The Top 100 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

[Ezzard]

Elmer, I have a criticism for you. You have 8 criteria. But you never say anywhere that you try to evaluate the fighter from films or viewing etc... How skilful they were...how athletic...how mentally string they were...

Be also good to have some kind of idea of how they stand in head to head comparisons in their best weight class.

Just my thoughts.

[Seamus]

I'd actually consider film evaluation, unless it's quite extensive, to be somewhat inconclusive. You could easily make an unfavorable comparison between an alltime great, who there is limited film of, with a guy who isn't as regarded, yet may look spectacular in some films.

[elmersalsa]

"At 5'1", he did a lot for a little guy. Only knock on him was that he didn't challenge the bantamweights like the great Jimmy Wilde did"

Great Jimmy Wilde??? He was the biggest cherry picker of all time... He finally fought a couple guys with good records in his last 2 fights... Lost them.

Jimmy Wilde, the great little Welshman, was not a cherry picker. He fought guys that overweighted him more than 20 pounds. He beat some excellent flyweights and some outstanding and terrific bantamweights. He only weighed 98 pounds! And look at his accomplishments. They are off the roof!

\What are some of his greatest victories? I find Wilde wildly overrated. Perhaps you're much more versed on the Flyweights of his era than I am. Please, educate me on the great Syd Smith.

The Mighty Atom had an unbelievable resume. He is the second best British fighter ever behind the great Bob Fitzsimmons in my estimation.

The great Jimmy Wilde was British, European and twice the World Flyweight Champion.

In his second reign he had 9 title defenses. He won 8 straight of them by knockout in 7 years as champ.

According to boxingrec.com, Wilde won 132 fights. Only lost 3. Had 1 draw. And had 99KOs!

He was undefeated in first 100 fights, winning 94 and had 5 no contests, and 1 draw.

Then he lost to Tancy Lee for the World Flyweight Championship. But he avenged that defeat by knockout.

After that, he didn't lose in his next 45 contests in the next 6 years of his prime.

Won 16 fights in a row by knockout from Mar 1915 to April 1916.

He had winning streaks of 42 and 33 bouts.

Opponents that he beat:

Tancy Lee: He was THE ONLY MAN to beat Wilde in his prime. Wilde avenged that defeat in the rematch. I got ranked Lee at #19 at the all time flyweights.

Joe Symonds: Wilde whupped him twice. He outweighed Wilde for 14lbs in first fight. I also rated Symonds at #24 of the best flyweights ever.

Alf Mansfield: He outweighed Wilde 13lbs over. Wilde whupped him 3 times!

Sid Smith: A solid flyweight that was British, European and Flyweight World Champion. He won 85 fights in 108 contests. He lost 16. He had unbeaten streaks of 20 and 24 fights. He also beat Joe Symonds and future featherweight champion of the world Eugene Criqui in back to back fights. Wilde whupped him 3 times! In the third fight, Smith had a 13lbs advantage.

Young Zulu Kid: Top flyweight contender. Wilde knocked him out in a title defense in 11 rounds.

Joe Conn: Conn outweighed Wilde by 20lbs. (125lbs to 105lbs). Wilde knocked him out in 12. Conn beat Sid Smith.

Joe Lynch: Lynch was twice the Bantamweight Champion of the World. He outweighed Wilde by 14 and a half pounds when they fought. Wilde beat him by UD in 15.

Memphis Pal Moore: Was an outstanding bantamweight and featherweight contender. He is also in the IBHOF in Canastota, NY. He outweighed Wilde by 8 pounds. Wilde beat him by UD in 20 rounds. Moore beat Young Zulu Kid, future champion Jack "Kid" Wolfe, Joe Lynch, and Eugene Criqui. He also beat the guy that thrashed Wilde in Pete "Kid" Herman. Herman is one of all time greatest bantamweights.

Jimmy Wilde, the Mighty Atom, is indeed a TRUE ALL TIME GREAT from Wales. I had him at #1 at flyweight and #20 p4p.

Joe Symonds:

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yeah, way too high. Certainly not greater than hearns.

[Ambling Alp II]

- Notice that none of Wilde's victims are in his own Top 100. doubt he understands the significance of that. He never seems to understand anything.

-I pretty much agree with what Seamus was saying about film. If you only see a particular fighter once or twice, there is a chance that you are either greatly overrating him or underrating him. It might have been a rare great night or a rare off night. You also really have to take into consideration the quality of the opponent and the stages of the two fighters careers.However, if you have seen him several times and against a variety of opponents than film is important.

-One problem is that elmer rates quality over quality. If say, one fighter won 60 fights and another 30, elmer will often make a big deal about it. I have explained many times that any fighter can always find easy wins. Some do it and some don't. He never gets it.

The biggest problem is elmer pretty much randomly picks from the criteria depending on whether he likes the fighter or not.
Winning a Gold Medal for Pascual Perez is a big deal but not for De La Hoya or Leonard since he doesn't like them.

Wins for Mayweather and Basilo over fighters way past their best count as if the opponents were in their primes. Why? elmer likes them.
However, De La Hoya's wins over Whitaker and Chavez don't count at all. Why? elmer doesn't like him.
Ray Robinson win over Henry Armstrong doesn't count because Armstrong was no longer at his best. However, Carmen Basilos win over Robinson counts as a big deal, even though Robinson was 36 and had well over 100 fights by then. Why? elmer likes Armstrong and Basilio but not Robinson.

Lennox Lewis gets nailed for two losses. Other fighters with 10 or 20 losses are rated higher. Why? You guessed it, elmer doesn't like Lenox Lewis.

I could go on and on, but I think most people get the picture.

[Ezzard]

I also think that Floyd Mayweather is too high considering that De La Hoya isn't in there and Mayweather only edged past him.

[Ezzard]

I'd actually consider film evaluation, unless it's quite extensive, to be somewhat inconclusive. You could easily make an unfavorable comparison between an alltime great, who there is limited film of, with a guy who isn't as regarded, yet may look spectacular in some films.

Hi Seamus, I don't think anything is definitive. I agree that it can be misleading but I also think you have to look at every possible scrap of evidence if you can. I think it counts for something.

[elmersalsa]

Yeah, way too high. Certainly not greater than hearns.

The Hitman lost the 2 biggest fights of his career. He lost both fights in his complete prime.

The Mighty Atom beat the guys in his weight class. He even beat guys that were stronger and bigger than he. He had greater win streaks, was champion longer than Hearns and had much more fights.

Hearns a great fighter. But, those two losses in his prime really hurt him in my view in the all time standings.

[elmersalsa]

- Notice that none of Wilde's victims are in his own Top 100. doubt he understands the significance of that. He never seems to understand anything.

-I pretty much agree with what Seamus was saying about film. If you only see a particular fighter once or twice, there is a chance that you are either greatly overrating him or underrating him. It might have been a rare great night or a rare off night. You also really have to take into consideration the quality of the opponent and the stages of the two fighters careers.However, if you have seen him several times and against a variety of opponents than film is important.

-One problem is that elmer rates quality over quality. If say, one fighter won 60 fights and another 30, elmer will often make a big deal about it. I have explained many times that any fighter can always find easy wins. Some do it and some don't. He never gets it.

The biggest problem is elmer pretty much randomly picks from the criteria depending on whether he likes the fighter or not.
Winning a Gold Medal for Pascual Perez is a big deal but not for De La Hoya or Leonard since he doesn't like them.

Wins for Mayweather and Basilo over fighters way past their best count as if the opponents were in their primes. Why? elmer likes them.
However, De La Hoya's wins over Whitaker and Chavez don't count at all. Why? elmer doesn't like him.
Ray Robinson win over Henry Armstrong doesn't count because Armstrong was no longer at his best. However, Carmen Basilos win over Robinson counts as a big deal, even though Robinson was 36 and had well over 100 fights by then. Why? elmer likes Armstrong and Basilio but not Robinson.

Lennox Lewis gets nailed for two losses. Other fighters with 10 or 20 losses are rated higher. Why? You guessed it, elmer doesn't like Lenox Lewis.

I could go on and on, but I think most people get the picture.

It is not about who you beat, but also the quality of opponents and how long you was fighting top men. Some guys don't get that luxury in his own weight class to match his skills.

The great Jimmy Wilde fought the top guys of his era. He even matched his skills with top bantamweights and beat them. His opponents were HIGH QUALITY. They may not be top 100 ATG pound per pound material, but, they were very, very good. You can only fight what is in your era. And depending how you did against the top men in your era, you're judge accordingly.

The ONLY KNOCK against The Mighty Atom? Probably would be that he didn't become also world champion at bantamweight. Could have he win the bantamweight crown? According to what did he do fighting some of the best bantamweight boxers, I think he could've done it.

You criticize me of Lennox Lewis losing to two bums. Is not that he lost to them, which he shouldn't at no cost, but, THE WAY he lost to them and the stage and importance of the event.

That is why he couldn't be ranked in the top ten heavyweights ever, let alone be with the very best pound per pound. He wasn't that good to begin with. He was good, or very good. Not good enough to be an all time great.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson was not shopworn like Julio Cesar Chavez when Robinson lost to the great Carmen Basilio. As a matter of fact, Robinson was coming from an extraordinary win over the great Gene Fullmer with the punch going backwards. He lost to Carmen in a war of attrition. I was a great fight that both were judged of matching each other's skills. Chavez? He was through by 1994 when Frankie Randall beat him. He regained the title by corrupted politics. The Don King Politics.

To have a hot winning streak it could be deceiving. But, I don't believe that in the winning streak there wasn't nobody good or great along the way. Some fighters gain experience and sharpness by being busy. Some get washed up quickly as a heartbeat. It all depends of the quality of the fighter.

[Keko]

I always love to see this kind of list.
I hope there's someone their list to compare.
For me, it's the number 1 for sure SRR, De La Hoya's certainly top 100, SRL is a better place deserved it.

None of the list is not perfect, and everybody can find some criticism.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yeah, way too high. Certainly not greater than hearns.

The Hitman lost the 2 biggest fights of his career. He lost both fights in his complete prime.

The Mighty Atom beat the guys in his weight class. He even beat guys that were stronger and bigger than he. He had greater win streaks, was champion longer than Hearns and had much more fights.

Hearns a great fighter. But, those two losses in his prime really hurt him in my view in the all time standings.

[Ambling Alp II]

Again with the randomness. Wilde's wins streaks are a big deal. Yet Calzaghe is not rated at all.
Wilde supposedly beat great competition. Yet he has zero wins over anyone in his own Top 100. Hearns has two.
Losing to Hagler and Leonard is somehow a big deal but if you lose to Tancy Lee it's no big deal.

Wilde should go down about 10 spots. Hearns needs to go way up; probably to around #25.

Lennox Lewis lost two fights to "bums". (McCall and Rahman).
Basilo lost to Vic Cordell, Eddie Giosa, Lester Felton, Johnny Cesario, Chuck Davey, Johnny Saxton etc. True legends of the sport. That somehow gets disregarded.
Somehow how Robinson wasn't "shopworn" when Basilo beat him. Well, sure, he still had something left. He was maybe 70% of the fighter he once was. Robinson was 36 years old and had 148 fights when he lost to Basilo.

[Bundana]

Pascual Perez a Top-100 p4p boxer... and DLH is not??

Lets consider for a moment:

Of Perez's 84 wins only 17 came against opponents with a winning record.
Of Oscar's 39 wins all were against opponents with a winning record.

In his first 22 bouts Perez didn't meet a single opponent, who had registered even one win.
22 fights into his pro career Oscar was already a 3-division title holder.

Perez was 2-3-1 against world champions.
Oscar was 20-6 against world champions.

Perez lost against 6 different men: Sadao Yaoita, Pone Kingpetch, Leo Zulueta, Bernado Carrabalo, Efren Torres and Eugenio hurtado.
Oscar lost against 5 different men: Trinidad, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao.

Perez never met a boxer, who today is in the IBHOF... though one could possibly be a member some day (Pone Kingpetch).
Oscar met 5 men who are already in - and 4 that are sure to be in a few years (Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao).

Should be a no-brainer, which of the two deserves to be on the list!

[Keko]

There's still someone your list or just a critique of his?

[elmersalsa]

Again with the randomness. Wilde's wins streaks are a big deal. Yet Calzaghe is not rated at all.
Wilde supposedly beat great competition. Yet he has zero wins over anyone in his own Top 100. Hearns has two.
Losing to Hagler and Leonard is somehow a big deal but if you lose to Tancy Lee it's no big deal.

Wilde should go down about 10 spots. Hearns needs to go way up; probably to around #25.

Lennox Lewis lost two fights to "bums". (McCall and Rahman).
Basilo lost to Vic Cordell, Eddie Giosa, Lester Felton, Johnny Cesario, Chuck Davey, Johnny Saxton etc. True legends of the sport. That somehow gets disregarded.
Somehow how Robinson wasn't "shopworn" when Basilo beat him. Well, sure, he still had something left. He was maybe 70% of the fighter he once was. Robinson was 36 years old and had 148 fights when he lost to Basilo.

Joe Calzaghe did not do or beat nobody significant. He dominated the super middleweight class. He should have tried to fight Andre Ward. Was he protected? I don't know. He didn't do much noise around the world.

Tancy Lee was an outstanding British flyweight. He was British and European and World Flyweight Champion. He beat the great Jimmy Wilde. Was the ONLY ONE to defeat Wilde in his prime.

In the rematch, however, Wilde avenged his defeat. We can't say that about The Hitman. He lost the two biggest fights to put him in the class of the true all time greats. He won titles to balance that out, and became the first man to in 4 crowns in 4 different weight classes.

Hearns didn't have a winning streak like The Mighty Atom.

Hearns didn't cleaned up the division like the Mighty Atom.

Wilde was THE TRUE CHAMPION AND TOP DOG of the flyweight division. He beat everybody, including some outstanding bantamweights.

Hearns??? He flunked in the welterweight clean up against Sugar Ray.

For all the marbles, again, he failed against Marvelous.


You can't compare the great Carmen Basilio with that flunking Lennox Lewis. Basilio fought in a tougher era. Beat better champions and contenders

[Ambling Alp II]

Wow.
Well first of all, Ward was not even a contender when Calzaghe retired. Absolutely no reason for him to have fought Ward.
You can't excuse a loss that Wilde had by saying that a guy he lost to (Tancy Lee) was really good because he beat Wilde. It is the same stupid thing you did with Iran Barkley. Again, my 10-year old daughter can figure this out. You would think an adult could.

The Mighty Atoms biggest winning streak was 42. Guess what? Joe Calzaghe had one that was longer; 46.

Hearns flunked against Ray Leonard? Yes he lost. That isn't as bad as losing to Tancey Lee. Losing to a great fighter not so bad. Losing to a not non-fighter=bad. Are you ever going to figure that out?

It's not like Hearns has a 1-5 record against your Top 100 like your #4 rated fighter.
He was 2-2. He beat Duran who was better than anyone Wilde beat. He beat Benitez, who was better than anyone Wilde ever beat. And he did have a 33 fight winning streak, for what ever that is worth.

The heavyweight division was very strong when Lewis fought. He lost twice. Basilo lost several times to ordinary fighters who would not have been at the top in any era.

[Kalan]

Wilde was THE TRUE CHAMPION AND TO

You can't compare the great Carmen Basilio with that flunking Lennox Lewis. Basilio fought in a tougher era. Beat better champions and contenders

Wilde was a ridiculous cherry picker.

Carmen Basilio did not fight better guys than Lennox Lewis... He fought in the Jim Norris era of fixed fights when Boxing nearly died.. There were loud calls for its abolition. Basilio has 16 losses and 7 draws with a 34% KO ratio. He was noted as a crude swinger. From his 29th to his 36th fight he lost 5 of 8 fights to swingers you never heard of. He had a 34% KO ratio

Lewis won 41 of 44 fights with 1 draw and 2 losses which he reversed. He was a 3 time Heavyweight Champion who won 15 of 18 Word Heavyweight Title Fights. He had a 73% KO ratio and fought much better competition. Neither Lewis or Basilio were "flunkies" but Lewis was clearly better than Basilio in a straight up comparison.

You can always claim athletes from one era were better than those of another, but the claim previous generations were better is hogwash. The history of Olympic Records and World Records proves beyond doubt that, as a category, athletes improve on previous athletic achievements with each generation, and there is no reason for Boxing to be an exception, since there are many more pro boxers in many more countries worldwide today than the 1950’s

[Jaywheel]

To think it's been almost 5 years...

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 7#p3258357

and then...

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 4#p3281734

[Ossyrules]

Elmer I salute anyone who takes the time to do this...

But your list looks like it's been written with your heart not head. It's really not balanced but there's too much to say

[elmersalsa]

Elmer I salute anyone who takes the time to do this...

But your list looks like it's been written with your heart not head. It's really not balanced but there's too much to say

All lists are SUBJECTIVE with the most OBJECTIVE WAY possible. I got a rebottle to every post in here that is against my list.

Too many people focus on the modern era. Boxing has been around for centuries. I selected them from the gloved era in 1882 and on.

Pascual Perez was a terrific boxer. So was the Mighty Atom. The problem that a lot us got is that there is NO LOVE WITH THE SMALL GUYS.

[elmersalsa]

Wilde was THE TRUE CHAMPION AND TO

You can't compare the great Carmen Basilio with that flunking Lennox Lewis. Basilio fought in a tougher era. Beat better champions and contenders

Wilde was a ridiculous cherry picker.

Carmen Basilio did not fight better guys than Lennox Lewis... He fought in the Jim Norris era of fixed fights when Boxing nearly died.. There were loud calls for its abolition. Basilio has 16 losses and 7 draws with a 34% KO ratio. He was noted as a crude swinger. From his 29th to his 36th fight he lost 5 of 8 fights to swingers you never heard of. He had a 34% KO ratio

Lewis won 41 of 44 fights with 1 draw and 2 losses which he reversed. He was a 3 time Heavyweight Champion who won 15 of 18 Word Heavyweight Title Fights. He had a 73% KO ratio and fought much better competition. Neither Lewis or Basilio were "flunkies" but Lewis was clearly better than Basilio in a straight up comparison.

You can always claim athletes from one era were better than those of another, but the claim previous generations were better is hogwash. The history of Olympic Records and World Records proves beyond doubt that, as a category, athletes improve on previous athletic achievements with each generation, and there is no reason for Boxing to be an exception, since there are many more pro boxers in many more countries worldwide today than the 1950’s

When you have tough guys like Sugar Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan, Gene Fullmer, Billy Graham, Ike Williams, Art Aragon, Johnny Saxton and Tony DeMarco, you fought better guys than what Lennox Lewis fought.

[elmersalsa]

Wow.
Well first of all, Ward was not even a contender when Calzaghe retired. Absolutely no reason for him to have fought Ward.
You can't excuse a loss that Wilde had by saying that a guy he lost to (Tancy Lee) was really good because he beat Wilde. It is the same stupid thing you did with Iran Barkley. Again, my 10-year old daughter can figure this out. You would think an adult could.

The Mighty Atoms biggest winning streak was 42. Guess what? Joe Calzaghe had one that was longer; 46.

Hearns flunked against Ray Leonard? Yes he lost. That isn't as bad as losing to Tancey Lee. Losing to a great fighter not so bad. Losing to a not non-fighter=bad. Are you ever going to figure that out?

It's not like Hearns has a 1-5 record against your Top 100 like your #4 rated fighter.
He was 2-2. He beat Duran who was better than anyone Wilde beat. He beat Benitez, who was better than anyone Wilde ever beat. And he did have a 33 fight winning streak, for what ever that is worth.

The heavyweight division was very strong when Lewis fought. He lost twice. Basilo lost several times to ordinary fighters who would not have been at the top in any era.

There ara lots of great boxers that did not make the top 100 list. Some guys were very good and still haven't make the hall of fame. Tancy Lee was a great example. In my view, he is ranked #19 at flyweight. If you beat a guy that was having a great undefeated streak, you are good

[elmersalsa]

Pascual Perez a Top-100 p4p boxer... and DLH is not??

Lets consider for a moment:

Of Perez's 84 wins only 17 came against opponents with a winning record.
Of Oscar's 39 wins all were against opponents with a winning record.

In his first 22 bouts Perez didn't meet a single opponent, who had registered even one win.
22 fights into his pro career Oscar was already a 3-division title holder.

Perez was 2-3-1 against world champions.
Oscar was 20-6 against world champions.

Perez lost against 6 different men: Sadao Yaoita, Pone Kingpetch, Leo Zulueta, Bernado Carrabalo, Efren Torres and Eugenio hurtado.
Oscar lost against 5 different men: Trinidad, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao.

Perez never met a boxer, who today is in the IBHOF... though one could possibly be a member some day (Pone Kingpetch).
Oscar met 5 men who are already in - and 4 that are sure to be in a few years (Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao).

Should be a no-brainer, which of the two deserves to be on the list!

The great Pascual Perez, "The Terrier" from Argentina is ranked #2 or possibly #3 @ flyweight. He is definitely a top 5 flyweight of all times. I don't see that regarding Oscar De La Hoya in no particular weight class.

Was he a top 5 @ 135lbs? Not.
At 140lbs? Neither.
How about welter? Not a chance.
And at 154lbs? He is not top 5 there either. So how come we are calling him great when he never dominated a weight class? He never cleaned it up. Not one class!

He wasn't a great fighter. He was a super star manufactured by a gold medal win, tv, good looks and pay per view. If you look at his career, he didn't beat anybody great in an era of so many champions per weight class. He was in an era of diluted championship crowns. Anybody could be champion now of any sort. His greatest win was over a WASHED UP AND SHOPWORN Julio Cesar Chavez. He didn't beat the great Pernell Whitaker. They gave it to him, really. And Whitaker was in the decline. He couldn't beat a guy in decline with all those physical advantages.

Put him in another era and he doesn't become a top flight contender. Let alone win so many world crowns. His boxing style won't make it in a tougher era.

He lost THE BIGGEST FIGHTS OF HIS CAREER:
L12 Felix "Tito" Trinidad
L12 Shane Mosley
LKO 9 Bernard Hopkins...What a theatrical act!
L12 Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
LTKO8 Manny Pacquiao

While Perez was:
1948 Olympic gold medalist
Argentinian and South American Flyweight Champion
World Flyweight Champion for 6 years and 10 title defenses.
He was unbeatable in first 52 fights. He had another win streak of 27 after losing to Pone Kingpetch at age 34.
He won 84 contests! He had more knockouts than De La Hoya had fights.
He fought in an era of ONE WORLD CHAMPION per division. Sometimes he had to go to the challenger's backyards.
He had more longevity than Oscar. Was a more dominant champion.
Not because the men he beat are not recognized doesn't mean they weren't any good. If you want the resume of Perez' top opponents I would share it with you.

Pascual Perez started his pro career late at 26. Imagine if he started much earlier when he won the 1948 Olympic gold medal?

[Kalan]

Wilde was THE TRUE CHAMPION AND TO

Wilde was a ridiculous cherry picker.

Carmen Basilio did not fight better guys than Lennox Lewis... He fought in the Jim Norris era of fixed fights when Boxing nearly died.. There were loud calls for its abolition. Basilio has 16 losses and 7 draws with a 34% KO ratio. He was noted as a crude swinger. From his 29th to his 36th fight he lost 5 of 8 fights to swingers you never heard of. He had a 34% KO ratio

Lewis won 41 of 44 fights with 1 draw and 2 losses which he reversed. He was a 3 time Heavyweight Champion who won 15 of 18 Word Heavyweight Title Fights. He had a 73% KO ratio and fought much better competition. Neither Lewis or Basilio were "flunkies" but Lewis was clearly better than Basilio in a straight up comparison.

You can always claim athletes from one era were better than those of another, but the claim previous generations were better is hogwash. The history of Olympic Records and World Records proves beyond doubt that, as a category, athletes improve on previous athletic achievements with each generation, and there is no reason for Boxing to be an exception, since there are many more pro boxers in many more countries worldwide today than the 1950’s

When you have tough guys like Sugar Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan, Gene Fullmer, Billy Graham, Ike Williams, Art Aragon, Johnny Saxton and Tony DeMarco, you fought better guys than what Lennox Lewis fought.

That's completely wrong headed... Ray Mercer, Oliver McCall, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Vitali Klitscko, David Tua, Gary Mason, Henry Akinwande, and Zeljko Mavrovic, were all better fighters than anyone was at the time Basilio beat them.. Basilio beat some faded fighters and when he was a faded fighter he was knocked out twice by Gene Fullmer -- who went 26 straight fights in his prime without knocking out anybody, he was such a weak hitter.

[Bundana]

Pascual Perez a Top-100 p4p boxer... and DLH is not??

Lets consider for a moment:

Of Perez's 84 wins only 17 came against opponents with a winning record.
Of Oscar's 39 wins all were against opponents with a winning record.

In his first 22 bouts Perez didn't meet a single opponent, who had registered even one win.
22 fights into his pro career Oscar was already a 3-division title holder.

Perez was 2-3-1 against world champions.
Oscar was 20-6 against world champions.

Perez lost against 6 different men: Sadao Yaoita, Pone Kingpetch, Leo Zulueta, Bernado Carrabalo, Efren Torres and Eugenio hurtado.
Oscar lost against 5 different men: Trinidad, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao.

Perez never met a boxer, who today is in the IBHOF... though one could possibly be a member some day (Pone Kingpetch).
Oscar met 5 men who are already in - and 4 that are sure to be in a few years (Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao).

Should be a no-brainer, which of the two deserves to be on the list!

The great Pascual Perez, "The Terrier" from Argentina is ranked #2 or possibly #3 @ flyweight. He is definitely a top 5 flyweight of all times. I don't see that regarding Oscar De La Hoya in no particular weight class.

Was he a top 5 @ 135lbs? Not.
At 140lbs? Neither.
How about welter? Not a chance.
And at 154lbs? He is not top 5 there either. So how come we are calling him great when he never dominated a weight class? He never cleaned it up. Not one class!

He wasn't a great fighter. He was a super star manufactured by a gold medal win, tv, good looks and pay per view. If you look at his career, he didn't beat anybody great in an era of so many champions per weight class. He was in an era of diluted championship crowns. Anybody could be champion now of any sort. His greatest win was over a WASHED UP AND SHOPWORN Julio Cesar Chavez. He didn't beat the great Pernell Whitaker. They gave it to him, really. And Whitaker was in the decline. He couldn't beat a guy in decline with all those physical advantages.

Put him in another era and he doesn't become a top flight contender. Let alone win so many world crowns. His boxing style won't make it in a tougher era.

He lost THE BIGGEST FIGHTS OF HIS CAREER:
L12 Felix "Tito" Trinidad
L12 Shane Mosley
LKO 9 Bernard Hopkins...What a theatrical act!
L12 Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
LTKO8 Manny Pacquiao

While Perez was:
1948 Olympic gold medalist
Argentinian and South American Flyweight Champion
World Flyweight Champion for 6 years and 10 title defenses.
He was unbeatable in first 52 fights. He had another win streak of 27 after losing to Pone Kingpetch at age 34.
He won 84 contests! He had more knockouts than De La Hoya had fights.
He fought in an era of ONE WORLD CHAMPION per division. Sometimes he had to go to the challenger's backyards.
He had more longevity than Oscar. Was a more dominant champion.
Not because the men he beat are not recognized doesn't mean they weren't any good. If you want the resume of Perez' top opponents I would share it with you.

Pascual Perez started his pro career late at 26. Imagine if he started much earlier when he won the 1948 Olympic gold medal?

I'm not quite sure, if you're trolling... or you're actually serious!

His 27-fight win streak as an ex-champ? Yes, on paper that looks very good... until you realize, that in that streak he met only one man, who had won even a single fight!

You think Oscar's best win was against a "washed up and shopworn" Chavez? Whether or not that was his best win is of course debatable - but I actually agree, that Chavez by then was way past it.
What is not debatable, is that Perez's best 2 wins were against world champion Yoshio Shirai... who was having his last 2 fights. I wonder how "prime" HE could have been?

What is also not debatable is the fact, that in 54 of his 92 bouts Perez met opponents, who had not scored a single win! And you have "quality of opposition" as one of your criteria??