-
ESPN rankings for past 25 years
#P4Prank: Ranking top 25 pound-for-pound boxers of past 25 years
So espn has been ranking top 25 fighters of the past 25 years. It's a decent list but I have a few problems with it. I thought it would be a good discussion.
First, Morales is #18 and Barrera is #13. Maybe I'm biased being a big Morales fan but I think he definitely had the better career and is the better fighter. And if anything, Barrera should be one or maybe two above him.
#6 is a bit high for de la hoya. And this is coming from a big fan of his while he was a fighter (not as much as a promotor). He fought some great fighters, but to me lacked a little bit to get to that next level. I think he could fall a few spots.
Roy Jones at #4 is just dumb. No way should bhop be above him at all. Jones should be #1 or #2 no question. He was so dominant. He was #1 p4p for a long time. Bhop I don't think has ever been #1 yet he is ranked higher? How is that possible?
It's actually a decent list overall but has a few problems.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Where was Joe Calzaghe? (can't find the full list)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
#P4Prank: Ranking top 25 pound-for-pound boxers of past 25 years
So espn has been ranking top 25 fighters of the past 25 years. It's a decent list but I have a few problems with it. I thought it would be a good discussion.
First, Morales is #18 and Barrera is #13. Maybe I'm biased being a big Morales fan but I think he definitely had the better career and is the better fighter. And if anything, Barrera should be one or maybe two above him.
#6 is a bit high for de la hoya. And this is coming from a big fan of his while he was a fighter (not as much as a promotor). He fought some great fighters, but to me lacked a little bit to get to that next level. I think he could fall a few spots.
Roy Jones at #4 is just dumb. No way should bhop be above him at all. Jones should be #1 or #2 no question. He was so dominant. He was #1 p4p for a long time. Bhop I don't think has ever been #1 yet he is ranked higher? How is that possible?
It's actually a decent list overall but has a few problems.
Roy Jones at #4 annoyed me as well. Like you said, Bernard shouldn't be above him either, tho I love B Hop.
Jones is the greatest of all time IMO, and easily the greatest of the past 25 years.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Where was Joe Calzaghe? (can't find the full list)
14th
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Who was the best?
Mayweather was #1. I know you hate it but it's hard to argue it. Jones is the only one with a case.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Who was the best?
Mayweather was #1. I know you hate it but it's hard to argue it. Jones is the only one with a case.
I go with Jones
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Who was the best?
Mayweather was #1. I know you hate it but it's hard to argue it. Jones is the only one with a case.
I go with Jones
No way :o
I was sure you would say mayweather
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Who was the best?
Mayweather was #1. I know you hate it but it's hard to argue it. Jones is the only one with a case.
I go with Jones
No way :o
I was sure you would say mayweather
Roy was everything Floyd was but with power.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
No list would ever be satisfactory.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
My biggest issues with the rankings are:
1) Whitaker being ranked 8th, and behind Oscar. That is just insane. I can see a case for Floyd, Sweet Pea, JCC, and even Roy for #1, but I can't see ANY argument for Oscar to be ranked higher than any of them.
2). Oscar being ranked ahead of JMM, Finito Lopez, Evander Holyfield...etc. Oscar was a great champion who fought all of the top fighters, but he lost many of his big fights and was given controversial wins more than once (Whitaker, Quartey, Sturm...etc.), no way Oscar should be ranked that high.
As for BHop, I can see a solid case for ranking him over Roy (I have him ranked higher on my list), and in the top 5. People rank Roy based on one of two criteria: his potential/freakish athleticism OR his actual in ring accomplishments/historical significance. If you rank him on how he looked in the ring and his natural gifts, you rank him close to the top. If you factor quality of opposition and historical significance, guys like Floyd, Manny, Sweet Pea, BHop, and JCC come out ahead.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy won one fight and Hop won one fight. You will say Roy was old when Hop beat him, I will say Hop was green when Roy beat him. Hop beat an undefeated Glen Johnson, and dominated Tarver (jumping two weight classes to do so). Hop fought and beat better competition over a longer period of time and was never destroyed like Roy was. You will say Roy lost his punch resistance by losing too much weight vs Tarver, I will counter by saying Roy was as fast and good as he ever was in the second Tarver fight, he just fought a guy who had the right punch for him.
Point is, I can see your case and why you would feel like you do about Roy, I just completely disagree with you because I value certain attributes/criteria differently. For anyone to say that either is CLEARLY the better fighter who should be ranked higher isn't being honest with themselves and is blinded by bias.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy won one fight and Hop won one fight. You will say Roy was old when Hop beat him, I will say Hop was green when Roy beat him. Hop beat an undefeated Glen Johnson, and dominated Tarver (jumping two weight classes to do so). Hop fought and beat better competition over a longer period of time and was never destroyed like Roy was. You will say Roy lost his punch resistance by losing too much weight vs Tarver, I will counter by saying Roy was as fast and good as he ever was in the second Tarver fight, he just fought a guy who had the right punch for him.
Point is, I can see your case and why you would feel like you do about Roy, I just completely disagree with you because I value certain attributes/criteria differently. For anyone to say that either is CLEARLY the better fighter who should be ranked higher isn't being honest with themselves and is blinded by bias.
Roy clearly beat Hopkins and his best and peak beats B Hop (and Toney) says how great Roy was.
The end. :)
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy won one fight and Hop won one fight. You will say Roy was old when Hop beat him, I will say Hop was green when Roy beat him. Hop beat an undefeated Glen Johnson, and dominated Tarver (jumping two weight classes to do so). Hop fought and beat better competition over a longer period of time and was never destroyed like Roy was. You will say Roy lost his punch resistance by losing too much weight vs Tarver, I will counter by saying Roy was as fast and good as he ever was in the second Tarver fight, he just fought a guy who had the right punch for him.
Point is, I can see your case and why you would feel like you do about Roy, I just completely disagree with you because I value certain attributes/criteria differently. For anyone to say that either is CLEARLY the better fighter who should be ranked higher isn't being honest with themselves and is blinded by bias.
Roy was a better fighter at his best, than Hopkins was at his, that's all. I'm not arguing that he has the better record, but considering he convincingly beat Hopkins when they fought each other I consider it pretty elementary to rank him higher. To bring up the rematch as if that puts them square, and then talk about being honest with yourself, I can only assume is an attempt at irony?
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
palmerq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Where was Joe Calzaghe? (can't find the full list)
14th
Really? Seeing the first section of the list I assumed they'd ignored him. To get a spot is fair enough.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Not sure why or how they can rank incomplete fighters who are still active. Bit of a promotional piece. Oscars rank is way too high. Personally I'd rank Hopkins over Jones jr all things considered. Jones a phenomenal athlete but Hopkins evolved his career and a better fundamental boxer. Then again both are also still active, sort of ;D. On a side note could they pick another pic of Toney when discussing P4P??? He's at his bloated best there man.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Worthless list.
Obviously being a media darling and having been collectively blown by ESPN has a lot to do with where fighters are ranked.
That list and $1.50 will still get me a cheap beer at the local bar.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy won one fight and Hop won one fight. You will say Roy was old when Hop beat him, I will say Hop was green when Roy beat him. Hop beat an undefeated Glen Johnson, and dominated Tarver (jumping two weight classes to do so). Hop fought and beat better competition over a longer period of time and was never destroyed like Roy was. You will say Roy lost his punch resistance by losing too much weight vs Tarver, I will counter by saying Roy was as fast and good as he ever was in the second Tarver fight, he just fought a guy who had the right punch for him.
Point is, I can see your case and why you would feel like you do about Roy, I just completely disagree with you because I value certain attributes/criteria differently. For anyone to say that either is CLEARLY the better fighter who should be ranked higher isn't being honest with themselves and is blinded by bias.
Roy was a better fighter at his best, than Hopkins was at his, that's all. I'm not arguing that he has the better record, but considering he convincingly beat Hopkins when they fought each other I consider it pretty elementary to rank him higher. To bring up the rematch as if that puts them square, and then talk about being honest with yourself, I can only assume is an attempt at irony?
Again, you're not being consistent in your argument. The Hop that Roy beat, just like the one who drew with Mercado, was nowhere near the complete boxer puncher who dismantled Tito Trinidad. Similarly, the Roy who Hop beat, was nowhere near the phenom who ran circles around James Toney. Neither beat the other at their best, and while I agree that Roy would cause anyone problems due to his athleticism and unorthodox style, I feel that Hop learned from Roy in the first fight and learned/evolved to a point where he could effectively fight a faster/more athletic opponent. I feel like Hop vs Roy during 2001-2004 time frame is 50/50.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
why is vlad klit on there? what a rubbish list
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Neither Jones or Hopkins were any thing close to peak when they fought. Not to mention Jones pretty much went from unbeaten to losing to fucking Taver i do not even think he won there first fight. Jones best win was Tony who great but him self had some bad losses because he show up so out of shape. Jones talent was great but list of guys he fought are pretty weak compared to others i mean Mayweather never had loses Roy had and Mayweather has fought in to old age with most likely better opponents over his time. Jones was great but he really beat a lot of guys which were pretty much no ones.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Jones didn't have grade a competition but he did fight and destroy solid fighters. I guess with rankings you have to decide what things are more important. For example, bhops longevity brings him up higher on the list for me but not as high as someone as dominant as Jones. Bhop struggled with fighters who Jones would have easily beaten.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Jones didn't have grade a competition but he did fight and destroy solid fighters. I guess with rankings you have to decide what things are more important. For example, bhops longevity brings him up higher on the list for me but not as high as someone as dominant as Jones. Bhop struggled with fighters who Jones would have easily beaten.
Hop dominated Tarver and Johnson, both fighters who knocked Roy out...
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy won one fight and Hop won one fight. You will say Roy was old when Hop beat him, I will say Hop was green when Roy beat him. Hop beat an undefeated Glen Johnson, and dominated Tarver (jumping two weight classes to do so). Hop fought and beat better competition over a longer period of time and was never destroyed like Roy was. You will say Roy lost his punch resistance by losing too much weight vs Tarver, I will counter by saying Roy was as fast and good as he ever was in the second Tarver fight, he just fought a guy who had the right punch for him.
Point is, I can see your case and why you would feel like you do about Roy, I just completely disagree with you because I value certain attributes/criteria differently. For anyone to say that either is CLEARLY the better fighter who should be ranked higher isn't being honest with themselves and is blinded by bias.
Roy was a better fighter at his best, than Hopkins was at his, that's all. I'm not arguing that he has the better record, but considering he convincingly beat Hopkins when they fought each other I consider it pretty elementary to rank him higher. To bring up the rematch as if that puts them square, and then talk about being honest with yourself, I can only assume is an attempt at irony?
Again, you're not being consistent in your argument. The Hop that Roy beat, just like the one who drew with Mercado, was nowhere near the complete boxer puncher who dismantled Tito Trinidad. Similarly, the Roy who Hop beat, was nowhere near the phenom who ran circles around James Toney. Neither beat the other at their best, and while I agree that Roy would cause anyone problems due to his athleticism and unorthodox style, I feel that Hop learned from Roy in the first fight and learned/evolved to a point where he could effectively fight a faster/more athletic opponent. I feel like Hop vs Roy during 2001-2004 time frame is 50/50.
Fair enough, we just disagree. I think with both men anywhere near their best(which is closer to the case in their first fight than the second, and more than you are making out IMO) we saw what happens. Hopkins was the first good opponent Roy really had as a pro either if I'm not mistaken, although obviously nobody knew how good he was/would become then. Hopkins prime is a tough thing to pin down. He went undefeated as a middleweight champ, but he also didn't have marquee opponents and he did struggle enough in some fights before fighting Tito and then nobody for a few years until Taylor, that was his only real stretch of anything near dominance. I also don't think he was naturally a smaller man than Roy Jones, and probably could have moved up to 168 or 75 much sooner than he did. Not knocking Hopkins at all and I'm a fan, I just think he gets a lot of credit for doing things at the age he did and therefore get's this benefit in hindsight. I think James Toney would have whipped his ass as well, if that fight ever happened.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Jones didn't have grade a competition but he did fight and destroy solid fighters. I guess with rankings you have to decide what things are more important. For example, bhops longevity brings him up higher on the list for me but not as high as someone as dominant as Jones. Bhop struggled with fighters who Jones would have easily beaten.
Hop dominated Tarver and Johnson, both fighters who knocked Roy out...
You could make a case for tarver but the first tarver fight was the worst Jones had ever looked and never looked good after that fight. I doubt it was a coincidence. And Jones literally laid on the ropes and did nothing against Johnson. He was obviously finished as a prime fighter whatsoever. A prime Jones would have demolished Johnson no problem.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy won one fight and Hop won one fight. You will say Roy was old when Hop beat him, I will say Hop was green when Roy beat him. Hop beat an undefeated Glen Johnson, and dominated Tarver (jumping two weight classes to do so). Hop fought and beat better competition over a longer period of time and was never destroyed like Roy was. You will say Roy lost his punch resistance by losing too much weight vs Tarver, I will counter by saying Roy was as fast and good as he ever was in the second Tarver fight, he just fought a guy who had the right punch for him.
Point is, I can see your case and why you would feel like you do about Roy, I just completely disagree with you because I value certain attributes/criteria differently. For anyone to say that either is CLEARLY the better fighter who should be ranked higher isn't being honest with themselves and is blinded by bias.
Roy was a better fighter at his best, than Hopkins was at his, that's all. I'm not arguing that he has the better record, but considering he convincingly beat Hopkins when they fought each other I consider it pretty elementary to rank him higher. To bring up the rematch as if that puts them square, and then talk about being honest with yourself, I can only assume is an attempt at irony?
Again, you're not being consistent in your argument. The Hop that Roy beat, just like the one who drew with Mercado, was nowhere near the complete boxer puncher who dismantled Tito Trinidad. Similarly, the Roy who Hop beat, was nowhere near the phenom who ran circles around James Toney. Neither beat the other at their best, and while I agree that Roy would cause anyone problems due to his athleticism and unorthodox style, I feel that Hop learned from Roy in the first fight and learned/evolved to a point where he could effectively fight a faster/more athletic opponent. I feel like Hop vs Roy during 2001-2004 time frame is 50/50.
Fair enough, we just disagree. I think with both men anywhere near their best(which is closer to the case in their first fight than the second, and more than you are making out IMO) we saw what happens. Hopkins was the first good opponent Roy really had as a pro either if I'm not mistaken, although obviously nobody knew how good he was/would become then. Hopkins prime is a tough thing to pin down. He went undefeated as a middleweight champ, but he also didn't have marquee opponents and he did struggle enough in some fights before fighting Tito and then nobody for a few years until Taylor, that was his only real stretch of anything near dominance. I also don't think he was naturally a smaller man than Roy Jones, and probably could have moved up to 168 or 75 much sooner than he did. Not knocking Hopkins at all and I'm a fan, I just think he gets a lot of credit for doing things at the age he did and therefore get's this benefit in hindsight. I think James Toney would have whipped his ass as well, if that fight ever happened.
I laugh at Tony whooping Hopkins a man who could not beat Griffin and lose to Thadzi is not whooping hop for love of god he could not clearly beat a 40 year old body snatcher. Tony most overrated fighter to walk planet earth thouse fights were all in the 90's as well not old.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
James Toney was brilliant when on form. Yes he struggled at times and I thought McCallum beat him but Toney was brilliant throwback who took on the best and was fearless.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Yea but when people say that Tony would whoop Hops ass yet he could not beat Griffin both times was out done by him, lost to Thadiz and never clearly beat a fucking 40 plus body snatcher. His best wins are Nunn and Blade considering how high he rated by some that pretty lame top names. I always hear how he would destroy this guy or this guy but on resume is bunch of filler and few top wins. Tony is the most overrated fighter there has been and to say he whoop Hops ass is just plain funny.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Toney was a lazy fucker, he clearly didn't take some fights seriously and had some bad showings for sure. I guess the reason I rate Roy over Hopkins so easily ties into the same thing, I think of who was the best fighter at their best rather than consistent or over a duration of time, just a personal bias.
EVERYONE struggled with the body snatcher though, he was still a way better opponent than Hopkins ever fought during his reign. As was Reggie Johnson, Michael Nunn, and maybe even Prince Charles Williams. Toney was a damn fine 160 pounder when he was on.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Yea i am just saying in a real life situation there a great chance Tony fucks it up more so then Hopkins not saying Hopkins has beat wins ever either. Hopkins just never had that half ass ness Tony did and when it comes to them fighting you got factor it in. Tony came in the worse shape ever against fucking Roy for god sake same shit might happen with Hop. Tony is a atg but he was very beatable in his prime more so then Hopkins for me i just think be safer bet on hop in a close decision but who knows.
-
Re: ESPN rankings for past 25 years
Also what was the list for the boxers keep trying to see it on espn site but with out much luck. I think Roys getting torched so bad kinda makes him look more human not to mention the lhw divsion was pretty weak during his time and more fights did not happen with him then guys we say cherry pick today not all being his fault but we missed out on a lot of fights with Jones because of it. I think Lennox should be higher he was the most dominate hw and he avenged the knock outs which happens at hw pretty easy with there size.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Roy easily beat Hopkins when they fought. How that doesn't count for more amongst some people has always baffled me. CLEARLY Roy should be higher, in anywhere near his best form he would have always beat Hopkins and anyone that Hopkins was capable of beating, it really shouldn't even be an argument.
Roy was better. The argument that Hop was good longer ignores who was better. It's so damn frustrating. If the best of Roy beats the best of Hop he's better. And we know the best of Roy beats the best of Hop.
Hop gets full credit for his longevity but you can't ignore who was better when discussing who was better.
