BoxRec

I just glanced thru boxrec p4p top-100 list, which also shows fighters' career spans, and noticed that like 1 in 4 of them fought in this millenium, with their pro careers starting in 70s (Nelson, Hearns), 80s and 90s, while I didn't see anyone who started in this millenium.

So, who of the modern fighters (whose career started in this millenium) do you think will end up/ already is deserving of that placement (not necessarily in boxrec list, but a resume-based list)?

The obvious ones I think are GGG, Kovalev and Ward. None of them are locks but they are the best fighters of this generation and have thier career defining fights ahead of them. You can mug Ward off all you want for his opposition recently but his resume is very impressive.

They could all potentially fight each other as well, if GGG has the stones to do a Hopkins and jump up to LHW

clopixolacuphase wrote:The obvious ones I think are GGG, Kovalev and Ward. None of them are locks but they are the best fighters of this generation and have thier career defining fights ahead of them. You can mug Ward off all you want for his opposition recently but his resume is very impressive.

They could all potentially fight each other as well, if GGG has the stones to do a Hopkins and jump up to LHW

GGG is not a big middleweight though, he is already 34 and never moved up a single weightclass. That reminded me of Froch, who is #176 at boxrec p4p list, but does anyone think he has a case to edge top-100?

PS. Funny thing, Ward is currently lower than Froch in boxrec all-time p4p at #200.

lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

That's completely idiotic. You can barely rank the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon in terms of size.

Canelo has a very good chance, already been in a lot of big fights, and still very young, but if he doesn't fight GGG soon, he could end up remember for the wrong reasons.

GGG, Wlad, maybe Crawford. I'll wait a while on Fury (both of them actually) and Kolvolev before making judgement.

When you say "modern" do you mean present day or relatively recently? If relatively recently certainly guys like ODLH, Mayweather, Pac, and Mosley.

Probably will be in
Saul Alvarez. The amount that he's accomplished by age 25 is insane. He's pretty much the Oscar De La Hoya of this era.
Roman Gonzalez. At age 28, this kid's resume is deep as hell. He has shown that he is willing and able to make all of the big fights out there and he is limited by nothing.

Maybe
maybe Danny Garcia. By age 28, he's beat Campbell, Holt, Morales, Khan, Judah, Matthysse, Peterson, Malignaggi, and Guerrero. He has a ton of time to continue extending that already super deep resume. He has a lot of chance of making it as long as the top fighters at WW aren't too much for him.
Andre Ward already proved that he had the ability to make it, if he kept his activity and level of competition as high as they used to be. After the Super Six and Dawson, Ward can pretty much lock-up a top 100 slot by coasting as long as he continues fighting mere contenders, which he currently isn't doing.
Terrence Crawford. The winner of Crawford - Postol is gonna be huge. But Postol has the shallower resume and is 32, he won't have the opportunity to parlay that into a top 100 all-time career. Crawford is 28 with 7 title wins and wins over Gamboa and Burns. If Crawford beats Postol, he'll be in a good position to build a top 100 career.
Frampton - Santa Cruz winner. Both of these guys are young enough, elite enough, and have deep enough resumes. Whoever wins will be in a good spot to have a big career.

Probably won't be in
Golovkin. He's 34. He hasn't done anything yet to even sniff at the top 100 all-time. He's admittedly had a lot of title defenses, and that's cool, but not a single elite opponent. If he's lucky, he'll get to fight and beat a single elite opponent right before he retires, like Joe Calzaghe did, and then he'll achieve a similar ranking to Joe. But that's if he's even lucky enough for that to happen. Right now, his resume is shaping-up to be the same as Michaelczewski's or Ottke's.
Kovalev. His wins against Pascal and past-it Hopkins are respectable. He obviously has the ability. But he's 33, he only has 8 title wins, and he's hardly fought a single in-prime elite fighter. Unless he is lucky enough to get a shot at Ward or Stevenson, the clock is going to run out on him before he gets a chance to do anything big enough. Plus, with Stevenson being 38 and Ward being super inactive, both are losing credibility as elite opponents faster than the fight may even take place.
Rigondeaux. A win over Donaire is nice. But at age 35, Rigondeaux has amassed all of 16 professional wins and a win over Donaire. Most top 100 all-time fighters have already accomplished more than that by the time they're 25 or 26. He's only fighting about once a year, and his recent / next opponents are clubfighters. He's hardly going to do anything to build on his resume before he retires. It's not going to happen, he's really not even worth mentioning.
Bradley. He has a win over JMM, and that should be enough. He's never lost to anyone but Pacquiao. He has ability. But he needs to start piling-up the wins over more world class opponents, and at age 32, he may not have enough time.
Barthelemy. He has tons of ability and the size to keep moving up 3 or 4 more divisions. He's only 29 and he's cleared-out everyone that was in his division last year. Titles in 2 divisions already, perhaps 5 or 6 divisions before retirement. However, wins against Mendez, DeMarco, Shafikov, and Bey probably are not quite enough to say he's on-track for top 100 all-time.
Tyson Fury. His resume is already elite. He is young. It's just hard to accept that he has the ability to do it.
Lomachenko. He is age 29 and has not even fought a divisional top 5 opponent yet. He has so much ground to cover (i.e. he's barely even started a career, and pretty much still has the whole way to go), he is barely worth even mentioning in this discussion.

Young prospects that have ability, legit wins, plenty of time to make hay, but a long way to go before they get there:
The Charlos, Javier Fortuna, Jezreel Corrales, Errol Spence, Naoya Inoue, Juan Francisco Estrada, Josh Warrington.

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Of all time? Nah!

Stuarty30 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Of all time? Nah!

tell me 7 boxers techniquly better than those guys, better in footwork, speed, upper body movemant, punch variation.

GGG, maybe Wlad.

Boxers since the 2000's who would be considered Top 100 P4P of all time.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins

maybe Andre Ward and Gennady Golovkin though they still need some more key wins to establish themselves as that level of talent.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Of all time? Nah!

tell me 7 boxers techniquly better than those guys, better in footwork, speed, upper body movemant, punch variation.

Rigondeaux and Lara are nowhere near P4P Top 100 all time. Lara's never managed to crack my P4P Top 10 in his own time.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Of all time? Nah!

tell me 7 boxers techniquly better than those guys, better in footwork, speed, upper body movemant, punch variation.

I could tell you about 50 mate but who has the time? End of the day it's open to perception isn't it? If that's what you think then fair play! Good luck to you

gilgamesh wrote:Boxers since the 2000's who would be considered Top 100 P4P of all time.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins

maybe Andre Ward and Gennady Golovkin though they still need some more key wins to establish themselves as that level of talent.

Floyd fought in the 90's, Hopkins had one fight in the 80's

BitPlayer wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Boxers since the 2000's who would be considered Top 100 P4P of all time.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins

maybe Andre Ward and Gennady Golovkin though they still need some more key wins to establish themselves as that level of talent.

Floyd fought in the 90's, Hopkins had one fight in the 80's

The majority of Floyd's professional career, and his most significant accomplishments were after 2000. Same with Hopkins. I know Hopkins fought all throughout the 90's, but his biggest legacy defining stuff happened after 2000.

gilgamesh wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Boxers since the 2000's who would be considered Top 100 P4P of all time.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins

maybe Andre Ward and Gennady Golovkin though they still need some more key wins to establish themselves as that level of talent.

Floyd fought in the 90's, Hopkins had one fight in the 80's

The majority of Floyd's professional career, and his most significant accomplishments were after 2000. Same with Hopkins. I know Hopkins fought all throughout the 90's, but his biggest legacy defining stuff happened after 2000.

The premise was people who have made their professional debut since 2000.

Lackeos wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

BitPlayer wrote: Floyd fought in the 90's, Hopkins had one fight in the 80's

The majority of Floyd's professional career, and his most significant accomplishments were after 2000. Same with Hopkins. I know Hopkins fought all throughout the 90's, but his biggest legacy defining stuff happened after 2000.

The premise was people who have made their professional debut since 2000.

I didn't catch that part. In that case Andre Ward and GGG are the only ones I see having the potential to accomplish that, though I think they haven't done it yet.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Of all time? Nah!

tell me 7 boxers techniquly better than those guys, better in footwork, speed, upper body movemant, punch variation.

Damn, they sound as great as Yuri Gamboa, Errol Spence, Amir Khan, etc.. The measure of a fighter isn't his ability to dazzle your extremely flawed eye test.

Most of the boxers who occupy a top 10 all-time spot have defeated upwards of 10 opponents who were top 10 p4p at the time. The three fighters you've listed have combined almost 1 win of that caliber. If you added the resumes of Lomachenko, Rigondeaux, and Lara together, and then multiplied their combined resume by 5, it would still be weaker than Pacquiao's. Pacquiao is himself not even a consensus top 50 all-time fighter. Put another way, there are at least 14 different boxers who have wins over 7+ hall of fame opponents.

Henry Armstrong's resume contains wins over Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Lew Jenkins, Lou Ambers, Barney Ross, etc.. Those names probably don't mean much to someone who doesn't know sh*t about boxing, but they were great fighters.

Lackeos wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote: Of all time? Nah!

tell me 7 boxers techniquly better than those guys, better in footwork, speed, upper body movemant, punch variation.

Damn, they sound as great as Yuri Gamboa, Errol Spence, Amir Khan, etc.. The measure of a fighter isn't his ability to dazzle your extremely flawed eye test.

Most of the boxers who occupy a top 10 all-time spot have defeated upwards of 10 opponents who were top 10 p4p at the time. The three fighters you've listed have combined almost 1 win of that caliber. If you added the resumes of Lomachenko, Rigondeaux, and Lara together, and then multiplied their combined resume by 5, it would still be weaker than Pacquiao's. Pacquiao is himself not even a consensus top 50 all-time fighter.

Its hard to think any boxing historian wouldn't place Pacquaio top 50.

gilgamesh wrote:Boxers since the 2000's who would be considered Top 100 P4P of all time.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins

maybe Andre Ward and Gennady Golovkin though they still need some more key wins to establish themselves as that level of talent.

Pacquiao is a notable omission from your original list, although they debuted before 2000.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lomachenko, rigondeaux, lara are all top 10 material.

Of all time? Nah!

tell me 7 boxers techniquly better than those guys, better in footwork, speed, upper body movemant, punch variation.

The OP specifically states that it's a resume based list. I originally read your post and thought it said top 100, which would be more reasonable.

Lackeos wrote:Probably will be in
Saul Alvarez. The amount that he's accomplished by age 25 is insane. He's pretty much the Oscar De La Hoya of this era.
Roman Gonzalez. At age 28, this kid's resume is deep as hell. He has shown that he is willing and able to make all of the big fights out there and he is limited by nothing.

Maybe
maybe Danny Garcia. By age 28, he's beat Campbell, Holt, Morales, Khan, Judah, Matthysse, Peterson, Malignaggi, and Guerrero. He has a ton of time to continue extending that already super deep resume. He has a lot of chance of making it as long as the top fighters at WW aren't too much for him.
Andre Ward already proved that he had the ability to make it, if he kept his activity and level of competition as high as they used to be. After the Super Six and Dawson, Ward can pretty much lock-up a top 100 slot by coasting as long as he continues fighting mere contenders, which he currently isn't doing.
Terrence Crawford. The winner of Crawford - Postol is gonna be huge. But Postol has the shallower resume and is 32, he won't have the opportunity to parlay that into a top 100 all-time career. Crawford is 28 with 7 title wins and wins over Gamboa and Burns. If Crawford beats Postol, he'll be in a good position to build a top 100 career.
Frampton - Santa Cruz winner. Both of these guys are young enough, elite enough, and have deep enough resumes. Whoever wins will be in a good spot to have a big career.

Probably won't be in
Golovkin. He's 34. He hasn't done anything yet to even sniff at the top 100 all-time. He's admittedly had a lot of title defenses, and that's cool, but not a single elite opponent. If he's lucky, he'll get to fight and beat a single elite opponent right before he retires, like Joe Calzaghe did, and then he'll achieve a similar ranking to Joe. But that's if he's even lucky enough for that to happen. Right now, his resume is shaping-up to be the same as Michaelczewski's or Ottke's.
Kovalev. His wins against Pascal and past-it Hopkins are respectable. He obviously has the ability. But he's 33, he only has 8 title wins, and he's hardly fought a single in-prime elite fighter. Unless he is lucky enough to get a shot at Ward or Stevenson, the clock is going to run out on him before he gets a chance to do anything big enough. Plus, with Stevenson being 38 and Ward being super inactive, both are losing credibility as elite opponents faster than the fight may even take place.
Rigondeaux. A win over Donaire is nice. But at age 35, Rigondeaux has amassed all of 16 professional wins and a win over Donaire. Most top 100 all-time fighters have already accomplished more than that by the time they're 25 or 26. He's only fighting about once a year, and his recent / next opponents are clubfighters. He's hardly going to do anything to build on his resume before he retires. It's not going to happen, he's really not even worth mentioning.
Bradley. He has a win over JMM, and that should be enough. He's never lost to anyone but Pacquiao. He has ability. But he needs to start piling-up the wins over more world class opponents, and at age 32, he may not have enough time.
Barthelemy. He has tons of ability and the size to keep moving up 3 or 4 more divisions. He's only 29 and he's cleared-out everyone that was in his division last year. Titles in 2 divisions already, perhaps 5 or 6 divisions before retirement. However, wins against Mendez, DeMarco, Shafikov, and Bey probably are not quite enough to say he's on-track for top 100 all-time.
Tyson Fury. His resume is already elite. He is young. It's just hard to accept that he has the ability to do it.
Lomachenko. He is age 29 and has not even fought a divisional top 5 opponent yet. He has so much ground to cover (i.e. he's barely even started a career, and pretty much still has the whole way to go), he is barely worth even mentioning in this discussion.

Young prospects that have ability, legit wins, plenty of time to make hay, but a long way to go before they get there:
The Charlos, Javier Fortuna, Jezreel Corrales, Errol Spence, Naoya Inoue, Juan Francisco Estrada, Josh Warrington.

Great post. I'm not so sure about your takes on the following:

Canelo - great resume at an early age, but so many questionable decisions. Ability-wise I think he's a notch below a prime De La Hoya.
Golovkin - I think he probably will get in, if not through elite wins, through sheer domination and number of title defenses.
Kovalev/Ward - If Ward wins, he's a lock top 100, if he isn't there already. If Kovalev wins, he almost certainly makes the top 100. Let's hope the fight happens!

jezzamundo wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Boxers since the 2000's who would be considered Top 100 P4P of all time.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins

maybe Andre Ward and Gennady Golovkin though they still need some more key wins to establish themselves as that level of talent.

Pacquiao is a notable omission from your original list, although they debuted before 2000.

I forgot Pacquiao somehow. He'd definitely be Top 100 no question.

Lackeos wrote: Lomachenko. He is age 29 and has not even fought a divisional top 5 opponent yet. He has so much ground to cover (i.e. he's barely even started a career, and pretty much still has the whole way to go), he is barely worth even mentioning in this discussion.

He actually just turned 28 a couple of months ago.

But I agree, he's not really accomplished much despite having the ability to be a P4P boxing superstar.

I hate the way his career has been managed by Top Rank. He's had long months of inactivity and fought several meaningless opponents in 2014 and 2015. If he had a promoter who looked out for his interests, he could still make the top 100, but with Arum it's not going to happen.