I have matched 64 of the best fighters from the 1980s and 90s in a Tournament to decide who is the best fighter of my favourite era in boxing, the late 20th Century. I have drawn the 64 fighters into 32 matches, that you can pick the winner of in a pound for pound match up. All I ask is that you consider the fighter in his prime 80s or 90s period, as there are a number of fighters who arguably peaked before or after the 80s or 90s. For instance if Ali were in this (he is not), you would have to evaluate how the Ali of the Holmes or Berbick fights would of done against his opponent. How you come to your decision is course up to you, pound for pound is a very abstract term. All fights are (now) 15 rounders in a neutral venue. For the sake of speed and not clogging up the board, I will post five matches at a time and offer you multiple votes, so you can make a pick for each fight. Finally, my vote will only count to break a tie. Round 3 Part 2: http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=494822 The Tournament so far: http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=494189
Personally I think Whitaker is the greater fighter, but in a pound for pound match up, style wise I think Hearns would win 6 times out of 10.
I didn't think the OP was making them fight one another.. I thought he was saying who was the better p4p fighter between the two.. not actually wanting them to fight.. Cause he's matched up some way bigger guys to smaller guys.. so how would it be logical for them to fight one another with such a disparity in prime weights?
That is your call. You may just decide who was greater, you may choose to pick the winner if they were somehow of the same weight, you may use other criteria to make your decision as who was best in their 80s/90s peaks. As I said, the basis for the tournament is such, there are no 'real' right or wrong answers, how can there be?
