ESPN rankings for past 25 years

[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.

[Spicoli]

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 . On a side note could they pick another pic of Toney when discussing P4P He's at his bloated best there man.

[TitoFan]

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.

[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.

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.

[erics44]

why is vlad klit on there? what a rubbish list

[Mr140]

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.

[Master]

http://www.fighthype.com/news/article24221.html

[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.

[mikeeod]

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...

[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.

[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.

[Mr140]

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.

[Master]

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.

[Mr140]

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.

[p4pking]

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.