The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Who the **** made this suggestion?

 

I edge towards pedroza slightly

 

Well it's one of the maddest things I've ever seen you say. Lost to Forrest, twice, lost to Winky, twice, should've only beat Oscar once, positive drugs test, generally overrated lightweight tenure, best wins outside of that are what, Vargas and Margarito?

Shouldn't even be top 200.

 

The poll where you had one voter thinking Hasegawa was a top ten bantam.

You don't have to say 'tough ****', you can make the right call. It's up to you. If you definitely think Pedroza was greater, fair enough, I do not see it, and I think its obvious, I also do not see why you keep attributing credit to people for meaningless title defences. Surely the rankings board you're part of is supposed to be looking as if there's one world champ', and that you're validating previous instances of joke champions, of which Pedroza was one for years.

I'm just surprised I guess, always thought you were the complete opposite. Pedroza is certainly more accomplished than Khaosai though :good

 

Flea he has to make it. Maybe the greatest lightweight of all time, beat an ATG, had a tenure as the best fighter in the world, career resurgence. Plus boy doesn't that make Mayweather look good.

 

Where is Boxed Ears and when, who, what, how, why is Boxed Ears? No one knows, man...no one knows.


He'll be back around 5:00.

 

I do wish you (and a couple of others) could stop basing their posts around me and my foibles and give straight answers. It makes it hard for me to get the point sometimes, as I'm always thinking the posts are 100% jokey.

You may hold all the same views but the sarcasm leaves me confused. Sorry.

 

Sugar Shane for me is not a top two hundred fighter

 

I'm not saying anyone's is particularly better (for instance your top 100 was, what, 150,000 times better than Boxing News' stab at it) but I think that using the ESB rankings as a benchmark is the last thing you should be doing.

As you said yourself, it's not maths, it's music.

Fair enough, it was an unfair criticism for me to make.

Again, apologies for making the connection, it's more out of surprise than anything else.

Depends whether you count meaningless trinket defences or quality opponents beaten. Again, there is no rules on what 'accomplishment' is. I do agree that title defences are very important. Real ones.

Put it this way. Pedroza never beat the no.1 or no.2 ranked fighter in all his years as 'champion'. Nor did Laguna at 118 or 126, where he was ranked no.1/2 contender by The Ring IIRC. He did however win the genuine 135lb title. And beat a great fighter. And then came back from the abyss to win the title again.

Losing past prime to Buchanan>Losing past prime to McGuigan.

 

Awful, awful list.