I haven't written one of these seriously for about 7 years, but after a week of watching allot of fights, i felt like doing one tonight. Post your own if you like, comment if you like, ignore if you like. 01) Floyd Mayweather (147) 02) Manny Pacquiao (147) 03) Sergio Martinez (160) 04) Chad Dawson (175) 05) Paul Williams (154) 06) Vitali Klitschko (HVT) 07) Wladi Klitschko (HVT) 08) Tavoris Cloud (175) 09) Juan Manual Marquez (135) 10) Timothy Bradley (140) 11) Kermit Cintron (154) 12) Fernando Montiel (118) 13) Joan Guzman (135) 14) Andre Ward (168) 15) Devon Alexander (140) 16) Amir Khan (140) 17) Shane Mosley (147) 18) Juan Manuel Lopez (126) 19) Mikkel Kessler (168) 20) Chris John (126)
Agreed. Good list otherwise though. Only qualm really is having Dawson that high, Martinez or Williams are more deserving of that 3rd place, although to be fair it's quite a gap between 2nd and 3rd, whilst from 3rd down it's alot closer. Can't really complain though, solid list Hut
Fair comment on Dawson. Dawson has rattled off a succession of solid wins, though admittedly against over the hill guys. And since Im always babbling on about A) rewarding big wins rather than punishing losses B) ranking based on your own score card (and I had Martinez beating Williams and Cintron), Im gonna change that. Frankly positions 3-7 are pretty interchangeable, though. Guzman, is an underrated guy, IMO, he perhaps got a lucky decision against Fueneka the first time (though based on how few of Fuenka's shots were actually landing cleanly, much less than people make out. (Reminds me of how people would score close Toney fights, where they would fixate on him being out THROWN & troubled, but not necessarily outlanded)) but I don't think that fight was representative. Fuenka was stylistic cryptonite. Obviously a erratic, nutty guy but I'd favour him over Marquez, Bradley & Alexander. If he bothers to make weight. :: If Khan sits on that jab like he did against Mallinagi he might pose big stylistic problems for Guzman though, based on the first Fuenka fight.
And BTW, re: Guzman, as much as the rematch victory was soured by the weight debacle, I defy anyone to watch that fight and how he comes over such a serious stylistic problem and not see a guy with skills which deserve a mention of a list like this. Those scores were bullshit that was a very clear win. To me Guzman reminds me of James Toney, with broadly the same stylistic strengths and vulnerabilities.
Love the enthusiasm for Tavoris Cloud, would've liked to have seen Dawson make that fight, but I don't see him in the top ten yet. And I really don't see Kermit Cintron's position at 11. I think Dawson's done enough to be above Paul Williams, for sure.
I really can't see how both Klitschko's aren't ranked above Williams and Martinez. Have they really done something more than either Klit has done? Explain yourself!
Was Pavlik on your P4P list before the Maritnez fight? Can't see that win being enough to put his as #3
Maybe that depends on how he scored the Cintron and Williams fights...or he just thought really highly of Bunema.
I'm one of those annoying people who doesn't like to rank heavyweights in p4p lists, purely because it is a rather unique division. It's hard to match up guys like the Klitschkos with the Pacquiao's of the world because they don't have as many options available to them, plus they could have advantages/disadvantages which are unheard of in the other divisions, it's just too troublesome
Not sure how you could have Kermit Cintron in the Top 20, but not have Rafeal Marquez or Ivan Calderon even on the list. I hate to say it because it's said way too often, but this list also shows how sad of a state boxing is in. Most of these guys don't deserve to be mentioned on a list like this. For the Klit naysayers; both have dominated the competition for years and both definitely deserve a mention in the Top 10.
Everything that the division has to offer. That isn't much perhaps but it is pretty difficult to ask for anything more. Which is one of the reasons p4p is bullshit
That's true, & I would never take that much away from the Klitschkos' --- they go out & get 'em, but I just watch them & don't really believe they could handle genuinely good opposition with anywhere near the consistency they've handled this bunch. I wouldn't suggest they are at their limits with the current crew, but all-timers, they surely are not.
Maybe, maybe not, impossible to tell for sure. The division Larry Holmes ruled in early 80s was perhaps stronger than this but not by much and even so we can assume pretty safely that Larry was an all-timer, even though there were no opponents to prove it against
I had him beating Williams & Cintron, too. My list, my scoring basically. Competition. Simple as that.
In my admittedly subjective view, though, it seemed Holmes had all the tools & gifts of a great. I watch the Klitschkos & feel less than over-whelmed by their abilities, even though they are competent & gifted in a few areas. Essentially, I think Holmes could've handled much better competition than he did. The Klitschkos can beat better guys than they've had to, but I still view each of them as somewhat over-rated.
I have to begrudgingly admit - I do now regard the Klitschkos as ATG heavyweights of sorts. Not absolutely elite greats, but you simply don't dominate this many opponents over this long a time without being a fairly excellent fighter. It's a weak division, a VERY weak division. But even a weak division will throw up stylistic problems for guys, like it did for Holmes, yet Vitali especially just dominates everyone. I don't think they're nearly as good as this division is making them look - I don't think their size makes them some new evolution of superior heavyweight - but i think they would have been mentioned along with the top echelon of guys in the 70s and 90s, hence at any point.
Not very high. Just proportionate, IMO. Marciano is an 'atg' of sorts too, but not an elite one, either.
Would you give him the edge over the Klitschkos' because he gave up size, whereas they benefitted from it, or would that just be a factor in Marciano's favour not enough to rate him above either of the brothers?
For the record I don't think Marciano could beat the Klits the size disparity is too great. But he might well beat a few guys who would beat the Klits. If you could get all the heavyweights who ever lived fighting at once he'd be a respected contender, just like the Klits. But the Klits would definitely beat him.
I agree, and it shouldn't be held against them as a sole reason for their success. It's like saying, "well Ali would be useless if he was slow". There's guys like Valuev and Dimetrenko who are bigger than the Klitschkos and are utter shit, I know you didn't say it but it's one of my pet peeves right now, just venting ::
Against him head-to-head (& I agree that he would likely lose to the brothers), of course, but in terms of his achievements, it must surely enhance them at least a little?
