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

S-o-C-a-l-z-a-g-h-e-d-i-d-m-a-k-e-t-h-e-l-i-s-t-a-n-d-i-s-a-n-a-l-l-t-i-m-e-g-r-e-a-t-.

 

yeah i understand that...its just i think guys back then getway too much credit..... mainly because their legend grows more and more as time goes on..... and they knock guys the last 20 years because of this. whose to say nigel benn for example wouldnt knock gene fullmer out everytime they fought? but people will always look at fullmer as legendary because he fought so long ago

 

why is floyd mayweather ranked above pac man, berrarae, morales,ODLH,Trinadad, just to name a few?

 

most of those fighters under FMJ should be above him IMHO,

 

Nice list and I couldnt do better. I do think Langford is overrated though...HW's in those days wouldnt have been as heavy as todays and also not as skilled. Great for his time but he was at the very early stages of boxing so I do think his achievements look better on paper. Also fighters fought alot back in those days but they also fought alot of club fighters...180 of his opponents have shite records.

 

Hopkins above Hagler bemuses me somewhat.

I enjoy the list, however. Plenty of guys I need to research there.

 

A lot of that is because most of the better White fighter's refused to fight him because he was too good
Jack Dempsey, Jess Willard and even Jack Johnson all ducked him and Langford never got a shot of the Title.

He was an exception to most of the other heavy's of his era.

 

It will be interesting to see a top 100 list in 25 year's time when our crop of budding legend's gradually start achieving some Mythic status, i'd like to see how future generations rate the like's of Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.

 

I never get why Roberto Duran is always rated so high, and De La Hoya. Surely Mosley should be ahead of De La Hoya?

 

Calzaghe is way too high

 

Brilliant effort, and a very solid list overall.

I think Harold Johnson should surely be top 100 though.

 

Duran is rated extremely high for his reign at lightweight, and quality wins through the divisions, even though he lost quite a bit of big matches. There are some fighters who go through different divisions winning titles, and others who reign in one division for a good amount of time and become one of the greats in that division. Duran did both.

De La Hoya's career achievements are greater than Mosley's. Mosley has the head-to-head edge because of their 2000 fight (I don't count Mosley's 2nd win over DLH due to the performance enhancers), but H2H is only one way of looking at things. Look at Mosley's wins outside of the 1st DLH fight. He had a nice little run at lightweight, but look at his opposition there.

 

Mccallum at 81 seems high.Their 'draw' in the first fight was a clear 116-112 win for Toney in my opinion.

 

I would agree that De La Hoya fought the better fighters, but not by much. Plus shouldn't Oscars loses pull him down a bit? Plus Oscar's got a couple of controversial decisions (Whitaker, Sturm, and I have to watch Quartey). And the De Lo Hoya win is better than any win on Oscars record.

I would rate Mosley higher, and don't see why De La Hoya should be higher.

 

btw wheres Sergio Medina????????????????????''''