Examples of the #1 & #2 P4P fighters squaring off?

Whitaker-Chavez - could well be the 1
Whitaker-Delahoya (was billed as P4P although Jones Jr/Toney were around)
Jones Jr-Toney (not quite but not far off)
Jones Jr-Hopkins (Retrospectively perhaps)
Charles-Moore 1-3? (well Robinson was around then so no unless he had a loss in this time frame....)
Duran-Leonard 1 or 2??
Leonard-Hearns?? (I doubt Hearns was up there yet)
Jack Johnson-Langford?? (retrospectively)
Tyson-Spinks (although Chavez and Whitaker were around so NO)

 

I think Hagler Hearns was as well. Curry and Hearns were perhaps both vying for no 2 spot at that time.

 

Monzon v Napoles would be close, though obviously duran was around at the time

 

Duran wasn't rated as high as either of those in 1974 so it's a could pick. Monzon's win knocked Napoles off the consensus #1 spot.


Hearns-Leonard is another.

 

Whitaker wasn't even champion (officially). Tyson-Spinks isn't a bad choice.

 

Spinks had beaten a faded Gerry Cooney and Steffen Tangstad in the last two years, and should be judged as a 205 pound heavyweight at that time. He was still considered by many to be questionable as a heavyweight, shaky in his own division. Many people openly questioned whether he was up to beating any good reasonably young heavyweight, let alone Tyson.
Admittedly he looked good against the likes of Tangstad and Cooney.

If he can be rated among the top 2 pound-for-pound fighters in the world at that time it just shows what a confusing concept this "p-4-p" rating stuff is. It's way too subjective and too confusing.

Having said that, if I had to pick a list of the pound-for-pound best of mid-'88, I think Chavez, Holyfield, Tyson were good picks at that time for the pound-for-pound title. And there were probably three or four men in the lighter divisions who would deserve a high rating too.

 

Duran/Leonard in 1980 would be close

Apart from that I cannot think of one; I think Toney was splitting Chavez and Whitaker up in 94.

Hearns would be behind Hagler in his 81 fight with Loenard; Chavez was behind Tyson, when Mike thought Spinks.

Chavez/Taylor was in with a shout considering what had happened the previous month.

If not Duran then probably Foreman splits up Napoles and Monzon, maybe even Foster.

 

This whole post is way off:

That's because the fight happened in 1993.

Hearns was fighter of the year 1980, I doubt Hagler was rated ahead of him at all. When Mike 'thought' Spinks was easy meat? Spinks was #2 with KO and still regarded as champ with many others.

No. The fight was widely regarded as between #1 and #2.


ps. At least you got Duran-Leonard right. :good

 

Maybe, but Spinks was still #2. Chavez deserved that spot but not too sure about Holyfield. Rickey Parkey and an shopworn Ossie Ocasio in boxing's ******* division aren't a million years from Gerry Cooney and Steffan Tangsted.

 

Who rated Spinks #2 ?

If the magazines did so, then they did so in order to build-up the Tyson-Spinks encounter. Either that, or the retirements of Leonard, Hagler, etc. and other guys losing must have really knocked the sails out of boxing's list of stars and confused everyone.
I can only remember Spinks being considered questionable and perhaps a "paper tiger" in his own weight class, although his puzzling style and ability was respected enough to give him a chance of pulling an upset against Tyson.
I dont remember him being rated like he had been at 175, or rated higher as a fighter than someone like Chavez.

Evander Holyfield dominated his weight class. And was perhaps rightly chosen as fighter of the year 1987 by RING magazine in a rare display (for that year) of non-Tyson-nuthuggery. By the time Tyson fought Spinks, Holyfield had KO'd Qawi and unified the title by beating DeLeon.
Even if you want to discriminate against cruiserweights per se, his recent effort was a darn sight better than Spinks fighting men who weren't even rated in the top 10 or 15 in his own weight class.

That's Evander Holyfield at his cruiserweight peak (and still considered greatest CW ever), yet somehow a heavyweight version of Mike Spinks is a better fighter pound-for-pound ?
That's absurd.

 

Holy did have a great year, but he was dominant in boxing's worst division. Spinks, while maybe undeserving in some eyes, was still regarded as the heavyweight champion by many experts (example: Boxing Illustrated lists him as champ, Tyson as #1 contender). So according to many you had the best pfp fighter, ranked below another in his division.

Also, I don't understand your comment "only because Leonard and Hagler 'retired'). So what? That's how pfp always works- someone loses, someone takes his place. Spinks may have been # 2 by default but he was still #2 and that's what this thread's about.

 

Spinks was arguably champ, but being champ doesn't automatically make him rank higher than the contenders as a fighter. It doesn't automatically put him on a par either. He cannot ride up the pound-for-pound tree because someone else is doing amazing things in his division, that's crazy.

My comment about retirements wasn't a good one.
But I dont think Spinks was #2 pound-for-pound, he simply wasn't. And I dont think many people seriously considered him such.

my thinking is : How can a fighter be considered a questionable or weak champion in his own division and at the same time be considered among the top 2 pound-for-pound ? A fighter who critics still wonder can beat a legit young fighter, whose manager blatantly and openly confessed he wouldn't be risking against any good young heavyweights unless it was for massive money. Most thought he lost the title back in the rematch with Holmes.

As for Holyfield being dominant in boxing's worst division, that needs to be weighed against Spinks watching someone else thoroughly dominate his own division. And while it can be argued that that "someone else" was the pound-for-pound number 1, Spinks' wasn't even attempting to compete in the division against him in terms of taking on good fighters. Spinks' whole case was based on the championship lineage, boxing tradition. That was waht made him Tyson's mega-rival.

Being pound-for-pound the best fighter doesn't rest at all on lineage, nor on what others are doing in your division.

 

He can. Floyd Patterson was considered a weak champion and I'm not saying he was top of the 'pounders' lists but if they had rankings back then he'd be a definite top 10 and possible top 5. Irrespective of whether he wasn't the best in his division he was still the champion of boxing's top division. Do i think Spinks was #2? Personally, no. Chavez should have been. But the initial thread is about when #1 and #2 sqaured off- and in the major publication that was first known for its pound-for-pound rankings, that's how it was.

 

Fair enough.
Was it KO magazine ?
I'd like to see the progression in the pound-for-pound rankings leading up to Spinks becoming #2 and see how they did that, and if it was entirely arguable as legit.