Top 10 fighters of the last 30 years !! 82-2012

1. Floyd Mayweather
2. Pernell Whittaker
3. Roy Jones
4. Manny Pacquai
5. Julio cesar Chavez
6. Bernard Hopkins
7. Tommy Hearns
8. Ricardo Lopez
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Oscar dela Hoya

Id agree with that list Truss my friend.

However, where would Lennox Lewis rank or maybe Mike Tyson?

Holyfield's cruiser exploits and the fact he wasn't a natural heavy put him higher..

I have Tyson higher than Lewis my friend........and as you're my alias apparently I trust you'll agree....

Was considering sneaking Curry in at 10.........

Leonard would be 2nd had it started in 79..

Ahhh was thinking of Léonard but a few years too late.

yes i have Tyson ahead of Lewis by a bit of a wide margin if im honest.

To be fair you could throw a few names out there that could be considered top 10. Its difficult composing such lists.

Id have mayweather at 1 though

I'd be proud to have you as an alias..

Didn't know where to stick marvin.........Bar Hearns his middleweight run was like Calzaghe's.........No fault of his own..........Mugabi win was devalued........

Can't really think of anyone else to bump any of your ten, so this is a sound list, Truss. Conceivably a place for Michael Spinks in the lower reaches, if the Tyson debacle can be overlooked. Unifying at 175 plus the two wins over Holmes (however controversial), are important achievements, but possibly a stretch to get ahead of Oscar or Evander.

Marvin was a beast.

Id sneak Marvellous in at around 11-12 roughly.

Im a massive fan of MAB so he would creep in around 20-23 ish. Maybe less.

Tino will be upset you've only got Lopez 8th!!

Looks about right to me though. Will have a better think, see if I can come up with anyone else.

You know what Captain I was debating what to do with Spinks..........Whether 82-85 unification and the Larry wins were enough.........

If it was 1980-2012 he'd definitely be on there though.........

It's a tough one........Think Holy probably beat the better fighters...

Never seen any other fighter who oozed as much pure talent as Jones, and I think his peak years were perhaps better than Floyd's. But on the whole, I think Mayweather has had the better career, just about.

1a) Pernell Whitaker
1b) Floyd Mayweather
3) Roy Jones
4) Julio Cesar Chavez
5) Manny Pacquiao
6) Bernard Hopkins
7) Ricardo Lopez
8) Azumah Nelson
9) Juan Manuel Marquez
10) James Toney

Competition for that last spot is fierce, with McCallum, Fenech, Tyson, Evander and Galaxy (Khaosai) all having good shouts. Naturally, I went for salad dodger, just to get a rise out of milkyboy as much as anything else! Wouldn't object to anyone switching those names around. As their primes either came before or overlapped with the period outlined, I've decided to leave out Hagler, Hearns, Spinks etc.

Not sure he warrants a place but is there an argument for Trinidad knocking on the door. Unified at welter including handing Oscar his first loss, albeit controversially. Went on to light middle and beat a couple of very decent fighters in Reid and Vargas before annexing a portion of the middle title. The domination against Hopkins certainly hurts as does his patchiness after this but prior to Hopkins was on an absolute tear.

1a and 1b............Gotta love you chris....

Nelson is an interesting one............and No Hearns ??

Benitez, Hill, Duran and titles from 154 - 175........swing it for me..

Not sure how anyone has Toney over Oscar chris......No way for me....

Chavez twice, Whittaker Mayorga and all the others..

But hey good list mate..

Tough calls..

I always struggle to rate Trinidad, Jeff. Great, great entertainer and one of the best value for money fighters going. His fights against Campas, Whitaker and Vargas were all excellent and as you say, when a guy is unifying at Welter in 1999, unifying at Light-Middle in 2000 and then attempting to unify at Middleweight in 2001 it's hard to be too critical of him!

That said, just watching him you could always tell that, as far as genuine pound for pound contenders go (as he was between '99 '01), Tito was just about as limited as it gets. Also, the way he never really recovered from that first defeat against Hopkins has to count against him. I appreciate that he was up against a great Middleweight champion, but Tito was still only 28 at the time, so no real excuses for falling away like he did afterwards.

And let's be frank - his biggest career win was a fight that he didn't win!

I think he's a real borderline case, personally. Whether you have him in or out of the top ten of the past 30 years, I think he'd be on the cusp of it either way.

Chris you like your little fighters don't you...

Do tend to agree Chris, as milky said the other week and you have alluded to in your post you always got the impression even when he was on an absolute tear there was always the feeling he was over achieving to some extent. That said though there is something admirable about a guy achieving more than his skill set should have made feasible.

Looking at the lists you have put forward have no idea who he would replace and as someone who actually agrees with you around the Oscar fight I am not sure he deserves to find a place. However he does deserve to be in the conversation.

I would definitely have Trinidad above Oscar, I have never understood the fascination with the golden boy, it's an easy thing to say but he almost always lost his big fights.

1. Mayweather
2. Jones
3. Hopkins
4. Whitaker
5. Pacquiao
6. Chavez
7. Lopez
8. Hearns
9. Marquez
10. Khaosai

Can't have Hoppo that hight TT, for me if he's in the 10 he's at the bottom end of it somewhere.

Also Terror, who is Khaosai?

Never heard of him if im honest, may have to pull Wiki out the bag for him.

Terror has Whittaker lower than I do........

Hoppo is a true phenomenon.......However feel JCC does deserve to be above him...

Mccallum must be in the top 20.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Also Terror, who is Khaosai?

Never heard of him if im honest, may have to pull Wiki out the bag for him.

A super bantamweigth form Bangkok...........who reigned for an eternity..good call from terror to produce him but not top 10 for me..

great fighter though...

I love me some BHOP, 20 years at the top and all that.

For me he's less able than most on that list but his boxing brain more than makes up for it, in modern times he has been the ultimate ring general. Put his 48 year old mind in his 28 year old body and you'll end up with quite some fighter. You also can't undervalue how well he has aged, into his 40's he has a very impressive list of wins.

20 years getting away with being a boring spoiling cheat. Would'nt have achieved half what he has with proper unbiased by the book refereeing.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I love me some BHOP, 20 years at the top and all that..

He;s had his butt handed to him plenty as well.........

Where as you've done nothing but beat up on Floyd for being unbeaten for 15 years..

But as chris say's no one has mentioned Mayweather's personality....

Khaosai's brother was a world champ too at bantam..

He'd have found a different way, it's all about playing to the ref and it wasn't until he beat Trinidad that he started to get any form of respect, how you perform past your peak is an important factor for me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I love me some BHOP, 20 years at the top and all that..

He;s had his butt handed to him plenty as well.........

Where as you've done nothing but beat up on Floyd for being unbeaten for 15 years..

But as chris say's no one has mentioned Mayweather's personality....

Khaosai's brother was a world champ too at bantam..

Who do I have top then Truss?

Khaokor could never quite live up to his brother, twins they were I believe.

A more competitive division perhaps..........

Superbantam bar Fenech and Payakaroon.........was full of non events.......

Poor old Payakaroon......... when he lost to fenech......It was considered an affront to his Country and he was forced to shave his head and go and live in a monastery....

Good job Audley didn't come from that part of the World..

He'd have been burned at the stake.

1) Pernell Whitaker
2) Roy Jones
3) Floyd Mayweather
4) Julio Cesar Chavez
5) Manny Pacquiao
6) Bernard Hopkins
7) Juan Manuel Marquez
8) Evander Holyfield
9) Mike Spinks
10) Mike McCallum

Can't see how anyone has Mccallum over oscar......Mayweather is the obvious insult..

Thanks for the list though Haz..

Mayweather at 3? Eh?

mobile...how about putting forward a list.

Definitely agree that Oscar shouldn't be ruled out, Truss. McCallum was a great fighter, for sure, but at the same time while we saw Oscar lose in his prime years, we never saw him completely outclassed and made to look distinctly average during those years the way McCallum was against Kalambay (I). I don't think there's much between them either way.

Toney-Mccallum rules him out as well...........and Oscar beat better fighters..

1) Mayweather
2) Whittaker
3) Jones Jr
4) Chavez
5) Hopkins
6) Pacquiao
7) Hearns
8) Holyfield
9) De La Hoya
10) Hagler

Notable exceptions go to Lopez and JMM.

Hagler 82-86 not enough for me mate...........Hearns being the one notable....

But a good list..

Debated on JMM or Lopez for 10 but Marvellous is one of my favourites so i was probably a bit bias....but there you go.

Hopkins
mayweather
whittaker
chavez
pacman
lopez
marquez
lewis
jones
holyfield

if it was 82-2008 then I might have jones and holy higher. but when you are looking at a specific timespan, then personally I cant overlook what they have done to detriment their careers the past few years.

Hopkins first - WTF have you been smokin'??

Exactly........lost his biggest fight to junior...lost to Calzaghe.........and Taylor.........

No sirree........

But top 10 for sure..

I think Hopkins has the most top wins of any fighter of the last 30 years and far less protected than most of the fighters in everyones top 10. wheres your top 10 tophat?

also thought he beat calzaghe and taylor.

1. RJJ
2. Floyd
3. Whittaker
4. Chavez
5. Pacquiao
6. Holy
7. Bhop
8. Hearns
9. Lopez
10. Spinks

Struggled about who to pick 10th and 1st. I think Mayweather will havw the better legacy but I think RJJ was the better fighter and the best I've seen

10th was hard for me as there seemed a lot of boxees that all semmed a bit level pegging so I took a stab with spinks

Thought the top 9 names were simple enough but rearranged depending on what you like

The top two is pretty much self explanatory but Whitaker, Chavez, Pacquiao, Lopez and Hopkins are hard ones to split, think they're all in that 15 to 25 bracket.

Hearns is the best of the lot and head to head he is the only man capable of making Mayweather and Whitaker look silly but his poor old brain let him down too many times.

What's prompted your U-turn on Roy, Terror? Genuine question, not a criticism.

Would you really put Lopez in the same bracket as those fellas? He was a great fighter but I think there's a shade of daylight between the top half-dozen who all hit an absolute peak in the outlined period (Floyd, Pea, Roy, Chavez, Pacquiao and Bernard) and him. His competition just doesn't match up.

I like seeing fighters making a division there own the way Lopez did at 105, but would you not say he maybe laboured over the point too much? There were some excellent names at 108 (Yuh, Gonzalez, Carbajal) during Lopez's peak years and the likes of Johnson and Arbachakov weren't exactly a million miles away at 112, either. Fair enough, half a stone is a considerable jump for a man of Lopez's size, but not even moving up 3 lb for big fights against the leading Light-Flyweights (well, not until they'd absconded) knocks him down a few places, for me.

Shame, as I think he'd have boxed rings around Carbajal and had the upperhand over Gonzalez, but it is what it is. Lightweight to Light-Heavyweight are the real treasure chest of historical talent for me - I mean seriously, how many grown blokes do you know that weight less than ten stone, never mind less than eight like Ricardo? I think for a Strawweigt / Light-Flyweight to be a real top 25 contender they need to go above and beyond, and Lopez didn't quite do that in my eyes.

Terrific little fighter though and I'd have him top 50.

I suppose Chris I eventually saw past my bias towards Dariusz who was and still is my favourite european fighter, a man who unlike Ottke did take on his fair share of challenges and put germany on the boxing map. Once i'd sat back and evaluated Jones as a stand alone fighter it's hard not to be impressed by him, his ability to make two brilliant boxers (not fighters but pure boxers) in Hopkins and Toney look ordinary is astounding. In modern times I don't think anyone has managed to do that kind of job against such a high calibre not Whitaker and not Mayweather both of whom look better against fighters. I still don't rate his win over Ruiz in the slightest but there's only a handful who could handle him between middleweight and light heavyweight probably Robinson at his best, Hearns on his best night, Monzon attritionally, Charles and controversially Tunney too. He didn't beat a who's who of his divisions but there's enough depth to back up his talent; Hopkins, Toney, Gonzalez, Griffin, McCallum and even guys like Woods, Kelly, Hall, Johnson, Malinga, Castro and Tate.

It's a toss up between him and Mayweather depending how much weight you place on his post prime exploits against Johnson and Tarver, in time when the dust has settled I expect him to remembered more fondly than PBF. For as good as Mayweather is he couldn't have done the job Jones did on Hopkins and Toney to respective opponents.

Lance wrote:I think Hopkins has the most top wins of any fighter of the last 30 years and far less protected than most of the fighters in everyones top 10. wheres your top 10 tophat?

Really? Who??

Because his loss column is more impressive than his win column, it including among others a guy you managed to rank below him - RJJ. He's got 4 very good wins - Tito, Winky, Pavlik and Tarver.

He's lost however to RJJ (comprehensively), Taylor (twice), JC and Dawson.

His age/longevity and middleweight reign are what he scores major points for. His ugly dirty style and reliance on soft refereeing go against him. Top 10, just about, #1 - not even close.

I don't consider his style ugly and having watched his whole career I can honestly say he has not been favoured by refs on the whole, and hes been particularly hard done by from judging and politics. also pascal, cloud, joppy, Johnson are all very good wins in my book. I think if you are just considering guys at their prime then he is definitely below jones. but I judge a career as a whole, nobody made jones carry on fighting. Hopkins and jones are actually 1-1. if jones wants to continue to picks up the cheques as a pro then this is his career

Jones is 1-0 up against Hopkins, lets not start suggesting their second fight has any meaning or significance.

I'm about as big a Hopkins fan as is possible but there is no way he can be above somebody who beat him so comprehensively nor can he really be above Mayweather, third is a reasonable position i'd say.

I think I'm probably somewhere between TopHat and Lance when it comes to Hopkins, really.

I'm not a massive fan of Hopkins in terms of pure fighting and the bouts he's been involved with, at least not in comparison to some of the other fighters mentioned in this thread. But Bernard is great. Just absolutely great.

I've seen some arguing that winning at such an advanced age is an overrated feat - I can't really agree with that, based on the fact that so few have managed it at the kind of level that Bernard has. As with Jones' win over Ruiz, it's all context if we're looking at Hopkins' post-Middleweight career. On their own, wins against men like Pavlik, Pascal and Cloud are good by anyone's standards, particularly when a couple of them had their '0' beforehand. But you have to appreciate that Hopkins is turning in these kind of showings basically two whole generations of boxing since his first world title tilt back in 1993. Turning in classy performances at world title level ten years after your first one is impressive, but twenty? You can't give high enough commendation to it really.

And a bonafide, genuine great, in the proper sense, of one of the original weight classes, lest we forget. Something which is becoming rarer and rarer these days with the weight hopping, fragmented titles, promotional disputes etc that we never stop hearing about. You could argue that he was fortunate that Roy had to leave the 160 division, but that's a moot point, really. Once he had the opportunity, Hopkins made the division his own, and once he was champion he did, quite literally as far as I can see, absolutely everything he possibly could in the weight class before Taylor usurped him.

Tito had his flaws, as we've discussed in this thread, but nevertheless you'd have to admit that Hopkins' performance against him was THE very definition of implementing a game plan. Trinidad can't punch on the move? I'll stay in close, score with the jab and go two paces one way, two paces the other, forcing him to be wide open where I can ram that straight right of mine down through the guard all night, says Hopkins. Trinidad is overly reliant on the left hook? Whenever I'll circle I'll make sure it's to his right then, says Hopkins. Trinidad has no body attack and always head hunts? Well then, if I do get caught on the ropes all I have to do is stick the ol' ear muffs on and let Tito punch himself out to a degree, as I can afford to do that as my ribs won't come under threat, says Hopkins.

All very simple things, and all things which some opponents against Trinidad had managed to spot to a certain extent. But it was Hopkins who totally stripped the Puerto Rican down to his bare, minimum parts, swallowed those little insights from previous Trinidad opponents hook, line and sinker and improved upon them ten-fold to completely waltz his way through what should have been a seriously taxing, maybe even too taxing, unification bout.

What prevents him from being right up there with the Pernells, Floyds and Roys, for me at least, is that unlike with them, you can really see the chinks in a prime Bernard's armour. Jones showed that he could be out sped, for instance. It's a problem which he had throughout his career. He could be outworked as, although he was a more aggressive fighter in his younger days, he sometimes was prone to switching off (Mercado I) and having to hold and spoil his way through (Echols).

There aren't any performances belonging to Hopkins which leave me thinking "wow", or really showcase his skills on a virtuoso, stunning level. Roy put on those kind of performances against Toney, Griffin (II), Johnson etc, Floyd against Gatti, Hernandez, Corrales etc, Pernell against McGirt (II), Chavez, Haugen etc. Hopkins had a bit of everything, near enough, but just lacked that extra little bit of something very special when compared to those kind of fighters.

But as I say, great, great fighter beyond any doubt and one of the very best of the past three decades.

One thing Hopkins has in his favour is in retirement he'll have regrets to how his career panned out, he fought everyone there was to fight at middleweight. Every time a new pretender came on the scene whether it was Trinidad, De La Hoya, Eastman or Taylor he fought them and he's done the same at light heavyweight. He's maximised his ability as much as he could, he's never been blessed with world class speed or power but found ways around it and usually won easily. His performances against Tarver, Trinidad, Pascal and Pavlik were almost punch perfect, he has an uncanny ability to shut down the offence of very dangerous opponents without doing anything too fancy.

His feat in winning three world titles at light heavyweight into his 40's is not something to take lightly unlike Moore and Foreman he doesn't end it with one punch he has gone the full 12 rounds each and every time. He's also an example of the small margins at the top, with different judges he could have beaten Calzaghe, Taylor and Pascal first time, now how much difference would that have made to his overall standing?

It's not as obvious as Whitaker against Ramirez, Chavez and De La Hoya but his style hasn't always been conducive to getting a fair crack with the judges.