P4P top 10 of the 80's/ 90's/ 00's

No order:

Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran
Pernell Whitaker
Julio Cesar Chavez
Roy Jones Jr.
Alexis Arguello
Salvador Sanchez
Michael Spinks

edit: Replaced Holyfield with Arguello.

 

Very poor list.

 

Tell him how you really think Seet Pea. :yep

 

First and foremost resume. Who they beat and how they beat them.

Then to a lesser but still significant extent their in the ring dominance and form on film...how good did they look compared to other fighters of the time..How badly if at all did they dominate the available opposition.

Floyd's record just doesnt stack up to the others in my view ..I cant hold it against him that he didnt fight everyone but I cant give him a free pass when quite often others challenged themselves against the best available..Plus to me he just didnt look as good as guys like Leonard, Duran, Pea and Jones et al throughout his career overall.

Floyd is one of the best fighters of this era without a doubt...One of the best 130 pounders ever and probably the best H2H in the 12 round era.
But 2nd best fighter of the last 30 years? No way.

 

Perhaps not, but I just don't see any justification for a few of your choices. Floyd at #2? Hopkins at #4, ahead of Leonard, Jones, and Chavez? Leonard that low? Mosley in the top 10 at all?

 

It all depends on the strength of their era and of the competition they took on during that time, not to mention the dominance and ability they displayed. In that case, Floyd doesn't rate exceptionally highly for me.

 

I replaced Holyfield with Arguello after some deliberation. My list is just based on who I felt the best fighters to have fought since the 80's began were. I don't base it solely on their accomplishments past that particular point, but rather the ability they showed past that point. I included a guy like Duran despite the fact that pretty much all of his prime was used up in the 70's because of how highly I thought of him in the Leonard fight, which was officially during the 80's. Same with Arguello.

Spinks I feel was one of the most dominant fighters against the highest level of opposition, consistently, during that period, hence why he makes the list. Not to mention moving up to HW and taking Holmes's 0.

 

I couldnt care less about those lists to tell you the truth Rummy.

Any list that has Caballero and Vasquez in it really shows it doesnt always include truly the best fighters.

There are at least 15-20 guys Id pick over Izzy at his best weight. If you are getting my drift.

Floyd being p4p 1 for that long can also reflect on the weakness of boxing in that era and his unwillingness to take on risky fights. Guys often hold on to those rankings simply if they dont lose, even if they dont fight that often.
It doesnt always necessarily reflect how good the fighter was.

I mean Virgil Hill holds the record for light heavyweight defenses and was still a title threat in his 40's. But if you really look into it, it says more about the state of the game the time he fought rather then his ability.

Also the objectivity of that particular publication who makes those lists can well and truly be called into question now.

 

I'm a big spinks fan but realistically he fought 3 good light heavyweights and holmes. The rest of the guys he fought at 175 like rivadenyra, sears, mcdonnell, vonzell johnson and sutherland were nothing to brag about.

 

If you're considering Floyd at his best, then I agree. The problem is, for the majority of the time he's been in the spotlight, drawing crowds, and facing the bigger names, he hasn't been. He hasn't looked truly exceptional since he fought at 130, IMO, and I'm not sure he faced the competition necessary there to gauge his actual full abilities the way he (sometimes) did at the higher weights.

That said, I don't have a problem with placing Floyd in there on that basis, as he did appear to be one of the better fighters I've seen during his 130 pound days.