The Top 20 All-Time Greatest P4P List

[Rusty Tromboni]

so now your saying foreman, Liston , Tyson and Holyfield are not as dangerous

Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.

You don't watch Boxing. You've never Boxed. You're oblivious to even the simplest facts. Why are you even here?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Langford was 17, possibly 20 when he fought and beat Gans. Sam was four and a half pounds heavier.

Sam and Walcott fought at welter, Sam was not in a different weight class, he just out grew 147. Nice try.

Ketchel was the middleweight champion when Langford carried him trying to get him to sign for a title fight.

O'Brien was a top lightheavyweight.

Wills was a long-standing heavyweight contender ducked by Jack Dempsey.

Do we need to go on son?

You're such a pathetic little sh.it

You're lying through your teeth. Repeating lies which I've dispelled, no less.

You're a spoiled kid who plays by only one set of rules: the ones that let YOU win.

Langford briefly touched down at Welterweight (like Canz at Bantanweight, Robinson at Lightweight... or the Featherweight Duran who bombed-out Marcel), but was fighting smaller men. He was almost immediately after turning Professional a Middleweight... and since Light Heavyweight wasn't yet established, soon became a small Heavyweight. Langford won a title at Middleweight. But for all intents and purposes was almost exclusively a Heavyweight during his cateer.

And sure, it sounds impressive hearing that a fighter fighting just above the Middleweight limit is KOing Heavyweights. But these men were often no more than 20 pounds heavier. Dempsey, remember, was about 185 against Willard - not only had Langford never shared the ring with anyone that good, he himself admitted Dempsey was the best he'd ever seen.

Sam's was a different era. His record has some great performances. Some bad losses. And, undeniably, it also has some egregious cherry-picking. But mostly its decades of Pro vs Joes.

[NachoMan]

- -This millennium has proven to be the most insipidly puerile and infantile I've ever witnessed.

You apparently don't know how outdated you are and how critically ****** this era will look to any of the survivors.

You had infinitely powerful computers crunching data inconceivable even 50 years ago, you have most of history catalogued, but your mistakes grow ever larger as you squander ever more resources while befouling your own nest.

Why don't you compile your own top ten for guffaws all around. Corbett and Fitz fought in the horse and buggy era, you know, the one you currently live in only now you have bigger buggies, more horses, and more speed, but now you stuck in traffic because this generation ain't figured out yet how outdated and ****** they really are.

Haha, interesting reply. Not sure if we're talking about boxing or something a whole lot deeper though. My comments weren't all that deep or controversial; at least I didn't think so.

What is your point precisely? You don't like your life? You wish you were born in the Stone Age? Somebody defriended you on Facebook, so you hate the puerile modern world and its confusing gadgets? What exactly are you saying? I don't think every fighter from the current generation is the best - if that is what you interpreted. Read what I said again, slowly this time and comprehend. Comparing elite athletes from the 19th century to the elite athletes of the 21st century is silly. You want to believe that you know something that validates the greats from the early days of boxing as ATGs, but you actually don't have anything to hang your hat on. You have a few grainy videos demonstrating truly **** boxing against people who were barely athletes by modern standards. That's it. Great in their time, not close to great all-time. I'm being objective. You're being emotional.

[JAB5239]

You're such a pathetic little sh.it

You're lying through your teeth. Repeating lies which I've dispelled, no less.

You're a spoiled kid who plays by only one set of rules: the ones that let YOU win.

Langford briefly touched down at Welterweight (like Canz at Bantanweight, Robinson at Lightweight... or the Featherweight Duran who bombed-out Marcel), but was fighting smaller men. He was almost immediately after turning Professional a Middleweight... and since Light Heavyweight wasn't yet established, soon became a small Heavyweight. Langford won a title at Middleweight. But for all intents and purposes was almost exclusively a Heavyweight during his cateer.

And sure, it sounds impressive hearing that a fighter fighting just above the Middleweight limit is KOing Heavyweights. But these men were often no more than 20 pounds heavier. Dempsey, remember, was about 185 against Willard - not only had Langford never shared the ring with anyone that good, he himself admitted Dempsey was the best he'd ever seen.

Sam's was a different era. His record has some great performances. Some bad losses. And, undeniably, it also has some egregious cherry-picking. But mostly its decades of Pro vs Joes.

Because Langford grew out of divisions doesn't meant he was the bigger man. In fact it was said in one article I read, that Walcott was the bigger man compared to Langford. You also conveniently forget that Langford was fighting these greats while still possibly a teenager and no older than 21 while these other men were matured.

Honestly, you're starting to bore me with your lies and unobjective bull.

[The plunger man]

Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.

You don't watch Boxing. You've never Boxed. You're oblivious to even the simplest facts. Why are you even here?

I’ll tell what I’ll do ....you meet where ever you want and I’ll embarrass you in the boxing ring...make no mistake about that son.....I’m not the one who was trying to make Tyson fury an all time great heavyweight you are.....I stated facts that beating an unskilled wilder or a chisora of even past it klitchcko will not put fury on top of the list and only a fan boy would even try and justify fury as an all time great......I’ll meet you and we see who the mouthy one is.
****ing goon you are.
In the Pathenons of boxing you earn stripes by beating the best in there era fury has not done that so shut the f@ck newbie and trombone someone else

[NachoMan]

Your children giggle and all historical research is suddenly rendered nugatory?

Primary written sources and artifacts can be reevaluated by future generations, the history of the world does not begin and end with audio-visual presentations; the reevaluation of experts can be enlightening.

I can understand your children's inability to understand what they were watching, they have an excuse, they are children, but here you are now announcing that all historical investigation meaningless (unless of course you find the video entertaining.)

Worst yet, here you are telling others that their efforts are narcissistic.

Isn't it considerately more self-aggrandizing (or as you put it: to claim some phoney [sic] insider cred) for you to announce the parameters of what is and isn't proper historical research?

They were simply the best of their time . . . is exactly the statement an ATG list makes.

Well then, lets be clear about what we are talking about here. An ATG top 20 P4P list includes what exactly? Are these the very best guys P4P who every fought? Would #2 be expected to beat number #20, for example? Be clear about what you mean.

I find most of what you wrote to be complete non-sense and drivel,

"..the history of the world does not begin and end with audio-visual presentations; the reevaluation of experts can be enlightening."

It's perfectly fine if you want to put your full faith in what some old-time reporter (someone to whom you've conferred expert authority how exactly? He might have been the Dan Rafael of his day.) wrote about a guy instead of what your own eyes plainly tell you, but I will decide the facts on my own. Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons were the best of their day (no argument there), but their day does not compare to the organized professional world sport that we see in the 21st century. The craft is not the same, the competition is nowhere as deep. Had I nothing to go by but the eloquent prose of a 19th century writer to evaluate the all-time standing of someone like Corbett or Fitzsimmons, I might well be inclined to believe that these men were among most formidable men to ever step into a ring, but it just so happens that there is a bit of video evidence to show that these guys were, IN FACT, only formidable in their day. Go find videos of these guys and explain to us all in your very best words how you think they would do against the elite fighters of the 21st century. They would have been beaten from pillar to post. Every sane person knows this. Again, no shame in this. It is not disrespectful or childish to observe what should be plain as day to any follower of this sport.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Because Langford grew out of divisions doesn't meant he was the bigger man. In fact it was said in one article I read, that Walcott was the bigger man compared to Langford. You also conveniently forget that Langford was fighting these greats while still possibly a teenager and no older than 21 while these other men were matured.

Honestly, you're starting to bore me with your lies and unobjective bull.

What evidence do you have that he was a teenager?

What does it matter?

Would you credit a teenager Mike Tyson for KO"ing Hagler or Qawi?

McGovern was also teenager when he fought Gans ... but he was the SMALLER man, and won by KO.

Langford was an unknown, and Gans (possibly) was fighting at a handicap.

There's no way 5'1" Walcott was the bigger man. None at all.

It IS possible that he won that fight against Sam.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I値l tell what I値l do ....you meet where ever you want and I値l embarrass you in the boxing ring...make no mistake about that son.....I知 not the one who was trying to make Tyson fury an all time great heavyweight you are.....I stated facts that beating an unskilled wilder or a chisora of even past it klitchcko will not put fury on top of the list and only a fan boy would even try and justify fury as an all time great......I値l meet you and we see who the mouthy one is.
****ing goon you are.
In the Pathenons of boxing you earn stripes by beating the best in there era fury has not done that so shut the f@ck newbie and trombone someone else

I don't need to choke out mouthy ho's. Im too old, fat and rich for that. I got young bucks to handle my business for me. And it wouldn't be fair sending kids who've been in the cage to fight you.


Please, show me where any of those dudes ever did what Wilder did to Brezeale, or Ortiz, or that young Polish bull. Qhen did any of them ever drop a fighter like Fury?

Show me!

Between the 4 of them there are hundreds of fights... finding a single clip should be cake.

Or maybe show me when Wilder got decked by a Cooper, a Bonavena, a Lyle or a Douglas.

[JAB5239]

What evidence do you have that he was a teenager?

What does it matter?

Would you credit a teenager Mike Tyson for KO"ing Hagler or Qawi?

McGovern was also teenager when he fought Gans ... but he was the SMALLER man, and won by KO.

Langford was an unknown, and Gans (possibly) was fighting at a handicap.

There's no way 5'1" Walcott was the bigger man. None at all.

It IS possible that he won that fight against Sam.

Why wouldn't someone give Tyson credit if he made weight or was only a couple of pounds heavier and beat those greats as a teenager?

The same McGovern that Gans "allegedly" threw the fight against causing the state of Illinois to outlaw boxing for more than a quarter century? Im remiss though. Let's say the fight was on the up and up. Good for McGovern!

It certainly doesn't seem he would be the bigger man. But than again, and I'm not claiming this as any sort of fact... Walcott may have been more filled out. He was an immense man for his height.

Of course it's possible. But according to newspaper accounts Walcott sustained the heavier damage. Either way, Langford proved his worthiness against another ATG.

[The plunger man]

I don't need to choke out mouthy ho's. Im too old, fat and rich for that. I got young bucks to handle my business for me. And it wouldn't be fair sending kids who've been in the cage to fight you.


Please, show me where any of those dudes ever did what Wilder did to Brezeale, or Ortiz, or that young Polish bull. Qhen did any of them ever drop a fighter like Fury?

Show me!

Between the 4 of them there are hundreds of fights... finding a single clip should be cake.

Or maybe show me when Wilder got decked by a Cooper, a Bonavena, a Lyle or a Douglas.

I suggest you watch what chisora did to spilka then.....8 rounds earlier lol
Look you need to know about boxing to comment on this forum.
Breazele was knocked out by Joshua , molina was knocked out by Joshua in 2 rounds.
Stop it for **** suck Ortiz only noticeable win was jennings....as said tromboni if fury remains unbeaten against Joshua , usyk and a few of the young guns and retires as champ then he can evaluated as an all time great......wilder has been protected and would not last 4 rounds with Joshua.
He was one trick pony and now has been exposed