fundamentals, tactics, technique, etc. do you really think robby is ranked number 1 because he had the best competition or is it because he was one of the smoothest fighters ever?
Agreed, level of competition is very important, which is why Ali gets ranked so high and the main reason people pick Lewis over Wlad in a mythical H2H match up.
good point, those are important too, but as u can see i try my best to keep resumes and records irrelevant because they are, especially in this case. i'll use robby for example: his resume consists of slow one dimensional flatfooted fighters who rushed in chin first, had mediocre boxing skills, mediocre footwork, but they were tough as f*ck and their chins were made of steel, but they're hall of famers so that's why they're heavily overrated.
i'll use robby as another example... he did NOT fight the absolute best fighters of his era, he fought the fighters his promoters chose for him. if u read news clippings and articles about racism from that era you'd realize that all of the top fighters from that era were all colored but they were never given any big fights like charley burley who was widely considered the best by many people, and he completely outclassed archie moore.
He fought better guys than burley and he is literally the only half decent fighter he didn't face, name others?
Who regarded Charley as the best? Also while Robinson had his fight with Jake, Charley was close to or already retired by the time Ray moved to MW. Also note that Charley may have beaten a young Moore, but he also has 2 losses to Charles, and losses to Marshall and Williams. Charley had his chances to break through, but he seems to have lost at all the wrong times, and thus he stayed his entire career as a high risk low reward fighter. I am intrigued on who was calling him the best though.
I think that Hearns didn't have the chin to be that threatening head to head and wasn't Gavilan a weak puncher? 143 fights and only 28 knockouts? He had skills but not the whole package which is what I'd want in a top10 H2H.
He's technically sound defensively, but I've never seen him impress as an offensive fighter, suggesting he may be one dimensional. For that matter, Pernell Whitaker couldn't crack an egg. He could outpoint and outjab people, but I wouldn't consider him the entire package. Foreman isn't as technically sound. He's not very sound at all, but his power makes him a monster for anyone who tries to tackle him. In head to head fights I'd worry more about the knockout artists. You might be able to outbox Aaron Pryor, Wilfredo Gomez, George Foreman, or Ruben Olivares all night and then they land one good punch and put you to sleep.