Do you agree with these Tiers Of Greatness for 1980s fighters?

Hagler is a GREAT fighter by any standard, but for me a single-weight career with his best wins against naturally lower-weight fighters rule him out of equal status with someone like Ray Leonard and Pernell Whitaker, who beat the best fighters they faced, had their best wins against men the same size or bigger, and who tested themselves in different weight classes.

The resumes of Tyson and Pryor do not merit higher placings, IMO.

 

This is why I had to just make a clear criteria, and stick to it rigidly. Obviously some guys' careers overlapped decades, obviously some had their best wins after their prime, etc etc, but unless we want a situation where one fighter is part of two different decade groups or we had very complicated criteria, best just to stick to the criteria as set. It's simple (simplistic?), but at least it's clear.

This was part of my reasoning for Hearns's position, but as I said to spud, I definitely see the merit in having Hearns in #1.

These tiers are not set in stone. I just typed them out as I thought of them, and the whole point of having a discussion about it is to consider other valid p-o-v's.

There's a very good chance of that. Incredible fighter.

Kalambay was in there until the final cut, but I eventually ruled him out due to a relative lack of accomplishment, even though his performance in the 1st McCallum fight is probably the most all-round skilled display I've ever seen. Taylor missed the cut due to his lack of resume and longevity.

:good Making good boxing threads is the whole point of being a member of this site, IMO.

 

The criteria is, anyone who won their first world title or had their peak occur in the 1980s. Pea won his first world title in the 80s.

Mate, I am well aware that this system is far from infallible, but this thread is an accompaniment to my 90s/00s version. In the 90s/00s version, I had fighters who overlapped the 90s and 00s, like B-Hop, Roy, Oscar, Mosley, Morales, Barrera, Lewis, Tito, etc etc etc.

I didn't put Pea in it, as he was more or less finished by the time that the major players of the 2000s came to prominence (ie Pac, Floyd, Calzaghe, etc), he didn't overlap with that generation the way that Jones and co did.

When I think of Pea, I think of the turn of the decade (80s-90s) and identify him more as being of the same era as 80s fighters like Chavez, Tyson, Holyfield, McCallum, etc.


All in all, I think the placings are the issue worth debating, not getting hung up on who is a 90s fighter and who is an 80s fighter. If only every fighter's career started in 1980 and ended in 1989, we wouldn't need to spend so much time talking about what era they belonged to!

 

I include results from each fighters' entire career, not just fights that occurred in that decade.

The thread is about fighters who came to world level prominence within the specified time-frame, and how their careers measure up against other guys from the same general era.

 

No. At cruiser, his opposition was nothing special (beat a significantly worse version of Qawi than Spinks did), and at heavy he was inconsistent, going 1-4 with Lewis and Holyfield by my cards, and twice beating a well past-prime version of Tyson (the first of which was still a really great win, but I think Lewis or Bowe would've trashed that version of Mike as well, it just doesn't carry the lustre it would have back when Buster did it).

I like and rate Holyfield, but I don't see him as even being close to the likes of Ray Leonard and Pernell Whitaker. JMHO.

 

Luf, what do you feel is the better breakdown of the top guys between this:

And this:

I've went back and forth over it, but I think I'm sticking with my original. Looking forward to your opinion.