The DEFINITIVE top 20 all time P4P list!

even though i wont be popular with my boys on this one i think slys list is solid...even though i would drop hopkins and floyd until their careers are all said and done.

20-30 years from now guys like floyd and hopkins will be near the tops of lots of these lists...they just arent getting love now because they are modern fighters.

multiple weight class world titles, beating a plethora of different styles and great fighters. guys like rjj, hopkins, floyd are all-time great fighters...by a mile.

 

I hate it when the loss-machine Holyfield gets ranked so high on a historical basis. Same thing when Toney makes these lists. Same thing when Duran makes these lists.

 

:: I agree in essence,... looking at peoples lists are unhealthy,.. there's usually 20 or 30 reasons to get angry..

 

people can hardly justify their monthly top 10 p4p rankings let alone an all time list. it's merely done for fun and it's silly to shit on someone for it. it's his or her opinion and his or her's only.

unless the guy puts up like arturo gatti or micky ward in the list, i think every damn list could be arguable.

 

Most people don't call theirs the DEFINITIVE list.

It sorta invites criticism.

 

Before defocating on your porch, lets look at one rationale that places Sugar Ray Leonard below Floyd or Hopkins.

And....go

 

Yep. Sly brings this on himself and then gets upset when people rag on him about it.

 

Am I upset?

WTF are you going on about now?

I just ask people to provide their own lists if they want to criticize mine. I don't expect everyone to agree with me...and I'm always happy to defend and justify my position.

 

dsimon writes:

Still thinking about your Whitaker comment the pea was one of my all time faves. Frankly I don't know if I agree with you because of my biase or not! ::

Sly does get arrogant. His list is as good or bad as anyone elses period. The only person I have seen here who could make a definitive list of one sort or another is Rubio. Rubio's lists are fantastic.

Having said that Ike makes a good case, sometimes unpopular, for the modern guys and Sly's list is ok.

 

He was knocked out by Hector Camacho.

 

::

 

As UGTBK implied...wannabe boxing historians don't like seeing contemporary fighters (or recently retired fighters) on lists of this kind and CERTAINLY not so high. I say...fuck'em! It is what it is.

Roy Jones would have beaten Hagler and Hearns on the same weekend..and stylewise would have defeated Leonard 10 times out of 10.

People also don't like to see heavyweights high up on P4P lists..but Fuck'em too!

Muhammad Ali, P4P, was the fastest moving individual in boxing history (when you considering him floating around the ring at over 210 pounds)..in his prime one of the most elusive, some of the fastest hands, among teh best chin and resolve etc.

Floyd Mayweather?

He's undefeated. What more can I say? Show me a guy that has a better combination of speed, smarts, elusiveness, finishing ability, accuracy...outside of Jones and Robinson and then we can talk.

Hopkins?

Reigned longer than Hagler and Monzon, unified the division eventually beating the other co champions in the process, beat Tarver, now Pavlik..and in having wins over celebrated smaller fighters like Trinidad and De La Hoya achieved no less than Haglers wins over the smaller (already defeated and stopped) Duran and hearns....which were Marvin's signature wins.

 

Ray Leonard would have beaten Floyd Mayweather, Ricky Hatton and Carlos Baldomir in the same evening.

 

I don't know if it's arrogance or just wanting attention.

There's nothing definitive about any of these lists and everybody knows it...including the person that puts his together and describes it as such.

 

P4P Leonard wouldn't even beat Mayweather....

 

Floyd retired at the peak of his poularity and in his prime. He shouldn't be on any all time great lists. He straight up took the money and ran, he never wanted to prove he was the best. He only wanted to protect his undefeated record and rape us of our money.

 

Come on now, sly....let's keep it real.

I am a fan of Floyd's as well, but Ray would chew him up and spit him out in similar fashion to what he did to Floyd Sr., who was a helluva fighter at one time, and very feared and avoided.

 

no doubt..

Ray IMO is right up at the top or near top of the list..

 

Roy would destroy every fighter P4P in a head to head matchup. So he's number one.

He'd outbox Ali, stop Sugar Ray Robinson inside 5 rounds, murder Duran and others.

 

Edit.

No sense in perpetuating this nonsense.

 

Come on now, Karl....let's keep it real.

I'm a fan of Ray's as well, but Floyd Snr couldn't even carry Jnr's spit bucket!

 

dsimon writes:

I will not take a horse in this race.... Like I would not with Ike and Neil, you and Karl are both entitled to your conjectures... you both have a good take and your reasons.... but where I really take issue with you is where you let Mayweather's undefeated status become an issue.

Undefeated is almost always a red herring. There were several occasions where Floyd could have lost a close decision based on the arbitraryness of judging and this is relevant to that issue. Just as Calzighe could have lost to Hopkins.... Most notably the Corrales fight (the first).

Fuck undefeated, it should be the last reason why anyone gets any props, unless the victories were all unanimous decisions. IMO.

And Roger Mayweather was an excellent fighter without enough natural gifts to be a great fighter but with enough knowledge to make one apparently!

 

sly, not only couldn't jr. not beat Ray, he wouldn't see the 8th round.

Floyd was a great fighter to be sure, but at welter I'd take guys like Curtis Cokes, Johnny Bratton, Kid Gavilan, certainly Robby, Benitez, Hearns, Griffith, and Mantequilla Napoles all to handle him without much problem.

At lightweight however, not many beat him.

 

Yep, I had Corrales beating Mayweather too :cheer:


I know who you meant though and you do have a good point with that but I don't think being undefeated is meaningless considering how the old-timers get a pass with several losses meanwhile

 

It's certainly not meaningless.

But when a fighter, who did take some very tough at lower weights earlier in his career, makes a concentrated effort to preserve it...it effects the way it's viewed.

 

Fighting De La Hoya at 154lbs doesn't sound to me like a fighter who's trying topreserve his undefeated status.

In the opinion of anyone who knew anything..Oscar, stylewise, was always going to be a harder fight for Mayweather than anyone from 135-147...ESPECIALLY as the fight was at 154lbs.

 

Ridiculous.

EVERYONE commented that De La Hoya was a far easier fight than Cotto, Williams and Margarito. Didn't you actually pick Cotto over Mayweather?

 

When welterweight was gettring good, Floyd retired. That's all that needs to be said about Floyd.

Oscar a tougher fight than Margarito? Cotto? Mosley even? Oscar was a money fight plain and simple. Taking that fight had NOTHING to do with trying to make the toughest fight. ::

 

Well then they were WRONG just like they were wrong when they picked Pvalik over hopkins. De la Hoya was always the tougher fight for Mayweather..than Cotto or Margarito. Paul williams..I can see...but not the other two.

Mayweather had NO BUSINESS being at 154lbs in the first place..let alone fighting De La Hoya who showed in his previous fight against Mayorga that he was no where near finished.

 

::

I don't know why I bother with some of you chumps. You trying to tell me that a former Superfeatherweight moving up eventually to 154lbs and fighting an Oscar still in his early 30s..who recently DESTROYED Mayorga in 6 one sided rounds...is an easy fight?


Motherfucking STOOOOpidity! :notallthere: