BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
That settles it then.

Cheers I thought so too

Who was the fighter of the year in 1989?

Chavez or Tyson

paddy chavez wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:
Cheers I thought so too

Who was the fighter of the year in 1989?

Chavez or Tyson

A quick Google said the ring had someone else. Not that it's a relevant point anyway.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Who was the fighter of the year in 1989?

Chavez or Tyson

A quick Google said the ring had someone else. Not that it's a relevant point anyway.

Oh was that the one time he won it as I mentioned earlier .
Oh and a quick Google search I just did had Whitaker at 41 all-time and Chavez 16 ..

paddy chavez wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

paddy chavez wrote: Chavez or Tyson

A quick Google said the ring had someone else. Not that it's a relevant point anyway.

Oh was that the one time he won it as I mentioned earlier .
Oh and a quick Google search I just did had Whitaker at 41 all-time and Chavez 16 ..

You said he had never won it. Anyway, it doesn't matter. A great year doesn't necessarily equal a great career. Since you're obviously too stubborn to admit Whitaker was considered great during his career, not much more to say, Mr. Chavez.

paddy chavez wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:
But it is the same ,do you think Frankie Randell would of beat the Chavez of 3 years before ? He was on his 87th fight I think he clearly wasn't the fighter that beat Rosario on even Camacho while Whitaker was probably at his peak .

Randall would have always given him problems, he certainly could have beaten him. Silly analogy aside, Whitaker was seen as great during his career. Saying otherwise is either exaggerating for affect or just plain ignorant.

So many times was Pernell fighter of the year if he was so dominate? 4/5 .....no once

Did I not say once

paddy chavez wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Randall would have always given him problems, he certainly could have beaten him. Silly analogy aside, Whitaker was seen as great during his career. Saying otherwise is either exaggerating for affect or just plain ignorant.

So many times was Pernell fighter of the year if he was so dominate? 4/5 .....no once

Did I not say once

Looked like you said not once. It doesn't matter.

Edit: I read it wrong.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:

paddy chavez wrote:
So many times was Pernell fighter of the year if he was so dominate? 4/5 .....no once

Did I not say once

Looked like you said not once. It doesn't matter.

Look I'm not after an argument we all have our favourites

I've idly considered who I'd have in my top 10 for a while, however I might as well knock together a tentative top 30 for the sake of being more interesting and because that's what the OP asked for. The lower the list goes the less I've thought about it TBH - I may be persuadable to make more changes around there especially. Anyway:

1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Greb
(Sam's greater weight jumping, apparent versatility and higher standing among contemporaries trump Greb's better consistency and ATG scalp collecting, but not by much.)

--------------------------

3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Roberto Duran
6. Henry Armstrong
(Hank is slightly flattered by novelty IMO. Still great, but but way behind SRR and Ezz to me. Duran is debatable)

------------------------------

7. Benny Leonard
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Willie Pep
10. Archie Moore
11. Sugar Ray Leonard
(sometimes when I do a top 10 SRL makes the cut. Not this time.)

----------------------------

12. Joe Louis
13. Joe Gans
14. Gene Tunney
15. Sandy Saddler

----------------------------

16. Carlos Monzon
17. Eder Jofre
18. Marvin Hagler

-----------------------------

19. Jack Johnson
20. Floyd Mayweather
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Charley Burley
23. Stanley Ketchel

-------------------------------

24. Michael Spinks
25. Bob Fitzsimmons
26. Tommy Hearns
27. Holman Williams
28. Roy Jones Jr
29. Mickey Walker
30. Manny Pacquiao

---------------------------------

Just missing out: Jimmy Mclarlin, Emile Griffith, Pernell Whitaker, Salvador Sanchez.

I've ordered them into tiers. Theoretically I could move someone up or down a tier, but probably not two.

Nice list, Johnson and ketchel are far too high for me. Tiers is the only way to do it. Then you have a target range.

Jip wrote:I do a lot of research.

You cant answer questions. Or u answer the questions that suits u, the other u leave out cause they uncomfortable.

Duran is inferior to pacquiao. Prime for prime.

Stamina pacquiao
Speed pacquiao
Footwork pacquiao
Punching power pacquiao
Technique duran
Punch variation pacquiao
Chin duran

What makes you think Manny punches harder than Duran? Stamina is another dubious checkmark for Manny.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:I do a lot of research.

You cant answer questions. Or u answer the questions that suits u, the other u leave out cause they uncomfortable.

Duran is inferior to pacquiao. Prime for prime.

Stamina pacquiao
Speed pacquiao
Footwork pacquiao
Punching power pacquiao
Technique duran
Punch variation pacquiao
Chin duran

What makes you think Manny punches harder than Duran? Stamina is another dubious checkmark for Manny.

Even when he was fighting in his 40's he never went on an 8 year KO dry spell. Though he didn't score a knockout in the last 4 years of his career, he was approaching 50 by then.

Pac is definitely faster and has better footwork.

Duran had more punch variation. In fact I'd say no fighter ever had a wider arsenal than Duran. There may have been a few that equaled him, but none surpassed him in this regard. He had every punch in the book, and threw 'em all pretty well.

Not to mention, how does a guy who spent a good part of his career as a one handed fighter and never threw and effective uppercut with either hand, have better punch variety than Duran?

Ah, so gil just said

I missed the punch variety, that's the worst of all the ratings. When Duran was 38 he was dropping a massive Middleweight champion with a 5 punch combination.

Does Johnson have an ATG HW resume?

1. Robinson
2. Ali
3. Louis
4. Armstrong
5. Greb
6. Langford
7. Leonard
8. Pepp
9. B. Leonard
10. Pacquiao

11. Jones Jr
12. Hagler
13. Hearns
14. Mayweather Jr
15. Whitacker
16. Johnson
17. Foreman
18. Charles
19. Moore
20. Napoles

21. Lopez
22. Canzoneri
23. Ortiz
24. Jofre
25. Hopkins
26. Monzon
27. Tyson
28. Lewis
29. Holmes
30. Holyfield

That's not terrible. Lopez and Tyson are the only ridiculous ones.

I can't think of any logical reason to put Pacquiao or Roy Jones Jr. over Mayweather. None of the 3 would be in my Top 15. Floyd would be closest.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That's not terrible. Lopez and Tyson are the only ridiculous ones.

Which Lopez is it supposed to be? Danny Lopez?

crusader wrote:Does Johnson have an ATG HW resume?

I'd say so, but that shouldn't have him much higher than 60 or 70. I don't think he has a better Heavyweight resume than Holyfield, add Evander's Cruiserweight career and I'm hard pressed to see Jack rated over him.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That's not terrible. Lopez and Tyson are the only ridiculous ones.

Which Lopez is it supposed to be? Danny Lopez?

I was guessing it was Finito. He probably tossed him in to show he's not biased against little guys. Can't see him or Tyson in the top 100, but if they are it would have to be near the end.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That's not terrible. Lopez and Tyson are the only ridiculous ones.

Which Lopez is it supposed to be? Danny Lopez?

I was guessing it was Finito. He probably tossed him in to show he's not biased against little guys. Can't see him or Tyson in the top 100, but if they are it would have to be near the end.

Ah yes of course. That makes sense. More sense than "Little Red" Lopez anyway.

Would you say Langford is an ATG HW win? I mean, obviously a tremendous fighter, but he weighed 156 against Johnson. JJ also won the title against someone who weighed 168 (same day weigh-ins), and made his initial defense against someone weighing 162. His highest profile bout (I think) came against someone inactive for 6 years.

Admittedly, I'm not a boxing history buff, but it just seems to me that his HW reputation is awfully high based on who he beat.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Which Lopez is it supposed to be? Danny Lopez?

I was guessing it was Finito. He probably tossed him in to show he's not biased against little guys. Can't see him or Tyson in the top 100, but if they are it would have to be near the end.

Ah yes of course. That makes sense. More sense than "Little Red" Lopez anyway.

I think Little red probably rates higher. The omission of Duran is amusing, a guy who goes by skills is ignoring the most all around skilled fighter I've ever seen while also ignoring his immense accomplishments. Oh well, that was better than I expected but my bar wasn't very high.

crusader wrote:Would you say Langford is an ATG HW win? I mean, obviously a tremendous fighter, but he weighed 156 against Johnson. JJ also won the title against someone who weighed 168 (same day weigh-ins), and made his initial defense against someone weighing 162. His highest profile bout (I think) came against someone inactive for 6 years.

Admittedly, I'm not a boxing history buff, but it just seems to me that his HW reputation is awfully high based on who he beat.

The weight can be scrutinized, but I'd consider Langford, McVey and Jeanette better than anyone Dempsey ever beat. Though I don't believe Jack faced any of them in their prime.

crusader wrote:Does Johnson have an ATG HW resume?

On pure resume it's arguable that he should be lower - most of his best wins do come asterisked: Jeffries - inactive; Jeanette, McVey - green; Langford, O'Brien - undersized; Ketchel - undersized, likely foul play; Burns - undersized, not that great; Flynn - not that great. Taken together it all still counts for something, plus I do think he showed great ability in what I've seen / read on him - relaxed but focused in the most extreme circumstances imaginable, a defensive but versatile hard-punching ring general. Some frown on it but I'm not above using the eye test along with resume to make these kinds of lists*, though maybe #19 is a little high.

*Duran wouldn't be top 5 without it.