-
-
He brought some excitement back to the heavies, but before him there were still the likes of Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran to keep boxing in the mainstream. That was the best part of that era, that it gave the lower weights some more attention and allowed some of the best fight action to be widely seen.Comment
-
I would personally have Whitaker #1, Morales and Nelson higher. Then again those are 3 of my favorite fighters.Comment
-
I may have heard people make claims like that (a entirely false claim, in my opinion), but in no way do I "know" that Tyson supposedly revived the sport.
In order for something to be "revived" in would have to have been dead or at least in pretty rough shape, which boxing was a FAR way from being in the years previous to Tyson. In fact, in my 30 years as a boxing fan I've never seen a stronger time in boxing than the decade previous to Tyson, as back then boxing certainly held a higher place in the general public than it does nowadays (helped immensely by the sport being a regular feature on network television on the weekends...every weekend actually, and very often shown on both Sat & Sun, with multiple fights shown on each broadcast), or even than it did around the late 80's, early 90's (Tyson's era) when the sport was pushed off of network televsion.
As Stinger alluded to, Tyson gave a spark to the heavyweight division and only the heavyweight division, which wasn't in the best of shape (no pun intended) at that time...That's ALL Tyson did for boxing at that time, because the sport of boxing, as a whole, was in tremendous shape in the years leading up to him hitting the scene.Last edited by Yogi; 11-03-2006, 10:48 AM.Comment
-
Kostya Tszyu is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too lowComment
-
Say what?Personally, I would have ranked Nelson, McCallum, Barrera, Tszyu, and Morales higher; and definetly put Canizales, Gonzales, McClellan, Wright, and Mayweather Jr. on the list....and Hill probably deserves to be on there, too, as does Eubank and Benn....whle removing Leonard, Hagler, and possibly Hearns. And, of course there are a few other changes I'd make; but it's your list, after all.
Are you kidding? You think Pacquiao > Mosley??? You realize Shane didn't enter the sport at 147, right?Comment
-
leonard should be number 1
hagler and tszyu should be higher
roy jones at 3 lmao! way too high
and the list is being kind on tysonComment
-
1985 to present, correct?
Leonard was done as a great fighter...with the exception of his exceptional peformance against Hagler, who was past his best too, in 1987. That's one fight in the last 20 years and neither were at their best....and the verdict is still disputed among fans and pundits alike.
Hearns, after Hagler, won a few fights here and there; but does he deserve to be in the Top 20? He beat, Juan Roldan, Dennis Andres, Virgil Hill, an old Ray Leonard, and who else after 1985.....while being stopped in 3 by Hagler and in three by Iran Barkley, and over 12 by Barkley.
Leonard, Hagler, and Hearns are all-time-greats, no argument; but they were all past their best after 1985. When looking at the best fighters in the last 20 years, you can't just go with the names of the all-timers whose careers happend to barely cross that line....you have to look at the fighters who actually performed on a championship level over a consistant period of time during that 20 years.
Hagler retied in 1987 after beating Heanrs and Mugabi and losing to Leaonard.....that's two years and three fights into our twenty year stretch.
Leonard beat Hagler, which was disputed, Donnie LaLonde, and and old Roberto Duran....while losing to Hearns, being embarrassed by Norris, and stopped by Camacho.
See what I mean?Comment
-
Understood.Comment
Tweet
Comment