Rank These 6 Fighters In Order Of Greatness!

Pretty shocked Ortiz is mostly everyone's number 1.......Interesting.

 

Why? He's a talented fighter, the unified lineal champion at 135 with a fair few defences, lineal title-holder at 140, he beat guys like Laguna, Loi, Elorde, Brown etc. He's very tough, can bang with either hand, decent speed and technical skills and he can pick you apart with either hand. I think he's got a very good case to be #1 on this list of fighters.

 

Not sure, I've never evaluated fighters simply in terms of resume/accomplishments. But I believe there are 58 fighters better in terms of a combination of their resumes, level of dominance, longevity and their character. I could see Hearns having a better ranking, but in my opinion 59 is fair.

Cheers for making me sound like a badass flea!

 

Am not begrudging him being number #1. But I dont know about him being great than Sanchez, Hearns, or Kid Chocolate to be honest.

 

Ortiz
Sanchez
Hearns
Canto
Chocolate
Flowers

 

hearns
sanchez
ortiz
flowers
chocolate
canto

 

I'm a bit of a fan of Miguel Canto and would of liked to of ranked him higher, but he's in amongst great opposition here.

 

Hearns was obviously a weight jumper and not a dominant champion. But would he have gotten a higher ranking if he has stayed at light middle reigning as undisputed champ before moving up to fight Hagler and losing?

His losses to Barkley may well affect his ranking and i'm sure your far more knowledgable about Cantos career than i am but could you post your list. I dont want to draw you into an arguement about it but i just want to see where you have certain guys depending on your criteria.

 

Assuming Hearns faced guys of a similar calibre (they'd have to be of a higher quality p4p for a weight class more to Hearns liking to be adjudged of a same calibre) then yes, he would rank higher IF he didn't have the losses.

I've changed my list a bit snce the last time I posted it, but here it is the last time I posted it (can't be bothered upping a totally up to date one, but this is close enough) :

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190625&page=4

 

Oh, well, not as demeaning as pulling you up on a scorecard

 

Flea have you had a bad experience with the sweet scientist?

Anyways after looking into your rankings i see you have tried to simplify the often mind numbingly complicated task of ranking these fighters but perhaps that is an impossible task. They rely completely on the designated figures of course and minor adjustments such as moving Hearns' resume from a 34 to a 36; as i would do, means that he would leap upwards 25 places, and is only four criteria complex enough for such a debate?

Is that list like the IBO's ranking system, well intentioned but ultimately impossible to get correct?

P.s Fleaman after your words i feel a pending humiliation.

 

Nah, but I've seen people question S_S before not realising he has heaps of stats ready to throw onto the table.

He's a guy who does his research. Although it was clear you were just curious other than being rude, I was only kiddin obviously :good

 

1.) Ortiz
2.) Sanchez
3.) Canto
4.) Hearns
5.) Flowers
6.) Chocolate

 

I love Canto but i feel he was the best of his era he was very inconsistant and picked up afew bizarre losses like a complete shut out to Park then a draw and a UD. But it was a very weird era in all.

Also actual H2H match ups at Flyweight Canto dosent fare too well.

Me and SS disagree abit on scorecards namely Laguna vs Buchanan 1

 

i pick donaire over canto h2h