My Top 25 Fighters of the Last 25 Years- what do you think?

Nelson was less formidable and a lot more inconsistent as 130lber.I wouldn't use his earlier featherweight prformances to boost his rating.

 

Trinidad wasn't a bulked up middleweight. Bulked up is a fighter who's physically not a natural at the weight. De La Hoya against Sturm and Hopkins, and Leonard against Lalonde. Just because Trinidad had previously fought as a welterweight, it doesn't automatically mean he's a bulked up middleweight. He simply grew naturally into the weight, no question about it. He certainly never looked smaller than Joppy and Hopkins when he stepped into the ring with them. The classic case of a fighter bulking up would be when he moves up to a higher division without weight problems being the reason for the move up. Thats my personal take on a fighter being 'bulked up'.

 

Ok that slides then!.:thumbsup

 

I'd say Galaxy creeps into my top 30! But then I love watching the guy. And he was clearly a tough guy with dynamite power. I think it's rather fashionable to bash him nowadays, but he beat everyone put in front of him. Had Chris John syndrome however (or does Chris John have Galaxy syndrome???)

I think that's a very good list. Despite his achievements at CW, I'd still put Lennox above Holyfield.

And replace Tapia with Meldrick Taylor.

 

Hopkins holyfield lennox Jones are too high. Hearns I think goes about 6 with Hagler and Ray 3 and 5.. Tyson deserves to be high also. McCallum is rated too high. He did not beat the cream of the crop.

 

good call! it's nice to have other posters from California. :hi:

 

Mayweather Jr is too high.

 

Hey red rooster. I have relatives who live in Pacific Palisades. I know the place well, although I have not been there in years. There was a baskin robbins on Swarthmore I remember which I went to with my cousins back 35 years ago. And about the posting, I should not be rating Tommy Hearns since I am too subjective, but I think he fought them all even though he didn't beat them all.

 

1.Whitaker
2.Chavez
3.Jones
4.Lewis
5.Holyfield
6.Hopkins
7.Pacquiao
8.Mayweather
9.Lopez
10.De La Hoya
11.Trinidad
12.Mosley
13.Nelson
14.Morales
15.Barrera
16.Calzaghe
17.Tyson
18.Marquez
19.McCallum
20.Galaxy
21.Toney
22.Fenech
23.Tszyu
24.Wright
25.Tapia
26.Carbajal
27.Camacho
28.Vitalai K
29. Wladimir K
30. Alvarez

 

1.Chavez
2.Jones
3.Whitaker
4.Hopkins
5.De La Hoya
6.Lewis
7.Lopez
8.Trinidad
9.Mosley
10.Pacquiao
11.Holyfield
12.Morales
13.Barrera
14.Tyson
15.Mayweather
16.Nelson
17.Calzaghe
18.Marquez
19.Rosario
20.Galaxy
21.Camacho
22.Tapia
23.Tszyu
24.Humberto Gonzalez
25.Carbajal

 

I think Camacho's ranking is justified, the only losses i would hold against him are Haugen and Chavez. I feel kinda bad for macho camacho, when he was a super featherweight around 1982-84, he was ducked and avoided by many fighters. He always had to move up in weight to get big fights. Trinidad and Oscar are both twice his size and were much younger when they fought him. I hear people say in the past that Rosario and Mancini beat him? Nah, i've seen both fights and Hector won. He easily outboxed Rosario for 7-8 rounds, just cuz Edwin had him hurt for a bit, it makes him the winner, nope people need to learn how to judge boxing fights.

He can reasonably be ranked above Barrera and Morales, both guys are overrated and dubbed as ATGs. They fought each other and Barrera beat Hamed and now they get labelled as ATGs, lol they aren't in my top 75 and dont deserve it. Hector is far more skilled than both and would have whooped them at 126 or 130.

Ricardo Lopez's resume really pales in comparison to Camachos. If Hector spent his whole career at 130 or 135 and never took risks, he would have remained unbeaten his whole career.

Camacho's resume: Ramirez, Rosario, Limon, Howard Davis, Boza Edwards, Tony Baltazaar, Greg Haugen, Old ray mancini, Old Loenard, and several contenders and journeyman. He was also able to beat prospects and contenders at the welterweight-middleweight divisions. Head to head he easily beats barrera and eric morales, no problem.

 

Such as?

I'm sure he would have got a lot of big fights at 135 if he hung around to defend his title rather than vacating it straight away. But then again Chavez and Whitaker were about to hit the scene and Camacho KNEW the score.

Even if he did outbox Rosario for 7 rounds, he arguably dropped two 10-8 rounds in the fight.

Morales also beat Pac. Not a bad accomplishment. Better than any fighter Hector beat of course. Morales is a better fighter than anyone Hector ever beat as well, which a good name on Barrera resume. At 130 Hector beats them, p4p its much more interesting. I don't think I'd favour Hector.

That's true enough. Of course, Lopez had no one to fight, not really his fault. If Camacho did that at 135 he would rightfully be labelled a *****.

Not a bad resume but scratch below the surface and you see narrow wins over Haugen and a past it Mancini and an arguable loss to Rosario. Not really that great a list then. Of course the Duran, Leonard fights are meaningless as is much of his middleweight record padding.

 

You can say whatever u want about him, he's the next best fighter during the 1985-1992 era for 135/140 after Whitaker and Chavez. Camacho also beat vinny pazienza, another good fighter from the chavez-whitaker era of 135/140. I'm not sure which fight you saw but Camacho's rematch against Haugen was hardly a narrow win, i could care less what the judges say. Hector toyed him with in the rematch, its even on youtube for everyone to see, Camacho jabbed him around like he was a punchbag.

Bobby Chacon, Esubio Pedroza and jimmy paul/livingston bramble are all known to have ducked him during his time there, but you will make up some response as to how the didn't, why would i care. I dont care if chacon was past it, he was a belt holder and camacho wanted to fight him and he would have pasted him.

I dont care if you think barrera/morales would beat him p4p, i have seen enough of them, camacho is the more skilled fighter and would beat them anyday.

Ricardo Lopez had no one to fight? Yeah a move up to 108 and 112 when those weight classes had good fighters would have been too big of a risk. I mean 7 pounds is such a big difference right.

 

After the Roasario fight, which I thought he lost, Camacho mixed some good performances with some very average ones. He looked ok against Pazienza, Baltazar and Howard Davis, but looked average as can be against Boza Edwards, Ray Mancini and Greg Haugen. Even their second fight was an 8-4 or 7-5 type of decision, against a Haugen who looked average himself.

Had he run into a Roger Mayweather (who was beating Camacho in the gym prior to the Whitaker fight) a Freddie Pendleton or a Frankie Randall from 87-92 he could well have lost to them. I think even the Azumah Nelson that fought Whitaker would beat him. Whitaker handled him well, but a guy with lesser defense would have been in trouble.

I wont even mention guys like Meldrick Taylor and Buddy McGirt.

Pedroza? Did he actually have a fight at 130 that meant anything?

Camacho would have flogged Chacon but in the time frame you're talking about Bobby robbed Boza-Edwards and was getting ko'ed by Mancini, so it's not a massive missed opportunity that Camacho didn't get to him. Like his fight with Limon, Chacon would have been ready to be had and it would have been a nice name for Camacho, but not much else.

Not too sure about Livingstone Bramble or Jimmy Paul. Do you have any proof that they ducked him other than that the fights didn't happen?

I might agree Hector was more talented than Barrera or Morales, but talent alone doesn't cut it. If it did Hector wouldn't have been running from an old Boza Edwards, an old mancini and losing to Greg Haugen. Nor would he be losng to Rosario according to most boxing publications.

He would have been putting himself at a disadvantage by doing so. I still think he should have to test how good he was, but it wouldn't have been an even playing field for him. A few pounds makes quite a difference amongst the smaller guys.