The RING'S Top 20 Fighters Ever. Who Belongs, Who Doesn't?

[elmersalsa]

i know this thread talks about the top 20 RING fighters, however let me throw in my 2 cents about 2 of the fighers on that issue. Tommy Hearns(#67) and evander holyfield(#23) should swap places. Hearns put up a hell of a first fight w/ Leonard in his prime. Yes, Holyfield has shown courage, but nobody will forget the courage Hearns displayed in his war w/ Hagler who is also in the top 20. IN holyfields defining fight against tyson, evanders dirty tactics and headbutts were a huge factor.

C'mon matador?, How you are going to put Thomas Hearns in front of a WARRIOR like Holyfield? Holyfield was the best heavyweight of the 90s. Hearns without a doubt, WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST FIGHTERS THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY 25 YEARS OF WATCHING BOXING. I think he was ranked too low. He was ranked by The Ring at #67. What was The Ring thinking? Pernell Whitaker was A BOXING MASTER, BUT IN MY OPINION, HE WAS RANKED TOO HIGH at #10. I think The Ring was speaking with Max Kellerman on this one. They put Whitaker on top of CHARLES? MOORE? ARGUELLO? MARCIANO? CHAVEZ? I BELIEVE THAT WHITAKER IS IN THE TOP 20, BUT NOT ON TOP OF THESE BOXING LEGENDS. :x

[matador]

i don't see why everyone is shocked that whitaker is ranked #10. he clearly beat julio cesar chavez who is ranked #17 only to get blatantly robbed. i was like 10 years old when i watched that fight and it was so obvious who should've won. when i recently watched a tape, giving chavez the benefit of every doubt, i scored it 8 rounds to 4 for whitaker. their fight was between who many believed were the top 2 p4p fighters during that time and whitaker made chavez look ordinary. also, whitaker beat the great azumah nelson convincingly in his prime and he ALWAYS fought the best fighters available.