The DEFINITIVE top 20 all time P4P list!

Such an attention whore.

 

I know you're probably as pissed as I am that McCallum isn't on Sly's list. I feel ya brother..

::

 

me?

 

hahaha

the good old days

 

I'm sure a fella with your integrity wouldve fought margarito or or cotto for a third or fourth of the money the delahoya fight earned mayweather.

you think these oldtimers who fought a hundred plus times and died penniless would have done it the same way nowadays?

 

I agree with the majority of this. All of the guys you listed would have beaten Floyd. Floyd vs Leonard is a mismatch.

I wouldn't tab Floyd to beat Duran, Whitaker or Chavez at lightweight especially when you consider his struggle with castillo.

 

Who did you pick in the following fights:

Pavlik vs Hopkins
Hopkins vs Tarver
Mayweather vs De La Hoya

Answer honestly...and the reason I pick these fights is because it's WELL DOCUMENTED that you don't like either Hopkins or Mayweather and it is well documented that you make picks based upon who you like better.

So answer honestly (because I know the correct answers)

 

not sure but didn't judah knock him down as well?

 

Not officially...

 

Would Whitaker beat Mayweather @ 135 based on his struggles with Jorge Paez?

 

Nobody would pick fighting Cotto/Margarito/Williams over DLH......but that doesn't excuse Mayweather for not looking to fight one of those guys after he defeated DLH...or after he defeated Hatton...OR fighting Margarito before he fought Bumdomir...

 

Yeah, it's not like DLH hadn't come out of retirement to fight Mayorga, after having lost his last 2-3 fights (depending on how you scored the Mosley rematch).

DLH's been in semi-retirement for years, most people agree on that.

BTW, was DLH really in his "early" 30's?

 

beating delahoya was not impressive at all as far as mayweathers resumé is concerned. certainly not one his top five best career wins.

 

I certainly wouldn't put it above Castillo and Corrales.

I'd put it in the top 5, though.

 

I wouldn't. I'd put hatton, both castillo fights, corrales and judah all above delahoya without a doubt.

 

Are we talking about performance or just the win?

A split decision in a 7-5'ish fight against DLH certainly wasn't a great win for him. If anything, it was below - if not well below - many expectations.

But as an opponent, I'd rate DLH above Hatton and Judah.

 

Above Hatton? HOW?!?

Judah is a given. He's fucking useless.

 

hatton was the best win of mayweather career and it isn't close. if u don't think much of that win you don't think much of his career.

judah was a better fighter@welterweight when mayweather fought him than delahoya was at 54. many would probably consider that one of his top two wins if judah had simply trained for the baldomir fight.

 

dsimon writes:

the real problem with it is how it affects a more valid measure: Proportion. For example there are virtually no guys who fought over 100 professional fights who are undefeated. AS a matter of fact you find me a prolific fighter who is a great and I doubt he is undefeated. Finally it is arbitrary when compared to the judging. Standards change. I seriously doubt Calzighe would be undefeated with his style in another era when judges were not enamored with punch count..

The real measure of the man should be a calculus of a few years give or take before and after his prime, the amount of wins versus losses during that time, computed with a measure of the strength of the division divided by the strength of each opponent (a very signficiant ratio!).

For example take jones: The fact that he lost to Tarver is somewhat minimized by the fact it was past his prime, but somewhat magnified by the fact that the division they fought in at the time was relatively weak as compared to Tarver who was relatively strong. Jones would, on the other hand, get credit for beating Toney and Hopkins in a relative sweet spot. And... if he lost to Hopkins now it would be significantly minimized becasue they are both past it.

So yeah undefeated means something bit what exactly? That is a question that can be statistically verified in some way and probably should be.

 

dsimon writes:

Judah?::

 

dsimon writes:

True.

 

Mayweather hasn't achieved nearly enough to be in the top 20, IMO. Hopkins & Jones are borderline top 20, Mayweather might make the top 30 if you were in a generous mood.

 

Nonsense.

Hopkins and Jones are borderline top 20? Mayweather doesn't deserve even a place?

Sounds like old timer elitist "historian" mentality to me.

I can't wait for such archaic viewpoints to be in the minority

 

Putting Mayweather in the top 5 sounds like a decontextualized "teeny bobber" mentality to me.

Basically, if Hopkins is the third best middleweight ever (which I would say he is) & Monzon is probably about 15 odd & Hagler is borderline top 10, then as is said, Hopkins probably sneaks in the top 20, Jones slightly below Hopkins. Given Hopkins wins at 170 then I could see him up at 15 or so if you like, but basically, that's how I see it. Mayweather ranks significantly below Hopkins & Jones in my estimation so do the math. If Mayweather comes back and beats 2 out of Margirito, Cotto & Williams then we can talk about him being top 20.

 

How can you rank either Hagler or Monzon above Hopkins..in such EMPHATIC fashion..when Bernard had a longer reign than both of them..and also did something that neither could do and that is move up and win a title at 175lbs?

As for Mayweather: Titles in 5 weight classes, 39-0(25) record and displayed some of teh best technical skills in the history of the game.

You're just biased against Modern fighters..as is the usual custom...

 

they fought in a better era of middleweights and beat better middleweights. It's extremely close, not emphatic at all, but I'd say Hagler & Monzon rate slightly above Hopkins.

As for Mayweather, he's an outstanding fighter, but his achievements rank him closer to Oscar De la Hoya than Ray Robinson. Just didn't get enough done, and retired right at the point where he encountered a division strong enough for him to start remedying that. Looking back in 20 years, people aren't gonna be creaming themselves. As for what the tape shows, that's where you and I obviously diverge, I just don't think it's that relevant. By this point I've been surprised by too many ordinary looking fighters who turned out to be brilliant and brilliant looking fighters who turned out to be ordinary to put much stock in it.

 

True but Mayweather HAS been tested. Like him out Not...the De La Hoya, Hatton, Castillo and Corrales fights were tests. If Mayweather wasn't as good as he looked (which is what you're implying) he would have failed at least one of those...

 

stones, glass houses and all that... as biased as he and others may be against modern favors, your blatant bias flows in the opposite direction.

Hopkins' reign was longer, but in a splintered era. True it wasn't necessarily his fault that the other titlists didn't want to fight him for the longest (or more specifically, King didn't his guys losing to Hopkins w/o having paper on him), but it doesn't change the fact that the first five years of his reign was pretty damn ordinary - not to mention speding almost as much time in court as he did in the ring.

Monzon and Hagler both had much better defenses overall. it was the back end of Hopkins' reign as well as longevity that brought him into discussion.

Up until Calzaghe tied him last year, Sven Ottke had more defenses than any other fighter in the history of the super middleweight division, yet rarely gains mention as among the division's best ever. Hell, few were willing to even grant Calzaghe serious consideration until he beat Lacy - 8+ years and more than 15 defenses into his reign.

 

Perhaps instead of saying so and so had titles in this weight class and that, people should starting saying he had 1/3 or 1/4 (depending on how much credibility you give the WBO these days).

Regardless, if sly wants to pump "titles in 5 divisions" perhaps he should start listing the defenses that were made of the 140, 147 and 154 titles.

Or perhaps looking for weak links with title belts in various northern divisions really is the best way a fighter can prove themselves.

 

yeah, I actually also meant to ask what title Hopkins won at 175, if Floyd is regarded as a "legitimate" 5-division champion.