Tweet
It's bordering on impossible for current guys to be top 10-15 all-time with the way the game is now. I think when ranking I will give style and pure dominance points/virtuoso performances. It is a easier to manipulate your schedule these days and there's obviously a smaller talent pool as a whole. For example I don't think Roy Jones has the type of resume that could be say top 40 all-time but I lean towards having him in due to his unbelievable talent level and so many virtuoso performances. I'd give Jose Napoles the benefit of the doubt too on his skills since he was factually avoided and frozen out until the absolute end of his physical prime and most suited weight classes (135-140) but still is universally a top 10, probably top 5 ever at 147. Soft skin, old age and challenging Monzon in Monzon's peak probably affected the way he's viewed but purely as a fighter I think at his best I'd really only pick Leonard, possibly Hearns of the last 50 years to outbox or outfight him of guys 147 and under. He was that good.
Also unique accomplishments that were against odds/impossible to manipulate should help historical rankings perhaps even more than a single win. Holyfield has a lot of losses and even split bouts with a past 175-lbs champ and went 1-2 with Bowe but he gets a high historical ranking because of the uniquely brilliant achievement of being undisputed in two divisions.
I think Lomachenko, Crawford and Usyk are the only three guys currently with a genuine chance of being in the top 50 ever. I think if Lomachenko and Crawford get the fights they'll make it but for top 25-30 I think they'll have to dominate, keep putting on similar level performances and really go against the odds once or twice.
Long winded and there's no set way of evaluating sometimes best is confused with greatest. I think Lomachenko will rank higher in the best ranking than the greatest ranking. Same with Floyd, same with Whitaker, same with Jones and opposite of Pacquaio, Hopkins, Foreman, Monzon for example of fighters who's resumes and accomplishments appeared equal to or better than their skill set/talent level.
Also unique accomplishments that were against odds/impossible to manipulate should help historical rankings perhaps even more than a single win. Holyfield has a lot of losses and even split bouts with a past 175-lbs champ and went 1-2 with Bowe but he gets a high historical ranking because of the uniquely brilliant achievement of being undisputed in two divisions.
I think Lomachenko, Crawford and Usyk are the only three guys currently with a genuine chance of being in the top 50 ever. I think if Lomachenko and Crawford get the fights they'll make it but for top 25-30 I think they'll have to dominate, keep putting on similar level performances and really go against the odds once or twice.
Long winded and there's no set way of evaluating sometimes best is confused with greatest. I think Lomachenko will rank higher in the best ranking than the greatest ranking. Same with Floyd, same with Whitaker, same with Jones and opposite of Pacquaio, Hopkins, Foreman, Monzon for example of fighters who's resumes and accomplishments appeared equal to or better than their skill set/talent level.
Comment