Top 5 Greatest Fighters

Good win, but to say Virgil was not declined is not being realistic. But he beat him and I give him credit. Virgil is a hall of fame fighter. A good win. Toney a good win. I don't think Jones has a win like Hagler had over Hearns, but he has very good wins. His best win is Toney.

 

You cant arbitrarily decide when someone is in decline. Its IMPOSSIBLE to be past prime when you've yet to have your best win

BTW Hopkins and Toney are both much better wins than Hearns. Both in terms of the level of opponent and the "margin of victory"

 

Of course he can, he's MAG, didn't you know Duran was never in decline... from 1968 till 2000 Duran was still as prime as ever.

 

Hopkins and Toney are better wins than Hagler over Hearns? I am not sure I understand that one at all. That is not true in any way. The timing of the fight and Hearns being Hagler's equal in elite status and both fighting well at the time in 1985 and on top of the p4p charts. I don't understand the comment you just said. That is like saying Holmes beating Norton is better than a win over Ali.

Hopkins in 1993 was too early to be called a great win, and Toney? Good win, but Toney is not a great like Hearns is. He was a top fighter who seemed to falter in his biggest fight, and he is unconsistent.

Virgil lost the fight which happened with Michalzewski (I hope I got that spelling right) before Jones. Which could be a factor in Jones fighting him I think in April of 1998.. And then after that he started to lose more consistently. You can have best win past your prime. Duran did. Spinks. etc.

 

Who said that. You have to use evidence to come up with a conclusion, and this is what is lacking with you guys on this boxingforum. You don't know how to decipher the truth from the subjective view.

 

What are you talking about? Both Duran and (Michael?)Spinks clearly had there best wins in their prime.

You cant arbitrarily decide when primes begin and end. There has to be a reason be it age, experience, activity even trainers but more than anything its about your record. You have to prove it.

There is simply no proof that Hopkins or Hill were not in their prime when they fought Roy. And its especially ridiculous to suggest Hill wasn't.

As for Toney vs Hearns. I have Hearns ranked about equal with Toney and would even entertain him being slightly above Toney all time. But Roy's win is still clearly better because Toney was significantly more accomplished at 168 than Hearns was at 160 but more importantly Roy's win over Toney was by a much greater margin of victory than Hagler vs Hearns

 

Booted for pasting @CarlChilders?

 

Apparently not.....
I did try to warn you.

 

Ewwwww.

 

So you are saying Duran was prime in June of 1980? That win is what people on other threads tend to use to say he was on of the greatest, ignoring the fact he lost to Ray easily? Hopkins was seen before his prime or peak and Hill was seen as past his prime. Is this really debatable? Hopkins was the experienced cagey guy he would be later during his middleweight reign? And Hill?. Hill was starting to look slower and won a split against Maske and lost to Michalzewski wide enough on the cards in tough fight for Hill.. He was declining and looking more tired. You can turn anything you want. He was starting to decline and he had something like 25 title fights at that point he fought Roy Jones. That is ridiculous to say a guy who had 25 title fights and was looking slower and easier to hit was declining? Nothing arbitrary about it. Look at the Maske fight in I think 1997. Spinks most famous win is Holmes. You can talk about Qawi, but Holmes is his claim to p4p status.

 

Lol when the hell else would his prime be?

Based on what?

Starting to look slow based on what lol? Getting his best win to that point(Maske) and losing to another HOF quality opponent? Doesn't even make sense

So 25 title fights is the arbitrary prime cutoff?

 

hard for me to sift thru your 2 back and forth.. And I'm not going into the why's ..but for me it's
Hagler over Hearns
RJJ over Toney ^^^ close

Hearns over Hill

RJJ over Hopkins

 

Why is Hearns over Hill better than Jones over Hill. When Jones beat him in much more dominant fashion

 

Hearns natural 147, went up more . But cmon man, Hill was 34, RJJ was 29 … and Hearns was 33 and Hill was 27. It was clearly more challenging for Hearns, imo

 

Why did he get booted