The Top 5 Fighters From the 80s and 90s

Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Rebel, Nov 27, 2003.

  1. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Much of our differences, I am afraid, lies in the differences in our criteria, a subject that I've debated with Rebel as well. People have all kinds of diverse criteria. Some people do their lists almost purely in terms of how they view a fighter in "who beats who?" sense. Others go the opposite extremes & simply count the number of wins & title defenses. Again, names on various lists will differ according to what you emphasize. As Rebel said earlier, for those who emphasize "who beats who" Tyson is probably a top 3 heavyweight of all-time. For those who like undefeated records, Marciano is probably top 3. It's premature to call people stupid without looking at their criteria & how they justify their lists using that criteria.

    [/QB][/QUOTE]
     
  2. Remus

    Remus Member

    i don't think his record stacks up to jcc and as i explained, his competition levels don;t stack up either IMO. why would me seeing him fight change my mind ?

    are you trying to tell me that after i see him fight, that i'll think he was also a better fighter overall than jcc ?

    if the answer is NO, then i don't need to see him fight. he's not better on paper and he aint better in the ring. and if thats the case, how could he possibly be ranked ahead of jcc in the '80's.
     
  3. dmille

    dmille Guest

    BULL-Oney

    Remus is just another one of the many @ssholes on this site.
     
  4. Hut*Hut

    Hut*Hut Member

    I dont think thats right.
    For insance, Hopkins never really got his chance in the 90's but we saw against Tito that he was always a great fighter so we should take that into acount when judging him as a 90s fighter. You cant just divide a fighters career at the turn of a year, you have to take everything into acount.

    The Chavez-Whitiker thing is differnt cause Chavez was past his best and not at his weight, but Chavez-Taylor was only a couple of monthes into the 90's the fight wouldn't have been any different if it was in Dec 89.
     
  5. Remus

    Remus Member

    then what's the point of saying who was the best fighter in the '80's ? where do you draw the line ? if you're reviewing a particualr era then the ponly things that should be taken into consideration are things that occurred in that era.
     
  6. Remus

    Remus Member

    who tugged you're chain fido ? get back in the basement.
     
  7. Yori Boy

    Yori Boy Member

    I agree with you. I mean, if in some cases it's ok to consider what happened in 91, or 92 where do you draw the line? Exactly one year later? Two years? Two years and five days? Oh, whatever you just feel? I don't like that. You draw the line precisely.....
     
  8. Michael Matos

    Michael Matos Member

    The question that begs asking are the best flyweights of Changs era any better than Rosario, Lopez and Laporte? Giving Chang credit for defeating the "great" Chitalada, when Chitalada only had a handful of fights? You describe the 80's jr. flys as if they were the golden age of Boxing on the contrary they were pretty thin, torres got three cracks at the title and had other losses sprinkled in between. Hideyuki Ohashi had two shots at Changs title before his career was a dozen fights long. He defended against Fernando Montiel twice and did nothing to deserve a second shot at the title.

    If you look at fighters who have as they say cleaned out divisions, fighters such as Chavez, Ricardo Lopez, Ali in the 60's, Roy Jones Jr. never looked across the ring and said "You again". I think Chavez only fought one rematch at the same weight, Lopez one, Ali none, Jones Jr. none. To say that Chang has fought better opposition than compared to say Chavez is that chang kept beating up on the same guys over and over again much like the Harlem Globetrotters runing riot over the Washington Generals every other night.
     
  9. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Great point Michael.

    Today, many boxing fans denigrate Chavez's opposition these days due to the fact that he later turned out to be a cry baby past his prime. I've admitted that I don't have the expertise that he does regarding the flyweights of the 80s but when I look at them on paper they certainly seem inferior to Chavez's best opponents.

    I think it's a case of degrading Chavez's body of work and overrating Chang's opponents. Chitalda a "near great" with 4 fights under his belt? I don't see how any of those guys compare to a prime Meldrick Taylor or Pernell Whittaker. Mark Johnson, the closest thing to a flyweight Whittaker, would've had a field day with all of those fighters IMO. The man later proved that he could hang with the bigger boys while clearly past his prime.

    [ December 01, 2003, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
     
  10. Remus

    Remus Member

    look, this is the last thing i'm going to say on the chang topic. but as you said, on PAPER it looks as if chavez is ahead of chang. and as i said before, to say "watch a few of the guys fights, it may change you're mind." is saying that chang will look better in the ring and is a better fighter than chavez. to me, that seems HIGHLY unlikely. in fact IMPOSSIBLE.

    not to mention the fact from what i said from my first post on this issue. the comp levels at 108 are nowhere near the comp levels from 135 and up...there simply isn't the depth there.

    a fighter from mexico fighting at 135 and is 20-10 is in all probability a tougher opponent p4p than a 108pnd guy from korea, (or anywhere), who is at 20-0. that may be a BIG assumption, but it is an assumption i'm prepared to make.
     
  11. ericjw

    ericjw Member

    Heavyweights in general get too much credit. They're just popular, but in reality they're among the weakest in skills/talent.

    Tyson seems to actually be underrated IMO by the writers and historians, who seem to bash him for certain things but conveniently ignore things when praising the old-timers.

    When you look at the HW eras and the opposition of other HW champs who are considered greats, a lot of them aren't too impressive.
     

Share This Page