Why would Hagler be excluded? How many rounds total would he have fought in an orthodox stance? Hagler, Pacquiao, Whittaker all have a good claim for best ever. I pick Hagler. Slappy Joe, Saldivar, Flowers, Camacho best of the rest.
The guys who took chances. Pea fought peak versions of Nelson, Chavez, Oscar and Trinidad. The kind of guys who Joe wouldn’t go near.
Yet, he could only manage a draw against a past prime, overweight, partied out Chavez. And frankly, Julio could have gotten the nod in that one. Oh, Ramirez schooled him, too.
Excluding switch hitters, I'd say Whitaker followed quite closely by Pac. Other southpaws of note that I don't think have been mentioned yet: * Shoji Oguma * Freddie Miller * Tiger Flowers * Lou Brouillard
Pea fought bigger, younger guys who were prime. Joe fought 25 defences of a low level belt, against European level opposition, after saying to the media that he didn’t want tough fights. Pea went out against a prime Tito and Oscar. Joe went out against a shot version of Roy. Lots of other guys could have replicated Joe’s timeline and finished at 46-0.
Guys like Julio and Rocky and Money? OK. Where's the rest? If it was so easy why didn't they do it? You can't spell GOAT without THE ITALIAN DRAGON!
Because most great fighters take chances. Who spends 14 years at SMW? Who makes 25 defences of a lightly regarded WBO belt? Who fights 30 plus fights against European and domestic level fighters? Who spends their prime years fighting Mario Veit twice? If you want to say Joe was great, that’s cool. He was. But his resume is poor. There’s nothing impressive about a zero, if the biggest win of your career is a split decision win over a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins. Nobody thinks Sven Ottke is an ATG because he was undefeated. Pernell Whittaker was faded when he took on younger, bigger and prime versions of Oscar and Tito. What would have been the equivalent fights for Joe? Joe retired against a guy who he said he’d be disappointed to fight, as he was a shot fighter.
