Help settle this Top 10 debate

[rightsideup]

After a long internal debate i gotta go with

1. SRL- best fighter and one of my top 5 ATGs
2. Pernell- one of my top 12 ATGs
3. Hagler- top 20 ATG
4. Hearns- excellent fighter and career
5. manny- edge over floyd because of his career challenges
6. floyd- great fighter, probably the most skilled i have ever seen
7. holyfield- a walking tank in his prime, huge heart and will to win
8. Roy jones- Amazing talent, just doesnt have enough resume to rank any higher
9. Spinks- Great fighter, its a shame he is only remembered for the tyson ko
10. Chavez- from 85-88 he was an amazing little fighter and champion

Duran i left off, because i felt his best days were in the 70s, and post ali, he was still a top level guy, just cant make him top 10 IMO,

Interesting and valid comment on Duran he had his best victories in the eighties , SRL, Moore and Barkley but did not have the consistency of the 70s.

[Humean]

After a long internal debate i gotta go with

1. SRL- best fighter and one of my top 5 ATGs
2. Pernell- one of my top 12 ATGs
3. Hagler- top 20 ATG
4. Hearns- excellent fighter and career
5. manny- edge over floyd because of his career challenges
6. floyd- great fighter, probably the most skilled i have ever seen
7. holyfield- a walking tank in his prime, huge heart and will to win
8. Roy jones- Amazing talent, just doesnt have enough resume to rank any higher
9. Spinks- Great fighter, its a shame he is only remembered for the tyson ko
10. Chavez- from 85-88 he was an amazing little fighter and champion

Duran i left off, because i felt his best days were in the 70s, and post ali, he was still a top level guy, just cant make him top 10 IMO,

Salvador Sanchez? Or was his work too early in the 80s for your list? I put Duran number one simply because if you start it from 1980 then I think the version of Duran that fought Leonard in the first fight was the best fighter pound for pound there has been from 1980-2013. I can see why you left him off though as clearly his 80s record, minus Leonard I, is not quite as good as his 70s record. Jones jr is really one of the most difficult guys to rank, the eyes give confidence of his greatness, his record adds a lot of doubt.

[IronDanHamza]

Salvador Sanchez? Or was his work too early in the 80s for your list? I put Duran number one simply because if you start it from 1980 then I think the version of Duran that fought Leonard in the first fight was the best fighter pound for pound there has been from 1980-2013. I can see why you left him off though as clearly his 80s record, minus Leonard I, is not quite as good as his 70s record. Jones jr is really one of the most difficult guys to rank, the eyes give confidence of his greatness, his record adds a lot of doubt.

I was going to say, I'm surprised you feel that way about Roy Jones considering you rank fighters off how they look mostly.

I don't think his record adds lots of doubt.

He beat two ATG's in or close to their primes, one a domination the other in clear fashion.

On top of that has a list of good, top contenders that he beat.

Titles from MW, SMW, LHW and HW aswell as returning to LHW to mimic Fitzsimmons record in modern times.

I think that's a pretty great record if you ask me.

Unless you consider his loss's when he was shot.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Salvador Sanchez? Or was his work too early in the 80s for your list? I put Duran number one simply because if you start it from 1980 then I think the version of Duran that fought Leonard in the first fight was the best fighter pound for pound there has been from 1980-2013. I can see why you left him off though as clearly his 80s record, minus Leonard I, is not quite as good as his 70s record. Jones jr is really one of the most difficult guys to rank, the eyes give confidence of his greatness, his record adds a lot of doubt.

Sanchez was a great fighter, but i never got to see him fight live like i did the others.
And yes, roy jones is about the hardest guy to judge, but i think in his prime he was nearly unbeatable, and the 2 best names on his resume, hopkins and toney, he won rather easily. But it is really hard to rate someone of 2 fights, that is why i always wish he had fought benn, eubanks, G-man, nunn, michlewski, liles, collins. Had roy fought 2 or 3 of those guys, then the picture would be much more clear on where to rank jones

[Humean]

I was going to say, I'm surprised you feel that way about Roy Jones considering you rank fighters off how they look mostly.

I don't think his record adds lots of doubt.

He beat two ATG's in or close to their primes, one a domination the other in clear fashion.

On top of that has a list of good, top contenders that he beat.

Titles from MW, SMW, LHW and HW aswell as returning to LHW to mimic Fitzsimmons record in modern times.

I think that's a pretty great record if you ask me.

Unless you consider his loss's when he was shot.

To be clear what I am doubting is not his greatness but just quite how great. You're right that I do base largely on the video evidence but of course the quality of opponents is important to get a sense of how good they are as it is easier to look spectacular against poorer quality opponents than against good or great ones. In his prime Jones jr looked like he was possibly in the top 10 best fighter's of all time, the quality of his opponents suggests not quite that high and perhaps closer to 50 than 10.

Sanchez was a great fighter, but i never got to see him fight live like i did the others.
And yes, roy jones is about the hardest guy to judge, but i think in his prime he was nearly unbeatable, and the 2 best names on his resume, hopkins and toney, he won rather easily. But it is really hard to rate someone of 2 fights, that is why i always wish he had fought benn, eubanks, G-man, nunn, michlewski, liles, collins. Had roy fought 2 or 3 of those guys, then the picture would be much more clear on where to rank jones

I even think if he had fought and defeated Hopkins and/or McCallum at different times in their career development then that might convince me of an extremely high ranking for Jones jr.

[IronDanHamza]

Sanchez was a great fighter, but i never got to see him fight live like i did the others.
And yes, roy jones is about the hardest guy to judge, but i think in his prime he was nearly unbeatable, and the 2 best names on his resume, hopkins and toney, he won rather easily. But it is really hard to rate someone of 2 fights, that is why i always wish he had fought benn, eubanks, G-man, nunn, michlewski, liles, collins. Had roy fought 2 or 3 of those guys, then the picture would be much more clear on where to rank jones

How many of those fights realistically would have happened though? And to no fault of Roy's

I don't think it's right to say he only has two good wins.

He only has to wins over prime (or close to) ATG's but he has a lot of good wins over good top contenders.

Floyd has 0 wins over prime ATGs, Pacquaio has one (Barrera, some argue he isn't an ATG) Holyfield probably has 0. All great fighters themselves.

I think Roy has a better resume than Floyd and Pacquaio. Holyfield is arguable.

H2H he's much better than all 3 IMO. Perhaps not "much" better than Floyd actually but better none the less.

[IronDanHamza]

To be clear what I am doubting is not his greatness but just quite how great. You're right that I do base largely on the video evidence but of course the quality of opponents is important to get a sense of how good they are as it is easier to look spectacular against poorer quality opponents than against good or great ones. In his prime Jones jr looked like he was possibly in the top 10 best fighter's of all time, the quality of his opponents suggests not quite that high and perhaps closer to 50 than 10.



I even think if he had fought and defeated Hopkins and/or McCallum at different times in their career development then that might convince me of an extremely high ranking for Jones jr.

McCallum hardly even counts because he was pretty much shot but Hopkins is a great win IMO.

Sure he was inexperienced but as was Roy. It was both ther first title fight.

Hopkins was close to his prime then IMO. Prime years but not peak in terms of experience but still a great win to have especially when you're green yourself.

I'd have Roy Jones top 30 range. Amazing fighter with a great resume and the fighter of his era.

[greeh]

One fighter that has not been mentioned yet, but definitely should be in the Top 10 in my opinion, is Jung-Koo Chang.

The Korean prodigy burned out quickly due to his early peak and lack of dedication, but he was an excellent fighter in his prime and maybe the most underrated of all the great fighters from the 80’s.

Chang was a swarmer that stylistically reminds of a young but less technically developed Roberto Duran. He had superb speed of foot, good hand speed, a great defensive radar for a swarmer and was excellent at blending his offense and defense simultaneously.

In his prime, he used his great foot speed to close the distance quickly and maul on the inside. With his defensive radar, he slipped punches instinctively while seamlessly integrating his offense to the maximum. He could also box at range, although in an unorthodox manner.

Because of his reliance of his physical gifts to make his style function properly, he struggled badly when his partying lifestyle and Benitez-esque overall lack of dedication started to take a toll on him. He never got the technical schooling which is required to being able to stay at the top when your body starts to betray you, but this was most notable late in his career and in his comeback.

Chang was a natural with bad training habits, not a gym-rat like his countryman Myung-Woo Yuh, who didn’t have nearly as many physical gifts as Chang, but succeeded because of his discipline and dedication to his craft.

Overall, Jung-Koo Chang is one of the biggest natural talents that the sport has ever seen, but because of his weight (light flyweight) and nationality (South Korea) he doesn’t get the recognition he deserves.

[Anthony342]

McCallum hardly even counts because he was pretty much shot but Hopkins is a great win IMO.

Sure he was inexperienced but as was Roy. It was both ther first title fight.

Hopkins was close to his prime then IMO. Prime years but not peak in terms of experience but still a great win to have especially when you're green yourself.

I'd have Roy Jones top 30 range. Amazing fighter with a great resume and the fighter of his era.

How would you rank him among light heavys?

[IronDanHamza]

How would you rank him among light heavys?

Last time I did a list I had him at #10.

Top 15-20 minimum for sure.