Top 100 of All-time 2011

You have to take into account more than simply the depth of a fighter's resume, Commando, although I don't necessarily disagree with the specific points you just made. A lot of things play into it, such as the quality of the era, the quality of the performances against the best opposition faced, the peak level of ability shown by said fighter, etc.

 

Yea it's not a bad list just the two HUGE standouts is having Roberto Duran at 3 and Lopez in a top 100 list. Yes Lopez was undefeated but look who he faced. I mean there's only like 4 fighters on his resume that people would recognize that are decent to good opponents.

Calzaghe even deserves to be up there more than him.

 

With Lopez it's more about the sustained level of dominance and ability he showed during his extensive reign. I don't think his Strawweight resume is too much worse than Hopkins's at Middleweight, really (here comes the cavalry), and his dominance/performance level against said opposition was more impressive on the whole, in my opinion.

At some level I think it becomes obvious that certain fighters are on a certain tier, and from there you just have to judge based on what you prefer. I don't think there's any questioning whether Lopez was on the same tier as the likes of Hopkins and co., personally. But then that's why I've stopped doing rankings. It's all arbitrary and impossible to come up with anything consistent, in my experience. Now I just prefer to rate fighters on their own merits.

 

Finito dominated his opponents far better than Calzaghe did, peroid.

Finito is too high on that list i agree, but Calz does NOT deserve to be higher than him IMO.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a fighter great, another borderline great, another an all-timer, and so forth. I just think the whole numbers game is impossible to play because there are just too many variables to decide which holds more weight in the grand scheme of things. Does fighter A deserve a higher ranking than fighter B because he spanned more weight classes in impressive fashion, whereas fighter B was more dominant at a single one than fighter A ever was? Or vice versa? Or do we just judge them on their own merits, decide that both men have a lot to bring to the table (or don't) and let it be?

I think my more relaxed approach of late on such matters has really strengthened my logic, understanding, and overall objectivity on the sport, actually. Even if my posts don't show it because I "can't be arsed". That said, even my own views have me questioning that at times, as I've been known to call the likes of Barrera, Morales, and Marquez borderline greats while accepting Saad Muhammad as a genuine great, which a lot of people would disagree with, understandably. I've just been putting a lot more weight into what I see in fighter's abilities/performances as of late, which is why I've strayed from the records/rankings game (that isn't to say I haven't still been doing a healthy amount of historical research for educational purposes) and just been watching a whole heap of fights in recent months.

 

Lloyd Marshall?
Holman Williams?

?

 

I like your Delahoya and Lopez rankings most here severly underrate those 2.

Napoloes too low
Carruther too high
Sanchez Pac too low

Could name some more discrepencies but those popped out at me..


What no Morales or Barrera? yet you have Nelson 50? Both are at least accomplished as Nelson and both better than Tszyu. And where in the hell is Ruben Olivares??

 

:good :good:yep

 

I like that list, not necessarily the order but I think all the right names are on it and that is quite a feat in itself. Good work.

 

i really dont get get the love for buchanan , he was champ from 70 to 72 he did beat a good champ in laguna but was laguna just past his prime and just starting the downward move that all fighters sadly make.the Ishimatsu fight i have not seen but have been told that buchanan could well of deserved to get the nod.

ray arcel described buchanan as a very good european style boxer very good but not special not a benny valgar.

i am not knocking your list i am just curious to see if you can enlighten me on what i am missing about buchanan

 

Marquez should be on that list too. I would rate him over some of the other modern guys on near the bottom.. More of an argument for him then Calzaghe and Marquez should be rated higher than Tszyu,chandler and a couple of the other modern day guys you have above him.....

Did Tapia or Canizales almost make it?