What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46550
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by gilgamesh »

Chepppaaa wrote:
Lennox wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
LOL, he was no greater than Whitaker by even a whisker.
No fighter has ever fought and beat better opposition, Whitaker is not even top 5.

Floyd Mayweather undefeated in 49 nights, beat 3 #1 ranked fighters, 24 top 10 opponents, 28 top 20 opponents, 33 top 50 opponents, 37 top 100 opponents. No one gets anywhere near. He has been the number 1 ranked fighter in 5 divisions, not just a world champion.


floyd is 45-4

pacquiao was a loss, the video proved it
maidana 2 was a dq loss, since baylesswas bought out, it wasnt normal that bayless never let maidana box from inside, floyd clinched excessive and lost therefore
maidana first fight it was close but i had maidana winning, he simply did more, was more effective
castillo straight up robbery castillo won around 8 rds, floyd 4
I thought Floyd lost the first Castillo fight. I had Maidana winning the first fight as well, but it was close so I wouldn't call it a robbery. Bayless did a piss poor job, but there's no argument for a DQ against Floyd, he won the fight definitively it just stinks of questionable officiating. As for The Pacquiao fight was a loss...No. It wasn't. Floyd won that fight clearly.

I know you're a guy that's all over Pac's nuts hard so you'll never see it, but it's a fact.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

gilgamesh wrote:
Chepppaaa wrote:
Lennox wrote:No fighter has ever fought and beat better opposition, Whitaker is not even top 5.

Floyd Mayweather undefeated in 49 nights, beat 3 #1 ranked fighters, 24 top 10 opponents, 28 top 20 opponents, 33 top 50 opponents, 37 top 100 opponents. No one gets anywhere near. He has been the number 1 ranked fighter in 5 divisions, not just a world champion.


floyd is 45-4

pacquiao was a loss, the video proved it
maidana 2 was a dq loss, since baylesswas bought out, it wasnt normal that bayless never let maidana box from inside, floyd clinched excessive and lost therefore
maidana first fight it was close but i had maidana winning, he simply did more, was more effective
castillo straight up robbery castillo won around 8 rds, floyd 4
I thought Floyd lost the first Castillo fight. I had Maidana winning the first fight as well, but it was close so I wouldn't call it a robbery. Bayless did a piss poor job, but there's no argument for a DQ against Floyd, he won the fight definitively it just stinks of questionable officiating. As for The Pacquiao fight was a loss...No. It wasn't. Floyd won that fight clearly.

I know you're a guy that's all over Pac's nuts hard so you'll never see it, but it's a fact.
I don't really think he's a troll, just young and stupid. Too influenced by his man crushes to maintain any objectivity.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46550
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Chepppaaa wrote:


floyd is 45-4

pacquiao was a loss, the video proved it
maidana 2 was a dq loss, since baylesswas bought out, it wasnt normal that bayless never let maidana box from inside, floyd clinched excessive and lost therefore
maidana first fight it was close but i had maidana winning, he simply did more, was more effective
castillo straight up robbery castillo won around 8 rds, floyd 4
I thought Floyd lost the first Castillo fight. I had Maidana winning the first fight as well, but it was close so I wouldn't call it a robbery. Bayless did a piss poor job, but there's no argument for a DQ against Floyd, he won the fight definitively it just stinks of questionable officiating. As for The Pacquiao fight was a loss...No. It wasn't. Floyd won that fight clearly.

I know you're a guy that's all over Pac's nuts hard so you'll never see it, but it's a fact.
I don't really think he's a troll, just young and stupid. Too influenced by his man crushes to maintain any objectivity.
That happens with a lot of fans these days I notice.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
I thought Floyd lost the first Castillo fight. I had Maidana winning the first fight as well, but it was close so I wouldn't call it a robbery. Bayless did a piss poor job, but there's no argument for a DQ against Floyd, he won the fight definitively it just stinks of questionable officiating. As for The Pacquiao fight was a loss...No. It wasn't. Floyd won that fight clearly.

I know you're a guy that's all over Pac's nuts hard so you'll never see it, but it's a fact.
I don't really think he's a troll, just young and stupid. Too influenced by his man crushes to maintain any objectivity.
That happens with a lot of fans these days I notice.
Most of them. Very few knowledgeable fans growing up with the sport now. If I was young I'd barely bother with it, too many good UFC cards to watch.
Lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1083
Joined: 26 May 2002, 12:35

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by Lennox »

To not have Floyd number 1 shows total delusion. If you understand boxing and his achievements you could not possibly question it. No one has ever fought and beat better opposition in the quantity he has.
Chepppaaa
Super Middleweight
Posts: 2626
Joined: 01 Jun 2013, 19:32

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by Chepppaaa »

gilgamesh wrote:
Chepppaaa wrote:
Lennox wrote:No fighter has ever fought and beat better opposition, Whitaker is not even top 5.

Floyd Mayweather undefeated in 49 nights, beat 3 #1 ranked fighters, 24 top 10 opponents, 28 top 20 opponents, 33 top 50 opponents, 37 top 100 opponents. No one gets anywhere near. He has been the number 1 ranked fighter in 5 divisions, not just a world champion.


floyd is 45-4

pacquiao was a loss, the video proved it
maidana 2 was a dq loss, since baylesswas bought out, it wasnt normal that bayless never let maidana box from inside, floyd clinched excessive and lost therefore
maidana first fight it was close but i had maidana winning, he simply did more, was more effective
castillo straight up robbery castillo won around 8 rds, floyd 4
I thought Floyd lost the first Castillo fight. I had Maidana winning the first fight as well, but it was close so I wouldn't call it a robbery. Bayless did a piss poor job, but there's no argument for a DQ against Floyd, he won the fight definitively it just stinks of questionable officiating. As for The Pacquiao fight was a loss...No. It wasn't. Floyd won that fight clearly.

I know you're a guy that's all over Pac's nuts hard so you'll never see it, but it's a fact.

so to you floyd is 47-2

yes, it makes a big difference when you let an official inside boxer not boxing from inside, using his hooks etc, bayless took away maidanas most important weapon and that was boxing from close. sometimes he was even breaking up the fight when they werent even toching each other rdicoulus. imagine bayless would have taken floyds best weapon and would have warned him from jabbing or warned him from using his footwork, the fight would have been completly diferent.

i like pac, cause no one brought better quality action entertainmant in the last 15 years in boxing. i hate boring boxers.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46550
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I don't really think he's a troll, just young and stupid. Too influenced by his man crushes to maintain any objectivity.
That happens with a lot of fans these days I notice.
Most of them. Very few knowledgeable fans growing up with the sport now. If I was young I'd barely bother with it, too many good UFC cards to watch.
I don't even particularly care for UFC personally. I genuinely prefer Boxing over UFC almost always, but that's me. Certainly more competitive matchmaking in the UFC that's undeniable, but I just prefer a lot more striking in my combat sports I suppose.

I enjoy Kickboxing too, but it doesn't get much coverage on TV.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46550
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by gilgamesh »

Chepppaaa wrote:
so to you floyd is 47-2

yes, it makes a big difference when you let an official inside boxer not boxing from inside, using his hooks etc, bayless took away maidanas most important weapon and that was boxing from close. sometimes he was even breaking up the fight when they werent even toching each other rdicoulus. imagine bayless would have taken floyds best weapon and would have warned him from jabbing or warned him from using his footwork, the fight would have been completly diferent.

i like pac, cause no one brought better quality action entertainmant in the last 15 years in boxing. i hate boring boxers.
I'm not sure it would've made a difference anyhow honestly, but Floyd's win in the rematch would've looked better if not for Bayless officiating the way he did. Maidana didn't seem nearly as motivated for the rematch as he was for the first fight so I think he'd have lost a UD regardless that night, but Bayless was there to make sure of it I guess.
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by crusader »

Lennox wrote:To not have Floyd number 1 shows total delusion. If you understand boxing and his achievements you could not possibly question it. No one has ever fought and beat better opposition in the quantity he has.
Do you think Floyd is the number one boxer of all time? And if you do, is it clear-cut in your opinion?
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Lennox wrote:To not have Floyd number 1 shows total delusion. If you understand boxing and his achievements you could not possibly question it. No one has ever fought and beat better opposition in the quantity he has.
:lol:
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

crusader wrote:
Lennox wrote:To not have Floyd number 1 shows total delusion. If you understand boxing and his achievements you could not possibly question it. No one has ever fought and beat better opposition in the quantity he has.
Do you think Floyd is the number one boxer of all time? And if you do, is it clear-cut in your opinion?
Isn't that the guy always pimping his silly rankings?
jas80s
Cruiserweight
Posts: 572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 20:55

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by jas80s »

Chepppaaa wrote:1 Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2 Manny Pacquiao
3 Bernard Hopkins
4 Roy Jones Jr.
5 Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.
6 Oscar De La Hoya
7 Evander Holyfield
8 Pernell Whitaker
9 Juan Manuel Marquez
10 Ricardo Lopez
11 Felix Trinidad
12 Lennox Lewis
13 Marco Antonio Barrera
14 Joe Calzaghe
15 Shane Mosley
16 James Toney
17 Andre Ward
18 Erik Morales
19 Wladimir Klitschko
20 Roman Gonzalez
21 Miguel Cotto
22 Naseem Hamed
23 Winky Wright
24 Gennady Golovkin
25 Terry Norris

it was funny, cause jones was hurt, he thought dan rafael knew boxing, but than he found out that dan had him #1, like i do. now both are friends :lol:

my take on the list. i find mosley and tito to low, those guys beat prime de la hoya and de la hoya is 6 (cause he is more famous) and mosley & tito something like 11-15 :shame: .

lets get to the top. chavez should not be in the top 5, he beat a lot of sparring matches, but couldnt beat the top guys, taylor was a robbery, pernell was a robbery, sorry both are better than chavez. jones is the true #1. what many people dont know, he started art junior middleweight and was winning against anybody up until heavyweight, thats 6 freaking divisions. he beat a young getting close to his prime hopkins easily, he beat a previously undefeated toney, made james look like a c level opponent. but it is more than achieving things it is also the way you did and simply put it, prime jones was the best boxer who ever went into a ring. looking just on the fact of achieving things than pac has to be #1, cause he moved from minimumweight till 154, thats like 12 fu&/()ing divisions. barrera, morales, marquez, cotto, mosley, hoya, margarito, clottey, bradley, hatton, mayweather, nobody faced as many top opponents as manny did!
A couple of observations:

I was surprised the Lennox Lewis was only number 12, am I missing something? The guy had two losses both avenged with extreme prejudice, well, McCall kind of melted down, but that's OK because no human being in the history of the world is knocking out Oliver McCall. And, it's not like the fighters he beat are a bunch of nobodies. I mean, he's five spots BELOW Evander and he was 1-0-1 against him. Yes, the second fight was closer, but he won and the first fight is a candidate for worst decision, ever.

I cannot fathom how one can see Jones as having anywhere near the body of work in the ring of Floyd Mayweather. Anyone who has read anything I have ever posted knows that I respect and admire all fighters, but Jones dominantion came against a long list of solid, capable, though hardly spectacular fighters. If Floyd went through a similar list (different fighters of course, but similar talent) he would get lambasted on this site. Hopkins and Toney are top quaility wins, but that doesn't get him to number 1.

De La Hoya is too high for me. De La Hoya will always have my respect as THE top guy who was still willing to fight anyone. This guy fought Ike Quartey for god's sake, what a man! But, most times he stepped up, he lost. I can't see him being that high with as many losses in big fights as he suffered, though I will say I thought he did just eke out the win against Trinidad.

I am surprised Hamed is on the list, another explosive talent. But, he was thoroughly outclassed by MAB and he even hit the deck against an aging Kevin Kelley. I'd put Timothy Bradley ahead of Nassem Hamed, just to show how strange his presence is to me.

I am not really one to make lists, but I have to say, this was a pretty solid one for the most part. We are always going to disagree.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
That happens with a lot of fans these days I notice.
Most of them. Very few knowledgeable fans growing up with the sport now. If I was young I'd barely bother with it, too many good UFC cards to watch.
I don't even particularly care for UFC personally. I genuinely prefer Boxing over UFC almost always, but that's me. Certainly more competitive matchmaking in the UFC that's undeniable, but I just prefer a lot more striking in my combat sports I suppose.

I enjoy Kickboxing too, but it doesn't get much coverage on TV.
I'll always prefer the sport of Boxing, but it's like watching AA Baseball compared to the majors. plenty of striking in the UFC, literally more exciting cards than entire months of Boxing. If I didn't grow up with the love of Boxing, no reason to bother. the saddest part are the good fights, they'd be solid 20 years ago.
BroughtonRulesRefuge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2773
Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 06:55

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by BroughtonRulesRefuge »

Lennox wrote:To not have Floyd number 1 shows total delusion. If you understand boxing and his achievements you could not possibly question it. No one has ever fought and beat better opposition in the quantity he has.
- Absent any evidence than what you currently profess other than transnational rankings, you would do well to take a full view of the heritage and critical habits of boxing if you are ever to talk beyond the authority of dubious rankings.

I will do my best to note some positive attributes of TUE 49-0 as a point of reference. Nobody has made as much money boxing has he has, so if just gross totals are the criteria, he's tops. He's always in good shape unlike many other touted greats, but plenty greats in his era were also, so no cigar, just props for discipline. He had ample natural talents, however, I dare say within his era, Pac, Wlad, and Roy were better natural overall talents, not the least of which was their offensive capacity and power, the essence of most every great. All would be substantially more than a puny 49-0 had they the exquisite development of legend Bob Arum, and then a sugar daddy like Haymon securing a permanent hometown commish, drug testing apparatus, judges, and refs to always insure an unfair fight against the one opponent in the ring, never once allowing the other fighter to ever get any momentum going against their finest queen's china.

As to Roy and Manny achievements: who were the overwhelming Fighters of the Decade in the 1990s and 2000s by consensus boxing media?

Where's Waldo and TUE 49-0 then, MIA? Roy lasted all the way into 2004 when he made a dumb mistake to rematch blowhard Tarver for his standard 5 million purse instead traveling to Germany for Dariusz for at least double, maybe triple money in an historical legacy type fight for both.

Where's Waldo and TUE 49-0 when Manny won his first title as a scrawny flyweight stick of a 19 yr old Filipino brought over to Thailand as the staked out goat for their prime, touted, 28 yr old tiger champ, Sasakul, 32-1-1. To be fair TUE was basking as the new babe in Ring p4p rankings after beating Genero Hernandez in his retirement fight, a fight he did quite well in before "mysteriously" quitting on his stool midway, not exactly legendary stuff as this scenario played out plenty during the Arum days. Whereas the Filipino staked out goat turned TIGER on the Thai tiger, battering him at will into unconsciousness. Any Ring p4p invite for Manny doing something greater than TUE ever did in his carefully pedicured career? Of course not, the larded American boxing world wasn't ready for such ferocity unless it was made in America. No matter, by 2009 the scrawny Filipino kid ran away with the international community’s respect during the largest boxing poll ever conducted, over a half million frenzied boxing aficionados voting. An international group of boxing scribes in Las Vegas tallied the international bounty for the recorded annals.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/17 ... ing-greats

P4P #1. Sugar Ray Robinson, #2. Manny Pacquiao, #3. Muhammad Ali

#1 Welterweight: Sugar Ray Robinson, #1 Featherweight: Manny Pacquiao, #1 Heavyweight: Muhammad Ali, #1 Lightheavyweight: Roy Jones Jr, #3 Lightweight, TUE 49-0...and where's Waldo?

Well, Hrrrmmmph, what's a stupid international boxing poll compared to Transnational you might snort. OK, lets compare to longtime Ring p4p rankings. Manny, in spite of his late entry, burned up the Ring record book with 645 weeks of being consecutively ranked, ie: 12 1/2 years, nobody even close. Where was Waldo and TUE?

Holds the record for the most weight class division titles, trumping eight in all, half of them Ring or lineal titles. This in spite of skipping over two divisions between flyweight and superbantam because he had been nearly starved to death trying to make weight.

Manny also set their record for fighting the most Ring p4p fighters in his career, the most wins, the most KOs, currently 9-4-1, nobody even close. He also made his divisional debut 3x against the #1 guy in the division, certainly not in the mold of the sissified Waldo or TUE. In other words, as the ultimate outsider in boxing, he has taken the most risks, paid the highest price for his audacity, set the biggest records that actually count for anything, and currently coholds the record for a single gate purse, PPVs, and PPV revenue and holds the record for the most money ever made by a non American fighter.

Pity there could never be a serious rivalry with TUE like Manny had with other greats in his era, Erik Morales x 3, Marco Antonio Barrera x 2, Juan Manuel Marquez x 4(JMM ducking #5 for two years running now), and Tim Bradley x 3. TUE preferred his refs to nurse on his little pinky and take all that easy stinky TV money he and his family helped themselves to.

The first three of five places easy, 1. Manny, 2. Wlad, 3. Roy, they were record setters in their fashions and head and shoulders above all others of the past 25 years. Places 4-5 are a crapshoot between a dozen or more including TUE. Maybe in the end, you could make a case for #4...or maybe not even that.
:TU:
Lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1083
Joined: 26 May 2002, 12:35

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by Lennox »

crusader wrote:
Lennox wrote:To not have Floyd number 1 shows total delusion. If you understand boxing and his achievements you could not possibly question it. No one has ever fought and beat better opposition in the quantity he has.
Do you think Floyd is the number one boxer of all time? And if you do, is it clear-cut in your opinion?
Not sure if he is the best ever, whilst the game is not well patrolled today it was a lot worse 50 years ago so the great names of years gone by might/might not have been. I produce statistics and some of the known facts are at 180 degrees to some opinion. I have heard people say FW ducked... truth is he fought the highest ranked competition of anyone in the last 25 years....and its by miles not a little gap. Comparing fighters of different era's is more subjective you can only do what can in the era your in, to make great fights you need two great fighters, sometimes that does not exist, with FM he has boxed over nearly 20 years in 5 different weight classes and commanded them all. There is no conceivable way it could be anyone else. If you go back 50 - 75 years I don't have the depth of knowledge to know who were the top 10, top 20, top 30 fighters at a given weight at the time, the people that did are probably not alive. If someone studied a weight class they could reconstruct the lineal situation, Heavyweight would be the easiest other classes less easy.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Nothing wrong with ranking Floyd #1, saying anyone that disagrees knows nothing is ridiculous.
Lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1083
Joined: 26 May 2002, 12:35

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by Lennox »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing wrong with ranking Floyd #1, saying anyone that disagrees knows nothing is ridiculous.
Anything else is like saying Hull City are better than Manchester City. It shows to me than they are not worth talking too, that your dealing with a dunce. You seem a dunce, are you?
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Lennox wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing wrong with ranking Floyd #1, saying anyone that disagrees knows nothing is ridiculous.
Anything else is like saying Hull City are better than Manchester City. It shows to me than they are not worth talking too, that your dealing with a dunce. You seem a dunce, are you?
:zzz:
punchoutsb
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5842
Joined: 16 Sep 2009, 01:05

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by punchoutsb »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Lennox wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing wrong with ranking Floyd #1, saying anyone that disagrees knows nothing is ridiculous.
Anything else is like saying Hull City are better than Manchester City. It shows to me than they are not worth talking too, that your dealing with a dunce. You seem a dunce, are you?
:zzz:
Dang a lot of posters have been coming in hard at you lately. Must be that time of the month.
Leonid
Super Middleweight
Posts: 97
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 18:15

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by Leonid »

Martinez, Donaire and Vitali deserve to be on that list; Ward, GGG and Gonzalez not yet. Wlad is way too low.
Ricardo Lopez top-10? I know he's undefeated and stuff, but the division is not that competitive. And who did he ever beat? There's only Rosendo Alvarez with whom he struggled in 2 very close fights (1 TDraw, 1 SD). That magical zero is too much of a factor in many peoples judgement.
No problem with Floyd at #1 though, he's got a resume to support it.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

punchoutsb wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Lennox wrote:Anything else is like saying Hull City are better than Manchester City. It shows to me than they are not worth talking too, that your dealing with a dunce. You seem a dunce, are you?
:zzz:
Dang a lot of posters have been coming in hard at you lately. Must be that time of the month.
I always pull out the dumbest posters. Just too busy to engage for more than just a minute.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Leonid wrote:Martinez, Donaire and Vitali deserve to be on that list; Ward, GGG and Gonzalez not yet. Wlad is way too low.
Ricardo Lopez top-10? I know he's undefeated and stuff, but the division is not that competitive. And who did he ever beat? There's only Rosendo Alvarez with whom he struggled in 2 very close fights (1 TDraw, 1 SD). That magical zero is too much of a factor in many peoples judgement.
No problem with Floyd at #1 though, he's got a resume to support it.
Vitali? He wouldn't belong on a top 50. Wlad is too high. Agreed on Lopez. Gonzalez should be above him.
Keko
Welterweight
Posts: 682
Joined: 15 Apr 2016, 01:42

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by Keko »

jezzamundo wrote:
Chepppaaa wrote:1 Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2 Manny Pacquiao
3 Bernard Hopkins
4 Roy Jones Jr.
5 Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.
6 Oscar De La Hoya
7 Evander Holyfield
8 Pernell Whitaker
9 Juan Manuel Marquez
10 Ricardo Lopez
11 Felix Trinidad
12 Lennox Lewis
13 Marco Antonio Barrera
14 Joe Calzaghe
15 Shane Mosley
16 James Toney
17 Andre Ward
18 Erik Morales
19 Wladimir Klitschko
20 Roman Gonzalez
21 Miguel Cotto
22 Naseem Hamed
23 Winky Wright
24 Gennady Golovkin
25 Terry Norris

it was funny, cause jones was hurt, he thought dan rafael knew boxing, but than he found out that dan had him #1, like i do. now both are friends :lol:

my take on the list. i find mosley and tito to low, those guys beat prime de la hoya and de la hoya is 6 (cause he is more famous) and mosley & tito something like 11-15 :shame: .

lets get to the top. chavez should not be in the top 5, he beat a lot of sparring matches, but couldnt beat the top guys, taylor was a robbery, pernell was a robbery, sorry both are better than chavez. jones is the true #1. what many people dont know, he started art junior middleweight and was winning against anybody up until heavyweight, thats 6 freaking divisions. he beat a young getting close to his prime hopkins easily, he beat a previously undefeated toney, made james look like a c level opponent. but it is more than achieving things it is also the way you did and simply put it, prime jones was the best boxer who ever went into a ring. looking just on the fact of achieving things than pac has to be #1, cause he moved from minimumweight till 154, thats like 12 fu&/()ing divisions. barrera, morales, marquez, cotto, mosley, hoya, margarito, clottey, bradley, hatton, mayweather, nobody faced as many top opponents as manny did!
It's actually a pretty damn good list, with a few missteps. I think they got the top 4 exactly right, in the right order. RJJ had the most impressive prime of anyone in the list, but his resume falls short of that of Hopkins, Manny and Floyd. Whitaker should take the #5 spot ahead of Chavez. Oscar is a bit too high, but I think he deserves to be ahead of Trinidad (despite throwing it away he proved himself the better boxer in their fight) and Mosley (Oscar was robbed in the rematch). GGG shouldn't be in there yet - I'd have Martinez in instead of him.

I agree good list!
Floyd,Manny,Hopkins are the best!
Vitaly and Sergio Martinez??
jezzamundo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by jezzamundo »

Keko wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:
Chepppaaa wrote:1 Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2 Manny Pacquiao
3 Bernard Hopkins
4 Roy Jones Jr.
5 Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.
6 Oscar De La Hoya
7 Evander Holyfield
8 Pernell Whitaker
9 Juan Manuel Marquez
10 Ricardo Lopez
11 Felix Trinidad
12 Lennox Lewis
13 Marco Antonio Barrera
14 Joe Calzaghe
15 Shane Mosley
16 James Toney
17 Andre Ward
18 Erik Morales
19 Wladimir Klitschko
20 Roman Gonzalez
21 Miguel Cotto
22 Naseem Hamed
23 Winky Wright
24 Gennady Golovkin
25 Terry Norris

it was funny, cause jones was hurt, he thought dan rafael knew boxing, but than he found out that dan had him #1, like i do. now both are friends :lol:

my take on the list. i find mosley and tito to low, those guys beat prime de la hoya and de la hoya is 6 (cause he is more famous) and mosley & tito something like 11-15 :shame: .

lets get to the top. chavez should not be in the top 5, he beat a lot of sparring matches, but couldnt beat the top guys, taylor was a robbery, pernell was a robbery, sorry both are better than chavez. jones is the true #1. what many people dont know, he started art junior middleweight and was winning against anybody up until heavyweight, thats 6 freaking divisions. he beat a young getting close to his prime hopkins easily, he beat a previously undefeated toney, made james look like a c level opponent. but it is more than achieving things it is also the way you did and simply put it, prime jones was the best boxer who ever went into a ring. looking just on the fact of achieving things than pac has to be #1, cause he moved from minimumweight till 154, thats like 12 fu&/()ing divisions. barrera, morales, marquez, cotto, mosley, hoya, margarito, clottey, bradley, hatton, mayweather, nobody faced as many top opponents as manny did!
It's actually a pretty damn good list, with a few missteps. I think they got the top 4 exactly right, in the right order. RJJ had the most impressive prime of anyone in the list, but his resume falls short of that of Hopkins, Manny and Floyd. Whitaker should take the #5 spot ahead of Chavez. Oscar is a bit too high, but I think he deserves to be ahead of Trinidad (despite throwing it away he proved himself the better boxer in their fight) and Mosley (Oscar was robbed in the rematch). GGG shouldn't be in there yet - I'd have Martinez in instead of him.

I agree good list!
Floyd,Manny,Hopkins are the best!
Vitaly and Sergio Martinez??
Vitali was good - better than his brother IMO, but his resume is pretty weak on paper. Martinez I agree, should be in there, somewhere near the bottom of the list.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45214
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: What is your take on ESPN rank 25 best boxers of the last 25 years

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

jezzamundo wrote:
Keko wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:
It's actually a pretty damn good list, with a few missteps. I think they got the top 4 exactly right, in the right order. RJJ had the most impressive prime of anyone in the list, but his resume falls short of that of Hopkins, Manny and Floyd. Whitaker should take the #5 spot ahead of Chavez. Oscar is a bit too high, but I think he deserves to be ahead of Trinidad (despite throwing it away he proved himself the better boxer in their fight) and Mosley (Oscar was robbed in the rematch). GGG shouldn't be in there yet - I'd have Martinez in instead of him.

I agree good list!
Floyd,Manny,Hopkins are the best!
Vitaly and Sergio Martinez??
Vitali was good - better than his brother IMO, but his resume is pretty weak on paper. Martinez I agree, should be in there, somewhere near the bottom of the list.
Agree, Vitali was by far the more natural fighter, much tougher, and meaner too, but he just didn't fight enough good opposition, and lost some years due to his temporary retirement.
Post Reply