ESPN rankings for past 25 years

[powerpuncher]

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

I was sure you would say mayweather

[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

I was sure you would say mayweather

Roy was everything Floyd was but with power.

[ykdadamaja]

No list would ever be satisfactory.

[mikeeod]

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.

[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.

[mikeeod]

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.

[Master]

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.

[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?

[Ron Swanson]

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.