Rank the following 8 fighters.

Only a donkey would rate Spinks at the top.

 

I'm so glad you said that, i felt very lonely until this post.

 

Boxed Ears should stick to Natural Deduction systems to ensure consistency.

 

It depends where you draw the line of greatness at the end of the day Teeto, its a subjective matter. Basilio for me is tough as nuts, technically sound, does everything well but nothing extraudinary about him. To an extent though it goes back to the issue of putting Robinson on a pedestal. In this case Basilio is considered an ATG for beating a 38yo Robinson who no longer had his legs under him. Yet Norris/Tarver aren't considered the same for beating similarly faded versions of Jones or Leonard.

 

Addie you've been following boxing a couple of years, which is obvious because Tarver beat plenty of contenders and deserved both wins over Glen Johnson. Tarver was weight drained and 37 when he lost to Hopkins, so not at his best, maybe he'd always lose though

I can tell you haven't watched Holmes -Williams. Its considered very controversal, the commentators were saying 'Holmes needs a Marciano-Walcott come from behind KO' and had Williams winning, the decision was boo'ed. Plenty had Witherspoon beating Holmes too. Holmes was clearly a faded force by this stage

 

Come on, you know Basilio is considered a great welterweight though. Tarver isn't a great light-heavy, but Norris is a great light-middle. That's my opinion. I don't give weight to the Robinson win when i'm talking about Basilio probably beating Napoles in a head to head hypothetical one. When i said about fighters having good resumes on this thread but also having considerable losses, and that making this list difficult, i was talking about Basilio. You can say that at welter, Basilio doesn't have a highest tier win on his ledger, but if he's going to not be called great because of that, then the likes of Lopez at 105 can't be called great then. We know he is though, same with Basilio for me. Plenty of fighters are considered great regardless of having a Liston or a Gavilan on their resume. If the resume is stacked it makes a good case sometimes.

Also, on Tarver, i don't discount the win over Jones, it's a good win, considering i gave Jones the first fight, the ko in the rematch was not a bad win. But if i'm looking at it objectively, he's no great 175 man the way i'm seeing it. Norris is defo great imo though.

 

I'll do this in a tier format, since I'm not too hung up on a strict 1-8 list:


Hearns & Arguello

Jones & Chavez & Spinks

Jofre
(I cannot claim to have seen much of Jofre other than the Harada defeats and some clips, but I've read quite a bit about his career and checked out his resume etc)

Basilio

Holmes
(I'm not a big fan of Holmes's resume)

 

That's actually what he's absolutely not.

No, he's considered great for beating Robinson, Billy Graham, Johnny Saxton, Tony Demarco, Ike Williams, Art Aragon, arguably Gavilan, and becoming a three-time, two-weight lineal champion.

No.

 

Happy to be of service.

...Gee, ya think?

I'm afraid this would not mesh with my randomly-hypocritical-for-the-sake-of-convenient-bias/******* style of rating fighters.

I also do not care for the "similarly faded" comment. I am not on board with that.

 

...When was that?