Rate the generation [Archive] - FIGHTBEAT.COM BOXING FORUMS

Hut*Hut

01-30-2008, 04:20 PM

ILLUMINATI

01-30-2008, 04:25 PM

1. B-Hop
2. Oscar
3. Jones
4. Tito
5. Lewis
6. Lopez
7. Barrera
8. Morales
9. Calzaghe
10. Mosley
11. Tszyu
12. Wright
13. Hamed
14. Michalczewski

:crafty:

Ugotabe Kidding

01-30-2008, 04:32 PM

1. Hopkins
2. Roid
3. Lewis
4. Oscar
5. Calzaghe
6. Tito
7. Mosley
8. Barrera
9. Hamed
10. Tszyu
11. Wright
12. Morales
13. Dariusz
94. Lopez

jaws1216

01-30-2008, 04:32 PM

Great thread.

1) Jones Jr.
2) Hopkins
3) Lewis
4) DLH
5) Lopez
6) Calzaghe
7) Tszyu
8) Barrera
9) Tito
10) Morales
11) Mosley
12) Wright

joony

01-30-2008, 04:55 PM

i'd rate James Toney in there some where.

dymipepel

01-30-2008, 05:00 PM

:dunno: 1. Hopkins
2. Roid
3. Lewis
4. Oscar
5. Calzaghe
6. Tito
7. Mosley
8. Barrera
9. Hamed
10. Tszyu
11. Wright
12. Morales
13. Dariusz
94. Lopez

Who did Tszyu beat in the 90-s? :dunno:

Mitchell Kane

01-30-2008, 05:07 PM

:dunno:

Who did Tszyu beat in the 90-s? :dunno:

A lot of these fighters didn't do their best work in the 90's.

Winky Wright certainly didn't...two of his McKart wins didn't come til the 00's.

joony

01-30-2008, 05:12 PM

:dunno:

Who did Tszyu beat in the 90-s? :dunno:

i think this rating is based on guys from 90s to 00s.

if that's the case, floyd mayweather is missing from the list. same w/ pacquiao and too sharp.

Ugotabe Kidding

01-30-2008, 05:13 PM

Please, please, please don't respond dymi about that subject. Let's keep the thread going

dymipepel

01-30-2008, 05:14 PM

Please, please, please don't respond dymi about that subject.

Why not? :dunno: :dunno:

valdosta

01-30-2008, 05:28 PM

i'd rate James Toney in there some where.

This isn't a list about the biggest cheats.

Ugotabe Kidding

01-30-2008, 05:31 PM

This isn't a list about the biggest cheats.

Are you saying we should remove Jones?

valdosta

01-30-2008, 05:35 PM

Are you saying we should remove Jones?

His positive test is a bit more questionable.

dymipepel

01-30-2008, 05:36 PM

Are you saying we should remove Jones?

Please, please, please don't respond ugo about that subject.

Arben

01-30-2008, 05:43 PM

Are you saying we should remove Jones?
~ZING!

Mitchell Kane

01-30-2008, 05:45 PM

Are you saying we should remove Jones?

He was referring to Mosley.:lol:

Tam Tam

01-30-2008, 05:46 PM

1. Hopkins
2. Jones Jr
3. Trinidad
4. De La Hoya
5. Barrera
6. Mosley
7. Lewis
8. Morales
9. Calzaghe
10. Tszyu
11. Lopez
12. Hamed
13. Wright
14. Michaelczweski

REEDsART

01-30-2008, 05:49 PM

Are you saying we should remove Jones?Nah....

Just SCRATCH the ONE Fight he Tested Positive For FROM the Books...N Which Case, the Richard Hall Fight WON'T Count, Alright???...

REED:cool:

valdosta

01-30-2008, 05:52 PM

1. Jones Jr.
2. Hopkins
3. De la hoya
4. Barrera
5. Trinidad
6. Lewis
7. Lopez
8. Mosley
9. Calzaghe
10. Morales
11. Wright
12. Michealwhateverski
13. Hamed
14. Tszyu

Xplosive

01-30-2008, 05:53 PM

Toney should definitely be on that list! He's a much greater fighter than Hamed & Michealshitski, and IMO greater than Wright as well.

REEDsART

01-30-2008, 05:56 PM

By the Way, How Could ANYBODY Could Rank Bernard AHEAD of Roy???:dunno: ...Roy was MORE Talented, Accomplished MORE & BEAT him Head to Head...

What EXACTLY is YOUR Criteria???

REED:dunno:

valdosta

01-30-2008, 06:02 PM

dymipepel

01-30-2008, 06:05 PM

Toney should definitely be on that list! He's a much greater fighter than Hamed & Michealshitski, and IMO greater than Wright as well.

Michalchevsky was a Euro. That fact alone should place him in top-5, regardless of the fact he's not even 1/10 oof Toney as a fighter.

Ugotabe Kidding

01-30-2008, 06:07 PM

By the Way, How Could ANYBODY Could Rank Bernard AHEAD of Roy???:dunno: ...Roy was MORE Talented, Accomplished MORE & BEAT him Head to Head...

What EXACTLY is YOUR Criteria???

REED:dunno:

Hopkins' career at the top was/is longer, he dominated his division longer, cleaned it out and made a record of title defenses. Jones was the more talented of the two but Hopkins' marvellous late career gives him the nod IMHO.

Xplosive

01-30-2008, 06:12 PM

By the Way, How Could ANYBODY Could Rank Bernard AHEAD of Roy???:dunno: ...Roy was MORE Talented, Accomplished MORE & BEAT him Head to Head...

What EXACTLY is YOUR Criteria???

REED:dunno:

Only because B-Hop has had more longevity. Prime for prime I dont think theres anybody who would dispute that Roy's the best of the 90's generation. And if they do they're fools.

The Cuban Hawk

01-30-2008, 07:28 PM

Xplosive

01-30-2008, 08:35 PM

His record against common opponents? :dunno:

The only fighter Hopkins beat who RJ failed to beat was Johnson. Lets not forget that Roy DOES have a win over Tarver. The bottom line is Hopkins best win is against Tito. Roy's win over Toney was more impressive than Hops win over Tito, and of COURSE we can never forget that when Roy and Hop fought, Roy WON! All speculation over who woulda won a rematch is purely just that, and Roy cant be blamed for the rematch not happening cause greedy ass Hopkins wanted 50-50 against a Roy, when Roy has always been a much bigger name, and draw, and who owns a win over Hopkins.

The Cuban Hawk

01-30-2008, 11:16 PM

The only fighter Hopkins beat who RJ failed to beat was Johnson. Lets not forget that Roy DOES have a win over Tarver. The bottom line is Hopkins best win is against Tito. Roy's win over Toney was more impressive than Hops win over Tito, and of COURSE we can never forget that when Roy and Hop fought, Roy WON! All speculation over who woulda won a rematch is purely just that, and Roy cant be blamed for the rematch not happening cause greedy ass Hopkins wanted 50-50 against a Roy, when Roy has always been a much bigger name, and draw, and who owns a win over Hopkins.

Roy did beat Tarver once, but he only just barely edged him through the skin of his teeth, and that was cancelled out altogether when he lost BOTH of the return matches decisively. Hopkins simply TOYED with Tarver like he didn't even belong within 50 yards of the same ring with him, and that's despite being older than dirt and coming stright up two weight classes without a tune-up.

Xplosive

01-31-2008, 01:24 AM

The Cuban Hawk

01-31-2008, 02:42 AM

And all that simply proves that Hop aged better than Roy. Still doesnt erase the fact that Roy has better overall wins than B-Hop, and owns a win over him.

Not really, it could "prove" any number of things, depending on how you decide to look at it.

It could just as easily "prove" that Hopkins really was a better fighter than Roy all along, which suggests that Roy's win over Hopkins came before Hops had reached his prime... or, at best, that Roy simply had Hopkins' number.

Furthermore, the fact that Roy maybe didn't age as well as Hopkins, or even well at all (indeed, he arguably aged worse than anyone else on that list except maybe Hamed and Tito), is also a reflection on him in his prime, because it means that something very vital was never there all along, even if people didn't happen to know it at the time.

Bottom line is, contrary to what you said, there ARE very valid reasons for ranking Hopkins ahead of Roy, even if you yourself don't happen to share that viewpoint.

REEDsART

01-31-2008, 10:07 AM

Roy did beat Tarver once, but he only just barely edged him through the skin of his teeth, and that was cancelled out altogether when he lost BOTH of the return matches decisively. Hopkins simply TOYED with Tarver like he didn't even belong within 50 yards of the same ring with him, and that's despite being older than dirt and coming stright up two weight classes without a tune-up.Uuuh, that LOSS is STILL on Tarver's Record, so HOW EXACTLY was it "Cancelled Out"???...

That's the Problem as it Pertains to Roy...Guys Take it Upon THEMSELVES to "Cancel Out" his Shit...

EVERY Roy Naysayer Attempts to "Cancel Out" his WIN Over Bernard, Now Here YOU Go "Cancelling Out" Roy's WIN Over Tarver:rolleyes: ...

Sorry, but Roy Jones OWNS a WIN Over Antonio Tarver, No Matter WHAT Kinda Skin of Teeth SPIN U Wanna Apply to it...

Which Brings Us to THE FACT that Bernard has ONE Victory Over a Guy that Roy FAILED to Beat...N Other Words, Glencoffe Johnson is ENOUGH to Swing the Pendulum N Bernard's Favor???...

The FACT that Roy Accumulated MORE titles, was MORE Talented & BEAT Bernard is of NO Relevance???...& if U DARE Say Bernard was "Green" when Roy Beat him, THAT SAME Logic can B Applied to Glencoffe Johnson when Bernard Beat him...

REED:cool:

The Cuban Hawk

02-02-2008, 12:58 AM

Uuuh, that LOSS is STILL on Tarver's Record, so HOW EXACTLY was it "Cancelled Out"???...

That's the Problem as it Pertains to Roy...Guys Take it Upon THEMSELVES to "Cancel Out" his Shit...

EVERY Roy Naysayer Attempts to "Cancel Out" his WIN Over Bernard, Now Here YOU Go "Cancelling Out" Roy's WIN Over Tarver:rolleyes: ...

Sorry, but Roy Jones OWNS a WIN Over Antonio Tarver, No Matter WHAT Kinda Skin of Teeth SPIN U Wanna Apply to it...

Which Brings Us to THE FACT that Bernard has ONE Victory Over a Guy that Roy FAILED to Beat...N Other Words, Glencoffe Johnson is ENOUGH to Swing the Pendulum N Bernard's Favor???...

The FACT that Roy Accumulated MORE titles, was MORE Talented & BEAT Bernard is of NO Relevance???...& if U DARE Say Bernard was "Green" when Roy Beat him, THAT SAME Logic can B Applied to Glencoffe Johnson when Bernard Beat him...

REED:cool:

It's "cancelled out" because it was AVENGED twice, and very decisively both times, which proves that the first fight was either a fluke or a subpar performance from Tarver. That's the whole POINT of rematches and rubber matches, and has always been, long before Roy ever entered the picture.

Anyway, the fact that Roy didn't "fail to beat" Tarver at some point doesn't change the fact that Hopkins clearly did better against Tarver than Roy did. Would I be wrong in saying Manny Pacquiao did better against Barrera (who he twice whupped easily) than Morales did, because Morales managed to eek out a win in one of their two fights? Does that mean that's not a valid argument to bring up when comparing Pacquiao and Morales on all-time lists?

Roy fans have always said that Roy was doing better against common opponents than Dariusz was, back when both were still titlists, and used that argument to say that Roy was a better fighter than Dariusz. Yet until Dariusz finally lost to Julio Gonzales, which of his common opponents with Roy had he "failed to beat"? :dunno:

The fact remains, Tarver whupped Roy 2 out of 3, which means he's either better than Roy or at least just has his number. And Hopkins whupped Tarver easily. Therefore, Hopkins clearly did better against Tarver than Roy did, hands down, regardless of whatever "failed to beat" spin you want to put on those fights.

REEDsART

02-02-2008, 02:38 PM

It's "cancelled out" because it was AVENGED twice, and very decisively both times, which proves that the first fight was either a fluke or a subpar performance from Tarver. That's the whole POINT of rematches and rubber matches, and has always been, long before Roy ever entered the picture.

Anyway, the fact that Roy didn't "fail to beat" Tarver at some point doesn't change the fact that Hopkins clearly did better against Tarver than Roy did. Would I be wrong in saying Manny Pacquiao did better against Barrera (who he twice whupped easily) than Morales did, because Morales managed to eek out a win in one of their two fights? Does that mean that's not a valid argument to bring up when comparing Pacquiao and Morales on all-time lists?

Roy fans have always said that Roy was doing better against common opponents than Dariusz was, back when both were still titlists, and used that argument to say that Roy was a better fighter than Dariusz. Yet until Dariusz finally lost to Julio Gonzales, which of his common opponents with Roy had he "failed to beat"? :dunno:

The fact remains, Tarver whupped Roy 2 out of 3, which means he's either better than Roy or at least just has his number. And Hopkins whupped Tarver easily. Therefore, Hopkins clearly did better against Tarver than Roy did, hands down, regardless of whatever "failed to beat" spin you want to put on those fights.:lol:

What Part of ROY JONES BEAT BERNARD HOPKINS R U Failing to Comprehend???:dunno: ...

Sure, Bernard Fared BETTER Against Tarver than Roy Did...Sure, Roy Fans Used the Criteria of Roy FARING BETTER Against Common Opponents than MichalSHITski Did...

But the FACT REMAINS, Roy Jones FARED BETTER Than Bernard Hopkins when THEY Shared a Ring...

What, R U Gonna "Cancel Out" Roy's WIN Over Bernard Now???

REED:lol:

The Cuban Hawk

02-02-2008, 09:37 PM

:lol:

What Part of ROY JONES BEAT BERNARD HOPKINS R U Failing to Comprehend???:dunno: ...

Sure, Bernard Fared BETTER Against Tarver than Roy Did...Sure, Roy Fans Used the Criteria of Roy FARING BETTER Against Common Opponents than MichalSHITski Did...

But the FACT REMAINS, Roy Jones FARED BETTER Than Bernard Hopkins when THEY Shared a Ring...

What, R U Gonna "Cancel Out" Roy's WIN Over Bernard Now???

REED:lol:

So now, you AGREE with my point then.

So what on earth are you trying to dispute, then?

Are you trying to say that Bernard can't ever possibly be rated over Roy because he lost to him once at some point in his career? Does that mean Tommy Hearns can't possibly be rated as a better fighter than Iran Barkley? Or that Tyson can't ever be rated as a better fighter than Buster Douglas?

Right after Morales beat Pacquiao, many people on here said he could potentially rate higher in all-time rankings than Barrera... hadn't Barrera already beaten him, twice?

Are you saying ROY can't be rated as a better fighter than friggin' GLEN JOHNSON?? :lol:

REEDsART

02-03-2008, 02:01 AM

So now, you AGREE with my point then.

So what on earth are you trying to dispute, then?

Are you trying to say that Bernard can't ever possibly be rated over Roy because he lost to him once at some point in his career? Does that mean Tommy Hearns can't possibly be rated as a better fighter than Iran Barkley? Or that Tyson can't ever be rated as a better fighter than Buster Douglas?

Right after Morales beat Pacquiao, many people on here said he could potentially rate higher in all-time rankings than Barrera... hadn't Barrera already beaten him, twice?

Are you saying ROY can't be rated as a better fighter than friggin' GLEN JOHNSON?? :lol:Even Considering YOUR Level of HATRED for Roy, Comparing him to Iran Barkley or Buster Douglas is COMICAL...

GENERALLY U @ Least ATTEMPT to PORTRAY your Arguments OBJECTIVELY, but U've LOST that Luxury...

What EXACTLY Does Buster Douglas OR Iran Barkley have N Common w/Roy Jones when it Comes to ACCOMPLISHMENTS???...TALENT???...

REED is DISPUTING YOUR Notion that Bernard Hopkins is Somehow "Better" or "Greater" than Roy Jones...WHY???....Cause Roy Jones has Accomplished MORE than Bernard, Cause Roy Jones was MORE TALENTED than Bernard & Because Roy Jones BEAT BERNARD....

ANYTIME U Wanna Address THE FACT that Roy BEAT Bernard (w/Out Comparing him to 1-Hit Wonder SCRUBS) Feel FREE...

REED:lol:

The Cuban Hawk

02-04-2008, 12:38 AM

REED is DISPUTING YOUR Notion that Bernard Hopkins is Somehow "Better" or "Greater" than Roy Jones...WHY???....Cause Roy Jones has Accomplished MORE than Bernard, Cause Roy Jones was MORE TALENTED than Bernard & Because Roy Jones BEAT BERNARD....

ANYTIME U Wanna Address THE FACT that Roy BEAT Bernard (w/Out Comparing him to 1-Hit Wonder SCRUBS) Feel FREE...

So now, ERIK MORALES is a "1-hit wonder scrub"? :rolleyes:

There's plenty of other examples too, of course. Willie Pep often gets rated over Sandy Saddler. Jack Dempsey almost always gets rated over Gene Tunney. Mickey Walker often gets rated over Harry Greb. Nino Benvenuti sometimes gets rated over Dick Tiger. Tiger is often rated as a better middleweight than Emile Griffith. Marvin Hagler is almost always rated as a better middleweight than Ray Leonard. Right now, many people rate Tito and even Mosley as better than Winky Wright, and they rate Winky as better than Vargas and Harry Simon. The list is almost endless...

Unless you consider all of those fighters "1-hit wonder scrubs", too? :rolleyes:

And the fact that those previous fighters I mentioned ARE "1-hit wonder scrubs" just proves my whole point anyway...

WHEN can't a fighter ever be rated as better than another fighter that he's lost to at some point?

Perhaps YOU'd like to explain how a fighter that is so "clearly" greater than Hopkins can fail so badly in common areas that Hopkins has been so successful in?

Hut*Hut

02-04-2008, 08:06 AM

Based on the following criteria:-

1. Performance against fellow elite fighters.
2. Consistency and longevity
3. Performance through the weight classes.
4. My personal estimation of their peak abilities.

In that order.

01. Roy Jones Jr.
02. Bernard Hopkins.
03. Oscar De la Hoya
04. Joe Calzaghe
05. Ricardo Lopez
06. James Toney
07. Marco Anttonio Barrera
08. Shane Mosley
09. Ronald Wright
10. Erik Morales
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Felix Trinidad
13. Naseem Hamed
14. Darius Michalczewski
15. Kostya Tszyu

That may be subject to change once I come back and have a second look at it. Just to clarify - because they are MY rankings they are based on MY scoring of fights, hence DLH, Toney and Barrera may be higher than the W, D, L record might warrant. As I said above, I have put a heavy emphasis on how fighters looked against fellow HOF fighters hence the top spot for Jones based largely on his dominant Ws over Toney and Hopkins and the low ranking for Tito who was thoroughly schooled by each of the three peak power greats he fought and a decrepid RJ. Ricardo Lopez remains an anomoly because it is so hard to judge the quality of fighters at such a lower weight class I have largely ranked him based on citeria 4 alone. I admit thats totally inconsistent, but he just looked so damn good I cant help myself. And in any case, at this stage of my armchair boxing career I trust my eye.

REEDsART

02-04-2008, 03:23 PM

So now, ERIK MORALES is a "1-hit wonder scrub"? :rolleyes:

There's plenty of other examples too, of course. Willie Pep often gets rated over Sandy Saddler. Jack Dempsey almost always gets rated over Gene Tunney. Mickey Walker often gets rated over Harry Greb. Nino Benvenuti sometimes gets rated over Dick Tiger. Tiger is often rated as a better middleweight than Emile Griffith. Marvin Hagler is almost always rated as a better middleweight than Ray Leonard. Right now, many people rate Tito and even Mosley as better than Winky Wright, and they rate Winky as better than Vargas and Harry Simon. The list is almost endless...

Unless you consider all of those fighters "1-hit wonder scrubs", too? :rolleyes:

And the fact that those previous fighters I mentioned ARE "1-hit wonder scrubs" just proves my whole point anyway...

WHEN can't a fighter ever be rated as better than another fighter that he's lost to at some point?

Perhaps YOU'd like to explain how a fighter that is so "clearly" greater than Hopkins can fail so badly in common areas that Hopkins has been so successful in?Pep Gets Rated OVER Saddler Cause he was a More SIGNIFICANT Fighter of that Era & More SKILLFUL...Dempsey is Rated Over Tunney Cause of his IMMENSE Popularity & IMPACT on the Sport...

From there, U're Listing Guys Specific to THEIR DIVISIONS...If U Wanna Argue that Bernard is a Better MIDDLEWEIGHT than Roy, REED has NO Problem w/that...Based on Roy's BRIEF Time there vs. Bernard's 20 Defenses...

But the Topic is about who the Better FIGHTER is, Irregardless of Division...

Roy Jones has MORE Accomplishments than Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones CLEARLY has MORE Talent than Bernard...Roy has More HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE than Bernard...& YES, Roy Jones BEAT Bernard @ his BEST Weight...

All YOU Can Counter w/is, Bernard Fared Better Against Tarver & Glencoffe:rolleyes: ...Nevermind that Roy was 35 Years of Age when he Lost & Completely IGNORING the FACT that Bernard Lost TWICE to Jermain Taylor, a Fighter that Probably WOULDN'T Beat a 39 Year Old Roy Jones...

& WHEN did REED Call Erik Morales a "1 Hit Wonder SCRUB"...REED would NEVER Call a 3 Weight World Champion Something like that,so DON'T Attribute Words to REED...

REED:rolleyes:

Ugotabe Kidding

02-04-2008, 03:27 PM

Pep Gets Rated OVER Saddler Cause he was a More SIGNIFICANT Fighter of that Era & More SKILLFUL...Dempsey is Rated Over Tunney Cause of his IMMENSE Popularity & IMPACT on the Sport...

From there, U're Listing Guys Specific to THEIR DIVISIONS...If U Wanna Argue that Bernard is a Better MIDDLEWEIGHT than Roy, REED has NO Problem w/that...Based on Roy's BRIEF Time there vs. Bernard's 20 Defenses...

But the Topic is about who the Better FIGHTER is, Irregardless of Division...

Roy Jones has MORE Accomplishments than Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones CLEARLY has MORE Talent than Bernard...Roy has More HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE than Bernard...& YES, Roy Jones BEAT Bernard @ his BEST Weight...

All YOU Can Counter w/is, Bernard Fared Better Against Tarver & Glencoffe:rolleyes: ...Nevermind that Roy was 35 Years of Age when he Lost & Completely IGNORING the FACT that Bernard Lost TWICE to Jermain Taylor, a Fighter that Probably WOULDN'T Beat a 39 Year Old Roy Jones...

& WHEN did REED Call Erik Morales a "1 Hit Wonder SCRUB"...REED would NEVER Call a 3 Weight World Champion Something like that,so DON'T Attribute Words to REED...

REED:rolleyes:

Those things are debatable. That has been pointed out earlier, you apparently don't want to know about it..

REEDsART

02-04-2008, 03:32 PM

Those things are debatable. That has been pointed out earlier, you apparently don't want to know about it..Roy Jones won Titles N 4 Weight Classes...Bernard Won Titles N 2...

Roy Jones Became the 1st Former Middle Champ to WIN a Heavyweight Title N 106 Years...

Roy Jones BEAT Bernard Hopkins @ Bernard's BEST Weight...

What's "Debateable" about ANY of this???

REED:dunno:

Ugotabe Kidding

02-04-2008, 03:38 PM

Roy Jones won Titles N 4 Weight Classes...Bernard Won Titles N 2...

Roy Jones Became the 1st Former Middle Champ to WIN a Heavyweight Title N 106 Years...

Roy Jones BEAT Bernard Hopkins @ Bernard's BEST Weight...

What's "Debateable" about ANY of this???

REED:dunno:

Hopkins dominated his weight division longer than Jones dominated any of his. Hopkins easily surpassed the records set by legends like Monzon and Hagler. To me, it is debatable which is a bigger achievement: to rule one division or to hange them quickly. Also Hopkins' career lasted longer and his win over Tarver (clearly the champ in light-heavyweight) is comparable to Jones' win over Ruiz (about #5 heavyweight in the world)

REEDsART

02-04-2008, 03:46 PM

Ugotabe Kidding

02-04-2008, 03:57 PM

It's THIS Simple...

U Can Go Back & Forth On Whether 1 Division DOMINATION is BETTER than 3 Weight DOMINATION...

U Can Even Compare Roy-Ruiz to Bernard-Tarver if U Want...

Which Brings Us RIGHT BACK to the Head to Head Matchup...

When ALL OTHER Things R EQUAL/COMPARABLE How can U IGNORE the Head to Head Matchup???...

REED:dunno:

What you said up there is misleading, since there is a difference in how Hopkins dominated his division compared to any of the division Jones ruled in.

Also, nobody is ignoring their actual fight, just as their common opponents shouldn't be ignored.

REEDsART

02-04-2008, 04:07 PM

What you said up there is misleading, since there is a difference in how Hopkins dominated his division compared to any of the division Jones ruled in.

Also, nobody is ignoring their actual fight, just as their common opponents shouldn't be ignored.HOW is there a Difference???...

Roy Jones was JUST AS Dominant (if Not MORESO)from 160-175 as Bernard was @ 160...For QUITE a While, Roy Jones was THE Most Dominant Fighter N ALL of Boxing...

REED would Rate a Head to Head Matchup HIGHER than Common Opponents...Is it MORE Important that Leonard Beat Hearns or that Hearns Fared BETTER Against Duran than Leonard did???...

REED:dunno:

salaco

02-04-2008, 04:59 PM

HOW is there a Difference???...

Roy Jones was JUST AS Dominant (if Not MORESO)from 160-175 as Bernard was @ 160...For QUITE a While, Roy Jones was THE Most Dominant Fighter N ALL of Boxing...

REED would Rate a Head to Head Matchup HIGHER than Common Opponents...Is it MORE Important that Leonard Beat Hearns or that Hearns Fared BETTER Against Duran than Leonard did???...

REED:dunno:

Nah, Roy was dominant at 175, he looked great at 160 and particularly at 168....he nearly cleared out 175, thats as good as, he didn't spend enough time at 160 or 168, plenty of champions have looked dominant without stamping themselves on the division entirely

whiskey

02-04-2008, 08:18 PM

These lists are always difficult to make. Even after making my own, i can find issues with it. :lol:

A strongly agree James Toney should have been part of it. Nonetheless for the names included I put them like this:

Jones
Hopkins
De La Hoya
Lewis
Barrera
Calzaghe
Morales
Tszyu
Mosley
Wright
Hamed
Michalczewski
Lopez

The Cuban Hawk

02-05-2008, 01:07 AM

REED would Rate a Head to Head Matchup HIGHER than Common Opponents...Is it MORE Important that Leonard Beat Hearns or that Hearns Fared BETTER Against Duran than Leonard did???...

Neither, they're of equal importance.

The problem with that comparison is that Leonard beat Hagler who CRUSHED Hearns, so that Leonard not only beat Hearns, but also has the better overall record against common opponents.

If it was Leonard who had been crushed by Hagler, and Hearns who had outpointed Hagler (in addition to KOing Duran), then I would say Hearns definitely should rank better all-time than Leonard, even if he had previously lost to Leonard.

mikE

02-05-2008, 01:53 AM

Michalchevsky was a Euro. That fact alone should place him in top-5, regardless of the fact he's not even 1/10 oof Toney as a fighter.

He sure didn't lose to as many fighters as Toney.

valdosta

02-05-2008, 01:57 AM

Didn't fight as many good fighters either. Nor did he have as many fights as Toney.

LOK

02-05-2008, 12:56 PM

Many seem intent on lingering like bad smells, but it looks like it's finally all done but the shouting (Hopkins/Calzaghe aside), for the 90's generation. How will they rank when the dust settles in terms of talent and significant achievement?

Oscar
Tito
Jones
B-Hop
Morales
Barrera
Tszyu
Lopez
Hamed
Lewis
Michalczewski
Mosley
Calzaghe
Wright

rank 'em 1-12. I'll come back later with my list.(note Holyfield, Chavez, Whitaker and other fighters whos major achievements began in the 80s aren't included)

great thread!:bears:

1 Jones

2 B-Hop

3 Mosley

4 Tito

5 Oscar

6 Calzaghe

7 Lopez

8 Barrera

9 Morales

10 Wright

11 Tszyu

12 Hamed

13 Michalczewski

14 Lewis

Really Floyd should be on here and right up in the top 5

LOK

02-05-2008, 12:57 PM

why is it ranking 1-12 when there are 14 names?:dunno:

Tyler Durden

02-06-2008, 05:13 AM

Hopkins dominated his weight division longer than Jones dominated any of his. Hopkins easily surpassed the records set by legends like Monzon and Hagler. To me, it is debatable which is a bigger achievement: to rule one division or to hange them quickly. Also Hopkins' career lasted longer and his win over Tarver (clearly the champ in light-heavyweight) is comparable to Jones' win over Ruiz (about #5 heavyweight in the world)

Staying at 1 division is not that great of an accomplisment when you see what those wins were against and what that division had to offer. When you are the biggest man in your division and not have that much competition in it, that is less of an achievement than dominating or competing in several. The accomplishment is longevity, but it doesn't look that good when you disect it.

bpg

02-06-2008, 10:18 AM

1. Jones
2. Hopkins
3. Oscar
4. Calzaghe
5. Barrera
6. Morales
7. Lopez
8. Tito
9. Lewis
10. mosley
11. tszyu
12. Wright
13. Hamed
14 Michalczewski

If Toney was in it i'd put him below Morales.

TKO

02-06-2008, 10:35 AM

I'm surprised Oscar rates so high with most of you guys.

Hut*Hut

02-06-2008, 11:15 AM

1. Jones
2. Hopkins
3. Oscar
4. Calzaghe
5. Barrera
6. Morales
7. Lopez
8. Tito
9. Lewis
10. mosley
11. tszyu
12. Wright
13. Hamed
14 Michalczewski

If Toney was in it i'd put him below Morales.

looks like a pretty decent list to me mate. Still think Tito remains overrated. Give it five or ten years and I expect to see his name quite a bit lower than it appears in most of these lists. Certainly cant see ANY justification for having him top 5.

LOK

02-06-2008, 01:02 PM

what is crazy is that Floyd is not listed..

Lemmon is clearly at the bottom if not off the list totally

Hut*Hut

02-06-2008, 04:10 PM

what is crazy is that Floyd is not listed..

Lemmon is clearly at the bottom if not off the list totally

include Floyd if you want, ffs, it's your list. I just listed who came to mind as examples - I plum forgot Toney (one of my all time faves), for example, it was hardly definitive.

I left Floyd (& Manny & Marquez) off because I though A) He still has potentially definitive fights to come and B) He's a good 5 years younger than the other guys on the list, so it felt like he was part of the next generation to these guys. But if you think he belongs there then by all means list him....he did win a belt in the late 90's so you have a point.

Ugotabe Kidding

02-06-2008, 05:23 PM

what is crazy is that Floyd is not listed..

Lemmon is clearly at the bottom if not off the list totally

Shut up COCK.

A top-5 heavyweight in all-time rankings, which Lewis clearly is, could be the first in this list

LOK

02-06-2008, 05:29 PM

include Floyd if you want, ffs, it's your list. I just listed who came to mind as examples - I plum forgot Toney (one of my all time faves), for example, it was hardly definitive.

I left Floyd (& Manny & Marquez) off because I though A) He still has potentially definitive fights to come and B) He's a good 5 years younger than the other guys on the list, so it felt like he was part of the next generation to these guys. But if you think he belongs there then by all means list him....he did win a belt in the late 90's so you have a point.

what is "ffs" ?