Top 5 Greatest Fighters

Lol Hopkins wasn't "challenging" for a world title. The title was vacant.

Pete Rademacher challenged Floyd Patterson for his lineal world title in his debut. I suppose he was prime too? LOL

 

Well this is exactly why I do not like excuses. Excuses made on the big stage can affect the status of the win. The rumor was Toney weighed near or a little more than the 210 pound range a month and a half before the fight. That is a lot of weight to lose and the gaining of weight after the fight, and maybe it should not have come out. Jones won a decision and he really was content with winning a decision, and Toney had a good excuse and people bought it, but I talk even more about Jones was happy to go 12. Why didn't Jones try and put the pressure on and stop Toney? A good win. Stopping Toney would have been a great win. What more can I say. But in regards to Toney and his condition. This is why I do not like excuses like Duran's or anyone's, because Toney's excuse probably had a little validity to it, and Jones win was diminished. Like it or not. Jones legacy would have been helped (as would Toney's) by fighting some of the guys in the UK like Watson, Benn and Eubank. A few more top wins would have helped his legacy and made it undeniable. Hagler's legacy is supplemented more with wins which add to his legacy and there is consistency to them.

 

Yeah both Hopkins and Roy Jones are challenging for the title.

As for the other guy who I know nothing about except what Boxrec says but yes he was very likely in his prime for his first fight as are most Gold Medalist/elite amateurs who turn pro at 29. His record also indicates that he was in his prime as he had no major improvements afterwards.

But this is going no where so continue cherrypicking primes

 

Beating Jones in 1998 would have been a great win. Had Hill beaten Hearns and Jones he would be talked about much better. But his legacy should be better than it is. 30 title fights. Regardless of the guys he fought, he fought who was there and many guys Jones was not willing to fight. Hill even fought a guy I thought was pretty good Crawford Ashley, a tall hard punching guy.. Good right hand.

 

You keep talking about this arbitrary cut off. So when Duran is going to lose easily to Benitez and Hearns his prime ends right before that after Laing? That is very convienient for his legacy. That is rather hypocritical.

 

Hagler's resume is vastly inferior to Jones at the top middle and bottom.

I wont even bother with comparing Hearns to Toney? What is Hagler's 2nd best win? Hamsho? Lol inferior to Hopkins

His 5th best win? I dont even know ... maybe Vito? Inferior to Reggie Johnson

10th best Sibson? Inferior to Castro

15th best Sugar Ray Seales lol inferior to Eric Lucas

 

Off the top of my head:

Sugar Ray Robinson
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Muhammad Ali
Henry Armstrong
Roberto Duran

 

Hills legacy is fine because he fought much tougher comp later on in his 30s and won his fair share. With his spectacular win over Tiozzo at CW the jewel of his resume

What is hypocritical? the record is what primarily idictates the prime not arbitrary cutoffs or cherry picking anecdotal evidence.

Losing to Laing is a great indicator of being out of prime. But he beats Moore which makes you reconsider. Then Hearns right hand clearly ends his prime.

 

My criteria are that i spent the last 3 months of 1919 rewatching his fights from my sets or rereading of his career from my reading material. The top 5 GREATESTEST FIGHTERS i have been interested in in 1919.
1. Vito Antuofermo. Been watching a lot of Vito from my career sets and reading the old boxing mags of his rise and fall. No great skills. But great heart and determination. Very exciting. Specifically his MSG and Spectrum fights. Ranked in top 10 as early as 1973.
2. Rafael "Bazooka" Limon.
I never stray far from Bazooka. His body punches and way he punches period are bizarre and pure pain. They look like arm punches and then opponents just collapse. Had Arguello backing up at the Forum.
One of the great faces and villains in boxing history.
3. Jose Luis Ramirez. Shows no emotion just appears to plod forward. But is doing so much more. I thought he beat Whitaker the first fight. I think he beat Rosario the first fight. I think he beat Arguello. I think he was even with Chavez until the cut. Beat good fighters. Tough. Could crack. Beat any style. Should be in Hall of Fame. Had better career than Mancini.
4. Colin Jones. Very frustrating watching Colin. He does such damage with a stiff jab and really anything he lands. He just does not stay busy. I am yelling throw punches at the screen. Could've taken out McCrory and manyif he just had an aggesive fighters heart. I still like watching him though.
5. Jerry Quarry Very cutting fighter with a chance against anyone in history on a good night. Great left hook and right. Super tough except the cutting. Prime for prime makes Gerry COONEY look like the ***** he was. Cooney wouldn't beat half the guys Jerry fought.
Also very inspirational gravesite with great picture.

 

Have his career set and all I could buy on dvd. I write this blog off my phone not a computer. So I can not upload fights. But they are on youtube I am sure. Watch Bazooka vs. Noji. Rose. Marin. Bethelmi. Then of course his classics. Superduperexciting

 

And you keep trying to manufacture reasons as to why Jones is the #1 fighter of the last 60 odd years particularly given you place 75% importance on resume and only 5% on H2H. Ring had him about #17 for the period. If you were placing a high emphasis on H2H one could really put forward a good argument for him being extremely high at his best.

Having said that it's nice to see someone championing a guy that can get underdone in here a bit.