Top 25 p4p of the past 25 years

[IronDanHamza]

Referring to?



Like I said, Mayweather never truly tested himself. He played it safe fighting guys on their way down, on their way up or smaller. Never an elite at their best. For that, he doesn't scratch my top ten.

Hopkins hid out at 160 when he could have easily moved up to 168/175 sooner. But it was too dangerous. He priced himself out of a Jones rematch while Roy was still in his prime. His best wins are blown up welters (Tito and Oscar) and Tarver. He was also a dirty fighter who never truly tested himself during his prime.

As you can see, I provide some analysis to back up my list, one which you are afraid to provide because you know how easily it will be picked apart. It's easy to be an armchair critic without having to put your own list out there.

I read your agenda driven drivel the first time. It was as dumb then as it is now.

Those "boxing voices" you speak of, every last one of them would have Mayweather and Hopkins in the Top 5 minimum. Because obviously both clearly are. Anyone with a grain of sense obviously knows that.

You literally provided nothing of substance. You listed things Toney did pre 94, used ridiculous backwards logic that could easily apply to multiple people on your list.

I.e "Hopkins hid at 160" yet list Ricardo Lopez.

I.e "Mayweather didn't challenge himself" yet list Calzaghe

Anyone that knows anything can see it's a joke. Your list is a joke and your logic and reasoning is a joke.

Oh yeah, I'm so petrified to make a list Shaking in my boots mate.

If I were to make a list from 94-Present it would look something like this;

No order

Pacquaio
Mayweather
Jones
Hopkins
Morales
Marquez
Barrera
Tito
Oscar

Then I'd have to think about the last slot.

[Bundana]

Mayweather never truly tested himself. He played it safe fighting guys on their way down, on their way up or smaller. Never an elite at their best. For that, he doesn't scratch my top ten.

I'm curious… does this mean, that you don't consider him HOF-worthy?

[QueensburyRules]

--- HOF is all about a cash grab every year to keep'em afloat, so Tue50-0 will buy his way in with the largest, beefiest security detail ever known to mankind.

[chrisJS]

Are you counting some of the guys like Whitaker and Chavez’ work pre 1994? I guess if we do I’d go something like :-

1. Whitaker
2. Jones
3. Pacquaio
4. Chavez
5. Holyfield
6. Hopkins
7. Mayweather
8. Marquez
9. Trinidad
10. Calzaghe

If it’s strictly for 1994 onwards remove Whitaker, Holyfield, Chavez and push (in order) Lewis, Barrera, Morales to the 8,9,10 spots.

[GhostofDempsey]

I'm curious… does this mean, that you don't consider him HOF-worthy?

I'd say yes to HOF considering his volume of work, his impact on the sport as a whole (despite most of it being negative), and he is still better than a lot of fighters already in the HOF.

[Granath]

No order

Pacquaio
Mayweather
Jones
Hopkins
Morales
Marquez
Barrera
Tito
Oscar

Then I'd have to think about the last slot.

I think this is an honest, good list. My own opinions differ a bit:

I don't know that I'd have Marquez on this list - too many bad losses. I'd definitely have Andre Ward on there. He dominated the Big 6 tourney and then beat Kovalev twice - once disputed and once not so much. So swap Marquez for Ward.

My 10th? I'd like to put in Vitali Klitschko but he didn't fight his brother. He was beating Lennox Lewis before the fight was stopped due to the cut. I'd be tempted to say GGG because I think he's 1-0-1 against Alvarez versus the awful 0-2 but we'll see how he does if there's a 3rd bout. So I think my 10th is
Vasiliy Lomachenko. The dude has been fighting studs since his first bout and has belts in 3 weight classes already.

So I guess here it is, not in order, with allowance for revisions since it's not like I sat down and really weighed every fighter:

Pacquaio
Mayweather
Jones
Hopkins
Morales
Ward
Barrera
Tito
Oscar
Loma

[C.Y.]

The media manipulates many people. As great as Manny is, many don't pay attention to the conditions of his opponents leading up to the fight. Many of the great names on the resume were washed up, coming off a defeat or meeting at a catch weight or unfavorable circumstance. But it appears only the resumes of certain Black fighters are nitpicked and dissected as such.

[chrisJS]

The media manipulates many people. As great as Manny is, many don't pay attention to the conditions of his opponents leading up to the fight. Many of the great names on the resume were washed up, coming off a defeat or meeting at a catch weight or unfavorable circumstance. But it appears only the resumes of certain Black fighters are nitpicked and dissected as such.

Same with Mayweather. There’s a lot of washed up opponents, much smaller dudes, there’s catchweight too. I think Pacquaio probably was the only one of the two who fought a great fighter in their prime in Marquez and Barrera. Mayweather fought Mosley, De La Hoya, Cotto, Pacquaio way on the downside, Canelo was catchweight and Marquez too small coming up foo fast.

There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors with both fighters and they were afforded certain matchmaking that enabled enabled them to get “names”.

[QueensburyRules]

--- Lest the enfeebled forget, PAC fought, beat, and KOed more Ring p4pers in history. Nobody close...NOONE!!!

Over 12/365 years p4p consecutively ranked with NOONE even close. Fighter of the oo decade by every org.

And Ring run by Oscar totally any-Arum.

Give up boys, Manny whooped you n' yer boys like a set of drums. It's OK to weep...

[Granath]

The media manipulates many people. As great as Manny is, many don't pay attention to the conditions of his opponents leading up to the fight. Many of the great names on the resume were washed up, coming off a defeat or meeting at a catch weight or unfavorable circumstance. But it appears only the resumes of certain Black fighters are nitpicked and dissected as such.

First of all piss on your not-so-subtle race baiting. Playing the race card without justifying your argument means you have no point, know it and just want to stir the pot.

Secondly, if you feel that way then do the work and provide examples. I broke down why I think Larry Holmes is grossly overrated with many examples, statistics and comparisons. Someone can dispute the conclusion but the evidence is there because I did the work. So if you think Paq falls into the same boat, do the work and let's hear it. Personally, I think you're going to have a hard time doing so but give it a shot. Otherwise your point is nothing but a fart in the wind.