Head 2 Head and Pound 4 Pound. Who is the greatest fighter of all time?

[MSTR]

Not meaning who could beat ANYONE (because most times even the best fighters can lose to certain styles of elites).

But who would be most dominant against all other top fighters based on the same criteria (h2h & p4p)?

Please post your reasons why as well. Include the people i miss in the Other box!! All fighters being considered from their prime weight and age!

Cheers.

[MSTR]

Things that should be taken into account is the fighters ability to adapt, level of dominance during their prime as well as proven intangibles and finally their overall skill set and natural ability.

Any footage to analyze would be great.

[Sweet Pea]

I think it's utterly impossible to narrow it down to one. I think a guy like Napoles was better head to head than the likes of Hopkins, Mayweather, Armstrong, and maybe even Hagler. Leonard unquestionably deserves mention. Arguably the most adaptable, versatile fighter of all time.

[cardstars]

Its hard, but to me its gotta be Robinson. Theres a reason why he's generally everyones #1 atg. The man could do it all. Otherwise I like Peas mention of SRL. He could adapt to damn near anything and do it all

[MSTR]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I think it's utterly impossible to narrow it down to one. I think a guy like Napoles was better head to head than the likes of Hopkins, Mayweather, Armstrong, and maybe even Hagler. Leonard unquestionably deserves mention. Arguably the most adaptable, versatile fighter of all time.

Fair enough. In your opinion, what makes Napoles stand out based on the criteria?

Mayweather was at 130, where he is considered to have been very dominant and hard to beat. Hopkins maybe a poor choice, however i believed that he can adapt very well to almost any style, and is very intelligent and well rounded.

Leonard i was going to include, but eventually decided against it, thinking other fighters at welterweight would be considered better based on everything.

How do you think Leonard would have faired vs Whitaker?

I don't anywhere near as much as you about fighters from the earlier eras, so in all honesty they didn't get taken into account as much as they probably should have. I didn't start the thread though to have a pointless era arguement (as has been done in the past too many times), i'm actually curious to learn about some of these fighters. Any footage or analysis would be great!!

What about guys like Kid Galivan whom i know you rate quite highly?

Sam Langford?

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Mad about Boxing

Fair enough. In your opinion, what makes Napoles stand out based on the criteria?

He was just one of the most smooth, skilled fighters of all time, and one of the most versatile. His only real flaw in my honest opinion was his soft skin.

Leonard i was going to include, but eventually decided against it, thinking other fighters at welterweight would be considered better based on everything.

I think Leonard proved his ability to adapt better than pretty much anyone. He was able to adapt his style to beat 3 of the greatest of all time, and was able to outclass the ultra-slick Benitez at his own game. I think he was overall, and technically, one of the very best ever.

How do you think Leonard would have faired vs Whitaker?

I think Whitaker's jab might've had him faring better than Benitez(though I don't think he fares any better against Hearns), but I just can't see him beating the more natural Leonard at the weight, given how skilled Leonard proved to be overall, and against that style. His own speed and ability to counter the counter-puncher(as well as his size edge in this one) would lead him to a clear points win over Pea.

I don't anywhere near as much as you about fighters from the earlier eras, so in all honesty they didn't get taken into account as much as they probably should have. I didn't start the thread though to have a pointless era arguement (as has been done in the past too many times), i'm actually curious to learn about some of these fighters. Any footage or analysis would be great!!

I myself need to see more footage of certain fighters, quite a few actually. Recently I'm interested in getting more footage of Luis Manuel Rodriguez. The poster Raging B(_)LL(a man whose opinions I hold in higher regard than just about anyone) holds him in VERY high esteem.

What about guys like Kid Galivan whom i know you rate quite highly?

I rate him very highly, though Robinson did beat him twice at WW so you'd have to at least give him the edge there. I also slightly favor Napoles. Guys like Griffith and the aforementioned Rodriguez are ones to consider as well.

Sam Langford?

This is where it gets into the eras argument. I personally believe the modern era in terms of modern techniques and whatnot, started around the 1940's, where you could see the high guard and modern techniques being the norm. Their were of course pioneers like Barney Ross, Benny Leonard, etc, beforehand though.

[Sweet Pea]

In an era by era basis, Langford rates extremely highly P4P though, considering how efficient and successful he was all the way from LW to HW. Just amazing.

As for film footage of certain fighters, I'll spice it up a bit and throw out a guy like Fighting Harada, possibly the best ever fighter under Bantamweight. These two videos show his versatility from nimble boxer/puncher to buzzsaw swarmer, and he shows great finishing ability and power in both.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Sweet Pea]

And of course the limited prime Napoles footage on Youtube. This is the best of the internet footage of him by far:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Sweet Pea]

Here's some good footage of Pep.

Probably the best extensive footage of him online, though even here he was past his prime and post-plane crash, as he is in pretty much all footage. But you can see his fantastic footwork and the angles he puts off, which are impressive by any standards:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

There's some very good footage in this bio as well, starting at around 3:18, as well as bits of footage of a clearly much younger Pep at times(should be pretty distinguishable), where he looks a lot more nimble and athletic overall:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

More footage, including footage of the younger version. His footwork was really impeccable, he feinted so well, even with his feet at times:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[cardstars]

thanks pea!

[CJLightweight]

roy jones...hard to think of anyone p4p h2h that could beat him in his prime

[acb_]

RJJ is the first obvious choice for our generation of fans. Not sure though. There have been a litany of adaptable and versatile boxers who would give him a run for his money.

SRL showed incredible adaptability in the ring-- even if just thinking of the Hearns fight in which he was able to find his way against one of the great physical freaks of his own time.

SRR was versatile beyond belief, he could hand with anyone in the sense of boxing, and meanwhile he showed time and time again that he could put an opponent out if need be, depending on the condition.

I can´t see just ignoring a guy like Robinson´s chance against Jones. In this type of P4P matchup nearly every asset is called upon, both fighters chin´s are tested, and both fighters presumably need to adapt and readapt to win. Jones was so good that he often didnt need to do so against much of his competition. SRR would require him to do so though, and would also test his chin. While I never believed he was as chinny as some, he definently didnt have the chin Robinson did. All in all I´d give Robinson a good shot at this, and SRL would be a strong candidate as well.

[Sweet Pea]

Jones's durability would always be in question against the true all time greats, especially the punchers, though I think very highly of Jones as you all know and would probably favor him more often than not.

[teeto]

Most of the posters who know me will know that i always come back to Robinson here. He still stands out as number 1 for me, i believe i can justify it.

[kg0208]

What it comes down to is this for me. I favor Jones over more fighters in an around his weight classes than I do any fighter in history. I do have some LHW's beating him, but only one MW (and that's debatable). SRR is a close second, but I favor a few MW's to beat him, including Jones Jr. and also think a few great WW's could cause him problems.

It's highly subjective.