The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Love you too man. And I agree. I guess the argument is that Gomez, and Nelson are higher atgs than the guys Saldivar beat. But then I would suggest moving Roy Jones up as.the Hopkins he beat was more experienced (and just better) than the Nelson Sanchez beat, and while Toney was more weight drained than Gomez he was closer to his prime and not moving up.

Edit: Nevermind Roy is just right. Just checked. And luf i've seen plenty if the Keed. I've just not seen some of his controversial losses.

 

Until 1999 did de la Hoya really fight a top level fighter in their prime

 

So, the midgets..........

 

We don't need to rank Marquez high, sshh, but right, we'll just emphasise the losses to Norwood, John, getting dropped by old Barrera and using TRT. Job done, keep him out the top 100 and our minds free of stress.

 

Was Warnock Benny's boogeyman or was Lynch already struggling with alcoholism by that time?

 

Beat him twice. Outmanouvered and too crafty are what I remember (not subscribed to newspaperarchive any more and can't even remember if that's where I read it anyway but definitely thought a bit less of Benny as a H2H force after that, then stopped with such silly thoughts)

Old man looking Lynch rating: 5/10; enjoys a tipple.

Small Montana was ****ing good by the way lads.

Anyway Kane drubbed Warnock and Lynch drubbed Kane so I guess, in the end Lynch beat the better guy again.

Bar that at his absolute peak he was beastly. On film it shows his K.O% is one of the more deceiving. Up there with Canzoneri for shock value when you see him. You think 'old fashioned flyweight, hardly any K.Os' and he comes out doing THAT!

Yeah Oscar had a lovely left hand. But Lynch dropped Kane with the first punch. Not as good I'm sure but he had a Trinidad-esque K.O record at the time. Well into 40-0. And Lynch smashed him to bits.

Lynch was lucky he was around before the war era. That ****ed the next wave for consistency. A true lost era that.

 

Well he has a win over Pea and Chavez.

Yeah I have it 3-1 to JMM. he should be in the argument but a clear tier below Pac. Has his number but didn't have as good a career. Floyd and Pac same tier but I'd rank Floyd higher.

 

But Floyd only has the same number of wins over Pacquiao on your card and no wins over Morales and Barrera. A lesser showing against Cotto. Never fought Margo', or Clottey, two good contenders in the division he was champion in (don't give Pac' much credit for the Margo' he beat but kudos for the manner of victory) although I think Corrales shouldn't have been as highly regarded as he was Castillo does get a little lost in the mix. Even if I think Floyd Vs Stevie Johnston earlier on would've been better

Floyd is bloody good. His opponent Vs performance=kudos rating does not match up. I just can't get excited for his era or opponents, by and large. I'm just not wowed by his shut outs. He is smart but only fights dumb or old foes.

Okay, he took risks earlier on in his career. And f'n what.

Ergo (is this the right place to use this word?) De La Hoya might well be greater. He was the first man to 'beat' Trinidad. Beat Pea when he was declined but still regarded as one of the best P4P. Should've avenged Mosley.

Okay he wasn't all that as a fat middleweight. And he didn't fight Vernon Forrest. But Floyd has missed far more fighters.

De La Hoya was essentially a skinny kid, a welter boiling down, and then a Gil Turner-esque fighter between welter and middle, picking up some good wins (and championships, but still, less busy era than Turner's)

Ergo (still not sure this is correct) Turner>Floyd. And as Turner isn't top 100 material neither is Mayweather.

Not trolling I've had an epiphany. **** your dark side Luf :smoke

 

No! That's like saying 'you need to seek help'. I'm fine. I understand that no one else to share my views. And I also know that I'm not consciously going against the grain.

But I do feel strongly about it and not in a 'I'm right you're wrong' kinda' way either, I just feel it. He's on a Lance Armstrong-esque program as well I'm sure of it. The time off. The body beautiful. The mood swings. The shifting of focus to others with a brazen diversionary tactic.

Okay I'm done but just so you know, I'm not mental. What does he do that I don't like? Why wouldn't I like his style, I show a fondness of technical types do I not? And as for personal distaste I can't stand Ray Leonard most of the time but I love him as a fighter. One thing only. And that's to cheat the fighters of yesterday by conning his way into their class by feasible and above board means. It's ****ing annoying.

 

Joke or serious? This is a misunderstanding of PEDs/steroids. You're not going to just have crazy pendulum shifts in mood unless you're already a moody person, or unless you're abusing. Real signs would be in the jawline protruding or getting a "blocky" look. Think Carl Lewis with braces in the 1980's. Rapid balding in those with hereditary balding in their genes. You're not going to just turn into Chris Benoit if you take PEDs. That part was a little mental. He may be on for all I know but those are just some bad reasons IMO (For example, Tyson was moody as hell and no one suspects steroids).

I think you're reading too much into a simple low-risk, high-reward calculated manufacturing by a somewhat insecure and neuritic individual. For understanding behavior problems, well just look at the family.