The Ring's greatest fighters by decade

Explain please - because that doesn't make any sense.

 

Spinks would probably be top 5 but I wouldn't have him above Hagler or Hearns so wondering where you think he'd place.

His work at light heavy was outstanding and he deserves great credit for the win over Holmes in 85 but 86-88 he didn't cover exactly cover himself in glory.

 

It doesn't (and I do).

Are you saying Pacquiao was only the 5th best boxer of the 2000s?

Are you saying Ray Leonard was only the 7th best boxer of the 1980s?

Are you saying Roberto Duran was only the 5th or 6th best of the 70s?

Are you saying Ali was only the 4th or 5th best of the 60s?

If so, it seems reasonable that you would have an explanation because I'm fascinated as to what your rationale would be.

 

So, outside of the 1980s who do you rank ahead of the other boxers, because ranking four or five boxers above Duran in the 70s is baffling, and yes, I'm well aware there were some fantastic fighters in that decade but not four or five better than Duran.

And how can Pacquiao, who would by almost any estimation be one of the two best of the 2000s rank 5th in your list. Assuming Mayweather is one of those fighters above him, who are the other three who in your opinion deserve to be ahead of him?

 

I loved Barrera too but Pacquiao beat him twice - by any measure he has to be above Barrera.

 

So you rate Barrera above Pacquiao because Barrera performed better than Pacquiao did against Morales even though Pacquiao actually beat Barrera twice. Makes sense.

 

To rank Pacquiao lower in the 2000s than in the 2010s is frankly ludicrous, unless you accept that there's been a massive drop off in quality this decade, but we clearly have very different criteria in the way we rate fighters so I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this.