Rank these fighters in order - Arguello, Lewis, Hearns, DLH.

No its not hard to believe.

But ones who were better then him would have beaten him...Its really that simple.

We were just having a discussion about this the other day..And we were saying that Miguel, at this stage, would have been better matched against guys like Colin Jones and Lloyd Honeyghan..those are the level of fighter he can be compared to.

 

Perhaps this is something I need to think over.

 

Arguello
Hearns
Lewis
DLH

 

I scored them for Oscar also, but i don't rate the win over Mosley at 154 pounds as very special, at that time Mosley had done nothing at that weight, and didn't go on to do too much more afterwards there either. Vargas wasn't up to too much when Mosley beat him, but that was a decent win, just that though. Also, i don't have the win over Trinidad (as i thought Oscar won) cementing him as the best welter of the era, i thought Quartey beat him and he was lucky on my card to get a draw with a past prime Pernell Whittaker by virtue of a point deduction which i felt undeserved.

Like i said, i just think far more of Lewis than De La Hoya as a true elite level fighter. Though Oscar De La Hoya is undoubtedly one of the greatest of a lesser level of greats in my opinion. The only thing as i said before that means someone can have Oscar above Lewis is this going through the weights aspect, but in my opinion the nature in which Oscar did this doesn't outweigh how great a fighter Lewis was.

Manny Pacquiao and Henry Armstrong moved up and consistently take on bigger men. Oscar moved up a few weight divisions just to take on people his own size, at which point he started losing (in my opinion) to the people he was regarded as better than/on the level of. Maybe that's all academic, i am no tunnel visioned and a i can see that the evidence is that Oscar has these multi-divisional triumphs. After all ,my word is not law around here, so if you have Oscar above Lewis, go ahead.

 

you are a TERRIBLE poster who doesn't even belong on the general forum. You are THAT bad, and no I'm not anything special, but I have a far wider knowledge of boxing than you seem to possess.

 

Really based on what, because of the fact that you dont form your own opinions and just go by what other people say. I have sparred plenty of boxing in my life and have seen enough fights to determine what i know, dont need some other *** tellin me what i know and what i dont know.

 

Agreed. I have Arguello 5-10 places higher, but there is not a huge void between them.

No Bill, no. It is anything but ignorant to completely rule Chavez out of a p4p top 10. Chavez was a great fighter, but if you intend to make a serious, sensible, credible list you have to remove your personal likes and dislikes from the equation. Otherwise it's just a list of your favourites.

Chavez:

- A 3 weight world champ in the age of many divisions

- 3 best wins over Rosario (already KO'd by Ramirez), past-prime Camacho, Meldrick Taylor (eternally controversial win)

- A peak or very near-peak version of Chavez was dominated by Meldrick Taylor. Completely outboxed. Irrespective of the final result, that fight obviously did show JCC's limitations as a fighter

- Chavez was completely and utterly outboxed and outclassed by Whitaker when both men were equally far from their primes and their prime weights

- A long, long run unbeaten which was made up largely of tomato cans (this cannot be denied), and with the odd dodgy decision thrown in. This run was ended by Frankie Randall


Now, I have not been criticizing Chavez here, everything stated above is true. I think he was a superb fighter and who had a superb career, but TOP 10 IN HISTORY is another level entirely.

With those statements in mind, how can you justify a top 10 placing ahead of any of these men from the televised era:

Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Willie Pep
Muhammad Ali
Roberto Duran
Ray Leonard
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Pernell Whitaker
Carlos Monzon
Emile Griffith
Sandy Saddler
Joe Louis
Alexis Arguello
Kid Gavilan

And that isn't even taking into account all of the pre-Walker Law greats, or someone such as Harry Greb who is patently a top 4 of all-time fighter based purely on resume.

And then you have the Chavez level fighters also from the televised post-Walker Law era that he could be argued to be ranked over or who could easily be argued to be ranked over him:

Marvin Hagler (personally I'd have Hagler above JCC)
Thomas Hearns
Evander Holyfield
Eder Jofre
Carlos Ortiz
Jose Napoles
Ike Williams
Luis Manuel Rodriguez
and more...

Put simply, it is ignorant of boxing and boxing history to say having Chavez as one of the 10 best fighters ever can be justified. Chavez is a top 30 or 35 fighter, maybe top 25 if you are for some reason excluding the Langfords and the Gans's. He is on the level of other greats like Hearns and Holyfield, most definitely not the top 10 set of Ali, Duran, Sugar Ray and the like.

I'm not even going to start on the very idea that Mayweather Jr can even be in contention for 10th spot on any list that hasn't been written in an asylum. Floyd has some way to go before he is on the same level as Chavez and Hearns.

You terribly, terribly overrate Chavez by saying he can be placed in a p4p top 10. Terribly.

Hearns isn't underrated at all. Everyone is very aware of his career, achievements and skills. Amazing fighter. Don't you think most people not having him in a p4p top 20 means that you are the one who overrates him??

Have you seen Hagler at middleweight in the early 80s? Of course Hearns could comfortably outbox the Hagler who went 15 rounds with Duran, or the Hagler who came out like a brawling beast v Hearns, or the Hagler who plodded and didn't convince against Leonard.

The Hagler of the Sibson and Scypion fights was one of the best all-round boxers in history. Add those skills to the fact he had an iron chin himself, formidable power, and a natural strength advantage on Hearns which he proved in their fight, and yes, I definitely think Hagler could overcome Hearns's size advantage and outfight him.

Though to be honest, that's really not a debate I'd be interested in having as it's so divorced from reality that it's utterly meaningless. To say "if Hearns had an iron chin" is basically saying "if Hearns was a better fighter than he actually was" - ie pointless. By the same token, if Hagler was faster than Roy Jones, he'd beat an iron-chinned Hearns for sure. By the same token, if Hearns... blah blah blah. In reality, Hagler smashed him to bits.

 

The richest division in boxing history...


...are you kidding??

 

No response Billy boy??

 

Arguello
Hearns
De La Hoya
Lewis

 

I've got it
Arguello
Hearns
Lewis
Oscar

and btw i know you will disagree but Pacquiao is a 6 weight champ

112 - Lineal, WBC
122 - IBF
126 - Lineal
130 - Lineal, WBC
135 - WBC
140 - Lineal

 

Hearns won the IBO and WBU cruiserweight titles only. IMO, trinkets never have and never will count. Pacquiao is the most legitimate 6-weight champ ever.

 

I agree, as legitimate as it gets anyway.