Who are the greatest 15 fighters of the past 30 years??

Yeah, Lewis relied just as much on fighting dirty as Hopkin's, which is kind of sad.

He loved to wing uppercuts when holding behind the head, he leaned on people his entire career (And that's BAD when you're a 250 pound fighter) and so on.

 

Are you simple? I said: Did you read the list?

If you read the list you'd have seen that Duran did in fact, place at #14.

 

That is what I was questioning. Answer it.

 

I did this list in 2006: Hence Toney is rated (pre positive test) and Lil Floyd is a bit low.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Be more specific next time, you seem to need people to do the same for you.

He was an inconsistent WW-MW, some huge wins, some embarrasing losses(which must be taken into account), and considering he didn't have his consistent LW career(his best days) to back him up, he doesn't rate as highly. Bottom line, he was not in his prime throughout the majority of the past 30 years that this list considers. In a P4P list regarding their entire careers, he'd rank first. As it is, you could make an argument for him ranking higher, but again, you'd have to take his losses and inconsistency into account, so I find it hard to do so.

 

T, please offer a non-ridiculous reason for Galaxy being above Holyfield.

There's only one I can think of: this list is based on ring dominance against whoever was put in front of the fighter - and NOTHING else.

 

Based on the criteria, best fighters since 1978, Duran would do well to make the top ten. Sneaking it at the bottom half of the top ten and he'd be doing well. The large chunk of his greatness was at lightweight. However, inconsistency also means coming back from major setbacks where Duran is concerned. No mas and the Hearns defeat in particular.

 

Why is he so high then?

 

His top wins can't be ignored, even with the losses thrown in. The wins alone would have him higher, but the losses and inconsistency lower him.

 

Yes, I did not see Galaxy ever get bounced around the ring like Holyfield was sometimes even near his peak. Galaxy did (with the exception of one early defeat) find a way to win and was THe World Champion at 115 for seven years.

Holyfield fought in a more known division and was The Champion twice (and also won the 190lbs crown when he beat DeLeon) and also beat very solid oppostion but lacked the dominance and consistency Galaxy showed.

 

I would have him at #14.

 

That's odd.

 

Ah, ok.

Cough... quality of opposition? ... Cough.

 

Contrearas, Pical, and Kim compare with 42 year old Foreman, 42 year old Holmes and Bert Cooper. Prime Bowe tops anything Galaxy fought, but although he did himself no harm (legacy wise) in the trilogy, Holyfield did lose it 2-1, that is more defeats with one opponent than Galaxy had career defeats.

 

How about a guy named Qawi and and some obscure fighter called Tyson? How about Holyfield holding his own in a fight with Lennox Lewis (I am of course talking about the second fight, but since you feel - somehow, I don't know how - that the first fight wasn't a robbery, then you have to admit Holyfield held his own against Lewis there).

Seriously, I don't think Galaxy has fought anyone on the level of a Buster Douglas, John Ruiz, Hasim Rahman, Michael Moorer or Michael Dokes, to say nothing of the guys above.