Who has been the best fighter in the last 16 years????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

1. Pernell Whitaker- didn't legitimately lose a fight for the first 15 years of his career. Trinidad loss is the only time he was legitimately defeated, and he was a 35 year old drug addict at that point.
2. Roy Jones- Lost 3 fights in a row at the end, but was unbeatable for the first 15 years of his career in a way similar to Whitaker.

Those are the clear top 2 IMO. Both men were unhittable in their prime, but age took away their speed and caused them to get hit more. I put Whitaker #1 based on his chin. As he got older and got hit, he proved that he had a great chin. He took Trinidad's best shots for 12 rounds at 147 and was still standing at the end. Trinidad being arguably the best puncher pound-for-pound of this post-1990 period.
On the other hand, when Jones lost his reflexes and movement, his chin proved to be suspect.

Rest:
3. Floyd Mayweather- the "new" Pernell Whitaker
4. Bernard Hopkins

---

I like Whitaker. Always have. But he lost the De La Hoya fight. It was close. But he lost it. And it was legit. People scream he was robbed all the time. Fine. Go ahead and say Whitaker should of won. But if you do that, than man-up and say Wilfredo Rivera got robbed in his fights against Whitaker. Especially the first one.

For me? Hands down it's gotta be Wright, Oscar, Hopkins, Floyd, Barrera, & Pacquiao.

That's on a technical & entertainment POV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

let's see last 16 years??? why 16????

Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Roy Jones Jr., De la Hoya, Mosley....all those should be mentioned before FLOYD

---

Only Roy should be.

Has to be Roy Jones Jr. because nobody made as many good fighters look as amateurish as he did. Could be Floyd, we'll see how he does against ODLH first though.

they so much talent out there its just hard to pick one fighter,

JJC
Sweet Pea Whitaker
Evander Holyfield
Kostya Tszyu

Floyd Mayweather Jr. I can sit here all day and talk about how boring he can be, but that has to do with him out classing guys to such a degree, the fights are dull .. Another words the outcome is so predictable. It's like knowing the punch- line to a really good joke before someone tells it,, it just isn’t that funny. Roy Jones was the same way, he had so much natural talent , that he didn’t have to risk losing to win. thus the element of suspense was neutralized. And the fights tend to become dull and predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

I like Whitaker. Always have. But he lost the De La Hoya fight. It was close. But he lost it. And it was legit. People scream he was robbed all the time. Fine. Go ahead and say Whitaker should of won. But if you do that, than man-up and say Wilfredo Rivera got robbed in his fights against Whitaker. Especially the first one.

---

I disagree. The DLH fight was certainly close, the decision was nowhere near as bad as the Jose Luis Ramirez and Julio Cesar Chavez fights. But I had it 7-5 for Whitaker. There were several times in the fight where De La Hoya would throw a flurry of punches, not land a single one and Lampley would leap out of his seat about what a great job DLH was doing. I like Lampley in general, but over the years he showed an incredible amount of bias in favor of both DLH and MAB. Watch the fight with no sound and it's a different fight.
Whitaker was the champ, and DLH didn't do enough to take his title.

You are right, the first Wilfredo Rivera decision was highly questionable in favor of Whitaker. He didn't fight well at all in that fight.
I guess I just don't feel that bad that Whitaker got a slight gift against Rivera, since Whitaker was on the losing end of two of the worst decisions in boxing history (Ramirez, Chavez).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

I like Whitaker. Always have. But he lost the De La Hoya fight. It was close. But he lost it. And it was legit. People scream he was robbed all the time. Fine. Go ahead and say Whitaker should of won. But if you do that, than man-up and say Wilfredo Rivera got robbed in his fights against Whitaker. Especially the first one.

---

I disagree. The DLH fight was certainly close, the decision was nowhere near as bad as the Jose Luis Ramirez and Julio Cesar Chavez fights. But I had it 7-5 for Whitaker. There were several times in the fight where De La Hoya would throw a flurry of punches, not land a single one and Lampley would leap out of his seat about what a great job DLH was doing. I like Lampley in general, but over the years he showed an incredible amount of bias in favor of both DLH and MAB. Watch the fight with no sound and it's a different fight.
Whitaker was the champ, and DLH didn't do enough to take his title.

You are right, the first Wilfredo Rivera decision was highly questionable in favor of Whitaker. He didn't fight well at all in that fight.
I guess I just don't feel that bad that Whitaker got a slight gift against Rivera, since Whitaker was on the losing end of two of the worst decisions in boxing history.

---

Lampley loves those Oscar flurries where nothing actually lands, he absolutely loves them.

I had the same score, a draw would have been ok but De La Hoya didn't win the fight.

Being the quite possibley the biggest Oscar fan on the face of the planet...which we all know is bullshit...because Mick'd blow him ;D ...he barely beat Sweet Pea.

It was close as shit...but he did beat him.

I have no qualms with it being called a draw...but ole Oscar got dropped in the 9th round I think...& Whitaker lost a point in either the 2nd or 3rd for a head butt...so it's kinda subject to much scrutiny.

The scores were hillarious though. I think that everyone had Oscar up by 5 or 6 points & that just aint the way I called it.

I gotta pull out the tape & watch that again.

RJJ
Hopkins
Pacquiao
Morales
Barrera

Roy Jones Jnr
Marco Antonio Barrera
Bernard Hopkins
Oscar De La Hoya

This is a question worth considering.

First of all, let me take Pacquiao out of discussion so I won't be accused of being biased. It's really difficult to choose the best fighter of 90's upward cuz most of them lack something important as compared to the 80's great like Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler who were overall well-rounded boxers with their own respective specialties. Let me consider some of them:

Felix Trinidad - I was leaning toward him who I think is the best puncher of this generation. But he tended to be tentative when he faced great opponents, though thats a very common trait even among some of the best fighters all time, and sometimes even lacked killer's instinct when facing a lesser opponent he clearly had in trouble.

RJJ and B. Hopkins - why don't these two fighters, even with their near impeccable records, stir the heart of many fans, including mine, remains to be somewhat a question up to now. Is it because of the press' lukewarm interest, or is it because of, as many say, the class of their opponents?

Oscar dela Hoya - of course, the most exciting fighter of the era, what with his exceptionally good looks making him a celebrity twice over. But still, he was a charging bull of a fighter, with unrelenting agressiveness and power to scare many opponents, especially the lesser ones.

NAS - a flamboyant fighter with great power and skill that excited many fans.

MAB - together with Morales, he brought unprecedent excitement for the lower weight class boxing. Though 2-1 with Morales (I had them all pretty even enough, though), his devastating losses to Jr. Jones and Pac put an irreparable dent on his record.

J.M. Marquez - his counterpunching technique has made him one of the most exciting to watch. But unlike PBF, who relies on his instinct, Marquez counterpunching tends to be mechanical, with his usual 1-2-3 or 1-2-uppercut combo, combined ocassionally with lunging body attacks. And fight fans just can't stop shaking their heads in disappointment over the choice of his opponents - a clear case of opportunity wasted, which adds to the question how good he indeed is.

E. Holyfield - kept the torch of Heavyweight alive, together with Lennox Lewis (but I picked Holyfield instead though). Good enough to frustrate the proud Tyson so much as to make him chew off his ears.

PBF - he's been scrutinized so thoroughly that even all the hairs in his body have been counted, and everyone knows enough about him, so I'll pass this one (besides, I don't want to start another riot here).

My choice:

Erik 'the Terrible' Morales - (surprised heh?) all right, let me first admit Pac beat a starving, worned out Erik. With Barrera, he brought the lower weight class boxing to its unprecedent heights. But as a fighter, he was overall the most well-rounded fighter of this generation, though not superb in any areas, but excellent neverthelss in most. With his excellent skill, though pretty orthodox - continuously exploiting his opponents opening- his heart, chin and agressiveness, he clearly he had it all. His only defect, if I may call it that, was his tendency to brawl even when it was not necessary to do so, but then, isn't that what made him great? If he'd been at least a welterweight, he'd probably be recognized as the best of this generation, and likely one of the best ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacfan

This is a question worth considering.

First of all, let me take Pacquiao out of discussion so I won't be accused of being biased. It's really difficult to choose the best fighter of 90's upward cuz most of them lack something important as compared to the 80's great like Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler who were overall well-rounded boxers with their own respective specialties. Let me consider some of them:

Felix Trinidad - I was leaning toward him who I think is the best puncher of this generation. But he tended to be tentative when he faced great opponents, though thats a very common trait even among some of the best fighters all time, and sometimes even lacked killer's instinct when facing a lesser opponent he clearly had in trouble.

RJJ and B. Hopkins - why don't these two fighters, even with their near impeccable records, stir the heart of many fans, including mine, remains to be somewhat a question up to now. Is it because of the press' lukewarm interest, or is it because of, as many say, the class of their opponents?

Oscar dela Hoya - of course, the most exciting fighter of the era, what with his exceptionally good looks making him a celebrity twice over. But still, he was a charging bull of a fighter, with unrelenting agressiveness and power to scare many opponents, especially the lesser ones.

NAS - a flamboyant fighter with great power and skill that excited many fans.

MAB - together with Morales, he brought unprecedent excitement for the lower weight class boxing. Though 2-1 with Morales (I had them all pretty even enough, though), his devastating losses to Jr. Jones and Pac put an irreparable dent on his record.

J.M. Marquez - his counterpunching technique has made him one of the most exciting to watch. But unlike PBF, who relies on his instinct, Marquez counterpunching tends to be mechanical, with his usual 1-2-3 or 1-2-uppercut combo, combined ocassionally with lunging body attacks. And fight fans just can't stop shaking their heads in disappointment over the choice of his opponents - a clear case of opportunity wasted, which adds to the question how good he indeed is.

E. Holyfield - kept the torch of Heavyweight alive, together with Lennox Lewis (but I picked Holyfield instead though). Good enough to frustrate the proud Tyson so much as to make him chew off his ears.

PBF - he's been scrutinized so thoroughly that even all the hairs in his body have been counted, and everyone knows enough about him, so I'll pass this one (besides, I don't want to start another riot here).

My choice:

Erik 'the Terrible' Morales - (surprised heh?) all right, let me first admit Pac beat a starving, worned out Erik. With Barrera, he brought the lower weight class boxing to its unprecedent heights. But as a fighter, he was overall the most well-rounded fighter of this generation, though not superb in any areas, but excellent neverthelss in most. With his excellent skill, though pretty orthodox - continuously exploiting his opponents opening- his heart, chin and agressiveness, he clearly he had it all. His only defect, if I may call it that, was his tendency to brawl even when it was not necessary to do so, but then, isn't that what made him great? If he'd been at least a welterweight, he'd probably be recognized as the best of this generation, and likely one of the best ever.

---

nICE ANALYSIS BRO! As much as I love Morale though,I don't think he is the best of the last 15 or so years but I'm glad you mentioned him and Tito too. I'd personally have to with RJJ,with Pernell,B Hop,Oscar and MAB gettin honourable mentions.

Yup, I know you'd like it. Maybe not perfect but I was looking as objectively as possible from all possible angles and he just happened to be there. I might be a pac-fan but when I do my analysis, I try my best to be objective.

OK.... People are mentioning fighters who fought PAST the 16 yr. mark.
If I understand right when you say of the last 16 yrs. that means that they started fighting NO EARLIER THEN 1990. Cause if they fought in 1989 that would be 17 yrs. Right?

If so then 'Finito' Lopez, Pernell, JCC, B-Hop, even RJJ would be out since he started fighting in 1989, Bowe, Holyfiled.


Or are you just going by what the fighter has done since 1990 to present time?

If so then heres my list: ;D
Ricardo Lopez
JCC
ODLH
RJJ
Pernell
Lewis
James Toney
B-Hop
Holyfield
Tito
Carbajal

By the way Naz, IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM does he belong here.

PAC, IMO falls short and he still has some ground to cover. But I would put it all on the line and bet in favor that by the end of his career hes on there. ;)
PBF, could very well be there but very low on the list as his quality of opposition really kicks him in the nuts.