Top 10 fighters of the last 21 years...

[IMDAZED]

Your timeline is a wee bit off...Whitaker was uneven around Rivera...that's 96-ish? From 1990-95, he might have lost six rounds and that includes almost all his defining wins.

I never said specifically 90-95, I just looked at his performances that entire decade, including both halves. I see what you're saying though.

[Walt Liquor]

True that but he had two huge upsets at HW during the 1990's, one of them ranking up there with the very best and resurrected his career multiple times.

i heard that, but he caught so many damn l's and didn't do all that much from 2000 on....


you have morales higher than i thought you would too...

[crold1]

I never said specifically 90-95, I just looked at his performances that entire decade, including both halves. I see what you're saying though.

I'm overstating the rounds a bit...he lost at least four to McGirt the first time. But those were the defining years for him, his absolute peak. He had his bad years then too...I weigh that versus many others going through their development during his years.

Pea was that dude.

[jrosales13]

I'm with everyone who has Pea #1, and by a bit. Best fighter since Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran were peak. After that, I'd probably go (off the top of my head):

Jones Jr.
Pacquiao
Hopkins
Holyfield
Mayweather
Chavez (Still GREAT from 90-93)
Barrera (or Morales, or Marquez...ask me tomorrow)
Toney (***** and all)
Lopez or Calzaghe (similar title #'s; Lopez better technically, Calzaghe fought better opp IMO, a place both were lacking comparatively); Tito could also squeeze in here.

I cheated and squeezed in like 14 guys. LOL

Well if Calzaghe is on there. Then I think Tito is clearly on there. I just can't see how Calzaghe can be over Tito.

[IMDAZED]

i heard that, but he caught so many damn l's and didn't do all that much from 2000 on....


you have morales higher than i thought you would too...

Morales is the truth, man! Knocking out Zaragoza at 21 and off he went. Minus the first bout against Barrera, he was really something else. I think at one point he went on a tear of fights that had me wondering if he should be ranked in the top three pound for pound. And the Pacquiao win was a legacy sealer. Truly a great victory. Who would you rate higher that I didn't?

True that on Evander. He really did nothing after the second Lewis fight (wait, don't forget the Rahman bout! ) but he delivered magnificence at the most opportune times in the nineties.

[IMDAZED]

I'm overstating the rounds a bit...he lost at least four to McGirt the first time. But those were the defining years for him, his absolute peak. He had his bad years then too...I weigh that versus many others going through their development during his years.

Pea was that dude.

Agreed, man. Pea was definitely in his prime from 90-95, when his physical and mental peak met. I feel he had a couple more years left in him that he probably sniffed away but to me, he's top ten all-time. I'm not good at those kind of lists though.

[crold1]

Well if Calzaghe is on there. Then I think Tito is clearly on there. I just can't see how Calzaghe can be over Tito.

I'm not sure he is. They're around the same ball park, both great on long reigns and a key awesome, but truncated, run. Tito would have been higher, probably, had King not sat on him for years (or foiled against a younger Hopkins earlier). Vargas would be the edger for him. Outside that truly great win, there's a lot of somewhat hollow numbers. A bad win versus Oscar, Campas and Carr (average with 0's), and he got humiliated against technical masters like Wright and Hopkins...his comp was better than Joe's but Joe was a smarter fighter IMO. I was a huge Tito fan (he was a party centerpiece in college) but I see a lot of limitations.

As I said a few years ago in a piece on Calzaghe, I think a case can be made for him in the back half of a top 100 based on what he accomplished at 168. The same can be said for Tito.

A case can be made.

Though to be honest, the more ways I look at these things, the more I'm not sure either even makes that cut. This is the debate about just the last twenty years...spread it out and one could do a top 200 and still miss some awesome.

God I love boxing.

[IMDAZED]

I'm not sure he is. They're around the same ball park, both great on long reigns and a key awesome, but truncated, run. Tito would have been higher, probably, had King not sat on him for years (or foiled against a younger Hopkins earlier). Vargas would be the edger for him. Outside that truly great win, there's a lot of somewhat hollow numbers. A bad win versus Oscar, Campas and Carr (average with 0's), and he got humiliated against technical masters like Wright and Hopkins...his comp was better than Joe's but Joe was a smarter fighter IMO. I was a huge Tito fan (he was a party centerpiece in college) but I see a lot of limitations.

If the Oscar win is a bad one for Tito then so is the Hopkins win for Calzaghe.

[Walt Liquor]

Morales is the truth, man! Knocking out Zaragoza at 21 and off he went. Minus the first bout against Barrera, he was really something else. I think at one point he went on a tear of fights that had me wondering if he should be ranked in the top three pound for pound. And the Pacquiao win was a legacy sealer. Truly a great victory. Who would you rate higher that I didn't?

True that on Evander. He really did nothing after the second Lewis fight (wait, don't forget the Rahman bout! ) but he delivered magnificence at the most opportune times in the nineties.

like i said on my list, the raheem thing really sticks with me- never avenging the loss etc....i had barrera higher and i thought barrera was top 3 pfp for a couple years there, especially cuz i thought he won the first fight of the trilogy

[crold1]

like i said on my list, the raheem thing really sticks with me- never avenging the loss etc....i had barrera higher and i thought barrera was top 3 pfp for a couple years there, especially cuz i thought he won the first fight of the trilogy

I think you're being too hard. Coming off the best win of his life, and after seven-plus years of brutal wars, Morales stunk one out against a stinker. It happens (though an argument can also be made he NEVER was put with that style in his prime either...lots of guys aren't and who cares? Raheem's style is kryptonite for the eyes). He was boxing finest warrior since Saad in my opinion and that counts for a lot.