Top 100 ATG - My Personal List

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

Mayweather is too high, Ricardo Lopez is too low, Trinidad is above DLH by far, and and Nicollino Locche is top 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-EX-]

Pernell's resume isn't good enough to put him that high IMO. And I got Floyd ahead of Pac slightly.

[asero831]

if i put cesar chavez that high, pernell should be a level higher than him. he is the closest thing we have since willie pep..PBF is not in their league..

i cannot rate lopez in the top 60 because he never faces an ATG. He is in the same league as calzaghe and galaxy. lopez is the best fighter in a division with shallow history. he is not like jimmy wilde to remains to be the best flyweight for a century now. he is still the standard for measuring the flyweights..

i put oscar higher than tito because of his PPV bucks. had tito and oscar had the same popularity, i would put oscar at 75. mainstream appeal is what oscar had and is the same reason why some of the HW is a little bit higher in my list

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

if i put cesar chavez that high, pernell should be a level higher than him. he is the closest thing we have since willie pep..PBF is not in their league..

i cannot rate lopez in the top 60 because he never faces an ATG. He is in the same league as calzaghe and galaxy. lopez is the best fighter in a division with shallow history. he is not like jimmy wilde to remains to be the best flyweight for a century now. he is still the standard for measuring the flyweights..

i put oscar higher than tito because of his PPV bucks. had tito and oscar had the same popularity, i would put oscar at 75. mainstream appeal is what oscar had and is the same reason why some of the HW is a little bit higher in my list

Thats just Plain wrong. Since when PPV numbers, dictates how great as a fighter you are?????? Tito>>>>>>>>>DLH

[IMDAZED]

i put oscar higher than tito because of his PPV bucks. had tito and oscar had the same popularity, i would put oscar at 75. mainstream appeal is what oscar had and is the same reason why some of the HW is a little bit higher in my list

Dude you have maybe the best list I've seen posted on here but what you said above is just RIDICULOUS. Seriously. You're wrong for that.

[asero831]

PPV numbers indicate Oscar contribution to the sport..being great also entails having mainstream appeal...well, thats only 5%.

my criteria is 80% accomplishment, 15% timeliness(in comparision with other boxers in different era) and 5% mainstream appeal...i think oscar gained 5 steps up in that 5%..oscar and trinidad fight was close and they almost have the same career and resume

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

PPV numbers indicate Oscar contribution to the sport..being great also entails having mainstream appeal...well, thats only 5%.

my criteria is 80% accomplishment, 15% timeliness(in comparision with other boxers in different era) and 5% mainstream appeal...i think oscar gained 5 steps up in that 5%..oscar and trinidad fight was close and they almost have the same career and resume

Once again. *****g butts in the seats doesnt count, on how great you are as a fighter!!!!!!!

Oce again you are wrong DLHs resume based on big names, is way better than anybody in boxing. Now about fighting big names and winning, Titos resume is way way better.

Tito>>>>>>DLH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IMDAZED]

PPV numbers indicate Oscar contribution to the sport..being great also entails having mainstream appeal...well, thats only 5%.

my criteria is 80% accomplishment, 15% timeliness(in comparision with other boxers in different era) and 5% mainstream appeal...i think oscar gained 5 steps up in that 5%..oscar and trinidad fight was close and they almost have the same career and resume

Well if that's the case then your list is missign Prince Naseem and Arturo Gatti among others.

[Vladimir303]

Once again. *****g butts in the seats doesnt count, on how great you are as a fighter!!!!!!!

Oce again you are wrong DLHs resume based on big names, is way better than anybody in boxing. Now about fighting big names and winning, Titos resume is way way better.

Tito>>>>>>DLH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're speaking as if it unaminous for Tito......it's DEBATABLE if you wanna be fair with it.

How is it way better??? Oscar started losing in 1999 and then went on to lose to Mosley, Hopkins. Tito started losing in 2001 and retired. He could've lost way more if he stuck around and was more active. Would've probably lost to Mosley as well.

If we count Delahoya's loss to Mayweather and Pacquiao, then we have to count Tito's loss to Winky Wright and Roy Jones as well. 2 big losses against big names.


They had a close fight in 1999, some thought that Oscar got robbed (I know you don' think so). They both knocked out Vargas and Mayorga. Against Hopkins they both lost. Tito managed to say in there longer but Delahoya was way more competitive while it lasted.

Lets go to statistics. Oscar a 6-division champ vs Tito's 3-division titles. Ocar wins in that department.


All and all skllwise excluding any accomplishments, Delahoya is the more skilled figher and is capable of being more competitive against a whole range of different fighter whereas Tito isn't as his fights against Hopkins and Winky show.


Result: it's debatable....Tito could've helped his case if he hadn't retired for years after his first pro loss.

[Vladimir303]

Well if that's the case then your list is missign Prince Naseem and Arturo Gatti among others.

You're not getting his point then. He said 15% criteria is popularity and what they did for the sport popularity wise. Gatti is popular but is he great? No so he aint got the 80% accomplishment criteria which the thread creator listed.

In fact he doesn't even get the whole 15% for popularity since he isn't nearly as popular as Delahoya and only had one PPV vs Mayweather.

Same thing for Naseem really, popular but no all-time great resume. He gets credit for being popular but the fact that he isn't even one of the greatest featherweights of all times, he aint getting into the list.