

 

:laughing:

 

you might be right actually.

 

Toney accomplished more in his whole career, obvious overall he is p4p better given that he proved it. Before Jones is obviously the spot I was talking about. You take away from Toney because of "inconsistancy" then you must concede Jones was p4p the greatest eva :clap:

 

Talk about the queen of overstatements...

In terms of power...yes...Tyson held that mantle.

In terms of handspeed...pure revisionist history and fiction on your part.

During Tyson's reign, Camacho and Meldrick Taylor were still undefeated. Taylor lost to Chavez a month after Tyson was KO'd by Douglas.

It's fairly safe to say that Camacho and Taylor BOTH had faster hands than Tyson P4P.

 

It's funny you mention this, because of the choices, I had it down to being between Tito and Shane myself.

I chose Shane, but it's tough because while neither was outright the best in the world, you almost had to pick between the two as their "reigns" were at the same time. Some had Shane #1, Tito #2, and vice-versa.

Most who had Tito #1 elevated Shane to the top spot after Sept '01, only to reshuffle the deck 4 months later. I just can't go along with the sales pitch that Shane was undoubtedly the #1 guy from June 2000 to January 2002.

That said, there was no clear cut choice during that entire time.
- Some will argue that Roy never lost it; others contend that he lost it by sitting on his lead.
- Shane got a big push because Merchant and The Ring had much man-love for him, but as you noted, didn't have much beyond DLH and looking hella impressive against ordinary lightweights.
- Tito had a nice run from 1999 up until running into Bernard, but the controversial nature of the Oscar fights taints it a bit.
- You can claim in retrospect that it should've been Bernard all along. But he didn't have the necessary wins pre-Tito to justify ignoring the head-to-head loss to Roy, even if 7-8 years old (depending on where you ranked him and when he was declared #1).

If there was a vote for it, I'd say the least deserving is anyone who claimed they were #1 during that time period. But for the sake of picking one, I picked Shane.

 

so you're saying Toney is greater than Whitaker?

maybe he's a better "p4p" fighter because he knows how to indulge on pies and steroids to baloon up to heavyweight.

 

Nunn was pretty goddamn fast handed also, and he was also in his prime as the same time as Tyson. Taylor & Camacho just had unreal handspeed though. Along with RJ, there they have the fastest hands in history. But Mike's handpeed was phenomonal for a heavyweight.

 

Maybe you don't understand the P4P concept.

For a HEAVYWEIGHT Tyson was faster than meldrick taylor was FOR A Jnr Welterweight.

Tyson was so much faster than his peers it wasn't funny. Taylor and Camacho were faster too...but the gap between them and their peers wasn't the same as between tyson and his when it came to handspeed.

 

That's what I'm saying..

FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT Tyson's hands were slightly faster, proportionately, than the aforementioned...imo.

 

Well, Camacho's speed had probably declined a bit by the late 80's. In the early-to-mid 80's Hector was a blur.

But I have a hard time calling Tyson's hands faster than Taylor's. Meldrick was a special fighter, who nearly beat a prime Chavez, based completely on that handspeed he had.

 

Ok...well it's difficult to say, for sure as taylor was a blur. But Tyson, for a heavyweight, was ridiculously fast. People seem to forget that.

So I'll say that at the very least, Tyson was the best combination of power and speed (and chin) in the sport at that time.

He deserved the P4P honour in the late 80s.

 

I completely understand the P4P concept which is precisely why I responded the way I did...

Taylor had some of the fastest hands in history.

Comparitively speaking, Tyson had great handspeed, but he wasn't at the same level of Ali and some would say he wouldn't have matched Floyd Patterson.

Across all weight divisions, you'd have to have Taylor ranked fairly high.

Simply put, there's no logical reason to state that Tyson had better handspeed than Taylor under ANY circumstances.

 

Also its arguable whether Mike was the biggest P4P puncher of the late 80's. Remember a man by the name of Julian Jackson was in his prime at that time. Obviously Tyson was a much better fighter than Jackson, but I dont think he was a bigger puncher. Jackson had something unholy in his fists.

 

I will say however Sly, that in terms of the combination of speed AND power, none in history touches Tyson, except for maybe Ray Robinson. Very rare to see a fighter who posses both great handspeed and one punch power.

 

It's hard to say...because obviously, in actuality, taylor was faster and that is what is biasing the P4P comparison.

I would say that Tyson's handspeed compared with Ali's. Ali had a faster jab and "one-two" but tyson's 4&5 punch combinations were faster than Ali's.

 

Tommy Hearns also....

 

C'mon Sly, now your just talking crazy. Watch the Cleveland Williams fight and HONESTLY tell me Mike threw faster combos than Ali. You cant HONESTLY believe that.

 

Yep, Cleveland Williams fight, Ali was SERIOUS!! :eeeek:

I may have to rethink that....

 

Still, Xplosive...consider some of Tyson's combinations against Berbick, Pinklon thomas, Tony Tubbs. :eeeek:

 

Mike probably has the 2nd fastest hands of any heavyweight, and yes Ive seen fights of Patterson. Floyd was fast as hell, but I dont think any faster than Mike.

But Ali of the 60's had faster hands than both of them.

BTW- the best example of Mike's handspeed in the combo he finished Marvis Frazier with. Amazing speed.

 

I believe it was the Mildenberger fight but Ali threw a 7 or 8 punch combination which was REEDiculous. Better than anything Tyson ever threw.

 

WTF is this thread about :dunno:

 

Oh.....and you can't use a heavyweight for p4p :nono: You can't go backwards....

 

Are you saying that Heavyweights are excluded from the P4P debate?

 

Yes. That guy was too skinny to have that much power. :dunno:

 

For the most part, yes. The best HW is generally considered the best fighter in boxing. P4P was always a 'best of the rest' kind of thing which is one of the reasons I never put much stock in it.

Of course, HWs were more highly regarded than the current crop of guys.

 

That's not quite my understanding.

The P4P thing was introduced to bring glory to the sub-Heavyweight divisions, this is true, but there would be no glory..if Heavyweights were not included in the evaluation.

Therefore Heavyweight cannot be excluded from the P4P debate, or else the P4P thing is rendered meaningless....

 

Incorrect.

P4P came about to rank fighters on their skill level and abilities. When you look at all the elite boxers, who's the best if all was equal? That guy is rarely if ever a heavyweight.

The heavyweight champion of the world will always be able to beat the lightweight champion. The worst heavyweight title holder in history could defeat the best light weight of all time. The size is difference is so large that skills don't matter.

This is why P4P rankings came out.