The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

I have to admit, I'm partial to weight jumpers that also had a good run in atleast one other weightclass (preferrably an original one) and a guy like Spinks and Hopkins you can't go wrong with :yep

 

I should say that, dandy as it may be, it wouldn't really be 'around 60'ish'. I'd have Hagler and Hopkins each somewhere from 45-55, so 60 or so is a tad lower than the very bottom of the range I like for them.

 

Weak era be damned, the man was the top Middleweight in the world for a longer span of time than anybody and then jumped up to win the Light Heavyweight title twice, doing so past his 2nd decade as a pro and in his 40's, becoming the oldest man to ever win a major world title in the history of boxing in any weight class, and is maybe little more than week out from breaking his own damn record.

Hopkins is special. Special special. Hagler special. :deal

 

This content is protected

 

Why Foster? Spinks every bit as dominant, beat better fighters, never lost at the weight, every bit as good (if anything, better). That one really seems odd to me.

I rate Spinks high at LHW for the same reason I rate Hagler high at MW. His resume is nice but nothing overly impressive, but he was dominant and looks a beast on film. I'll take him over Conn at the weight for most of the same reasons as to why I'll take Hagler over Holman.

You think Hagler's reign at Middleweight was better than Spinks' reign at Light Heavy? I'd have them on the level. Qawi, for instance, is a better career LHW than Sibson or whoever you want for Hagler was a career MW. Hagler had to work his way up to the title for longer and did good work there but Spinks has a monumental P4P achievement that Hagler can't compete with and absolutely no losses, not even any near-losses, in his prime or in his division. He got beat once while past it and up against a bigger man who was the literal definition of a monster. Hagler got beat flat out by Willie Monroe not long before his prime. Avenged it and settled the matter, but a loss is a loss, and Spinks hasn't even a single one during his best years.

Hagler being called flat out better or greater than these guys, guys like Spinks and Hopkins, is wrong to me. Like I said, I just don't share that opinion at all. Those two, Chavez, Mayweather, and a couple others would all be right there with him on my list, a few even ahead, probably. Again, I just don't hold him in quite the same regard.

 

I'm just gonna throw one more name out into the aether, with the hope that he'll receive some consideration for the 90-100 slot.

Baby Arizmendi was never unified champion at featherweight, but he was a two time titleholder in one of the division's deepest eras.

His featherweight resume includes...

* A victory over Freddie Miller (who makes a lot of Top 10 lists when discussing all time featherweights)
* Two victories over Chalky Wright (who makes a lot of Top 20 lists when discussing all time feathers), one by stoppage.
* Fidel LaBarba, who received (at the behest of a certain poster, I'll admit..) some consideration for this list.
* Plus victories over perennial contenders like Newsboy Brown, Speedy Dado, Battling Shaw, Mike Belloise, Tommy Paul, Eddie Shea, Davey Day, and Archie Bell. (multiple victories in a number of cases).
*Oh...and a couple of victories over Henry Armstrong (pre-peak, but still a very beastly Armstrong at this point). The first victory was gained while fighting with a broken hand, and he still won just about every round, according to some reports.

Consider that just for one second....

Baby Arizmendi beat one of the greatest fighters to ever step inside the ring, at a point when he already striking terror into the hearts of opponents. With one hand.

Even past prime, above his best weight, he still had enough to give Armstrong three very tough fights (Armstrong looks about as good as any swarmer can look in fights IV and V, and Arizmendi stays right with him in the trenches the whole time). At a point when Armstrong was knocking everyone out, Arizmendi stayed on his fight and heard the final bell each and every time.

Even past prime, he still had enough left to hold guys like Ambers and Angott to draws. Yeah, Ambers eventually got the better of him, and Angott decisioned Baby...but both of these guys were naturally bigger and rank within the Top 100, so it's not a huge mark against him.

Arizmendi he dropped a couple of decisions here and there...But ****, man, featherweight in the 30's was a den of hungry young lions, and no one emerged from it without getting scratched. Still...with only a couple of exceptions, he returned the favor and avenged most of his defeats.

When he was at his best, Arizmendi was able to hang with and beat most everybody he faced...no matter how great they were. Yet, he never really seems to get mentioned in these types of discussions, and that's a shame...

Because his resume stacks up pretty favorably against a lot of guys on this list...And because when he was at his best, it's hard, for me at least, to think of a hundred guys who were better than him.

PS...

I won't ***** if you decide not to put him in, McGrain...but I just feel like Arizmendi isn't someone who should be dismissed entirely when creating these sorts of lists. :good

 

Arizmendi is legit. I could see him in over Locche.

 

Then you underestimate the devastation Takeshi Paul Fuji could bring to the squared circle :yep

 

Paul had heart burn during the fight! :twisted: That win means nothing!

 

I'd call the Eddie Davis fight a near loss.that's nitpicking, mind you.

 

I think he will beat Cloud but that no one should see it as a genuine record breaker. Cloud is no champ'!

Anyway, I'm amazed an old man is a top 5 light heavyweight contender, even taking into consideration the fact this is probably the worst ever era for the weight.

I mean, when your Kazakh amateur prodigy is a shambolic mess of an operator you've.....well, it's just a bit disheartening. Clev' is a waste of space. 'Sad' Chad remains, even after Pascal I (which I masterminded of course) and Ward fights, ridiculously overrated and a totally dull watch, especially considering the skills he displays aren't exactly the sweet science's tastiest nuances.

I'm still annoyed Hopkins also looked woeful against him. That to me shows he's finally slipped. But not enough for him to tank Cloud, who was ****ed with Wood's jab and looked downright below average against Campillo, who was an interesting fighter by the way.

Now that's over I have the above crowd of above average guys not fighting each other, an old legend who fights once a year and has seen better days (and more often than not stinks the place out) and some Eastern European who smashed up the most accomplished fighter in the division outside of Hopkins.

So; this weekend means **** all. It will be a good win for Hopkins. Being in the top five of a division at his age is still impressive.

Woeful decision. Generally tedious performances. Not impressed enough to rank him over Hagler.

Two words; Fully Obel.

 

Just asking a question when was Hopkins regarded as undisputed middleweight champion was it when he beat de la Hoya for the WBO tittle in 2004 or was it in
2001 when he won the WBA to add to the IBF & WBC tittles