Who are the 5 Greatest fighters of the last 15 years?

I dont feel Lennox had more talent than Joe or Naseem. I think Lennox was a perfect professional, perfect orthadox boxer,this is what made him great. He had as much talent as a normal person can have and was perfect at everything. Naseem and Joe are not normal. In terms of talent they should be regarded as geniuses. They are both totally unorthadox, actually there more unorthadox than that. They ar'nt perfect professionals like Lennox, It's because they have a 'gift' they achieved what they did. . I think Lennox is a perfect athlete and a better boxer than them both but I think they have more raw talent than Lennox though.

Its like, hard to explain

 

I think Joe and Naseem are flawed geniuses and as so have much more raw talent than Lennox. I think Lennox is perfect in every aspect but he is normal like everybody else. Thats what im trying to say but in a more succinct manner.

 

Even IF you believe Lewis was the best of British (which I most certainly do not) its a scandal that he should make a top 5 list of the last 15 yrs, thats outrageous.

Imagine every fighter was roughly the same size & weight but with their same abilities & strengths... there is NO WAY Lewis is gonna beat guys like PBF, Morales, Jones, Barrera, Whitaker, Calzaghe, Mosely, Pacman or DLH.... No way. Get real people.

 

Nothing against the man.

I was just shocked that he made this list, I still dont understand it as Im typing this.

:huh

 

Mate, seriously, this is NOT what pound-for-pound is and it is NOT how it is worked out, think about what you're saying here, it is absolutely ludicrous.

Do you mean to tell me that when deciding if Lennox Lewis should be placed higher than Ricardo Lopez p4p, you either imagine a 5ft 4in and 7 stone Lennox Lewis fighting Lopez, or a 6ft 5in and 17 stone Ricardo Lopez fighting Lewis??

I am honestly not being rude mate honestly, but I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it absolutely is NOT what pound-for-pound is, the very idea is psychopathic!!!!

If you imagine that you so so radically change the size of a boxer for a fight, then he completely loses exactly what made him the fighter he is- this CANNOT be done, it makes no sense whatsoever. Of course you are going to think Shane Mosley would box rings round Lennox Lewis because he would be much faster and has better skills etc, but that is only because by nature, a lightweight needs those attributes to compete at world level. A heavyweight does not. He needs bulk and strength and power. If you imagine Mosley to be a heavyweight then at 16st, he cannot be that same quicksilver mover and puncher, so he is then a completely different fighter. If you imagine Lewis to be a lightweight, you can't imagine a 5ft 7in 135lbs guy standing flat-footed and lining up head shots, as that is not what a lightweight could ever do.

You can determine who was better between current and past fighters by H2H- if they fought at the same weight. You can decide who was better between Hagler and Monzon by imagining what you think would happen if they fought, because then you aren't changing anything about them, you're just taking both men and putting them in the ring.

But to decide properly pound-for-pound who was better, the way you work this out is by looking at how they performed against the men they fought, how much better they were than the best fighters in their weight division at the time.

Example: In my opinion, Roberto Duran is a better fighter pound-for-pound than Joe Frazier. I think this because Duran showed he was better than the best fighters he fought by a greater margin than Frazier was. Duran at lightweight got the better of everyone he fought, looked far far better than most of the guys he fought, and he fought many great fighters and took on many difficult and dangerous challenges, and did this more regularly and with greater ease than Frazier did.
I do not think this because if I blew up Duran to 16st or shrunk Frazier down to 135lbs, Duran would win a fight between them, because by definition this is impossible.

It's the same as saying I think Laila Ali is better p4p than Roy Jones Jr, because if you imagine Ali as a man, she would win a fight between the two. But she isn't a man! And obviously imagining her as a man (aside from being very very wrong!) would completely change the fighter she is!!


Do you see what I'm saying, or do you seriously think what you're suggesting has any merit at all whatsoever?

 

Lewis, Mayweather, Lewis, Hopkins and DLH.

 

And can I just add to that: again I'm not trying to be purposefully rude or insult anyone, but anyone who thinks Naseem Hamed was a better fighter p4p than Lennox Lewis, really does not know much about boxing IMO.

Naseem Hamed was a fighter with glaring deficiencies throughout his whole career. He was very very limited as an all-round boxer. His non-existent defence, clumsy footwork, complacency that led to very avoidable knockdowns - all of these are the hallmarks of an amateurish boxer.

I should state now though: I loved watching Hamed fight. I think he was a thrilling fighter, with outstanding natural ability.

However, he relied so much on his natural ability that he never developed into a top top quality fighter. His handspeed, reflexes and absolutely incredible punching power made up for all of the glaring flaws in his game when he was facing the second-tier opposition he fought his whole career, and made him electrifying to watch.

Once he moved it up a level, and took on a true pound-for-pound world class top quality boxer, all of the deficiencies in his boxing skills were exposed, and he lost convincingly. He was simply not good enough to compete at that level.

Hamed fought many good fighters in the divisions he fought in, but IMO the only top quality win of his career was Vuyani Bungu- a stunning performance. But even then, Bungu wasn't HOF/top 10 p4p class. Hamed has no wins over that calibre- whereas guys like Barrera, Morales and Pacquiao do.

Medina, Vasquez, Kelley, and Johnson were all getting on in age and had a few losses. Good wins, no better. McCullough was not really a top quality world class fighter IMO. Cesar Soto was a good win. But Barrera was far and away the best guy he ever fought, and he was soundly beaten.

Compare this to Lennox Lewis in the heavyweight division, how he performed v the best heavyweights around. Lewis is clearly, clearly the greater fighter.

 

Where the heck is Evander Holyfield, best HW of the 90s????

 

Holyfield was a top quality fighter between 1986 (Qawi) and 1997 (Moorer). That means only 4 years of his prime extended into this period. That means 9 fights: 7 wins, 2 losses. After this, Holyfield was on the slide, no longer the great fighter he was. I don't think this is enough to make him one of the top 5 boxers of this period. If the question was 5 greatest fighters of the last 20 years or 25 years, Holyfield is definitely in there for me (see my Top 25 Fighters of the Last 25 Years thread).