What's yours? Lots of guys to consider. Outside of the obvious, I'll put forward: Eddie Perkins, Ike Williams, Carlos Hernandez and Duilio Loi. By the way, beating a shot Ricky Hatton or Arturo Gatti and going life and death with DeMarcus Corley isn't getting you on here. So no Mayweather or Pacquiao.
#15. Meldrick Taylor #14. Ike Williams #13. Frankie Randall #12. Kostya Tszyu #11. Carlos Hernandez #10. Duilio Loi #09. Wilfred Benitez #08. Aaron Pryor #07. Eddie Perkins #06. Jose Napoles #05. Julio Cesar Chavez #04. Carlos Ortiz #03. Antonio Cervantes #02. Nicolino Locche #01. Barney Ross Edit: Swapped Hatton for Bradley, then for Meldrick Taylor.
Floyd went nowhere near "life and death" with Corley. Corley rocked him, but short of that, Floyd beat the shit outta him and won every round.
It's hyperbole. But even still, Corley gave Mayweather a great fight, the hardest round of his career, and clearly had him hurt. That to me, is pretty close to life and death. The point still stands. Gatti and Corley do not get you on this list.
Depends on if you mean accomplishments or head-to-head. Accomplishment wise, no, Floyd doesn't make it. H2H, the 140 Floyd would have beaten most guys on this list.
My mistake, didntr.realise.you were talking about both of them. Still, calling Hatton shot when Pac blasted him makes no sense. Je looked better than ever against Paulie the fight before
Hatton was something like 44-0 at jr. welter heading into the Pacquiao fight. Bombing him out in 2 rounds for his only loss at the weight should absolutely put Pac in any discussion with the division's greats. And ranking someone like Carlos Hernandez over Pac or May basically makes the list fundamentally dishonest.
Mayweather and Pacquiao and have a combined total of FOUR fights at the weight.... do you rank Duran highly at super featherweight? Or Pacquiao highly at super middleweight? Do you have Harada above Laciar, for example? Pac and May might well have beaten Hernandez up badly. But he fought more fights vs hall of famers than those two had fights at the weight. He amassed a brilliant set of wins and didn't treat the division like a stepping stone. It isn't fundamentally dishonest, it's ranking someone with great, prolonged career there, ahead of two people who stopped to take a shit and leave.
A rough list: 15. Bruno Arcari 14. Ricky Hatton 13. Frankie Randall 12. Eddie Perkins 11. Kostya Tszyu 10. Duilio Loi 9. Jose Napoles 8. Carlos Ortiz 7. Jack Kid Berg 6. Tony Canzoneri 5. Nicolino Locche 4. Julio Cesar Chavez 3. Aaron Pryor 2. Antonio Cervantes 1. Barney Ross
This ranking method of yours, logical as though it is, leads to fundamentally wrong results at times. The Ring used similar approach some years back when they ranked the greatest middleweight champions ever and both Abraham and Sturm made their top-10 list. Both had long and successful reigns compared to Marcel Cerdan or Ray Leonard, but ranking them as greater middleweight would be a stretch of the term
That's not a problem with my list, that's them being fucking retards. It's undebatable that Hernandez accomplished more at 140 than Pacquiao or Mayweather. Whether or not they're better fighters is irrelevant. Wladimir Klitschko achieved more than Mike Tyson. Is he a better fighter?
I may be giving Berg credit for wins that took place at lightweight - I guess technically the Canzoneri win doesn't count but then his fight for the 140 lb title against Canzoneri took place inside the lightweight limit (and was for the lightweight title too). His peak was short ('30-'31) but he was brilliant during it. Arcari? I can take him or leave him for the final spot tbh. Maybe Tim Bradley would be a better pick.
Hernandez didn't exactly have a "great, prolonged career" at 140 either, though. The vast majority of his career was spent competing (and ranked) as a LW, both before and after his stint as jr. WW champ. It should also be taken into consideration that jr. and super weight classes were not held in the same regard back then as they are now, and there was much less interest and incentive in fighters competing at those weights. Consequently, the divisions were generally less deep than they are today and many fighters who campaigned in them only did so after they failed to get or win a title shot in one of the major weight class. I also don't agree that having more fights or a longer tenure at a particular weight automatically equates to being more accomplished there. For example, Roy Jones is often rated as the best super MW champ ever based largely on the strength of a single monumental win, even though he didn't have the lengthy reign of a Calzaghe or Ottke or unify titles the way Calzaghe or Ward did. Demolishing Hatton, the guy who ended Tszyu's reign and was otherwise unbeaten in 40-plus fights at the weight, is a HUGE achievement for anyone at that weight.
He has plenty of top wins between 135 and 140, and was the champion there. That's career at the weight. Why should it be taken into consideration that the weight wasn't as highly regarded then? What relevance does that have? Especially since the divisions' two finest eras are the 30s and the 60s. Not only was the division Hernandez fought in much deeper than the one Pacquiao had one fight in, he obviously had a much longer career between 135 and 140, or at the weight. I rate Jones below Ward and Calzaghe at 168. The win over Toney and three years of dominance as the clear number one in the world is more impressive to me than Ottke's reign. The argument of how other people rank other fighters in different weights doesn't effect my view. Especially when I don't buy that argument. In this case, the comparison isn't apt at all. Since Super-Middleweight is much weaker than Junior-Welter and not only is Jones' win over Toney is levels above Pacquiao's win over Hatton, he also has three years of dominance and much more than one fight at the weight. So whether you agree or not doesn't matter to me, because you didn't say that you don't agree. You said it's fundamentally wrong. Key difference. Why is beating Hatton such an incredible achievement? He was in his penultimate fight, and only has three wins of note at the weight anyway. Two of which were clearly past their best, and the other being Malignaggi, who's nothing special. He lost to Diaz not long after IIRC. The manner of the win is impressive, but it's literally one fight. Hernandez has a bunch of top contenders on his record and a win, though disputed, over a prime Eddie Perkins. Who was clearly better than any Hatton.
You might not have seen the fight, but paulie didnt lose to Diaz the first time atound. It was a terrible robbery
