P - o - u - n - d - f - o - r - p - o - u - n - d - t - o - p - 1 - 0 - 0

Cheers for the first comment.

(1) - I should really have put my top 4 in a separate tier, as they are the untouchables. Sorry, but for me there is no way Ali deserves to be in that top 4. It can be debated whether he should be above Charles or not, but he is definitely not top 4 IMO.

(2) - Are you serious?? Monzon would destroy SRL at middleweight, as would peak Hagler have done. OK, SRL has wins over Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez, but Monzon has wins over Griffith (twice), Napoles and Benvenuti (twice). Leonard's are better, but are they really so much better that Leonard should be rated above Monzon when Leonard lost 3 times in 40 fights, and Monzon lost only 3 times in 100 fights? Monzon's 3 losses were early in his career in Argentina, after that he went on an 81-fight winning streak that lasted till his retirement, and in this time he became the greatest ever televised middleweight and the greatest middleweight since Harry Greb. As king of one of the traditionally strongest divisions in the sport, I think Monzon deserves to be a shade ahead of a guy who had such a short career at the top. Decisions on a pound-for-pound list should be made on the basis of entire careers, not just a couple of wins. Maybe if SRL had been able to build a 50, 60, 70 fight career like Hagler and Hearns did, and had fought guys like Pryor and McCallum, he would be top 10 because yes of course he had the ability - but he didn't. He had a 40 fight career and very little time at the top level.

(3) - Hagler was a better middleweight than Hopkins, but Hopkins has had the better career IMO. I rank these two so closely that I find it difficult to argue one over the other with any conviction (hence the whole point of my tier system), but my main reason which gave Hopkins a tiny edge was that when he got older and lost, he didn't just chuck in the towel and quit like a baby, he wanted greatness so he took the risk, jumped 2 divisions and began a miraculous new chapter in his career. Offers were made to Hagler to go to lhw in his career and he declined. And if you don't count Hagler's wins over ww Tommy Hearns and lw Roberto Duran (years past his prime by then and fighting 25lbs above his natural fighting weight), then I'm not so sure the rest of his resume is substantially better than Hopkins's. OK, it is better, but not by much. Hopkins's wins over Trinidad, Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, De La Hoya, Johnson, and then his mw reign including wins over guys like Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool and Joppy (plus I believe Hopkins won the fight with Calzaghe and 1 of the Taylor fights), I mean Hopkins has built a solid resume and legacy considering the opposition available in his era. I'm happy with Hopkins shading Hagler, though again I reiterate, I won't go to war over it, they are in the same tier and very close in that tier, I can't say one is a definitive superior.

 

I cannot even answer the first question, it's just too ridiculous. I can't see Pac beating a big, prime welter like Margarito, so I can only laugh when it is suggested he could fight one of the world's top lightheavys.

I think Pac will beat Hatton, beat Mayweather, win a welterweight title, and then retire as one of the elite fighters of history (OK, maybe I don't think that, but I sure as hell hope it!)

 

I see now that you don't actually know much about Monzon's career. Hit Boxrec and check out his 3 losses in 100 fights before you comment on his dominance. And Emile Griffith was a more proven and arguably better middleweight than SRL, who beat Marvelous.

Hagler over Monzon? Absolutely not. At least with Leonard you have a legitimate argument, I have them in the same tier so I believe they are of comparable greatness and therefore will accept questioning of my ordering, but Hagler does not deserve to be above Monzon.

 

I think you're making the mistake of allowing the last few fights of the careers of great fighters cloud how great they were at their peak.

OK, De La Hoya had a nightmare v Pacquiao, but keeping him out of a top 100 would be a rash knee-jerk reaction. The guy won 10 world titles in 6 weight classes, has a strong resume, and was unlucky to lose some fights he should've won (Trinidad, Mosley II) - for me he simply has to be in there. No doubt.

Although I have Morales a fair distance behind De La Hoya, I feel just as strongly that he too merits his place in there. This guy has one of the best resumes of the last 15-20 years and one of the best wins (Pacquiao I), for me he is a lock. OK, by the 3rd Pacquiao fight and the Diaz fight he was shot, but those 2 losses cannot diminish what a great fighter he was in his prime, nor can they overshadow what he achieved.

Monzon is too low?! 99% of other posters think he is way too high. Personally, I think he's just about right. I can accept anyone thinking he should be a few places higher or lower within the same tier. If someone says he is better than Ross or not as good as Whitaker, it's not a big issue for me. Fair enough.

Again, I am comfortable with my ranking of Hopkins. He is a personal favourite of mine, a Master Boxer IMO, and his special achievements in his twilight years bump him up a notch or two as now he has to rely more on skill than on the physical side, and he's doing so at a higher weight. As ever though, I won't argue about individual placings within the same tier, if anyone thinks he should be below Hagler or Hearns or Napoles, then that's cool - being in the same tier means I think they are of roughly comparable greatness.

 

No, he wasn't robbed. But that's not the point, the point is you criticized his dominance because he lost three times, but the fact is those losses had no affect whatsoever on his mw dominance because these 3 losses came early in his career in Argentina before he hit the world stage and began his dominance of the division - an 81 fight undefeated streak.

He had a couple of early career losses, avenged them, and never looked back. Remind you of anyone? Anyone marvelous maybe?? (though Marvelous did actually lose again in his career - Monzon did not)

What fights do you watch on film that show you Leonard was a more proven middleweight than Griffith? The "win" he was credited with over a past-prime Hagler? Or the "draw" he escaped with v Hearns? Or the win over a 38-year-old and years past-prime Duran? Or the beating from Hector Camacho??

 

We simply disagree on De La Hoya. The only decision in his career that he got that he shouldn't have IMO was Sturm - even without that the guy was a 5-weight world champion with 9 world titles. With that fantastic achievement and his strength of resume, I just don't see how he could be left out of a 100. From 135-147, I think Oscar was a great fighter.

I strongly disagree that Oscar "cherrypicked". IMO, that is a ridiculous accusation. He has fought more world p4p#1s than anyone in history. He went up to middleweight, a weight he had no right to fight at, to take on the best middleweight in 20 years in a fight he has only a very slim chance of winning, but he took the risk for the shot at glory. He has fought more great fighters than any other active boxer. He beat two very good lw's to win the titles there (Hernandez and Ruelas), beat the top man at 140 (Chavez), beat the top man at 147 (Whitaker), beat another great fighter at 147 (Quartey), should have got the decision v the next top man at 147 (Trinidad), and later in his career he was unlucky to lose to great fighters like Mosley and Mayweather while beating some more quality opposition who were naturally bigger than him (Vargas, Castillejo, Mayorga).

Cherrypicking?! atsch Ludicrous statement, absolutely ludicrous.

I don't really understand why you think it is acceptable to have Barrera in but not Morales. I agree with you that MAB was the superior fighter, but for me the gap between them is tiny - you can't have one without the other. They were so close in terms of ability, so close in terms of resume, so close in terms of h2h against each other, so close in terms of achievement, and Morales actually has the best win of either resume (Pacquiao I). IMO you cannot have one without the other, they are too closely ranked - and they both deserve inclusion.

I'm not sure that your insinuation about Monzon being ranked low is because of nationality - if that's true then how do you explain the elite status widely given to Roberto Duran? I think the reason most people underrate him is because (a) they don't know as much about him as they do about a guy like Hagler, and (b) he wasn't as exciting to watch as a guy like Hagler. In saying that, boxing encyclopedias like McGrain and Sweet Pea rank him around 20th, so there are obviously valid reasons for their ratings that can't be attributed to nationality issues or a lack of knowledge. I think Monzon is one where I can appreciate a difference in opinion.

Hopkins's achievements should not only be rated at mw - that is insane. Why would we only assess his achievements at mw when he didn't only fight at mw?? In deciding on a p4p list, you have to look at the guy's entire career, it is the only way. I look at Hopkins's career and I see: the first man to unify the 4 major titles in any division and reign and defend as the undisputed king while at the same time reigning as world p4p#1 in the same era as Jones, Mayweather and Lewis, one of the top 5 middleweights in history, a superbly skilled boxer, a comparatively strong resume by current standards, a guy who has been clearly and comprehensively beaten only once since rising to world level in 1993 (by one of the most talented fighters in history, RJJ), a guy who came off 2 controversial losses at age 40+ and jumped 2 weight divisions to dominate the linear lhw champion, became the 1st man in 8 years to defeat the "best defence in boxing" (Wright), and the 1st man to defeat and utterly dominated world p4p#5 undefeated KO artist Kelly Pavlik. He is probably rivalling Archie Moore as the greatest 40+ fighter in all of boxing history - a special achievement considering he now has to rely on skills a lot more than his physical strengths. "Little Trinidad"?! That's a joke right?

Nah, Hopkins deserves to be in that tier. He stays.

 

Again, you show you don't know much about Monzon. The draws were also all in Argentina before he rose to world title prominence - how are we to know how these fights were being scored? It seems pretty suspicious to me that a guy could fight out 9 draws in 68 fights. But even then, after his last draw, he went on a 32-fight winning streak that took in two fights with Griffith, two with Benvenuti and the Napoles fight, saw him win the mw title and defend it 14 times, and retire without having lost in 81 fights or drawn in 32. From when Monzon won the mw title from Benvenuti in 1970, his record was 20-0 (11 KOs), one of the finest title reigns in history.

Leonard had 4 fights at mw, he sneaked a win over a past-prime Hagler that many felt he didn't deserve, he was very very lucky to escape with a draw v Hearns that he definitely didn't deserve, he beat the shell of Roberto Duran and then came the Camacho debacle when Ray was shot to pieces. How exactly do those 4 performances prove he was a better mw than Griffith?? You are clearly basing your decisions on who you like watching on dvd better.

Calzaghe would have embarrassed Monzon?! atsch I'm embarrassed I've just wasted my time over the last day or so debating with someone of your boxing knowledge.

Post a poll in the Classic asking who was the best mw between Monzon, Hagler and Hopkins, and see what response you get.

Good day to you Enzo.

 

:good

 

Ah... I knew this list was too good to be true... Props for putting him on there - I personally feel he deserves it comfortably, but as has been said - it get's murky after top 55, hard to rank everyone everywhere.

Not a bad list, some fighters I don't recognise and can't really comment.

I'm a big big big Willie Pep fan, and I'm somewhat disappointed to see him outside the higher tier... He's normally in my top 5 at the least... Underrated somewhat mainstream..

But kudos on the list, any second thoughts on what you'd change? or are you happy with it - that unless the newer fighters do stuff different - you dont want to change things...

 

Why is the list too good to be true? Because Calzaghe is near the end you mean? Sorry, I think that's all his resume justifies.

Thanks for the comments though - even though you think the lower half is "murky". Why is it murky, are there things you strongly disagree with?

Pep is of course an absolute genius, but I think his resume and the fact he stayed at one-weight rule him out of the very top echelons.

I am happy with the list. I could have made things easier for myself and placed Monzon and Hopkins lower, but I do believe they were so great in their own era that they shouldn't be kept below guys who fought in better eras simply because of that fact. But as I have kept saying throughout this thread, I have used a tier system because I don't want to keep getting embroiled in pointless arguments over individual placings. Monzon is in the same tier as guys I see him as comparable with in terms of greatness, I won't live and die over him being better or worse than Leonard or Ross, this isn't a science where guys can be definitively numbered 1 to 100. Same with Hopkins, I think he belongs in a tier with guys like Hagler, Hearns, Holyfield etc, but how can we accurately say with certainty that he is better than Holyfield or vice-versa? I see them as ranked closely it is too difficult to do so. However, I can say that I don't think he belongs in the tier immediately above him nor in the one immediately below. I'm happy with the set-up of the list.