Ring P4P Number Ones Since '89: Who Was Most Exciting?

The following fighters have been regarded as the best in the sport by Ring Mag since 1989:

Mike Tyson
Julio Cesar Chavez
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones
Oscar De la Hoya
Shane Mosley
Bernard Hopkins
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao
Roman Gonzalez
Andre Ward

My question is: how would you rank them in terms of excitement? My pick would be:

1. Mike Tyson
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Roy Jones
4. Shane Mosley
5. Roman Gonzalez
6. Oscar De la Hoya
7. Julio Cesar Chavez
8. Pernell Whitaker
9. Floyd Mayweather
10. Bernard Hopkins
11. Andre Ward

1. Tyson
2. Jones
3. Chavez
4. Mosley
5. Pacquiao (Gave me the biggest buzz in boxing in years, the night he stopped Hatton)
6. De La Hoya
7. Mayweather (Not someone I would class as exciting but good to watch at work)
8. Whitaker (Hard to split Whitaker and Hopkins)
9. Hopkins
10. Gonzalez (Never seen him fight, but he can't be as boring as Ward)
11. Ward

not sure why everybody is rating tyson as number one after 89 as we all know this wasnt "prime" tyson. his performances werent all that after 89, someone like manny had much better fights since

Think this was Spinks to Williams. He started to slip a little as a fighter but he was still an electric performer (as was Pacquiao, granted).

hazharrison wrote:Think this was Spinks to Williams. He started to slip a little as a fighter but he was still an electric performer (as was Pacquiao, granted).

he lost to douglas in 90 so cant have been too much in 89

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Think this was Spinks to Williams. He started to slip a little as a fighter but he was still an electric performer (as was Pacquiao, granted).

he lost to douglas in 90 so cant have been too much in 89

He was can't miss TV against Spinks, Bruno and Williams (and even the Douglas fight was exciting as hell)

hazharrison wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Think this was Spinks to Williams. He started to slip a little as a fighter but he was still an electric performer (as was Pacquiao, granted).

he lost to douglas in 90 so cant have been too much in 89

He was can't miss TV against Spinks, Bruno and Williams (and even the Douglas fight was exciting as hell)

just checked, spinks was 88. but i'll give you douglas was a great up and down fight, although i wouldnt give tyson sole credit for that. after douglas im struggling for any geninue great fight. the two holyfield fights were bit of a let down. lewis fight was just a beat down and the rest is just knocking out tin cans. not arguing tyson wasnt great to watch, he was just great to watch pre 90's

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Think this was Spinks to Williams. He started to slip a little as a fighter but he was still an electric performer (as was Pacquiao, granted).

he lost to douglas in 90 so cant have been too much in 89

He was can't miss TV against Spinks, Bruno and Williams (and even the Douglas fight was exciting as hell)

just checked, spinks was 88. but i'll give you douglas was a great up and down fight, although i wouldnt give tyson sole credit for that. after douglas im struggling for any geninue great fight. the two holyfield fights were bit of a let down. lewis fight was just a beat down and the rest is just knocking out tin cans. not arguing tyson wasnt great to watch, he was just great to watch pre 90's

Hs fights weren't competitive but I remember him being absolutely magnetic can't miss stuff. The best fights he was in in were the Ruddock fights and the Douglas defeat. But God, he was made for TV. When you saw him steam out of the changing rooms wearing that towel and twitching his neck, your heart was in your mouth.

From a personal point of view, it'd have to be Pacquiao.

I didn't get to experience Tyson's peak years, and I guess watching his fights retrospectively ain't quite the same. But I got to experience Pacquiao's best years as they unfolded, and between roughly 2003 and 2009 he was absolutely sensational, not only because of his style but also because, as Morales and Marquez showed, there was a bit of vulnerability about him, too. Meant that he was rarely in a stinker.

The first two Marquez fights and Morales I were Fight of the Year material, the Marquez ones in particular being modern-day classics, and Pacquiao's demolition jobs on Barrera (I), Hatton and Cotto were stunning to watch. In particular, the Cotto fight is still one the most enjoyable performances I've ever seen. Remember watching it and feeling genuinely lucky to witness a truly special fighter in that kind of form and putting on such a wonderful show.

A rough attempt at ordering them....

1) Pacquiao 2) Tyson 3) Chavez 4) Gonzalez 5) Jones 6) Mosley 7) De la Hoya 8a) Mayweather 8b) Whitaker 10) Hopkins 11) Ward

id have pacquiao number 1 as well chris, great time where i was well into my boxing and a age where i could stay up late enough to watch all of his fights.

just about old enough to remember jones somewhere around his pomp, great fighter to watch. after that i either didnt watch them or they wasnt that great to watch. hopkins wasn't too bad in his early days to be fair similar with mayweather.

Another troll thread, 'look at me'

Anyway I will play your game.

1.Tyson
2. jones
3.Manny
4.Oscar
5.Shane
6.Floyd (Pretty boy)
7.Chavez
8.Whitaker
9.Hopkins
10.Ward

Don't care about midgets, not rating him.

Yeh I'm not sure any fighter in history has managed to exude the air of menace Tyson did. It's easy to see why so many folded before the bell rang.

It's interesting with this list how many fighters in it you really would want to watch for the excitement... more often it was because they were excellent fighters and you were watching out of fascination about the result.

For me Tyson PAC and jones in terms of exciting to watch, though jones was barely in a competitive fight. Oscar brought us plenty of big fights and for the most part gave value so he'd probably be next, gonzalez never disappoints but suffers from lower weight syndrome for excitement. Floyd was value up to lightweight. Mosley never really floated my boat, can't put a finger on why. Chavez, great fighter, but his style is just not my thing. Sweet pea, we can rave over the wizardry but witnout raising your heart rate. Hopkins probably edges out Ward at the bottom for the show against Tito, which had he repeated a few times would raise him significantly higher.

Not too different from yours Milky but I did enjoy watching Mosley fight, he was less showy than most but the combination of speed and power during his pomp was beautiful to watch.

1. Pacquiao
2. Jones
3. Mosley
4. Tyson
5. Mayweather
6. De La Hoya
7. Gonzalez
8. Chavez
9. Hopkins
10. Whitaker
11. Ward

compelling and rich wrote:not sure why everybody is rating tyson as number one after 89 as we all know this wasnt "prime" tyson. his performances werent all that after 89, someone like manny had much better fights since

Difference between exciting and best.

What has being in your prime got to do with it? Tyson, even though he wasn't "prime' it didn't mean that he didn't provide excitement. You don't even have to be the best fighter around to be the most exciting. Gatti was exciting too.

I always rate Tommy Hearns as the most exciting fighter of the early 80's, but he wasn't as good as Hagler or Leonard.

Atila wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:not sure why everybody is rating tyson as number one after 89 as we all know this wasnt "prime" tyson. his performances werent all that after 89, someone like manny had much better fights since

Difference between exciting and best.

What has being in your prime got to do with it? Tyson, even though he wasn't "prime' it didn't mean that he didn't provide excitement. You don't even have to be the best fighter around to be the most exciting. Gatti was exciting too.

I always rate Tommy Hearns as the most exciting fighter of the early 80's, but he wasn't as good as Hagler or Leonard.

read above, tyson fights post 90 were one sided mismatches for the most part working both ways. nothing exciting in that for me

while you could argue pre 90's were also mismatches that was mainly due to tyson being so good instead of facing cannon fodder. pre 90 he fought the best available, post the best available handed his arse to him in disappointing fights. the rest were pretty crap