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

Yeah hes a 6 weight champ but the thing is he was only moving up 3-4 pounds each weight class. If we go by traditonal 8, then hes a 4 weight champ. I mean I can lose or gain 3-4 pounds in one day.

There are lots of fighters that start there career around 122lbs and remain world class at 135-140, that's like 5 weight classes right there.

 

If we go by the traditional, then Hearns is only a three-weight champ then. Welter, middle and light-heavy.

And Oscar is only a three-weight - light, welter and middle. That's if you even count middle considering the Sturm decision.

There are "lots" of fighters who start at 122 and are world class at 140? What relevance does that have to Pacquiao though? He started his career as a LIGHT-FLY! I'd also like to know these "lots". Other than Duran, I can't think of very many.

 

From modern fighters, guzman and marquez were both 122ers and now they are ranked #1 and 2 in the current lightweight division.

 

Neither of them have fought at 140, and you said 135-140. Also, what the **** has Guzman achieved even at 135?

Was that your "lots"??

Dire.

 

I don't think there are any legitimate 6 weight champs. This **** is just getting out of hand. These fighters are not establishing themselves as the best in every division they pick up titles in. They are simply beating one of several title holders that have yet to prove divisional dominance in most cases.

Oscar de la Hoya- 6 divisions? De la Hoya beat Jimmy Bredahl for the WBO 130lb. championship. Do people really count that? Azumah Nelson, Genaro Hernandez, and John John Molina had the other 130 lb titles. Bredahl should not count. Then there is the middleweight title issue. De la Hoya got a gift decision over Felix Sturm, the WBO's middleweight titlist. Then De la Hoya was stopped by the real middleweight champion, Bernard Hopkins. De la Hoya was not middleweight champ. Oscar has a fairly decent resume at 135, where he beat up some good 130 pounders. Oscar can argue 4 world titles at best.

Pernell Whitaker-4 divisions? Chavez was the man at 140. Whitaker defeated him at 147. Terry Norris was the top 154 pounder in the world. Beating J. C. Vasquez was impressive, but not a real world title. Best fighter of the 90's? In my opionion, yes. 4 division champ, no.

There are many more examples. I used these two in an effort to be as objective as I can. I feel that De la Hoya conducted his championship career in a manor that I least approve for a fighter. I thought that Whitaker conducted his career as a champion should. Whitaker fought like he had something to prove. De la Hoya fought like he had money to earn. Both claim to rule divisions they didn't.

 

I'm not here to criticize what he's achieved I'm just pointing out that he's ranked #2 in the lightweight division. All Pacquaio did at 135 is beat david diaz, i'm sure guzman can end up with a better 135 resume than that.

 

That's probably as I would see it too.

 

Arguello
Lewis
Hearns
de la Hoya

 

Maybe so, but i am glad that someone has finally took the opinion and standpoint of having Lewis very high after 8 pages of debating. He really was a great and accomplished fighter. But you might be right i think.

 

Fair enough.

This is exactly what you are doing! Placing Chavez as one of the top 10 fighters ever cannot be justified!! You haven't justified it because it can't be justified. When you defend Chavez, it's obvious he is a personal favourite of yours. It's the same sentiment that comes out when I defend Pacquiao or Hopkins - except I don't try to place them in my p4p top 10 because they, like Chavez, don't belong there despite how brilliant they are!

"ESB" underrates him?? I don't understand how you can make that generalization. Do McGrain, Sweet Pea, Sweet_Scientist, Mantequilla, The Cobra, Robbi, Russell, Selfkill, etc etc etc - do they all think the same things? No, they do not. But I'm very confident that every one of these excellent individual posters would say that JC Chavez is not a top 10 of all-time fighter!

On reflection, Gavilan should be in my second list of Chavez-level fighters. He can be argued over Chavez or Chavez can be argued over him, one is not clearly over the other. However, I stand by ranking Saddler above Chavez.

Eh? I included Charles because he is a fighter from the televised era. If you want to see footage of him, there is footage to be found, unlike Harry Greb who I left out.

You are imposing your own criteria on me there - I don't need to have seen a lot of footage of someone to include them on a list. That's not a debate I'm very interested in having because everyone who posts in the Classic is bored of it. Look at the resumes of Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb, Jimmy McLarnin etc - the achievements of these men deserve and demand acknowledgement and inclusion IMO. If you disagree then cool, but I included Charles in my list because there is footage of him out there and that's why I included him and left out Greb.

I disagree. IMO Arguello must rank slightly higher.

That could be debated, it's marginal if anything. Chavez turned in a blinding performance against Haugen not long before.

Pea's two best ever performances IMO were Haugen and Nelson in 1989-90. Chavez's are more difficult to single out. He had the high point v Rosario in '87, but this came on the back of less impressive performances against LaPorte and Lockridge in '86. I think it's fair to say Chavez's was the late 80s (though as I said, he was excellent v Haugen in '93).

However, the manner of victory makes that irrelevant anyway. Fair enough if it was close, but it was anything but.

Everything I have seen of both men makes me think Whitaker would definitely win.

- When they were both past-prime, Whitaker outboxed him comprehensively.

- When Chavez was closer to his prime, he was clearly outfought by Meldrick Taylor - and Whitaker was a better infighter than Taylor, had a better chin than Taylor, was almost as fast, had a better jab and better technical skill.

- When Whitaker was at his peak, his game proved perfect to beat pressure fighters, see the fight with the excellent Azumah Nelson for evidence

- When Whitaker was at his peak, he was in my opinion simply a superior fighter, he had greater skill, greater variety, and would have proved it v Chavez at any weight at any time.

It's a heck of a paper achievement. A legit champ at 147 he was, as he won the belts. But fighting Baldomir and Judah and retiring before facing Mosley, Williams, Cotto or Margarito is a champ in name only. Mayweather is a highly skilled boxer, there's no doubt. But he never proved these skills against comp of adequate quality the way the top 10 of all-time did. (actually, Floyd struggled against his two best opponents: Castillo and a past-prime Oscar. Looked sensational embarrassing Gatti though)

Floyd may have as much talent as guys like Chavez and Hearns, but he never proved it the way they did. End of story.

And his "heck of an achievement" has been bettered by De La Hoya and Pacquiao from his own era, if we are discussing paper achievements.

Chavez won the fight. The fight really exposed his limitations as a boxer as he was completely outfought over 12 rounds.

Both true.

Ditto :good

 

Hearns
Arguello


Lewis
Oscar