List of Top 10 boxers of all time - who would you guys consider?

Sorry I have limited knowledge in boxing compared to you guys, so when i say my top 10 i am gonna rate it on whom i saw/heard and who come to my mind instantly.

1]M Ali [Clausius Clay] [Undisputed Skill]
2]M Tyson [Undisputed power and reaction]
3]Lennox Lewis[Undisputed performance no negative stats]
4]Evander Holyfield [Undisputed consistency]
5]Wladimir Klitschko [N no. of titles]
6]Vitali Klitschko {one of the best modern day fighter I have seen]
7]Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
8]George Foreman
9]Manny Pacquiao
10]Joe Louis

Other names i can remember of
Hasim Rahman
David Haye
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Larry Holmes
Tommy Burns

would like to know your views guys.

This is a joke right?

You have David Haye as a possible contender for ''top boxer of all time''???

I would say you have 2 credible names on that list Ali and Mayweather.


but you are gonna have to study boxing history and the criteria needed to get on a top ten list.


cheers rodders

DirectView wrote:Sorry I have limited knowledge in boxing compared to you guys, so when i say my top 10 i am gonna rate it on whom i saw/heard and who come to my mind instantly.

1]M Ali [Clausius Clay] [Undisputed Skill]
2]M Tyson [Undisputed power and reaction]
3]Lennox Lewis[Undisputed performance no negative stats]
4]Evander Holyfield [Undisputed consistency]
5]Wladimir Klitschko [N no. of titles]
6]Vitali Klitschko {one of the best modern day fighter I have seen]
7]Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
8]George Foreman
9]Manny Pacquiao
10]Joe Louis

Other names i can remember of
Hasim Rahman
David Haye
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Larry Holmes
Tommy Burns

would like to know your views guys.

Seems as good a list as any other you'll find on this site. If you're rating on who looks best to you (rather than what they achieved in their era) then fair play to you.

Its always a subjective matter I would have Willie Pep in my top 5 fighters of all time but a lot of people wouldn't even have him in their top 10. Personally Ali wouldn't make my top 5 he would just about make the top 10 although he would be behind Joe Louis and Jack Johnson.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:This is a joke right?

You have David Haye as a possible contender for ''top boxer of all time''???

I would say you have 2 credible names on that list Ali and Mayweather.


but you are gonna have to study boxing history and the criteria needed to get on a top ten list.


cheers rodders

I would say he's got three credible names on his list...Ali, Mayweather and Louis who for some reason makes both lists.

Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

I wouldn't argue with that.

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

Level of opposition and didn't accept his greatest challenge. If you're having Floyd I'm having Meldrick Taylor. Probably most talented boxer I've ever seen. He'll be made up I'm sure.

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

Level of opposition and didn't accept his greatest challenge. If you're having Floyd I'm having Meldrick Taylor. Probably most talented boxer I've ever seen. He'll be made up I'm sure.

Taylor was an amazing fighter but he fell apart after Chavez. I would say with the exception of Pacquiao hes beat the best available to him the era a guys around in shouldn't be held against him neither should the fact the guys a donut.

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

Level of opposition and didn't accept his greatest challenge. If you're having Floyd I'm having Meldrick Taylor. Probably most talented boxer I've ever seen. He'll be made up I'm sure.

Taylor was an amazing fighter but he fell apart after Chavez. I would say with the exception of Pacquiao hes beat the best available to him the era a guys around in shouldn't be held against him neither should the fact the guys a donut.

I'd disagree. Personality doesn't come into it.

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

Level of opposition and didn't accept his greatest challenge. If you're having Floyd I'm having Meldrick Taylor. Probably most talented boxer I've ever seen. He'll be made up I'm sure.

Taylor was an amazing fighter but he fell apart after Chavez. I would say with the exception of Pacquiao hes beat the best available to him the era a guys around in shouldn't be held against him neither should the fact the guys a donut.

I'd disagree. Personality doesn't come into it.

What do you disagree with? A fighter can't help when he was born all he can do is beat the best his era and weight have to offer and he has done that comfortably.

Personally i would only have Ali from you list as a top 10 fighter, but its all about opinions mate and none of us know everything (though there's a few that think they do). Without being disrespectful greats like SRR, Armstrong, Leonard and Greb would all be on 99% of lists and are fighters worth doing a bit of reading about if your keen to expand your knowledge a bit more.

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

Level of opposition and didn't accept his greatest challenge. If you're having Floyd I'm having Meldrick Taylor. Probably most talented boxer I've ever seen. He'll be made up I'm sure.

Taylor was an amazing fighter but he fell apart after Chavez. I would say with the exception of Pacquiao hes beat the best available to him the era a guys around in shouldn't be held against him neither should the fact the guys a donut.

I'd disagree. Personality doesn't come into it.

What do you disagree with? A fighter can't help when he was born all he can do is beat the best his era and weight have to offer and he has done that comfortably.

Rubbish.

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Ali and Louis are the only credible names.

8
Mayweather?

Nope. There hasn't been a single boxing publication/historian/expert list that has Floyd rated that high. Pacquiao arguably rates higher all time.

I form my own opinion based on what I have watched not what others say and write and he would make my top 5 of all time probably the most talented fighter I've ever watched.

Good for you. He'll be chuffed with that.

Apart from the fact that someone wrote in a magazine that you read that he doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside the greats what reasons do you have that are your own opinions?

Level of opposition and didn't accept his greatest challenge. If you're having Floyd I'm having Meldrick Taylor. Probably most talented boxer I've ever seen. He'll be made up I'm sure.

Taylor was an amazing fighter but he fell apart after Chavez. I would say with the exception of Pacquiao hes beat the best available to him the era a guys around in shouldn't be held against him neither should the fact the guys a donut.

I'd disagree. Personality doesn't come into it.

What do you disagree with? A fighter can't help when he was born all he can do is beat the best his era and weight have to offer and he has done that comfortably.

Rubbish.

Whats rubbish? He certainly never chose when he was born and apart from having 1 arm for the majority of the first Castillo hes beating the rest pretty comfortably.

He didn't beat the best of his era - that guy just beat Tim Bradley for the second time (a top fighter at his peak and a tougher challenge than any Floyd's taken since 2002).

hazharrison wrote:He didn't beat the best of his era - that guy just beat Tim Bradley for the second time (a top fighter at his peak and a tougher challenge than any Floyd's taken since 2002).

Tougher than Canelo? Remember he also destroyed JMM who could have 3 victories over Pac.

Bradley is the best name in terms of quality and nearness to peak on either mans record for my money. Its a shame another thread has became about Floyd though, now we will get 4 pages of people repeating the same things they have already posted about 100 times already about him this year.

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He didn't beat the best of his era - that guy just beat Tim Bradley for the second time (a top fighter at his peak and a tougher challenge than any Floyd's taken since 2002).

Tougher than Canelo? Remember he also destroyed JMM who could have 3 victories over Pac.

He's a more accomplished fighter than Alvarez (who fought below his optimum weight).

Marquez, at that point, couldn't carry the additional weight (and Floyd weighed in above the agreed limit - purposely).

Context matters.

hogey wrote:Bradley is the best name in terms of quality and nearness to peak on either mans record for my money. Its a shame another thread has became about Floyd though, now we will get 4 pages of people repeating the same things they have already posted about 100 times already about him this year.

I wouldn't say Bradley was better than Corrales. I'm new to posting on forums I never realised this was how it worked or I wouldn't have said a word.

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He didn't beat the best of his era - that guy just beat Tim Bradley for the second time (a top fighter at his peak and a tougher challenge than any Floyd's taken since 2002).

Tougher than Canelo? Remember he also destroyed JMM who could have 3 victories over Pac.

He's a more accomplished fighter than Alvarez (who fought below his optimum weight).

Marquez, at that point, couldn't carry the additional weight (and Floyd weighed in above the agreed limit - purposely).

Context matters.

How did he manage to carry the extra weight when he knocked Pac out then? Mayweather weighed I above the limit but doesn't blow up overnight would you rather he went into the ring at less than 100%?

Honestly for me Bradley is a much better fighter than Corrales, but Chico was far better to watch. As i said though all about opinions though and yours are as valid as anyone else's mate. Welcome to the board by the way.

Mayweathers record for taking on the toughest welterweights is awful. The list of ones he missed is far stronger than the ones he faced.

hogey wrote:Honestly for me Bradley is a much better fighter than Corrales, but Chico was far better to watch. As i said though all about opinions though and yours are as valid as anyone else's mate. Welcome to the board by the way.

Cheers mate. Corrales is a bit like Gatti in the sense that he is remembered for his wars but he was a decent boxer he just seemed to enjoy a scrap.

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He didn't beat the best of his era - that guy just beat Tim Bradley for the second time (a top fighter at his peak and a tougher challenge than any Floyd's taken since 2002).

Tougher than Canelo? Remember he also destroyed JMM who could have 3 victories over Pac.

He's a more accomplished fighter than Alvarez (who fought below his optimum weight).

Marquez, at that point, couldn't carry the additional weight (and Floyd weighed in above the agreed limit - purposely).

Context matters.

How did he manage to carry the extra weight when he knocked Pac out then? Mayweather weighed I above the limit but doesn't blow up overnight would you rather he went into the ring at less than 100%?

He recruited the disgraced strength coach Angel Heredia. Here's a pic showing how different he looked before each bout:

http://rightcrossentertainment.com/home/mayweather-marquez-weighin/

http://www.sbnation.com/2012/12/7/3742300/pacquiao-vs-marquez-4-weigh-in-photos

A lot of those are pretty arguable for top 10 in their respective divisions.

I agree with HazHarrison here when he says, 'context matters'. For me, context is everything.

Making an 'all time greatest' list is near on impossible. How can you put into context a performance from an era you didn't experience? Look at Mayweather, if we want to be hyper critical we can put an asterix next to every fight and say 'he only won this because his opponent was in decline, weight drained, they fought at a catch weight'. We can't put performances from days gone by under such scrutiny.

I've even seen people put fighters from the 20s in their ATG lists. How can you possibly know?

Welcome kevmac. Didn't take you long to have your argument shot down in flames by haz' love of magazine articles!

No doubt there are justifiable reasons to query how Marquez looked before the last pac fight compared to the mayweather fight... Though no-one is beyond suspicion on that count. I don't know what difference it would make what shape he was in against floyd though.

For me, Marquez mayweather is a style match up nightmare for jmm. I was shocked some people gave him a chance. I predicted a borefest shutout and never watched the fight, I thought it was so predictable. When one guy does everything just a bit better than the other, the outcome is a sure thing unless they're both bangers. Jmm is a counterpuncher, he never looks his best having to force the fight, and has no advantage on any attribute against floyd. He could pump himself full of peds, inject a cocktail of stimulants between rounds whilst drinking from a Panama Lewis water bottle and he's still never have a prayer against floyd. In my humble opinion of course.

Read through most of the comments, thanks all for replying, but i got more questions now

1]Why wouldn't Tyson feature in any of those all time lists? no body even mentions Tyson's name here.
For me if not for his jail sentence he could have reached some amazing heights, but even given it, his predominance on heavy weight catagory was phenomenal , wasn't it?

2]Evander Holy Field won the title on so many separate occasions, he may not be the best but he really did the business of coming back time and again to win the titles, why is he again discarded heavily here?

3]Last but not least, why are Klitscho brothers not getting the credit they deserve? after all one holds a stupendous record and should have even won the match where he was TKOed against lewis when he was leading on all judges count, and the younger one now holds all most all international titles.

4]I always gave more credit to higher weights, so for me Heavy weight champion gets more credit than say a bantam weight champ or a cruiser weight champ, thats one of the reason for my why David Haye deserved a lot of respect to come out of his playing zone to fight the monsters, would Mayweather do that?

On the general count I like this Boxing forum already and learning the sport than being just a passionate yet casual observer of the sport.

How would you consider the Klitschko's record better than Holmes for example? Who beat much better opponents with more defences than either Klitschko. It's not that anyone is disrespecting the fighter you name, there are just loads of others to consider.

It's also massively biased in favour of Heavweights, with Duran, Charles, Tunney, Greb, Armstrong etc not getting a mention.

Dipper Brown wrote:
I've even seen people put fighters from the 20s in their ATG lists. How can you possibly know?

Just googled top ten military generals and chose the first list that came up.

http://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/

Am reasonably confident whoever put this together did not serve alongside or against Julius Ceaser.

Rowley wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:
I've even seen people put fighters from the 20s in their ATG lists. How can you possibly know?

Just googled top ten military generals and chose the first list that came up.

http://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/

Am reasonably confident whoever put this together did not serve alongside or against Julius Ceaser.

Perhaps you'll be able to do a more accurate list then.

Wouldn't claim I would be able to Scott, is an area I know nothing about. The point I was trying to illustrate was there are disciplines where lists contain people far further in the past than boxing and their inclusion does not raise an eyebrow, however whenever this topic comes up people question the inclusion of old time fighters. However, you're not a stupid bloke so I suspect you knew that already.

It was a poke at your age gramps.

Does appear the rumours about mental abilites waning with age are true then.

Fair point. Who'd win in a fight out of Jesus and King Arthur?

The Jesus that walked the Earth as a pacifist or Jesus in his God form? Or Jesus the boxer, going by the name Andre Ward these days apparently?

Nice

Dipper Brown wrote:Fair point. Who'd win in a fight out of Jesus and King Arthur?

Prime (pre cross) Jesus could walk on water, 'King Arthur' is a plodder who was outboxed by carl froch. So prime Nazarene takes this by UD. On his comeback, post crucifixion, Jesus was a bit weight drained and prone to cuts, giving Abraham a puncher's chance. Hope that's cleared it up for you.

Crystal. All about levels. Arthur's probably no more than a 'Brit great'

milkyboy wrote:Welcome kevmac. Didn't take you long to have your argument shot down in flames by haz' love of magazine articles!

No doubt there are justifiable reasons to query how Marquez looked before the last pac fight compared to the mayweather fight... Though no-one is beyond suspicion on that count. I don't know what difference it would make what shape he was in against floyd though.

For me, Marquez mayweather is a style match up nightmare for jmm. I was shocked some people gave him a chance. I predicted a borefest shutout and never watched the fight, I thought it was so predictable. When one guy does everything just a bit better than the other, the outcome is a sure thing unless they're both bangers. Jmm is a counterpuncher, he never looks his best having to force the fight, and has no advantage on any attribute against floyd. He could pump himself full of peds, inject a cocktail of stimulants between rounds whilst drinking from a Panama Lewis water bottle and he's still never have a prayer against floyd. In my humble opinion of course.

Love of magazine articles? I "shot down his argument" with rudimentary common sense and logic.

But yes, when posters are talking out of their back end on here, I find that linking a press report is usually the easiest method to illustrate the fact. I could just pass it off as my own opinion like some others I guess?

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Welcome kevmac. Didn't take you long to have your argument shot down in flames by haz' love of magazine articles!

No doubt there are justifiable reasons to query how Marquez looked before the last pac fight compared to the mayweather fight... Though no-one is beyond suspicion on that count. I don't know what difference it would make what shape he was in against floyd though.

For me, Marquez mayweather is a style match up nightmare for jmm. I was shocked some people gave him a chance. I predicted a borefest shutout and never watched the fight, I thought it was so predictable. When one guy does everything just a bit better than the other, the outcome is a sure thing unless they're both bangers. Jmm is a counterpuncher, he never looks his best having to force the fight, and has no advantage on any attribute against floyd. He could pump himself full of peds, inject a cocktail of stimulants between rounds whilst drinking from a Panama Lewis water bottle and he's still never have a prayer against floyd. In my humble opinion of course.

Love of magazine articles? I "shot down his argument" with rudimentary common sense and logic.

But yes, when posters are talking out of their back end on here, I find that linking a press report is usually the easiest method to illustrate the fact. I could just pass it off as my own opinion like some others I guess?

You came acrooss like a guy who masterbates while watching Manny training videos.

kevmcp88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Welcome kevmac. Didn't take you long to have your argument shot down in flames by haz' love of magazine articles!

No doubt there are justifiable reasons to query how Marquez looked before the last pac fight compared to the mayweather fight... Though no-one is beyond suspicion on that count. I don't know what difference it would make what shape he was in against floyd though.

For me, Marquez mayweather is a style match up nightmare for jmm. I was shocked some people gave him a chance. I predicted a borefest shutout and never watched the fight, I thought it was so predictable. When one guy does everything just a bit better than the other, the outcome is a sure thing unless they're both bangers. Jmm is a counterpuncher, he never looks his best having to force the fight, and has no advantage on any attribute against floyd. He could pump himself full of peds, inject a cocktail of stimulants between rounds whilst drinking from a Panama Lewis water bottle and he's still never have a prayer against floyd. In my humble opinion of course.

Love of magazine articles? I "shot down his argument" with rudimentary common sense and logic.

But yes, when posters are talking out of their back end on here, I find that linking a press report is usually the easiest method to illustrate the fact. I could just pass it off as my own opinion like some others I guess?

You came acrooss like a guy who masterbates while watching Manny training videos.

You come across like a guy who skipped English class. Often.

Scottrf wrote:How would you consider the Klitschko's record better than Holmes for example? Who beat much better opponents with more defences than either Klitschko. It's not that anyone is disrespecting the fighter you name, there are just loads of others to consider.

It's also massively biased in favour of Heavweights, with Duran, Charles, Tunney, Greb, Armstrong etc not getting a mention.

So is the boxing that dull and least competitive era of all time? the biggest champion of the current era with n no. of title at the same time not finding himself a place in top 10 history of all time?, where would the two Kilt brothers be ranked in general then?

milkyboy wrote:Welcome kevmac. Didn't take you long to have your argument shot down in flames by haz' love of magazine articles!

The Boxing News boys debate Mayweather and Pacquiao's historical impact (I love magazine articles me):

Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather retire tomorrow. Who will history be kinder to?

TD: Floyd Mayweather, though he will forever have his critics.

NB: I think Pacquiao. Mayweather has marketed himself brilliantly and is an incredible defensive master, but how many Mayweather fights would I want to watch again? Not many. Pacquiao fights with the kind of passion and humility that endears him to the public. He's the Nigel Benn to Mayweather's Eubank.

DF: It all depends if Manny's old dear puts a curse on the historian... I think Pacquiao will be remembered more kindly simply because he fought more division leaders in their respective primes, but it's a close one.

MC: Tough one but I'd say Pacquiao. I think his work in the lighter weights - too often forgotten these days - edges it. Plus that run, when he hammered De La Hoya, Hatton, and Cotto, stands up well to Mayweather's respective performances against the trio.

JD: Not fighting one another leaves a major hole in both of their records. History-makers tend to take on the best available. Being unbeaten and hitting the big 50-0 would ultimately cement Mayweather's place as an icon. But if they were to retire tomorrow, Pacquiao's great, thrilling wins I suspect would be remembered more fondly.

PW: Floyd will be remembered as the better fighter, but fans will look back on Pacquiao with fonder memories.

History makers like Holmes, Dempsey, Fitz, Leonard and Robbo avoided the odd challenge.......

Always gone on.......

If I have Louis in the top 10 of any list.......I'll have Calzaghe placed just behind......

The reason Paccy is behind Mayweather is because he's had his butt handed to him by JMM......

Paccy though is top 15 for me.........

All these experts have selective memories..