The Most Dominant Boxer of Every Decade

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:04 am

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1735940-the-most-dominant-boxer-in-every-decade

Thought this might make for some interesting Friday discussion. In summary:

1880s - John L
1890s - Fitz
1900s - Joe Gans
1910s - Jimmy Wilde
1920s - Harry Greb
1930s - Hank Armstrong
1940s - Joe Louis
1950s - SRR
1960s - Ali
1970s - Duran
1980s - JCC
1990s - RJJ
2000s - Mayweather Jr

With 9 Yanks, 1 Brit, 1 Mexican, 1 Panamanian and 1 debatable, as a list it certainly supports Truss' oft lauded views of US dominance, if nothing else.

Did inactivity prevent the second Sugar from taking the 80s slot? Should Jack Johnson have been in for the 1900s?

What say you all??

by Rowley Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:13 am

Could argue the case for Non Pariel Jack Dempsey over Sullivan potentially, as a lot of Jack's fights tended to be exhibitions rather than actual fights, but perhaps would not argue it too strongly because aside from not facing Jackson towards the end of his reign Sully was pretty much untouchable, however the same is true of Dempsey, prior to running into Fitz.

Very difficult thing to put together as many a fine fighter such as Benny Leonard tend to straddle decades.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:19 am

1940s - Would Ezzard charles deserve a shout maybe..........Cleaned up everything at light heavyweight and then won the world heavy title........

Chuck in a Burley win at middle on the way.......Beat better fighters than Louis.....Although louis was the more dominant figure...

However as Duran is in the 70s.......and Ali had better wins and was the more dominant figure..

Charles perhaps should qualify..

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:20 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:

With 9 Yanks, 1 Brit, 1 Mexican, 1 Panamanian and 1 debatable, as a list it certainly supports Truss' oft lauded views of US dominance, if nothing else.

2 Brits, TopHat, 2 Brits.

Could make an argument for Ricardo Lopez through the 90's. He won his first world title in 1990 and swept all before him for the following 11 years. Jones only started beating anyone worth while in 1993 when he beat Hopkins.

by Rowley Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:24 am

Charles is an excellent shout Truss, his run in the war years is second only to Bivins, but in the second half of the decade there is little comparison as Jimmy's form falls away quite alarmingly.

by **88Chris05** Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:28 am

I think Robinson has to take it for the forties ahead of Louis, really. Joe pretty much lost four of his peak years for all intents and purposes thanks to the War, and his greatest moment, the Schmeling rematch, came in 1938 in any case.

Robinson's opposition in the forties puts Louis' to shame, really, and he was at his peak throughout the decade. He was being called the 'Uncrowned Lightweight Champion of the World' as early as 1942, and obviously towards the end of the decade was hitting his absolute summit as Welterweight champion.

The fifties is a bit tricky as Robinson was still there or there about, but not as consistent as he'd previously been. Charles, likewise, was a faded force for most of the decade, Marciano's Heavyweight reign isn't good enough to make him a contender for top spot, Saddler's career was ended prematurely through injury while he was still Featherweight champion and the titles in the other divisions were generally being passed around with a fair bit of regularity.

So that leaves ol' Archie, really, who was the model of consistency at 175 for most of the decade and held the title for much of it. Great battles with Johnson and Durelle and aside from a loss to Johnson which he avenged more than once, his only setbacks came in those Heavyweight title challenges.

Robinson the forties, Moore the fifties for me.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:30 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:

With 9 Yanks, 1 Brit, 1 Mexican, 1 Panamanian and 1 debatable, as a list it certainly supports Truss' oft lauded views of US dominance, if nothing else.

2 Brits, TopHat, 2 Brits.

Could make an argument for Ricardo Lopez through the 90's. He won his first world title in 1990 and swept all before him for the following 11 years. Jones only started beating anyone worth while in 1993 when he beat Hopkins.

How did I know you'd chip in with Ricardo Lopez, Tino?? Smile

Another example of the unfair low regard and attention paid to the lightest weights again it seems, though how many big fights against top opposition did Lopez have? RJJ's 10 years, culminating in Ruiz 2003, were pretty sensational in terms of achievement.

by shenglongreturns Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:32 am

Left out Steve Collins for the 90's....

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:36 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:

With 9 Yanks, 1 Brit, 1 Mexican, 1 Panamanian and 1 debatable, as a list it certainly supports Truss' oft lauded views of US dominance, if nothing else.

2 Brits, TopHat, 2 Brits.

Could make an argument for Ricardo Lopez through the 90's. He won his first world title in 1990 and swept all before him for the following 11 years. Jones only started beating anyone worth while in 1993 when he beat Hopkins.

How did I know you'd chip in with Ricardo Lopez, Tino??

Another example of the unfair low regard and attention paid to the lightest weights again it seems, though how many big fights against top opposition did Lopez have? RJJ's 10 years, culminating in Ruiz 2003, were pretty sensational in terms of achievement.

Yep, I agree, and I would vote for Jones myself, just throwing another name out there. Lopez's opposition is no-where near as bad as you might think if you research them, something I have done, but the better quality of fighter undeniably came towards the end of the decade. Just saying that if you took the 90's as a whole, then Jones didn't even start till 3 years in.

All academic though as he is quite clearly the best fighter of that period.

by mobilemaster8 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:38 am

Id throw Joe Calzaghe in there but don't know where.....

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:49 am

If Jones gets a pass for 1990 to 1993 then De La Hoya is worth a shout for the 90's as well?

Are Jone's top level victims (Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill) really much better than Oscar's ledger? ODLH has Molina, Ruelas, Hernandez, JCC x 2, Gonzalez, Whitaker, Quartey? A dodgy loss to Trinidad.

It's closer than I thought on reflection.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:02 am

Michael Spinks above JCC for the 80 s............

Chavez 130 reign is nothing special..........Rosario was good.........

But Chavez started in mid 84..........

Spinks was champ from 1980-85 at 175 and Unified the title too...

Then beat one of the greatest heavyweights of all time twice (contentious)..........Chuck in a once beaten Cooney and for me he takes it.....Then lost in the biggest superfight since Ali-Frazier in 88..........

Seven years of great achievement...........

by milkyboy Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:03 am

... Cslzaghe...Best welsh fighter called joe in the 2000's?

Much better attempt than the top 20 Brit list from a few weeks back.

Does monzon rival Duran in the 70's?

Hard to argue against jcc's record but he was only dominant in the late 80's. spinks would be up there... larry big pants and hagler were at the top for as long... Albeit not at multiple weights and without the volume of taxi drivers on their résumé. Khaosai galaxy was unbeaten champion for longer. Albeit not unified.

by milkyboy Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:05 am

Quicker than me again truss. My mrs was right.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:11 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:If Jones gets a pass for 1990 to 1993 then De La Hoya is worth a shout for the 90's as well?

Are Jone's top level victims (Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill) really much better than Oscar's ledger? ODLH has Molina, Ruelas, Hernandez, JCC x 2, Gonzalez, Whitaker, Quartey? A dodgy loss to Trinidad.

It's closer than I thought on reflection.

Problem is, it's not really that RJJ gets a 'pass' for 90-93, it's just that 93 heralded his first big win and commencement of his dominance. Applying the same logic to ODLH gives Roy one more comparitive year on the clock plus no real losses.

Add to that he was a genuine sensational once in a generation talent and he's still ahead of Oscar for me.

by **superflyweight** Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:14 am

Can I just establish when a decade starts and ends. Best to clear this up before I comment.

Whistle

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:18 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:If Jones gets a pass for 1990 to 1993 then De La Hoya is worth a shout for the 90's as well?

Are Jone's top level victims (Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill) really much better than Oscar's ledger? ODLH has Molina, Ruelas, Hernandez, JCC x 2, Gonzalez, Whitaker, Quartey? A dodgy loss to Trinidad.

It's closer than I thought on reflection.
Problem is, it's not really that RJJ gets a 'pass' for 90-93, it's just that 93 heralded his first big win and commencement of his dominance. Applying the same logic to ODLH gives Roy one more comparitive year on the clock plus no real losses.

Add to that he was a genuine sensational once in a generation talent and he's still ahead of Oscar for me.

I would still say there is not that much difference between their CV's. I hate pulling apart records as it is ultimately a waste of time, but I don't think it is that hard to say that ODLH's opponents are equal to, if not superior, to RJJ's? The fact he crammed it in to one less year (if we take their first title as a starting point) should be a positive for the Golden Boy?

We are talking about the 90's, not up to the Ruiz fight in 2003. It is really close. My first thought was instantly RJJ but I am not so sure now.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:20 am

milkyboy wrote: My mrs was right.

Throw in a left for good measure now and again...

by **seanmichaels** Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:28 am

superflyweight wrote:Can I just establish when a decade starts and ends. Best to clear this up before I comment.

2000's started 2 seconds after 23:59 and 59 seconds 1999

by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:31 am

Possibly Monzon in the 70's, doesn't have a Leonard like win in his favour but beat everyone there was to beat at middleweight and in some style. From Benvenuti to Moyer to Griffith to Briscoe to Napoles to Valdes he beat almost every style there is with something to spare.

De La Hoya has to come into consideration for the 90's but Hopkins, Toney, Tate, Griffin, McCallum and Hill is far too strong a win set for anyone to come close to while Trinidad doesn't help the Golden Boys case.

Slightly controversial but Pacquiao must be nip and tuck with Mayweather through the 00's, overall he isn't close but world titles at 6 weights having beaten Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Hatton, Cotto and Ledwaba. For his Marquez fights there is Castillo for Mayweather and his loss to Morales is countered by Mayweathers lower volume of fights during the era. It was the subsequent fights after Cotto during this decade that started to widen the gap between the two but in 2009 it was very close.

Charles from 1942 to 1949 lost about three times to men he beat comprehensively in rematches, he was p4p a better boxer than Louis but a dominant heavyweight champion is always going to get more credit even if I would have Charles above him personally.

by eddyfightfan Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:32 am

you can't really say mayweather ruled the decade when manny was thundering through the weights whilst floyd was largely inactive for long periods of time. surely one of the klitschkos have a claim as well

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:36 am

Problem for the K's is one was inactive in that period for a good few years and the other has a couple of messy losses which look worse given how weak the division was over the period.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:37 am

No one has put forward Peter Jackson for the 1890's..........He must be slipping........

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:39 am

eddyfightfan wrote:you can't really say mayweather ruled the decade when manny was thundering through the weights whilst floyd was largely inactive for long periods of time. surely one of the klitschkos have a claim as well

Manny lost and drew twice................Should have lost at least three times ..........

Sorry....

by **88Chris05** Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:50 am

In terms of the names, Tino, then there's definitely not much daylight between Roy's and Oscar's victims in the nineties, if indeed there is any at all as you say. I'd argue that Jones' big name wins, McCallum aside, were generally a little closer to their peaks than Oscar's were (Chavez and Whitaker) but I agree that Oscar more than holds his own.

I think with Jones, it's almost as much about how he beat his victims, though, rather than purely just who he beat. Oscar was winning, Roy was absolutely obliterating. There's absolutely no shame at all in De la Hoya only just edging past guys like Quartey and Pernell on razor-thin verdicts, and it just goes to show how phenomenal it was that Jones was completely embarrassing fighters of the quality of Toney, Reggie Johnson, Hill and Griffin (second time out, anyway) in contrast.

The bloke was basically a one-off and I can't think of anyone else who regularly humiliated so many good fighters for as long as he did.

There was a documentary made on Jones from round about the turn of the century which discussed his credentials for the pound for pound top spot in contrast to those of Oscar, Trinidad, Morales etc, and Claude Abrams pointed out that while you could never really see De la Hoya beating someone like a prime Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard or Wilfred Benitez, you could definitely visualise Jones beating someone like an Archie Moore, a Gene Tunney or a Carlos Monzon, which rings true for me.

I'd probably give Jones the title for the 90s, just edging out Whitaker whose best work fell between then and the eighties, unfortunately for him. De la Hoya and Lopez in the chasing pack just behind.

by bellchees Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:54 am

Can't look past Floyd for the 2000's, he only started being inactive towards the end of the decade really and 2008 is the only year he didn't fight so that shouldn't count against him much. Undefeated, champion from Super Feather up to Junior Middleweight, ridiculously good punch perfect performance against Corrales which has to be one of the best performances of the decade.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 11:58 am

88Chris05 wrote:In terms of the names, Tino, then there's definitely not much daylight between Roy's and Oscar's victims in the nineties, if indeed there is any at all as you say. I'd argue that Jones' big name wins, McCallum aside, were generally a little closer to their peaks than Oscar's were (Chavez and Whitaker) but I agree that Oscar more than holds his own.

I think with Jones, it's almost as much about how he beat his victims, though, rather than purely just who he beat. Oscar was winning, Roy was absolutely obliterating. There's absolutely no shame at all in De la Hoya only just edging past guys like Quartey and Pernell on razor-thin verdicts, and it just goes to show how phenomenal it was that Jones was completely embarrassing fighters of the quality of Toney, Reggie Johnson, Hill and Griffin (second time out, anyway) in contrast.

The bloke was basically a one-off and I can't think of anyone else who regularly humiliated so many good fighters for as long as he did.

There was a documentary made on Jones from round about the turn of the century which discussed his credentials for the pound for pound top spot in contrast to those of Oscar, Trinidad, Morales etc, and Claude Abrahams pointed out that while you could never really see De la Hoya beating someone like a prime Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard or Wilfred Benitez, you could definitely visualise Jones beating someone like an Archie Moore, a Gene Tunney or a Carlos Monzon, which rings true for me.

I'd probably give Jones the title for the 90s, just edging out Whitaker whose best work fell between then and the eighties, unfortunately for him. De la Hoya and Lopez in the chasing pack just behind.

Have to agree with Jones..........Anyone who goes from middle to heavy winning titles is a true one off.........Believe Toney should get more plaudits for his heavy career regardless of shape...No way was he a heavyweight..

by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:02 pm

The issue I have with Jones title at heavyweight is the man he beat, granted only Fitzsimmons before him ever did it but there can't be many heavyweight champions worse than Ruiz, he had a small period of opportunity and fair play he pounced on the chance but it's not it's made out to be.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:05 pm

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:The issue I have with Jones title at heavyweight is the man he beat, granted only Fitzsimmons before him ever did it but there can't be many heavyweight champions worse than Ruiz, he had a small period of opportunity and fair play he pounced on the chance but it's not it's made out to be.

Might as well forget Joe Louis then..........He beat Braddock (one of the worst heavies in history) and sack all else........Lost to some good fighters though....

by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:08 pm

Blah blah blah, you're like a broken record.

Louis has Sharkey, Braddock, Baer brothers, Schmeling and Carnera, a one off bout against the weakest champion of the time doesn't do it for me.

by Rowley Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:23 pm

Will say this for what seems like the 3000th time but don’t much care for the downgrading of Jones’ win over Ruiz. Accept Ruiz was a poor heavyweight champion, but what is certain is he not the first poor champion in the history of the division and if all it took was waiting until there was a poor champion and then putting some weight and pouncing the question still remains who has nobody other than Jones and Fitz done it?

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:25 pm

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Blah blah blah, you're like a broken record.

Louis has Sharkey, Braddock, Baer brothers, Schmeling and Carnera, a one off bout against the weakest champion of the time doesn't do it for me.

A whole lot of ordinary fighters...and don't be silly....

Carnera ?? Better than Ruiz....

by bellchees Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:29 pm

Would anyone give Ward, Dawson, Pascal or Hopkins much of a chance against Povetkin? Similar kind of fights and for my money Povetkin beats them all on the same night which shows how good an achievement it was by Jones.

by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:33 pm

Rowley wrote:Will say this for what seems like the 3000th time but don’t much care for the downgrading of Jones’ win over Ruiz. Accept Ruiz was a poor heavyweight champion, but what is certain is he not the first poor champion in the history of the division and if all it took was waiting until there was a poor champion and then putting some weight and pouncing the question still remains who has nobody other than Jones and Fitz done it?

To be honest there were countless 175lbers (many of whom started at middleweight) who tried but I can't think of a single genuine heavyweight champion worse than Ruiz before him. I don't place much stock on beating a mere belt holder when the genuine champion offered a far tougher task, it was only in the early 00's that the title was fragmented for any period of time with incredibly weak champions.

Pre Joes Louis wasn't a strong era but even then I have to consider the likes of Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera and Baer to have a) have more talent and b) have something about them. Ruiz was average at best with no real defining attribute. I can't think of a time before then that afforded such an opportunity.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:35 pm

Ruiz was average at best..........

Baer had just fought a barnstormer with Galento.......and schmelling and Sharkey were ordinary...

Come on Mate.....The Holy Ruiz beat beats the lot of them..

by Rowley Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:36 pm

Now over a decade since he pulled off the feat and I don't see anyone replicating it, or even attempting it. Maybe Oleg Maskaev was seen as a bridge too far.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:39 pm

Think Rowley that we also need to factor in that Jones beat a big heavy....

I love gentleman Jim but he was only 200ish.........

Not to diminish Fitz supreme achievement...A true great feat

by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:41 pm

Lets not be silly here, from my memory there hasn't been a middleweight with the ability of Jones since then so it's a moot point.

The thing is Truss you only call them ordinary because Louis beaten them but Sharkey and Schmeling weren't ordinary in the same way Ruiz is, a heavyweight with no real punch and absolutely nothing about him, i'd back Monzon, Hopkins and Hagler over him any day. Stepping up to face Foster and Spinks was a bridge too far but not Ruiz, a far less able heavyweight than either of them.

by Rowley Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:42 pm

Very true Truss, said the same on the Spinks discussion, the heavies have grown almost year on year whereas a middle or light heavy is give or take the same.

(and before someone else says it I know Fitz weighed 151 when he won the middle title)

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:44 pm

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Lets not be silly here, from my memory there hasn't been a middleweight with the ability of Jones since then so it's a moot point.

The thing is Truss you only call them ordinary because Louis beaten them but Sharkey and Schmeling weren't ordinary in the same way Ruiz is, a heavyweight with no real punch and absolutely nothing about him, i'd back Monzon, Hopkins and Hagler over him any day. Stepping up to face Foster and Spinks was a bridge too far but not Ruiz, a far less able heavyweight than either of them.

Don't tell me why I call them ordinary...

Stop patronising everybody with a different opinion..It wears thin....

by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:45 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Lets not be silly here, from my memory there hasn't been a middleweight with the ability of Jones since then so it's a moot point.

The thing is Truss you only call them ordinary because Louis beaten them but Sharkey and Schmeling weren't ordinary in the same way Ruiz is, a heavyweight with no real punch and absolutely nothing about him, i'd back Monzon, Hopkins and Hagler over him any day. Stepping up to face Foster and Spinks was a bridge too far but not Ruiz, a far less able heavyweight than either of them.
Don't tell me why I call them ordinary...

Stop patronising everybody with a different opinion..It wears thin....

Stop banging the same drum over and over again.. it wears even thinner.

by Guest Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:45 pm

Riuz caught Jones in the first round and you could Jones thinking, "What have I let myself in for?" However after breaking Ruiz's nose a couple of rounds after that, Jones had it easy as Ruiz simply didn't wanted bopping on the nose every time he threw a jab and Roy just countered him with ease. Strongly believe that, had Roy got a little more confident a few rounds earlier than the 12th, there was evey possibility of forcing a stoppage and that WOULD have been impressive.

by Rowley Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:48 pm

Time will tell on Jones I guess. At the minute what is a fact is he is one of only two guys to have acheived the feat. What seems obvious is the fragmentation of the belts and ordinary heavyweight titlists is with us for some time. Given this if over the next few decades we see a plethora of fighters repeating the feat it will lose a little lustre. However if they don't do it, it will stand as a remarkable acheivement.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:49 pm

bellchees wrote:Can't look past Floyd for the 2000's, he only started being inactive towards the end of the decade really and 2008 is the only year he didn't fight so that shouldn't count against him much. Undefeated, champion from Super Feather up to Junior Middleweight, ridiculously good punch perfect performance against Corrales which has to be one of the best performances of the decade.

I don't think you can claim to be LMW champ when you refuse to fight the LMW champ at LMW.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:49 pm

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Lets not be silly here, from my memory there hasn't been a middleweight with the ability of Jones since then so it's a moot point.

The thing is Truss you only call them ordinary because Louis beaten them but Sharkey and Schmeling weren't ordinary in the same way Ruiz is, a heavyweight with no real punch and absolutely nothing about him, i'd back Monzon, Hopkins and Hagler over him any day. Stepping up to face Foster and Spinks was a bridge too far but not Ruiz, a far less able heavyweight than either of them.
Don't tell me why I call them ordinary...

Stop patronising everybody with a different opinion..It wears thin....

Stop banging the same drum over and over again.. it wears even thinner.

My opinion is my opinion...........Sorry it's different to yours...

by bellchees Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:51 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
bellchees wrote:Can't look past Floyd for the 2000's, he only started being inactive towards the end of the decade really and 2008 is the only year he didn't fight so that shouldn't count against him much. Undefeated, champion from Super Feather up to Junior Middleweight, ridiculously good punch perfect performance against Corrales which has to be one of the best performances of the decade.
I don't think you can claim to be LMW champ when you refuse to fight the LMW champ at LMW.

De La Hoya was the full 154lbs limit.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:52 pm

88Chris05 wrote:In terms of the names, Tino, then there's definitely not much daylight between Roy's and Oscar's victims in the nineties, if indeed there is any at all as you say. I'd argue that Jones' big name wins, McCallum aside, were generally a little closer to their peaks than Oscar's were (Chavez and Whitaker) but I agree that Oscar more than holds his own.

I think with Jones, it's almost as much about how he beat his victims, though, rather than purely just who he beat. Oscar was winning, Roy was absolutely obliterating. There's absolutely no shame at all in De la Hoya only just edging past guys like Quartey and Pernell on razor-thin verdicts, and it just goes to show how phenomenal it was that Jones was completely embarrassing fighters of the quality of Toney, Reggie Johnson, Hill and Griffin (second time out, anyway) in contrast.

The bloke was basically a one-off and I can't think of anyone else who regularly humiliated so many good fighters for as long as he did.

There was a documentary made on Jones from round about the turn of the century which discussed his credentials for the pound for pound top spot in contrast to those of Oscar, Trinidad, Morales etc, and Claude Abrams pointed out that while you could never really see De la Hoya beating someone like a prime Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard or Wilfred Benitez, you could definitely visualise Jones beating someone like an Archie Moore, a Gene Tunney or a Carlos Monzon, which rings true for me.

I'd probably give Jones the title for the 90s, just edging out Whitaker whose best work fell between then and the eighties, unfortunately for him. De la Hoya and Lopez in the chasing pack just behind.

I take the point Chris and I am sticking with my first instinct that Jones deserves the nod, it was only when I thought about it a bit deeper that Oscar started to close the field. De La Hoya does deserve immense credit for the sheer volume of very capable fighters that he faced and beat in the 90's. Some of them may be slightly below true 'world class' but he has some stellar names through that decade.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:52 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Lets not be silly here, from my memory there hasn't been a middleweight with the ability of Jones since then so it's a moot point.

The thing is Truss you only call them ordinary because Louis beaten them but Sharkey and Schmeling weren't ordinary in the same way Ruiz is, a heavyweight with no real punch and absolutely nothing about him, i'd back Monzon, Hopkins and Hagler over him any day. Stepping up to face Foster and Spinks was a bridge too far but not Ruiz, a far less able heavyweight than either of them.
Don't tell me why I call them ordinary...

Stop patronising everybody with a different opinion..It wears thin....

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:53 pm

Let's not be silly..

by TopHat24/7 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:55 pm

bellchees wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
bellchees wrote:Can't look past Floyd for the 2000's, he only started being inactive towards the end of the decade really and 2008 is the only year he didn't fight so that shouldn't count against him much. Undefeated, champion from Super Feather up to Junior Middleweight, ridiculously good punch perfect performance against Corrales which has to be one of the best performances of the decade.
I don't think you can claim to be LMW champ when you refuse to fight the LMW champ at LMW.
De La Hoya was the full 154lbs limit.

And several years later so was Cotto.

Yet facing THE champ he needs a catchweight? Hmmmmm...... chin

by Sponsored content