The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Jersey Joe? No K, just no. Feel free to make a top 100 and include him in it, though. Like McG said, guys like Joyce have WAY stronger cases than Joe does.

 

And because I can't help myself, no one is clearly above the other in terms of Mayweather/Pacquiao. Pac has really ****ed around in the last few years fighting retreads and wash ups.

 

Wait wait wait.. So it was above Charles beat weight.. but not above Walcott's? Seems odd to say the least. Charles was past his prime and you're acting like Walcott was in his own.. He was older than Charles was he not? Seems like a big double standard going on here. The point is, he beat a guy in the top tier 2 times.. and one in emphatic fashion.

I very well do have the jurisdiction to say that the majority felt Walcott won... The majority of ringside reporters.. the ref.. the crowd.. a majority. And again, in the second fight he was toying with Louis because of how superior he was doing. Which obviously cost him as he was messing around when he got caught.. but regardless... as I stated the majority felt he won the fight against a guy in tier no. 2.

No I'm simply stating that he did very good against an undefeated champion.. past his prime.. better than Charles did against the same foe.

At least you agree than the Maxim and Ray victories were good.. as well as another victory over a guy in tier no. 8

Calling it fictional is disingenuous.. the majority saw that very fiction live.. with one being the closest man to the fight. You can hide behind we didn't see it all you want.. but that doesn't change the majority at the time feeling walcott won.. that doesn't change Joe's reaction of clearly looking like he lost... that doesn't change the continuation of out classing Joe in the second fight and toying with him and being well ahead.

I say again.. Walcott has wins over guys that are already in the tier.. I can name guys who don't have wins over any wins or not as many wins against people in tiers.. How can that be right?

 

This is a great thread imo.. good job McGrain.

 

Mr Butt -
What is this sort of response?
You're just picking the worst names of Oscar's resume that don't even define his legacy but are just wins just for the sake of it.
It's like me saying 'Well..Terry Norris beat a shot Leonard' - that itself is not a point. Better a win than no win.
Also, you can't dodge the fact that Oscar fought big names from start to finish either, so a few names in between is no biggie.

About John John Molina:
What you're not including is the fact that he was a big 130 who sometimes came into his fights at 133, 134.
What you're also not including is that he was also coming off a winning streak.
Beating a fighter with around 10 title defenses is a good fear, especially when your career just started 2.5 years before that.

I think something has to be said about the level of criticism we will give to certain fighters.
i.e a smaller fighter moving up in weight - even though he has fought 1-2 lbs lower before etc. If we were to put this level of criticism on fighters, they would move down the list by a considerable amount.

Genaro Hernandez - Prime, undefeated AND the fight was at 130lbs, Hernandez's prime weight, he didn't 'move up'. This is a great win for Oscar. Genaro was in better condition for this fight than against Mayweather.

Criticism for fighting Leija because Leija used to be at super featherweight, then won two fights to settle into lightweight to fight Oscar?
Let's not forget Oscar WAS a super featherweight in 94'.
Leija was one year removed from beating Azumah Nelson, who although wasn't quite in his prime, it's still a solid win for Leija.

'Rafael Ruelas - Now i have to admit to being impressed with Oscar in this fight and in fact Ruelas never hit true world level again after this fight . The downside about this fight was that De la Hoya gave up the IBF belt which is a bit odd as i thought De la Hoya wanted as many belts as possible'

- The last bit is a comment and only a comment I hope, not a criticism lol


When I think of these four fighters, I group them into one section mentally, I call it the
'1995 massacre'. Let's not forget that against these very decent fighters, 2 were 2nd round KO's, 1 6 round KO and a UD - This is why I call it a MASSACRE. He was 2-3 years into his career here also.

J.C.Chavez - 'Two years past his loss to Randall'...This is pretty dishonest. Why not also mention that Chavez avenged this loss by making Randall retire, and why not mention that Chavez went on to KO Meldrick Taylor after avenging his loss against Randall?
Why not mention that he beat Tony Lopez who was coming off of a win against Greg Haugen?
Why not mention that it was a complete demolition job of Chavez?
I KNOW this wasn't a prime Chavez, but he wasn't too far removed either..

Pernell Whitaker:
Ok, please watch a fight like say..Whitaker-McGirt 2, and compare it to how he looked in the Oscar fight, such a miniscule difference, please go and watch the fight again.
Let's not forget this either: Whitaker is a Top ATG AND he's a regular in a Top 10 H2H list - that's a key point here for this fight.
Let's just say I have no knowledge on Whitaker and just heard that he was a little past his prime..what would that downgrade him to? Top 20 H2H all time?

D.Kamau - again a fight that doesn't define his career, it's just a 'why not?' fight - and still against a good fighter.

'his record in world tittle fights for this period i think is won 7 , lost 5 this includes the sturm fight so it could of easily and probably should be W6 - L6 .'

I don't think Mr Butt knows much about Oscar tbh.
I'll even go as far to assume he thinks Trinidad and Mosley (2nd) won their fights lol

Again, I'd refer to my post on Page 28-30, wherever it is.

McGrain, what were the exact reasons why you put him on the tier below?

Oscar De La Hoya's competition edges Miguel Canto's competition.
When people do a Top 10 all time mexican boxers list, Canto is nearer to the bottom than the top. Oscar would be right near to the top if he was to be classed as Mexican.

Why is Nonpariel J.D not moved a tier below? Why is he even in Top 100? lool

 

I disagree with this notion that he doesn't even make the top 200. That is just silly McG. It's my belief that the quality of your top wins should count for more than beating top contenders who aren't all time greats. How is beating a bunch of good fighters.. better than beating 3 great fighters. Let's be real here... That's like saying having a whole bunch of Greg haugen's on your list is more impressive than having a Charles on your list. I totally and completely disagree with that line of thinking. One awesome win, in this case 2, against an all time great (top ten fighter) is better than 10 Haugen wins.. Do you disagree or agree?

Further, those examples you cite are clearly suspect buddy and you know it. Sam was past his best... The flower fights were very controversial with most feeling Greb won. Gene beat no. 3 but also lost to no. 3. Gene also doesn't have TWO victories over no. 3 as Walcott has TWO victories over Charles. Gene also doesn't have a "victory" or at worst a draw over a guy in tier 3 or a guy in tier 8. He has victories like Ray and Maxim.. which again so does Walcott.

 

Also, I really enjoy Jack Johnson and Ricardo Lopez not in the top 100.

 

Oh and I like Dixon and McG where they are.

 

I don't like this at all actually.. expecially the Johnson part... People are going on and on about beating top contenders.. Johnson's pre-title run is in the top 5 of all tim HW.. I would even say top 3... Surely with the criteria some are using of depth is better than great wins... he has some merit being in there.. surely...

 

Then why even counter with it's above Charles best weight when you know it's also above Walcott's? Why also mention charles being older and not prime.. when Walcott was even older. It's seems you were trying to take away from the wins, but in fact, proved them even more concrete.

As I said.. Wills was PRIME.. Sam wasn't Prime... Charles was closer to prime than Sam was.. and at the very least... we can surely say.. Walcott and Charles were closer to their prime and prime weight than Sam was.

You can act like the fans are the only thing I reference, but you know that isn' t the case. Many wins of people on this very list were given because of the ringside reports. You know the same ringside reports where the majority felt Walcott won? See a double standard there in not giving those reports there fair shake on one hand but using them to declare victories for others? To say nothing of the fact that the closest man to the fight felt Walcott won.

I ask McGrain this question and I'll ask.. Which should count more... somebody with a whole bunch of Haugen's on it i.e. good fighters or somebody who has wins over top all time great fighters? Which should for more?

 

Move Jack and Benitez into X and we all good McG :yep Can't see them sharing a tier with MAB.