**** i left this thread for a day or so and it just flies along to 90 odd posts, nice. My list is based largely on resume as well al head to head but im still really uncomfortable in ranking guys where there is zero footage of them on film. Sure they may have been great for their time but how much do we know for example of their true skills? Other than written accounts of course and those can be misleading. Eye witness accounts, exagerration can often occur in both accounts. I also feel the whole shitty concept of P4P plays against guys like Marvin Hagler and Monzon who were basically born at the weight, who although greats in their divisions either didnt have the frame, or the incentive to go up in weight. For guys like Greb and Fitzimmons it didnt matter if theylost and so they had nothing to lose, and of course they werent fighting true 'heavyweights' 180 pounds or so. Its not that great a leap from light heavyweight champ to the heavyweight champ if you were good enough. Sam Langford achieved a spectacular amount in his career but the fact that he started at 150 pounds doesnt mean his numerous losses to Wills can be made exempt IMO. Modern (post war) fighters are easier to pick holes in than the romantacised stories we here of guys like Langford and Greb. Basically what im trying to say is that weight jumping doesnt mean your great i dont think, and a guy like Benny Leonard with a long and accomplished light weight reign is still as good P4P as a weight hopper.
I have only seen highlights of Olivares & Napoles, Mayweather makes the list on being the most gifted boxer of the past 10-15 yrs. Chavez wasnt necessarily placed above Whitaker tho I do think there aint a lot between them. Pacquiao makes the list based on incredible achievements rather than skillset, Id have Morales & Barrera ahead of Pacquiao if not for the DLH & Hatton victories - amazing achievements.
As long as the fighter who stayed at one weight beat great fighters then I agree with you. That's all it comes down to for me. Doesn't matter to me how many titles you won, how many division you campaigned in, it's just about resume. If the resume is lacking, then I look at how consistent and dominant they were. A great fighter should at lest have a great resume or great consistency.
Just ain't good enough is it, Bill. A fighter can't be considered among the 20 best fighters that ever lived based on ability, they have to prove it against great fighters on a consistent basis. Floyd hasn't done that in my judgment. I rank Bernard Hopkins above a Floyd Mayweather.
What Ricardo Lopez didnt have in `name opponents` he more than made up for with dominance, longevity & being one of the best & most effective textbook boxers ever. You can only defeat who`s there & he did that as good as any fighter in history. Seen very little of Michael Spinks (planning on changing that very soon tho) Jones MUST rank higher than Hopkins for me, I rank primes very highly & even on achievements, Roy was a 4 weight champion & at age 34 became the 1st man in 100 yrs to have begun at MWT & won a HWT title. Roy was rarely even troubled in the H2H fight with a 27 yr old so called `green` Hopkins.... do I think he became a better fighter by 2001 ? Yes, would it have made a difference in a rematch with Jones ? No way. Floyd & Pac are the best of recent times, they make the list. Sanchez is a top 3 all time FWT, Holmes is a top 3 HWT, both were dominant in their classes, Holmes for longer due to certain circumstances that couldnt be helped. Both fighters were very complete & superb in their prime, Im sticking with those guys for sure.
Lopez should have moved up and challenged himself if he wanted to make a case for being a top 20 level fighter. He didn't do it when he should have, so as of right now, Lopez was a tremendous talent who dominated Boxing's wasteland. There are many more deserving candidates. Great fighter, one of the most under-appreciated ATG's. What you really mean to say is, Jones dominated a **** poor LHW division that consisted of fighters (with the exception of maybe Tarver) who wouldn't have even held a belt in Michael Spink's era. Likewise, he went up and beat John Ruiz - bottom line. It's not like he moved up and took on the best HW in the world. 4 weight world champion? Don't put as much stock in titles as I do names. Nope. Hopkins and Pacquiao are the best of recent times, Floyd is just taking the **** out of you. Neither Bhop or Pacquiao make a top 20...Boxing has been around for a very long time. Sanchez achieved a lot in a short period of time, but he beat Gomez (moving up), Nelson (green), Lopez, and La Porte. Didn't get enough work done to be considered a top 20 fighter. What fighters did Holmes beat to catipult him into top 20's?
When its all said & done, I rank technical ability higher than most.... my lists are mostly a mix of the `best` fighters (skillful, tough & technically sound, often winning with ease due to those abilities) & `great` fighters (men that achieved beyond what their skill level should have allowed) & the `elite ATG` fighters (men that were very talented that lived up to or surpassed what was expected of them achievement wise) Most posters take 2 of those 3 types - the `great` & `elite ATG` fighters - I refuse to over look the `best` fighters & men like Sanchez & Mayweather certainly make that category. Ps. Holmes might not have had the names but 21 defences at HWT, going 48-0 & being champion for 7 yrs mixed with the fact that he was a great boxer that did everything well is enough for me.
:verysad I don't like to **** on his career, but I'm not going to agree with 60% of the forum who believe him to be the greatest fighter since Ray Leonard and have him silly high like in the top 25 of all time. He did dominate a relatively weak Light Heavyweight division, all of his best work came outside of 175lbs.
Mayweather makes your list of the top twenty boxers in the history of the sport in terms of all-time pound-for-pound greatness, because you think he has looked the best fighter of the past 10-15 years. I'm sure I don't need to go any further explaining how that sort of decision-making impacts upon the credibility of your list. You just don't see that sort of comment on the Classic much. But I'd go so far as to say it is woeful to place him above proven ATG legends like Monzon, Arguello and Hagler on that basis. The fact that you haven't even tried to defend such an irrational decision shows that not even you believe it can be justified in any way.
At long last people are starting to see Mayweather for what he is - a self-aggrandizing propaganda machine that's almost as over-cautious in his matchmaking as he is in his fighting. As soon as people start viewing the few fights he had against good comp over 130lbs in isolation and analysing them with the standard of comp in mind, they will also see that he doesn't possess the combination-punching ability to come close to justifying the reputation that his abilities currently enjoy because he is slick, talks a good game, and has his well-protected zero. He would be worked over and outpointed by guys on the quality level of peak Chavez, where his flashy pot-shotting point accumulating tactics would be completely ineffectual. Since when did throwing one punch at a time become top level skills anyway? I say it pales in comparison with effective combination punching, which is the very essence of boxing.
Well, Jones lhw division wasn´t that poor but then he didn´t dominate it. There was still one man left who had at the very least as much right to be called the man as Jones since Jones only got his titles because DM was stripped of them. DM was the real champ because he unified three belts first. Jones never fought him - and don´t come up with excuses if Jones would have wanted the fight it would have happened. Jones also was never the man at mw or hw and I´m not too sure if he was the man at smw after his win aginst Toney. Over all it´s the same with Jones as with Mayweather. Great ability and talent but only rarely proven. Neither of them belongs into the Top30. Agreed, also Pac is still able to crack it. Let him beat Cotto and then perhaps Mosley and PBf and he is up there.
Ability and talent means sh*t if you don´t prove it against the best. Look how fantastic Hamed looked until he ran into Barrera - and I like Hamed, he was fun! If that fight never had happened we would speculate about Hamed knocking out Barrera while in reality he had no chance.