Has The Ring Magazine Top 80 Ever Been Discussed Here?

The thing that jumps out to me is Galaxy in the top 50.

None of the other long reigning super-fly champions of that era get anywhere near the list of course.

 

10. Pernell Whitaker is extremely to high. (IMO)
(I can slide him in anywhere after #17 on the list with no shame, but defo not higher)

18. Julio Cesar Chavez
19. Eder Jofre
20. Alexis Arguello
21. Barney Ross
22. Evander Holyfield
23. Ike Williams
24. Salvador Sanchez
25. George Foreman
26. Kid Gavilian
27. Larry Holmes
28. Mickey Walker
29. Ruben Olivares
30. Gene Tunney
31. Dick Tiger
32. Fighting Harada
33. Emile Griffith
34. Tony Canzoneri
35. Aaron Pryor

 

Foreman, Dempsey, Marciano, Pryor, Sanchez too high.

Hearns too low.

 

Yeah but we all know why.

I agree right off the bat with Mantequilla though, Galaxy that high is unexplainable. Seems like they haven't a clue about the lower weights, and therefore just placed those fighters randomly. Galaxy is behind at least 4 fighters of his era at 115.

 

Where's Langford? Ketchel?

 

You're saying that neither Langford nor Ketchel are top 80 material?

 

It's actually of the past 80 years.

 

Oh, silly me

 

Too High: Dempsey, Foreman, Whitaker, Pryor, Sal Sanchez

Too Low: Lewis, Tyson, Hopkins

 

The list is a joke because of the placements of the great Thomas Hearns and of Roy Jones Jr. How the **** can Pernell Whitaker be number 10 if Tommy Hearns is #67?!?!? I doubt if even Sweet Pea himself would argue he should be ranked above the Hitman, and even if there are some who thinks he should be, no1 in their right mind would think he should be 57 places higher. And Roy Jones Jr should definitely be top 10 P4P. Named Fighter Of The 90s, 7 world titles at 4 weight divisions, 1st guy in over 100 years to win world title at middleweight and heavyweight, resume including wins over Toney, Hopkins, McCallum and Ruiz at heayweight. Surely that puts him above Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Monzon and Ezzard Charles??

Also, to have Felix Trinidad at #51 but Oscar De La Hoya at #75 is a joke. Did anyone at The Ring see their fight? Or take their achievements in the ring into question?? Trinidad was a great welterweight with a great punch, but he was too one-dimensional to ever be considered a great. He didn't carry his power above 147, and it was clear how little boxing ability he had v Hopkins and Wright. De La Hoya had more talent, more ability, and achieved more.

As always with these lists, the old guys are ranked higher. It's human nature I suppose, people always put the old greats on a higher pedestal and don't want to accpet their own generation being as good coz they get paid more. Sugar Ray Leonard should have been top 5 (above Greb, Pep and Benny Leonard anyway), and Hagler should have been higher than 17 (above Whitaker, Charles, Saddler and Dempsey).

I'm guessing Holyfield was only ranked above Foreman, Holmes and Lennox Lewis because of his exploits at cruiserweight, coz he was nowhere near as good a heavyweight. And Tyson ranked far far too low. His current state should not affect our memories of what a monster he was in the late 80s. He should be top 30.

 

Hearns is rather low, no question. But I think most people would rank Whitaker above him p4p.

Roy Jones never fought the best lightheavyweight or heavyweight of his time, so that needs to be put into a bit of perspective.

And who ranked him the best fighter of the 90's? KO Magazine ranked Whitaker the best fighter of the 90's and it's quite obvious Ring Magazine hold Whitaker in a higher regard.

Whitaker beat Azumah Nelson, Buddy McGirt twice, Julio Cesar Chavez, Julio Cesar Vasquez and arguably DLH too in the 90's. I don't think Jones' resume in the 90's measures with that.

I won't even venture to discuss someone like Ezzard Charles here. But if you think Jones's resume holds the jockstrap of Charles', you've got to be delusional.

They must have thought Tito beat DLH in their fight. That would be the only justification for their ranking, but even that is ill founded because DLH should have got that decision.

And yet you complain when Whitaker gets ranked top 10. Strange.

Hagler might be a little low, but it's hardly a crime to have him below guys like Charles, Saddler and Whitaker. I think Leonard is where he should be.

Did you notice this was a p4p list?

Although Tyson looked extremely impressive in the late 80's, he didn't accomplish enough to warrant a top 50 placement for mine.

 

Tommy Loughran and Canzoneri should be higher and Pryor is too high and overrated, also Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall among other deserve to there

 

Jones deserves to be higher the Charles? Are you drunk? Ezzard resume is 10x better he has beaten some of the best fighters ever from middle to heavy something Jones did not.

Charles resume looks like this(not to mention he is a beast h2h):
Archie Moore
Lloyd Marshall
Jimmy Bivins
Jersey Joe Walcott
Charley Burley
Joe Louis
Joey Maxim
Bob Satterfield
Rex Layne
Harold Johnson (some believe he won this fight)
Pat Valentino
Gus Lesnevich
Elmar Ray
Oakland Billy Smith
And he beat many of those names more then once, now compare that to Roy's resume.

 

And he's wrong about Jones belonging ahead of Monzon, who was the most dominant champion of all time in any weight division, as well.