Nick Gamble's top 50 fighters of all time

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

IMO, Eder Jofre is a top ten and Fighting Harada definite top 20.

[JCS]

Just for kicks.. The recently updated All-Time formula spits this Top 50 out
1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Muhammad Ali
3 Archie Moore
4 Emile Griffith
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Kid Gavilan
7 Dick Tiger
8 Carlos Ortiz
9 Jimmy Bivins
10 Carlos Monzon
11 Ike Williams
12 Gene Fullmer
13 Sammy Angott
14 Joey Giardello
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
16 Oscar De La Hoya
17 Joe Louis
18 Carl 'Bobo' Olson
19 Henry Armstrong
20 Floyd Patterson
21 Jose Angel Napoles
22 Holman Williams
23 Marvin Hagler
24 Evander Holyfield
25 Bob Montgomery
26 Barney Ross
27 Virgil Akins
28 Pernell Whitaker
29 Jimmy Carter
30 Billy Conn
31 Carmen Basilio
32 Willie Joyce
33 Tony Canzoneri
34 Rocky Marciano
35 Jersey Joe Walcott
36 Maxie Rosenbloom
37 Harold Johnson
38 Johnny Saxton
39 Roberto Duran
40 Jake LaMotta
41 Young Corbett III
42 Jimmy McLarnin
43 Mike Tyson
44 Beau Jack
45 Sugar Ray Leonard
46 Thomas Hearns
47 Joe Brown
48 Kenny Lane
49 Carlos Hernandez
50 Terry Norris


Lennox was at #53, RJJ came at #54, Foreman at #63, Max Baer at #74

[Boxscribe]

Ambling Alp

I think you hit the nail on the head when referring to how fondly or well certain fighters are remembered. Archie Moore for example.

Burley may make all-time lists while some of his contemporaries do not for a number of reasons. You cite the fact that while Burley may make number 10, someone like Booker is nowhere close, yet they were comparable. The easy answer is that most of these guys are/where forgotten about. Burley was neglegted for many years and Booker is only just coming to be appreciated.

Sam Langford never won a world title yet he is considered one of the greatest ever by many. Why is that? Is it because of who he beat, who avoided him, style, ability etc. etc. etc. It could be all of the above, but one thing is for sure - Langford is appreciated more now that he has ever been and he's been dead half a century and fought around 80/90 years ago.

There is no film/video etc for us to view (only one on Burley) and these guys weren't champions. There may be fighters around today that might be underappreciated now, but will be more so in years to come. Though I doubt it. We have the luxury - with cable TV etc. - to be able to watch a mindboggling amount of boxing action. The average guy (or gal) can make their own judgement about how good, bad or indifferent a fighter may be. Off-nights and poor performances are there for all to see. This was not the case in the era we have discussed here.

Eye-witness accounts and personal memories are all we have of a great number of fighters. If Archie Moore - who can be appreciated both via his record and his viewable perfomances for those that weren't around in the day - tells us that Burley and Booker were great then that assertion needs to be considered and investigated.

If you then look at Bookers record (for example) and look at who he fought and those boxers 'standing' at the time then it gives us some idea of how good Booker may have been. Of course we can only have an idea, because without actually seeing them (or having the experience of being in the ring with them) it is not possible to say with absolute certainty. The same could be said of Langford, Greb, Flowers etc.

I spoke to Eddie Booker's son about his dad's career and he said he had never seen him fight and had not viewed film of him in action, so it was difficult to appreciate how good he was. The fact that Archie Moore told him how good his dad was - and other people that saw him fight - gives him an idea and something to use in an arguement.

How many fighters have you researched after never knowing even their name only to gain an understanding an appreciation of how good they may have been? this is what boxing history - and to an extent these boards - are all about. I get an education everytime I read a well-reasoned and informed post about fighters that I knew very little about.

The point I am making is that you will bemoan the fact that Gene Fullmer is so low on such a list while others may not consider him at all. Many fans will automatically blurt out Robinson when you ask them for the greatest middleweight of all time or Ali as the greatest fighter of all time. I would disagree on both counts and could possibly provide a fair arguement - as could you for bumping Fullmer further up the list. You may a similar arguement for having Burley behind Fullmer, Hopkins and Flowers. Again, I would argue otherwise.

Dominating an era cannot be the only yard-stick for evaluating how good someone is/was. In the case of Burley, Booker or Holman Williams (and many others), they never got the opportunity. Most people think that if someone is not listed in 'The History of Boxing' (for example) then they could not have been that good. Your examples, for instance, consist of recognised world champions and no one else. You also argue that Moore was 'a little better' than Johnson and that there may not be 15 guys that are worse than Moore and better than Johnson. Is that to say that if Moore was 1 Johnson should be 2? Or Moore 5 Johnson 6 or 7? What is that opinion based upon?

You are right in that some favour certain fighters, eras, races, styles etc. when considering these lists. As I indicated earlier, these lists are subjective and that is the best thing about them because we then get debate, argument and reasoned thought. If you want to justify every place on your own list, then go ahead. Prove to me that Fullmer was better than Burley. I'll give you an arguement and to support that arguement I will do research. You will do your own research and that way I may get an education about Fullmer and you may get one about Burley. Isn't that a splendid reason for visiting this and other sites?

[elmersalsa]

Burley and Flowers. I don't quite understand the fascination with Burley. His only wins of note were against Archie Moore and Fritzie Zivic, neither of whom were at their best weight when fighting Burley. .

So, what was Zivic's best weight? He won the welterweight title from Armstrong after losing twice to Burley - at welterweight!

Moore was as good a middle - at that time - as there was.

This statement demonstrates little insight into the fight game in the 30s and 40s.

The point that I am trying to make is that Burley doesn't seem to have enough impressive wins to be considered to be considered one of the top 50 boxers of all-time.
Archie Moore definetly wasn't as good as a middleweight as he would develop into as a light-heavy. Moore had already lost 9 fights before his loss to Burley, none of them against great opponents. He had won only 4 of his previous 7 fights before the Burley fight. Moore had yet to win a really big fight. Burley's win isn't as big a deal as it looks at first glance.

Zivic was a welter weight when he fought Burley, although technically Burley was over the welterweight limit himself when he fought Zivic. You also have to really question how big a win over Zivic is. Zivic was very inconsistent, he did score some big wins, but he lost over 60 fights in his career. Earlier in hios career he lost 8 straight fights!
Then look at the rest of Burley's record. His only other great opponents were Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins. Burley lost to Charles both times and lost to Bivins the only time they fought.

The great majority of Burley's victories were against very ordinary oppnents.
Burley beat Holman Williams 3 out of 5 times and had a draw with Georgie Abrams. He lost to Lloyd Marhall in their only fight. These are good but not great fighters. Burley is closer to their level than he is to the all-time greats.
Yes, Burley should have gotten a title shot somewhere along the line. However, he certainly wasn't one of the top 50 fighters including every weight class over 100 years of boxing. A fighter at that elite level has more big wins. There are simply more than 49 other fighters who were better than him.

I agree with you 100%. I cannot picture Charley Burley at the top 50 fighters of all time. He might be a top 100 fighter, but a top 50????
I see his record and he has some impressive wins, but NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

I do not understand why The Ring Magazine rated him at #39 in their 80th Anniversary Issue (1922-2002) "The Best 80 Fighters of the Last 80 Years"

I think Burley should not get a top 50 ranking. Maybe it was a NOSTALGIC THING.

[elmersalsa]

I think that's a very solid list. I'll just nitpick on a couple things:

I would have Carlos Monzon higher than #30. He was the greatest middleweight of all time, in my opinion. He was undefeated in his last 80 professional fights, lost only three times in 100 professional fights, all by decision in his first 20 fights and all avenged, and was middleweight champion with an extremely impressive title reign of 13 defenses, every one of them against a legitimate opponent.
Monzon was one of the most well-rounded fighters of all time, possibly even moreso than Louis. He could box or slug on par with anyone, he had a strong punch, and his chin was pure granite. I think he belongs in the top 20 for sure.

Also, why isn't Carmen Basilio on the list?? Basilio was two-time welterweight champion and middleweight champion in, in my opinion and most other peoples' as well, the strongest era ever at that weight range. I would definitely have Basilio inside the top 50, probably in the top 30.

I also think Langford, while a legend, is a little too high at #2, Julio Cesar Chavez should be a little higher than 25, Tommy Hearns should definitely be in the top 50, and I'd have Whitaker a little higher than 42.

I AGREE WITH YOU. Carmen Basilio DEFINATELY, SHOULD BE IN THE TOP 50

[Sweet Scientist]

What I really want to know is...did you use your name in this topic to impress your girl friend or something?

[thunderfromdownunder]

brockton-
picking the best 50 of all time would be very hasd to me but if i did jeff fenech would be in there
i realise he only had like 30 pro fights or something but he was the first man to win three world titles in different weight division while still undeafeted.
would you have Jeff in your top 100 at least?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

sweet scientist wrote
[/quote] What I really want to know is...did you use your name in this topic to impress your girl friend or something?[quote]

yeah she was so turned on by it she banged me tonight.
thanx for asking .


the top 50 list was made by me. my name is NICK GAMBLE.
any questions?????????????






jeff fenech would be in my top 100 and i give him credit for a great preformance against azumah nelson and he was unlucky to lose the first fight. he won titles at 3 different weight classes. IBF bantam weight, WBC super bantam, WBC featehrweight, and u could say he should have been 4 time but he was robbed in WBC super featherweight fight vcs nelson. but he shouldnt be in top 50. it hurt me to leave out basillio and fullmer out of my top 50 and thomas hearns. if i dont put them in, i cant putr fenech in top 50.

[Rory McCloskey]

how can u rate max baer so low? 74? max baer would have beat lennox lewis into the ground

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

More I check this, it starts to read as a list of Top50 U.S. fighters with a random foreigners thrown in to the top. Kenny Lane, Virgil Akins and such quality contenders or fringe champions are in, but no room for all-time greats like Miguel Canto, Eder Jofre, Ruben Olivares, Panama Al Brown, Fighting Harada, Khaosai Galaxy...

Drastically missing the legends of divisions below 135. Bad, bad, bad...

[Ambling Alp]

Just for kicks.. The recently updated All-Time formula spits this Top 50 out
1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Muhammad Ali
3 Archie Moore
4 Emile Griffith
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Kid Gavilan
7 Dick Tiger
8 Carlos Ortiz
9 Jimmy Bivins
10 Carlos Monzon
11 Ike Williams
12 Gene Fullmer
13 Sammy Angott
14 Joey Giardello
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
16 Oscar De La Hoya
17 Joe Louis
18 Carl 'Bobo' Olson
19 Henry Armstrong
20 Floyd Patterson
21 Jose Angel Napoles
22 Holman Williams
23 Marvin Hagler
24 Evander Holyfield
25 Bob Montgomery
26 Barney Ross
27 Virgil Akins
28 Pernell Whitaker
29 Jimmy Carter
30 Billy Conn
31 Carmen Basilio
32 Willie Joyce
33 Tony Canzoneri
34 Rocky Marciano
35 Jersey Joe Walcott
36 Maxie Rosenbloom
37 Harold Johnson
38 Johnny Saxton
39 Roberto Duran
40 Jake LaMotta
41 Young Corbett III
42 Jimmy McLarnin
43 Mike Tyson
44 Beau Jack
45 Sugar Ray Leonard
46 Thomas Hearns
47 Joe Brown
48 Kenny Lane
49 Carlos Hernandez
50 Terry Norris


Lennox was at #53, RJJ came at #54, Foreman at #63, Max Baer at #74

Is is this form some sort of computer ranking system? I suspect that it is and gives much more weight for a big win then it does for a loss. There sure are a few surprises. I don't think many people would have had Angott, Olson,Joyce, Lane ,Hernandez, Saxton, Giardello, Norris,Patterson among others in there. Suprising that guys like Benny Leonard, George Foreman, Michael Spinks, Bob foster, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, Jofre, Pep, Saddler, Gans, Walker, Langford among others didn't.

It's interesting that in the ranking system that Boxscribe refered to only had Fullmer as the #20 middle weight of all time, but here in this list as the #12 fighter including every weight class! IMO, he is about the 8th best middleweight and about #55 on the all-time list including every weight class.

I tend to think that Brockton Blockbuster's list is more accurrate than either of the other two.
Perhaps though, some of the guys like Hernandez, and Joyce have been overlooked and other big names have been overrated.

[Sweet Scientist]

how can u rate max baer so low? 74? max baer would have beat lennox lewis into the ground

...what...?????

[BoxBuzz]

SS if it was very soft ground something along the lines of quicksand it could be done, depending on Lennox's willingness to cooperate.

[Rory McCloskey]

u think a prime and focused lewis could beat a prime and focused baer?

cmon...

lewis is overrated, he won his title belts from the likes of phil jackson, tommy morrison, oliver mcall, and he only fought 2 world noticable and stand out fighters, evander holyfield and mike tyson, and by the time he got to tyson, tyson had become a JOKE. Max baer on the other hand fought with hall of famers and all time greats such as joe louis, jim braddock, tommy loughran, and not to mention he was also in the hall of fame. he fought other champions and great fighters such as lou nova ernie schaaf(who's death was linked to him) max schmelling paulino uzcudan, tuffy griffith, primo carnera, and tommy farr.

okay now lets go over lewis. lewis will probably make the hall of fame cause his record and length of titles held, and i am not doubting hes a good fighter, just not better then baer remember that please. now lewis might have a more impressive record then baer and a longer time with the belts, but just look at the level of competition.

i dont think lewis would have held the belt either, he wouldnt have beaten louis or schmelling, maybe not even jim braddock in that situation, braddock was one hell of a fighter that night. but lewis hasnt faced any hall of famers except holyfield, and sadly tyson. lewis beat holyfield and i give him total credit for that but when he beat tyson, tyson was already a joke. lewis' title wins arent all that impressive compared to baer, because for some reason i dont see phil jackson or tommy morrison, vitali klitscho, rasheed rahman, david tua, or francois botha getting anywhere near the hall of fame.

i respect lewis as a fighter and think he should be in the hall of fame, but i think max baer, who fought alot of hall of famers and great fighters, is just in a group above him. Like if max baer were alive today think he probably would clean up shop and most likely be looked at as the savior of heavyweight boxing.

[Sweet Scientist]

Max Baer was a very interesting and colorful fighter in his day...but he was another 'partier'...not always interested in training...not always interested in bringing his "A" game...anybody like that loses points with me...unless they could win without their "A" game...Max couldn't...

...and remember...Lennox Lewis beat everybody he ever fought...took two attempts sometimes...but he beat everybody he ever fought...only Marciano could make the same statement...that's got to be worth something, don't you think?

[Rory McCloskey]

no no your right and i do respect that, i just think that the level of competition is unbeleivabley one sided.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

[quote="Sweet Scientist"]Max Baer was a very interesting and colorful fighter in his day...but he was another 'partier'...not always interested in training...not always interested in bringing his "A" game...anybody like that loses points with me...unless they could [i]win[/i] without their "A" game...Max couldn't...

...and remember...Lennox Lewis beat everybody he ever fought...took two attempts sometimes...but he beat everybody he ever fought...only Marciano could make the same statement...that's got to be worth [i]something[/i], don't you think?[/quote]

Gene Tunney did too...

[Ambling Alp]

I found this old thread and thought that it was interesting. (A couple of my own opinions I no longer agree with.)

It's also interesting that elmersalsa and I agreee on something here.

Most of all, it's interesting to read what boxscribe had to say. There was no name calling, and he didn't just keep repeating the same old line without answering someone elses' point.

[Borinken25]

Just for kicks.. The recently updated All-Time formula spits this Top 50 out
1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Muhammad Ali
3 Archie Moore
4 Emile Griffith
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Kid Gavilan
7 Dick Tiger
8 Carlos Ortiz
9 Jimmy Bivins
10 Carlos Monzon
11 Ike Williams
12 Gene Fullmer
13 Sammy Angott
14 Joey Giardello
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
16 Oscar De La Hoya
17 Joe Louis
18 Carl 'Bobo' Olson
19 Henry Armstrong
20 Floyd Patterson
21 Jose Angel Napoles
22 Holman Williams
23 Marvin Hagler
24 Evander Holyfield
25 Bob Montgomery
26 Barney Ross
27 Virgil Akins
28 Pernell Whitaker
29 Jimmy Carter
30 Billy Conn
31 Carmen Basilio
32 Willie Joyce
33 Tony Canzoneri
34 Rocky Marciano
35 Jersey Joe Walcott
36 Maxie Rosenbloom
37 Harold Johnson
38 Johnny Saxton
39 Roberto Duran
40 Jake LaMotta
41 Young Corbett III
42 Jimmy McLarnin
43 Mike Tyson
44 Beau Jack
45 Sugar Ray Leonard
46 Thomas Hearns
47 Joe Brown
48 Kenny Lane
49 Carlos Hernandez
50 Terry Norris


Lennox was at #53, RJJ came at #54, Foreman at #63, Max Baer at #74

Glad to see that at least a computer ranking system gives Carlos Ortiz his due respect. Carlos Ortiz resume is much better than a lot of fighters that are often ranked ahead of him. He was a tremendous warrior that what he lacked on technique he made it more than a thousands fold with his heart. For example, at lightweight his resume is even more impressive than that of Duran in my opinion. Who did Duran defeated at lightweight? De Jesus, Buchanan, and Viruet. He has to be given credit for his longevity, however, the competition was not as good as the one faced by Carlos Ortiz. Ortiz competition at lightweight included, Joe Brown, Flash Elorde, Kenny Lane, Ismael Laguna, Nicolino Locche, and Sugar Ramos.

I supposed if Felix Trinidad would have continued to KO bums at welterweight he would have been ranked ahead of Robinson, Leonard, and Duran.

[Ezzard]

I found this old thread and thought that it was interesting. (A couple of my own opinions I no longer agree with.)

It's also interesting that elmersalsa and I agreee on something here.

Most of all, it's interesting to read what boxscribe had to say. There was no name calling, and he didn't just keep repeating the same old line without answering someone elses' point.

Thanks for bringing this one up again, Alp. It does make interesting reading.

[I Feel Fine]

1. sugar ray Robinson - Possesed the great boxing ability. Untouchable at welterweight. He dominated welterweight divison and midddleweight divison. Past his prime he beat many hall of famers. Nearly won light-H title. Amazing speed, power, skill, heart, and stamina.
2. sam Langford - Never got to fight for title, 167 wins. Weighed only 175 but beat much larger men. Easily would have been champ at Middleweight and light-H. Beta heavyweight Harry wills, and Joe gans.
3. Joe Louis- greatest heavyweight of all time, most title defenses
4. Henry Armstrong- 151 wins, 3 time world champ, beat ambers, and ross and possed KO power and a warriors attitude.
5. Muhammad Ali- first 3 time world heavyweight champ, superb boxer and amazing speed. Beat many hall of famers.
6. Barney Ross- 72-4. 3 time champ, beat canzoneri twice, ruled 3 divisions
7. Harry Greb- Middle weight champ, beat micky walker and only man to beat gene tunney. USA light-H champ.
8. Willie Pep - One of best stylist boxers ever, dominated featherweight
division. 230-11 record. beat sandy saddler in peak fight to regain title.
9. Roberto Duran- born to fight, best lightweight ever, stepped up to win Welterwight title by beating sugar ray leonard. won WBC midd title at 37.
10. Sugar Ray Leonard-incredible boxer, 5 time champ, Beat Hagler and hearns and duran.
11. Sandy Saddler- Beat Pep 3 times, ruled featherweight divison, possesed a lot of power.
12. Ezzard Charles-greatest light-H all time, dominant heavyweight champ.indredible boxing skills.
13. Mickey Walker- Middleweight and welterweight champion,great brawler, held sharkey to Draw. beat much larger men.
14. Benny Leonard- One of the best lightsweights all time, superb boxer
15. Rocky Marciano- undefeated heavyweight champ, est KO percentage among heavyweights all time.
16. Roy Jones jr- god given boxing ability, dominated 3 weight classes. beat hopkins, toney and outclassed everyone in light heavyweight.
17. Marvin Hagler- never hurt, Ruled Middleweight divison in 80s and beat the likes of duran and hearns.
18. Jack Johnson-best defensive boxer. held title for 6 years. Untouchable in his prime.
19. Archie Moore- all time leader in KOs. Ruled light-H division for 10 years. past his prime when won title.
20. Julio Cesar Chavez- 90-0 before losing. dominated 3 weight classes. showed hes a true warrior.

that was my list back in early june. i now change my list a little

NEW LIST
1. sugar ray robinson
2. sam langford
3. joe louis
4. henry armstrong
5. muhammad ali
6. harry greb
7. barney ross
8. willie pep
9. roberto duran
10. sugar ray leonard
11. bob fitzimmons
12. sandy saddler
13. ezzard charles
14. mickey walker
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Benny Leonard
17. Archie Moore
18. Rocky Marciano
19. Joe Gans
20. Jack Johnson
21. Roy Jones jr
22. Marvin Hagler
23. Salvado Sanchez
24. Alexis Arguello
25. Julio Cesar Chavez
26. Jack Dempsey
27. Kid Gavilan
28. Ike Williams
29. Larry Holmes
30. Carlos Monzon
31. Terry Mcgovern
32. Gene Tunney
33. Wilfredo Gomez
34. Emile Griffith
35. George Foreman
36. Lou Ambers
37. Bernard Hopkins
38. Joe Frazier
39. Tony Canzoneri
40. Ruben Oliveres
41. Pernell Whitaker
42. Charley Burley
43. Jimmy Mclarnin
44. Stanley Ketchel
45. Michael Spinks
46. Aaron Pryor
47. Bob Foster
48. Evander Holyfield
49. Billy Conn
50. Tiger Flowers - very underated
* floyd mayweather - careers not over yet, but he will be high on the list when his career ends if he keeps it up.

i will do 50-100 when i get back. or someone else can do it for me. I HOPE I DIDNT FORGET ANY ALL TIME GREATS.


- i hated doing this list because anyone from 40-50 in placement could have been replaced or moved higher or lower. i left some people i wanted on the list out cause it came down to choosing. thats why i will do top 100 when i get back to not exclude some great fighters.

Two thumbs down. I'd put Armstrong #2, I'd put Greb, Pep and Charles top five ahead of Ali and Louis, I'd put Ali ahead of Louis, I'm not sure if I would put Duran top ten, I might, but I would probably put Johnson ahead of Marciano, I would take Jones out of the top 50 and would not put him ahead of Hagler, I'd put Whitaker ahead of Chavez and Jones and in the top 30, I'd probably put Monzon ahead of Hagler, I love Hopkins but I don't think he's top 50, I may or may not put Foster ahead of Spinks, I probably would, and I would have Hearns in the top 50... along with some other changes.

Just my opinion, of course.

[harrygreb]

aaron pryor must be laughing his head off

[bjermaine]

Roy Jones was totally dominant for about 13 years or so. He hardly lost any rounds in his fights and knocked out many to go with it. If thats not domination I don't know what is.

Yes, HE WAS DOMINANT, I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT HIS QUALITY OF OPPOSITION compared to Whitaker's is WEAK.

In the other hand, Whitaker was MORE DOMINANT fighting THE VERY BEST:
Julio Cesar Chavez (D12, everybody knows he won that fight clearly...Only with that FIGHT, puts him over Jones!!!),
Azumah Nelson (W12),
Buddy McGirt (twice),
Jose Luis Ramirez (twice, everybody knows he won both fights from here to Japan),
Roger Mayweather (W12)
Julio Cesar Vazquez (W12), not a great champ BUT A GOOD ONE, AND at least had an excellent record. Whitaker jumped to jr middleweight and took his title.
Rafael Pineda (W12)


What else Whitaker had to do to be the most dominant fighter of his time??? He barely lost a fight, or may I say, HE BARELY LOST A ROUND. He made some BRILLIANT MASTERPIECES.

you both are right. jones and whitaker should both be very high. jones being the fighter of the decade has to put him near the top of any all-time list. that is a serious award. whitaker finished a very close second for that award if i recall correctly.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Fair cop - Whitaker began his career in 1985, Jones in 1988/89 (from memory). Regardless of whoever you think deserves the mantle (Whitaker for mine, on the basis of superior opposition), that age difference gives Jones a genuine edge.

Ricardo Lopez is shockingly overlooked. I have him down as the second greatest fighter of my lifetime, behind Whitaker (Jones is interchangeable third or fourth with Mayweather).

[bjermaine]

Fair cop - Whitaker began his career in 1985, Jones in 1988/89 (from memory). Regardless of whoever you think deserves the mantle (Whitaker for mine, on the basis of superior opposition), that age difference gives Jones a genuine edge.

Ricardo Lopez is shockingly overlooked. I have him down as the second greatest fighter of my lifetime, behind Whitaker (Jones is interchangeable third or fourth with Mayweather).

lopez was incredible but he did not have the opposition or was at a high enough weight class to get the notoriety that he deserved. good points on the decade award. if it was from 85-95 whitaker probably wins the award.