Who was the fighter of the 90s?

Lewis, Holyfield, Whitaker, De La Hoya or Roy Jones?

Holyfield won the Undisputed heavyweight title in 1990 from the man who busted Mike Tyson. He then defended against Foreman, Cooper, Holmes (not the most impressive list of challengers....even though Foreman would later regain the title and Holmes would become the first man to defeat Ray Mercer)..and would then lose to Riddick Bowe. Became the 3rd man in history to regain the title after beating Bowe in the rematch. Lost the title to Moorer and then regained two versions again of it by stopping Mike Tyson followed by Michael Moorer. So Holyfield equalled Ali's record of winning the title three times. Overall....beating Douglas, Foreman, Mercer, Tyson, Moorer, Bowe and tieing with Lennox Lewis is a decent level of opposition. Winning the title three times in that decade is an impressive achievement.

Lewis started the decade beating Tyrell Biggs and later getting the WBC belt after a title eliminator against Donovan Razor Ruddock. Defended the belt three times, including victories over Tucker and Bruno, before losing to McCall. AFter losing he put on an impressive run of victories against Mercer, Morrison, Golota, McCall in a return and Briggs (to technically get the linear title)..he finally unified in a win against Holyfield to end the decade.

Whitaker started the decade with the Lightweight title beating Freddie Pendleton and Azumah Nelson and then put on a run of wins beating Pineda (adding the light welterweight title) , Buddy McGirt (adding the Welterweight Title) and Paez among others. Victim of a controversial draw against the undefeated Julio Cesar Chavez in 1993. COntinued defending his welterweight crown successfully against Hurtado and Rivera etc...until losing a close semi-controversial decision to and undefeated Oscar De La Hoya and then another decision loss to an undefeated Felix Trinidad. Pernell Whitaker held three belts in this decade.

De La Hoya started the decade with Olympic Gold. Won a version of the Superfeatherweight crown in '94 after just 11 fights, added the legit Lightweight crown a year later from Rafael Ruelas, became the first man to stop Chavez 2 years later for the Jnr Welterweight crown, Added the Welterweight crown a year after that beating Whitaker..and added a string of impressive defenses against Camacho, Rivera, Chavez and the undefeated former co-titlist Ike Quartey. Lost a controversial decision to undefeated Felix Trinidad to end the decade. So de la Hoya won titles in every division from 130-147 in that decade with some notable names on his resume.

Roy Jones had an unbeaten run of 20 or so fights to start the decade winning his first title from Bernard Hopkins for the vacant IBF Middleweight crown. A year later became the first man to defeat James Toney, and he did it very ease...seizing the IBF Super-Middleweight crown in the process. His only defeat of the decade was a controversial DQ at the hands of Griffin, but he avenged that in the rematch by way of first round KO...acquiring the LightHeavyweight crown in the process. He subsequently unified that belt and defended the crown successfully for the remainder of the decade. So Jones won belts in three divisions, had only one defeat and that was by controversial DQ..and had wins over mcCallum, Toney, Hopkins, Hill, and Griffen.

 

I find these lists too problematic because everyone will come with different criteria. Do you JUSt judge a guys body of work in that decade? Do you judge his whole career including his 90s work? Do you judge on peak ability at a given moment in the decade?

IMO the best way to do it is to judge fighters based on the decade they first won a world title then judge their entire career against everyone else who first won a title in that decade. That way you aren't penalising guys for doing half their work in say the 80s and half in the 90s like Whitaker, Chavez, Holyfield etc.

Failing that criteria I'll go with the way that seems fairest to me: who was the very best guy at any given point int he decade. For me that's a lightweight Pernel Whitaker in 1990.

 

Agree with the criteria bullshit, disagreed with the pick. Best at any given Point would be the 1994-96 supermiddle RJJ. And that's not only for the 90s and for the 90s it wouldn't even be close.

 

Judging them by their body of work in THAT decade is the fairest way to do it.

 

I think Roy Jones is a far more beatable fighter than Whitaker. Jones was the most physically gifted fighter of the decade, but not the best, IMO.

 

How is that fair to guys who won titles in the mid 80s or 90s whos resume is evenly spread between two decades?

Judging guys whole career based on when they won their first title is the only fair way to do it.

 

Jones, "easily" the best of that decade? "Easily" better than Whitaker, or Lopez?

Not on your life.

 

I genuinely see both sides of this. The question is really, "Best of the 90's?" Sly is within his rights to say, "Well, tough luck," if part of a fighters' career fell in the 80's, or 00's, while another's major body of work did not.

On the other hand, Hut's approach is fairer, & no less a true indication of who the best really was.

I could live with either criteria.

 

Slippery slope...

I then have to include Tyson and Chavez. Shit even Tommy Hearns kept going in the 90s.

 

No, you rank them among fighters of the 80s, along with Whitaker, Chavez & Holyfield. Guys who won their first world title in the 80s.

There's no way of doing this that doesn't get messy, but there is one way of doing it that's fair.

 

Suppose it comes down to whether you wanna define the decade as an historical period or define the fighters relative to each other. Different ways of doing things.

 

Just on ability, I would've voted for the unlisted Ricardo Lopez, BTW --- but Whitaker & Jones are perfectly viable leading candidates.

 

Yes, easily better than Lopez.

Jones was the fighter of the 90s, no question.

 

I'm going to go with Whitaker, all-in-all.

 

ointlaugh:Ricardo Lopes

 

Jones was the best fighter of the 90s, whether he's the greatest depends on your slant on his resume but whatever the shortcoming associated with his resume its still clearly better than Lopez IMO

 

whitaker

 

But it's the best of a particular decade, not best career. No different than ranking the best among a particular weight class - what Robinson did at middleweight shouldn't factor at all into his accomplishments at welterweight.

 

That's cool. False, but cool. Big Whitaker fan here.

 

Jones wasn't as good as some people think. As i said, I think he's a far more beatable fighter than Whitaker.

 

Not throughout the 90s as a whole, he wasn't.

 

As I've said Im judging on peak ability. 94 Jones is definitely more beatable by more fighters than 90 Whitaker, IMO. Just how I see it.

 

Fair enough. I see it closer than that, but I'm not really interested in arguing against a master like Pea.

I don't like your system, though.

 

For most of Jones' fights in the nineties, the only question was whether his opponent clearly won a round, Toney barely touched him, Hopkins couldn't get started, McCallum was allowed to do little...one of the major messageboard topics in the late nineties was what strategy you would employ to beat RJ, as he faced both aggressive and tricky guys and neither made much inroads. Theres no way he was more beatable than Whitaker or any other fighter in the decade.

 

precisely

 

Agree to disagree.

 

just based on the 1990s, never mind all the great work he did in the 80s, my answer would be Pernell Whitaker

 

no doubt helped by the lackluster level of comp... Hopkins was a greenhorn at that point... he was light years better and more versatile 5 or more years later...

Toney was a great win, but it shouldnt have been surprising to anyone... Toney could never handle movers

McCallum was 110 years old, and giving Jones a lot of credit for that fight is like giving Trinidad a lot of credit for Whitaker

 

Jones by a wide margin.

 

Roy Jones Jr all motherfucking day