Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

[cross_trainer]

Who are they, starting in 1891-1900?

[OLD FOGEY]

Who are they, starting in 1891-1900?

1891-1900
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. George Dixon
3. Tommy Ryan
4. Kid McCoy
5. Joe Choynski

1901-1910
1. Joe Gans
2. Terry McGovern
3. Barbados Joe Walcott
4. Jack Johnson
5. Stanley Ketchel

1911-1920
1. Sam Langford
2. Jimmy Wilde
3. Benny Leonard
4. Jack Dillon
5. Jack Dempsey/Harry Wills

1921-1930
1. Harry Greb
2. Mickey Walker
3. Gene Tunney
4. Kid Norfolk
5. Tommy Loughran/Tommy Gibbons

1931-1940
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Joe Louis
3. Barney Ross
4. Jimmy McLarnin
5. Tony Canzoneri

1941-1950
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Willie Pep
4. Sandy Saddler
5. Ike Williams

1951-1960
1. Archie Moore
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Duilio Loi
4. Pascual Perez
5. Carmen Basilio

1961-1970
1. Eder Jofre
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Emile Griffith
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Fighting Harada

1971-1980
1. Roberto Duran
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Jose Napoles
4. Bob Foster
5. Joe Frazier

1981-1990
1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Aaron Pryor
4. Salvador Sanchez
5. Alexis Arguello

I did a century off the top of my head--just to give you guys something to criticize and put forth your own thoughts. I only rated a fighter in one decade.

[OLD FOGEY]

You guys know more about the 1990's than I do, but here goes, just to start a discussion, cause I would like to see some opinions on this\
1. Pernell Whitaker
2. Roy Jones
3. Julio Ceasar Chavez
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ricardo Lopez

Okay critics--fire away.

[redrooster]

i can't go back a century. I'll try later

70's

Monzon
Duran
Arguello
Napoles
Ali

80's

Hagler
Spinks
Sanchez
Hearns
Camacho

90's

Jones
Bowe
DLH
Hopkins
Barerra

[Vanboxingfan]

1891-1900
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. George Dixon
3. Tommy Ryan
4. Kid McCoy
5. Joe Choynski

1901-1910
1. Joe Gans
2. Terry McGovern
3. Barbados Joe Walcott
4. Jack Johnson
5. Stanley Ketchel

1911-1920
1. Sam Langford
2. Jimmy Wilde
3. Benny Leonard
4. Jack Dillon
5. Jack Dempsey/Harry Wills

1921-1930
1. Harry Greb
2. Mickey Walker
3. Gene Tunney
4. Kid Norfolk
5. Tommy Loughran/Tommy Gibbons

1931-1940
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Joe Louis
3. Barney Ross
4. Jimmy McLarnin
5. Tony Canzoneri

1941-1950
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Willie Pep
4. Sandy Saddler
5. Ike Williams

1951-1960
1. Archie Moore
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Duilio Loi
4. Pascual Perez
5. Carmen Basilio

1961-1970
1. Eder Jofre
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Emile Griffith
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Fighting Harada

1971-1980
1. Roberto Duran
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Jose Napoles
4. Bob Foster
5. Joe Frazier

1981-1990
1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Aaron Pryor
4. Salvador Sanchez
5. Alexis Arguello

I did a century off the top of my head--just to give you guys something to criticize and put forth your own thoughts. I only rated a fighter in one decade.

Some posters may debate some placements, but if that's off the top of your head, it's an awesome effort. :good

[redrooster]

:patsch

Sorry.

Jones
Whitaker
Bowe
DLH
Barrera

For some reason I forgot to put him in.

[Vanboxingfan]

Not just that, but Bowe and no Lewis? No Holyfield? Barrera?

Bowe was a lot of things but high on a p4p list isn't one of them. And even though I'm a huge Lewis fan (face it you either love him or you hate him) I don't think he belongs on a p4p list either. Holyfield's a different story. At the very least he's a candidate.

[Sweet Science]

1961-1970
1. Eder Jofre
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Emile Griffith
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Fighting Harada



Ali during the decade of his prime was clearly the bestp4p fighter of the 60's even taking in to account the enforced lay off.

[dmt]

excellent lists old fogey

[Manassa]

Ali during the decade of his prime was clearly the bestp4p fighter of the 60's even taking in to account the enforced lay off.

No, actually, Jofre was considered the best.

[Nick Balsamo]

i can't go back a century. I'll try later

70's

Monzon
Duran
Arguello
Napoles
Ali

80's

Hagler
Spinks
Sanchez
Hearns
Camacho

90's

Jones
Bowe
DLH
Hopkins
Barerra


Your 90's list is absolutely Riddick-ulous !

Barrera and the fat man doesn't belong in the top 5.

Where's Pernell Whitaker ?

[JohnThomas1]

Where's Pernell Whitaker ?

You kidding? Do you really think Rednut is going to mention Whitaker after his legendary ass whupping of peak Camacho in the gym?

[redrooster]

I already have Pernell in as you can see. I was never that crazy about him and forgot but until Sweet Pea reminded me of his credentials.

Barerra was edged out by Hopkins with his 20 defenses. Holyfield was whipped twice by my man. I was going to put in Lewis but then I remembered his crappy chin.

[Ezzard]

No way is Pryor top 5 p4p in the 1980s. Spinks has a shout at number 1 for that decade.

[OLD FOGEY]

No way is Pryor top 5 p4p in the 1980s. Spinks has a shout at number 1 for that decade.

You put your finger on my biggest oversight. Spinks should have been third in the 1980's--he just slipped my mind. Sorry. I do think Pryor deserves to rank #4.

[TBooze]

Top 10 fighters from 1891-1900

10 Pedlar Palmer
9 Jack Dempsey
8 James J Corbett
7 Peter Jackson
6 Young Griffo
5 Terry McGovern
4 James J Jeffries
3 Jack McAuliffe
2 Bob Fitzsimmons
1 George Dixon

Mentions:

Billy Plimmer, , Billy Murphy, Ben Jordan, George Lavigne, Joe Walcott, Tommy Ryan, Mysterious Billy Smith, Kid McCoy and John L Sullivan

Top 10 fighters from 1901 to 1910

10 Tommy Ryan
9 Jim Driscoll
8 James J Jeffries
7 Joe Walcott
6 Stanley Ketchel
5 Terry McGovern
4 Jack Johnson
3 Sammy Langford
2 Abe Attell
1 Joe Gans

Mentions:

Owen Moran, Jimmy Walsh, Ben Jordan, Young CorbettII, Battling Nelson, Jack Sullivan, Billy Papke, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack O’Brien and Tommy Burns

Top 10 fighters 1911 to 1920

10 Jim Driscoll
9 Harry Wills
8 Jack Johnson
7 Benny Leonard
6 Freddie Welsh
5 Jack Britton
4 Ted Lewis
3 Georges Carpentier
2 Johnny Kilbane
1 Jimmy Wilde

Mentions:

Kid Williams, Pete Herman, Abe Attell, Ad Wolgast, Dixie Kid, Mike Gibbons, Les Darcy, Mike O’Dowd, Sammy Langford, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette and Jack Dempsey


Top 10 fighters 1921 to 1930

10 Sammy Mandell
9 Harry Wills
8 Jack Dempsey
7 Al Brown
6 Tommy Loughran
5 Gene Tunney
4 Pancho Villa
3 Harry Greb
2 Mickey Walker
1 Benny Leonard

Mentions:

Jimmy Wilde, Fidel la Barba, Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Dundee, Kid Kaplan, Benny Bass, Tony Canzoneri, Bat Battalino, Pinkey Mitchell, Jackie Berg, Jack Britton, Joe Dundee, Jackie Fields, Tiger Flowers, Georges Carpentier, Jack Delaney and Maxie Rosenbloom


Top 10 fighters 1931 to 1940

10 Jimmy McLarnin
9 Jackie Berg
8 Benny Lynch
7 Billy Conn
6 Tony Canzoneri
5 Mickey Walker
4 Barney Ross
3 Maxie Rosenbloom
2 Joe Louis
1 Henry Armstrong

Mentions:

Midget Wolgast, Jackie Brown, Little Dado, Al Brown, Kid Chocolate, Baby Arizmendi, Freddie Miller, Joey Archibald, Jackie Fields, Lou Ambers, Fritzie Zivic, Charley Burley, Gorilla Jones, Marcel Thil, Freddie Steele, John Henry Lewis, Max Schmeling, Max Baer and James J Braddock

Top 10 fighters 1941 to 1950

10 Jake LaMotta
9 Rinty Monaghan
8 Sandy Saddler
7 Manuel Ortiz
6 Joe Louis
5 Ezzard Charles
4 Ike Williams
3 Charley Burley
2 Willie Pep
1 Ray Robinson

Mentions:

Jackie Paterson, Vic Toweel, Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Tippy Larkin, Fritzie Zivic, Red Cochrane, Tommy Bell, Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano, Marcel Cerdan, Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills, Archie Moore and Billy Conn

[TBooze]

Top 10 fighters 1951 to 1960

10 Floyd Patterson
9 Carmen Bassilio
8 Jimmy Curruthers
7 Kid Gavilan
6 Rocky Marciano
5 Pascual Perez
4 Joe Brown
3 Sandy Saddler
2 Archie Moore
1 Ray Robinson

Mentions:

Dado Marino, Alphonse Halimi, Willie Pep, Hogan Kid Bassey, Davey Moore, Carlos Ortiz, Don Jordan, Bobo Olson, Gene Fullmer, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ingemar Johansson

Top 10 fighters 1961 to 1970

10 Dick Tiger
9 Nicolino Loche
8 Bob Foster
7 Jose Napoles
6 Vincente Saldivar
5 Muhammad Ali
4 Nino Benvenuti
3 Carlos Ortiz
2 Eder Jofre
1 Emile Griffith

Mentions:

Pone Kingpetch, Fighting Harada, Lionel Rose, Ruben Olivares, Davey Moore, Sugar Ramos, Flash Elorde, Ismael Laguna, Duilio Loi, Benny Paret, Luis Rodriguez, Curtis Cokes, Ki-Soo Kim, Joey Giardello, Carlos Monzon, Willie Pastrano, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier

Top 10 fighters 1971 to 1979

10 Eder Jofre
9 Ruben Olivares
8 Alexis Arguello
7 Antonio Cervantes
6 Bob Foster
5 Jose Napoles
4 Carlos Zarate
3 Muhammad Ali
2 Carlos Monzon
1 Roberto Duran


Mentions:

Yuko Gushiken, Alfonso Zamora, Lupe Pintor, Wilfredo Gomez, Ernesto Marcel, Danny Lopez, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu (Suzuki), Nicolino Loche, Wilfred Benitez, Pipino Cuevas, Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard, Rodrigo Valdez, John Conteh, Victor Galindez, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and Ken Norton


Top 10 fighters 1980 to 1989

10 Roberto Duran
9 Aaron Pryor
8 Eusebio Pedroza
7 Julio Cesar Chavez
6 Larry Holmes
5 Michael Spinks
4 Tommy Hearns
3 Mike Tyson
2 Marvin Hagler
1 Ray Leonard

Mentions:

Alexis Arguello, Hector Camacho, Lupe Pintor, Sot Chitalada, Michael Nunn, Jeff Fenech, Myung Woo Yuh, Jung Koo Chang, Mike McCallum, Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker, Jeff Chandler, Khoasio Galaxy, Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson




Top 10 fighters 1990 to 1999



10 Julio Cesar Chavez
9 James Toney
8 Felix Trinidad
7 Naseem Hamed
6 Terry Norris
5 Pernell Whitaker
4 Evander Holyfield
3 Ricardo Lopez
2 Roy Jones Jr
1 Oscar de la Hoya

Mentions:

Virgil Hill, Nigel Benn, Saman Sorjaturong, Kostya Tszyu, Azumah Nelson, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Marco Antonio Barrera, Bernard Hopkins, Shane Mosley, Riddick Bowe, Brian Mitchell, Dariusz Michalczewski, Kaosai Galaxy, Orlando Canizales and Lennox Lewis

Fire away, there is scope for a lot of improvement pre 1960, I am open to suggestions.

[Manassa]

You've got your numbers mixed up; it should be 1960 to 1969, for example, not 1961-1970. It's like when a clock starts, it doesn't start at 'one' but rather 'zero.'

[TBooze]

You've got your numbers mixed up; it should be 1960 to 1969, for example, not 1961-1970. It's like when a clock starts, it doesn't start at 'one' but rather 'zero.'

The thread asks you to start at 1891 to 1900...

And to be fair as there was never a year zero, it does make sense.

I change it from 1980 because I already had them lists.

[Manassa]

The thread asks you to start at 1891 to 1900...

And to be fair as there was never a year zero, it does make sense.

I change it from 1980 because I already had them lists.

I wasn't directing it at you, but anyone who followed the initial incorrect method.

'Year zeros' occur regularly throughout history. 1980, 1990, 2000 etc... As I said, a clock starts at zero, not one (imagine a second - you don't count 'one, two, three', you count '[gap] one, two, three). Just as a decade starts at zero and finishes just before the next zero. By starting the '40s at 1941, you've missed out on the first year of that decade.

[TBooze]

I wasn't directing it at you, but anyone who followed the initial incorrect method.

'Year zeros' occur regularly throughout history. 1980, 1990, 2000 etc... As I said, a clock starts at zero, not one (imagine a second - you don't count 'one, two, three', you count '[gap] one, two, three). Just as a decade starts at zero and finishes just before the next zero. By starting the '40s at 1941, you've missed out on the first year of that decade.

The reason I say this is there was never a year '0' in our Gergorian calender so actually crosstrainer is right a decade is year 1 to year 10 and so on for our calender...

[Manassa]

The reason I say this is there was never a year '0' in our Gergorian calender so actually crosstrainer is right a decade is year 1 to year 10 for our calender...

Year one isn't called year one. The first year is from zero to the end of the 365th day.

Why do you think they call the 1800s the nineteenth century, and the 1900s the twentieth century? Because the first century started from zero; the second century started from one, and so on.

[TBooze]

Year one isn't called year one. The first year is from zero to the end of the 365th day.

Why do you think they call the 1800s the nineteenth century, and the 1900s the twentieth century? Because the first century started from zero; the second century started from one, and so on.

Year one was called year one, there never was a year zero. And people stayed true to this up to the early 20th century, people celebrated the new century on December 31st 1900 not December 31st 1899.

But because we live in a time were people lack knowledge of Gergorian calender (thankfully mainly because people are not so religious) that little fact has been over looked between 1901 and 2000.

[TBooze]

Why is Walker above Greb TBooze? For no reason? Thought so.


There was a reason, I knew it would get you stirred up;)

Actually unlike Greb who was sadly no longer with us after 1926, Walker fought the entire decade and accomplished more in the 20s than Greb did

[Manassa]

Year one was called year one, there never was a year zero. And people stayed true to this up to the early 20th century, people celebrated the new century on December 31st 1900 not December 31st 1899.

But because we live in a time were people lack knowledge of Gergorian calender (thankfully mainly because people are not so religious) that little fact has been over looked between 1901 and 2000.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Whatever you want to call year one or year zero or whatever, the fact remains: time starts at zero, not one. And regarding decades, that means the next decade starts at zero again once the last one reaches the end of the 365th day of its last year. Decades are as so:

1940-49
1950-59
1960-69

... And so on. They do not start at at '41, '51 or '61.

[cross_trainer]

Forget the details of date--it is distracting us from the task at hand. If you prefer, call it "timeframe 1891 to 1900" or whatever you want. Let's just get the fighters list finished.

[TBooze]

Sorry, you're wrong.

Whatever you want to call year one or year zero or whatever, the fact remains: time starts at zero, not one. And regarding decades, that means the next decade starts at zero again once the last one reaches the end of the 365th day of its last year. Decades are as so:

1940-49
1950-59
1960-69

... And so on. They do not start at at '41, '51 or '61.

I think you proved the point my secular friend;)

[Manassa]

I think you proved the point my secular friend;)

I've proved my own point, yes. Thank you.

[cross_trainer]

:lol:

[OLD FOGEY]

I wasn't directing it at you, but anyone who followed the initial incorrect method.

'Year zeros' occur regularly throughout history. 1980, 1990, 2000 etc... As I said, a clock starts at zero, not one (imagine a second - you don't count 'one, two, three', you count '[gap] one, two, three). Just as a decade starts at zero and finishes just before the next zero. By starting the '40s at 1941, you've missed out on the first year of that decade.

But the first marked year is year 1. The 20th century runs from 1901 to 2000, the 19th from 1801 to 1900. Cross Trainer, as he would be the first to point out, is a man of supreme erudition, and would never make an error on something like this.

[Manassa]

But the first marked year is year 1. The 20th century runs from 1901 to 2000, the 19th from 1801 to 1900. Cross Trainer, as he would be the first to point out, is a man of supreme erudition, and would never make an error on something like this.

Then where did the year 1800 go? It's not part of the 1700s - it hasn't got a 17 in front of it. I'll emphasize again; a stopwatch doesn't start at 'one', and neither should the calendar. The first year of the calendar is the first year, but that year is not 1901, it's 1900. 1900 is the starting point, and when it reaches 1901 (on the 366th day of the century), that is the first year over. Just as with seconds; when you say 'one', that's a second gone. When you say '1901', that's one year gone.

[OLD FOGEY]

Then where did the year 1800 go? It's not part of the 1700s - it hasn't got a 17 in front of it. I'll emphasize again; a stopwatch doesn't start at 'one', and neither should the calendar. The first year of the calendar is the first year, but that year is not 1901, it's 1900. 1900 is the starting point, and when it reaches 1901, that is the first year over. Just as with seconds; when you say 'one', that's a second gone. When you say '1901', that's one year gone.

Well, sir. First thing, this is not religion, it is about mathematics. If you count 100 things, what is the first number counted and what is the last. I think you will notice that your first number is 1 and the hundredth number is 100. So the first century was from 1 to 100, the second from 101 to 200, etc.
Remember the movie, "2001, A Space Odyssey"? The director, the erudite Stanley Kubrick, chose that year because it would be the first year of the next millenium.
The year 1800 is part of the 18th century. By the way, why are the 1700's actually the 18th century?

Your fundamental mistake is starting a number sequence with zero rather than one. You start counting with one.

[Manassa]

Well, sir. First thing, this is not religion, it is about mathematics. If you count 100 things, what is the first number counted and what is the last. I think you will notice that your first number is 1 and the hundredth number is 100. So the first century was from 1 to 100, the second from 101 to 200, etc.
Remember the movie, "2001, A Space Odyssey"? The director, the erudite Stanley Kubrick, chose that year because it would be the first year of the next millenium.

We are talking about time here, and time does not start from 'one' - can you deny that? That's as simple as it gets, and a stopwatch is probably the best example to demonstrate what I'm trying to get across.

Zero is not so much a number, but a starting point. One is the first real number, the first number with substance - but there is a gap between the point marked 'zero' and the pointed marked 'one'. Let us call the gap x. x is a year, a section of time. In between 'zero' and 'one' is where x resides, and so that is the first year. The first year is ticking away well before it has even reached the 'one' marked because 'one' is not the starting point, but merely a finishing point. Basically, 'one' is to signify that one year has passed, rather than that the first year is starting.

By the way, why are the 1700's actually the 18th century?

Because the first century was called the first century, but didn't start from 'one' - it started from zero. 0AD.

Your fundamental mistake is starting a number sequence with zero rather than one. You start counting with one.

I am not counting zero as a number, but as a starting point. See above.

[Manassa]

:happy

[cross_trainer]

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Just answer the question, guys.

[Manassa]

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Just answer the question, guys.

Might do. Might not. I'm my own man, so don't tell me what to do, you hear? I've got lots of hats and potions and stuff.

[cross_trainer]

I've got lots of hats and potions and stuff.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

We are talking about time here, and time does not start from 'one' - can you deny that? That's as simple as it gets, and a stopwatch is probably the best example to demonstrate what I'm trying to get across.

Zero is not so much a number, but a starting point. One is the first real number, the first number with substance - but there is a gap between the point marked 'zero' and the pointed marked 'one'. Let us call the gap x. x is a year, a section of time. In between 'zero' and 'one' is where x resides, and so that is the first year. The first year is ticking away well before it has even reached the 'one' marked because 'one' is not the starting point, but merely a finishing point. Basically, 'one' is to signify that one year has passed, rather than that the first year is starting.



Because the first century was called the first century, but didn't start from 'one' - it started from zero. 0AD.



I am not counting zero as a number, but as a starting point. See above.

Zero might be viewed as a starting point, but it is nothing but a starting point. A baby at six months is not zero years old, but 1/2 of one year. When he reaches his first birthday, he is a full one year old.
Now the year 1800 is the 1800th year and so 18 centuries have been completed. The 1 in 1801 stands for starting the next century.

If the first year is zero, why isn't the first century the "zero" century?

[OLD FOGEY]

Nope, the year 1800 is the start of the 19th century. 1801 is when the first year is past. Why was 2000 the start of the 21st century but 1800 wasn't the start of the 19th?

The 90's are from 90-99. That's the ten years in that decade. The 80's were from 80-89, that's ten years in that decade. When it starts with the next decade, it's over. Pretty simple.

No, 1800 is the last year of the 18th century, but it is part of the 1800's which may be where the confusion is coming from.

[Manassa]

Zero might be viewed as a starting point, but it is nothing but a starting point. A baby at six months is not zero years old, but 1/2 of one year. When he reaches his first birthday, he is a full one year old.
Now the year 1800 is the 1800th year and so 18 centuries have been completed. The 1 in 1801 stands for starting the next century.

If the first year is zero, why isn't the first century the "zero" century?

I didn't say the first year is zero. I said, and you acknowledged this, that zero is a starting point.

A baby at six months old is not zero years old because zero is not a proper number (just a starting point). But it isn't called 'one' either now, is it? Because it hasn't reached that age yet.

You even said it yourself that 1800 marks the point where eighteen centuries have been completed, and I agree - but you then say that the new century starts at 1801? What happened to the year between the 1800 mark and the 1801 mark? Because that would have been the first year.

[cross_trainer]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Manassa]

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

[OLD FOGEY]

I didn't say the first year is zero. I said, and you acknowledged this, that zero is a starting point.

A baby at six months old is not zero years old because zero is not a proper number (just a starting point). But it isn't called 'one' either now, is it? Because it hasn't reached that age yet.

You even said it yourself that 1800 marks the point where eighteen centuries have been completed, and I agree - but you then say that the new century starts at 1801? What happened to the year between the 1800 mark and the 1801 mark? Because that would have been the first year.

The baby is in his first year, not in his zero year.

I would just point out that when I studied Roman history back in a misspent youth my professors taught me that there was no year zero and when computing the age of a Roman born in the first century BC and dying in the first century AD (CE today), one added the years.
Ovid, for example, born in 43 BC and dying in 18 AD, lived 61 years,
Augustus, born in 63 BC and dying in 14 AD, lived 77 years. Jesus was, by tradition, born in the year 1, not a year called zero.

[Manassa]

The baby is in his first year, not in his zero year.

I would just point out that when I studied Roman history back in a misspent youth my professors taught me that there was no year zero and when computing the age of a Roman born in the first century BC and dying in the first century AD (CE today), one added the years.
Ovid, for example, born in 43 BC and dying in 18 AD, lived 61 years,
Augustus, born in 63 BC and dying in 14 AD, lived 77 years. Jesus was, by tradition, born in the year 1, not a year called zero.

Why do you think I think the first year is called zero? The first year is the first year and is called the first year, however, it does not start at point 'one'.

I will repeat this post incase you missed it:

--

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

[OLD FOGEY]

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

Anyone who lived around the year 1 of our calendar would have considered himself living in the year 722, dated from the founding of Rome. The founding of Rome was dropped and the birth of Jesus chosen several centuries later and the year 1 designated the year Jesus was born. It just didn't occur to them to start a count with zero which I can understand. This is actually history and not up to dispute.
The First century therefore goes from the year 1 to the year 100, which is 100 years--after the 100 years are completed, a new century is begun, hence the year 101.

I must repeat here, no one starts counting from zero. You start counting from 1.

Now that I think about it, they probably didn't start with the year zero because that concept had not been thought of yet. I think the Arabs invented "zero" centuries later.

[Manassa]

Anyone who lived around the year 1 of our calendar would have considered himself living in the year 722, dated from the founding of Rome. The founding of Rome was dropped and the birth of Jesus chosen several centuries later and the year 1 designated the year Jesus was born. It just didn't occur to them to start a count with zero which I can understand. This is actually history and not up to dispute.
The First century therefore goes from the year 1 to the year 100, which is 100 years--after the 100 years are completed, a new century is begun, hence the year 101.

I must repeat here, no one starts counting from zero. You start counting from 1.

You should refer to your 'year 1' as 'the first year' - it's more adequate. By saying 'year 1' you make it sound as though time started at the point 'one' - it did not, and I think you are realizing this now.

In the most basic definition I can give; year numbers signify the end of something, rather than the start. 'One' represents the end of the first year, 'two' represents the end of the second and so on - 'two' is not the start of the second year, but the third. The third year will tick away and eventually hit the 'three' mark, where the fourth year will begin.

Time didn't start at 0AD, our world as we know it is much older than that, but I have been using it as a simpler checkpoint in which to measure from. Time starts at the zero point, and when it reaches 'one', one year has passed. at 1AD, one year had passed already, since there was a time gap between 0AD and the former.

Again, look at a stopwatch. It doesn't immediately display '1:00:00', it starts at 0:00:00 and there is a gap of one second, the first second, before it reaches 1:00:00.

[rekcutnevets]

Man, damn.

A stop watch starts at zero. Say your stop watch starts at zero at the beginning of the first year. At the end of that year you will be at the end of year one. At the end of year one you will have the beginning of year 2. One year has gone by, but we are now starting the 2nd year. At the end of year 2, you begin year 3. At the end of year 3, you begin year 4. At the end of year 4, you begin year 5. At the end of year 5, 5 years have passed.

At the end of year 10, 10 years will have passed. One decade. Another decade will not have passed until year 20. Meaning it will take years 11-20 to make a decade. 21-30 will make another. So on, and so forth.

Nice list Old Fogey. I don't agree with every spot, but I don't have time to argue. You are mostly right.

[Manassa]

Rekcutnevets knows what he's talking about, listen to him.

[OLD FOGEY]

You should refer to your 'year 1' as 'the first year' - it's more adequate. By saying 'year 1' you make it sound as though time started at the point 'one' - it did not, and I think you are realizing this now.

In the most basic definition I can give; year numbers signify the end of something, rather than the start. 'One' represents the end of the first year, 'two' represents the end of the second and so on - 'two' is not the start of the second year, but the third. The third year will tick away and eventually hit the 'three' mark, where the fourth year will begin.

Time didn't start at 0AD, our world as we know it is much older than that, but I have been using it as a simpler checkpoint in which to measure from. Time starts at the zero point, and when it reaches 'one', one year has passed. at 1AD, one year had passed already, since there was a time gap between 0AD and the former.

Again, look at a stopwatch. It doesn't immediately display '1:00:00', it starts at 0:00:00 and there is a gap of one second, the first second, before it reaches 1:00:00.

I got to cut this, but time is actually simply a designation for the intervals marked by the turning of the Earth, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, etc
The situation is like if I'm in a position to do it, as the Pope was in the 6th century, I decide to date from the founding of the Declaration of Independence and call 1776 year 1. Okay. All the talk about stopwatches or trackmeets means nothing. 1776 is year 1, 1777 year 2, etc.
And that is what happened. I think the Pope known as Gregory the Great changed the calendar to Jesus' birth year, but got the year wrong.
Now I'm going to stop before I am banned by Cross Trainer.

[Manassa]

OLD FOGEY, I think you've gotten your wires crossed somewhere along the way because you're almost telling yourself what's right and not actually disagreeing with me.

[Manassa]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I look exactly like him, minus the ring. My beard is fake, however, since I am not old enough to grow even a blonde caterpillar, let alone a bushy grey paradise.

[OLD FOGEY]

Rekcutnevets knows what he's talking about, listen to him.

I agree with him. The year 10 marks 10 years, as the year 100 marks 100 years. So, the year 101 is the start of the second century.

You have said "time starts here" or something like that. Time is infinite and what we measure is our perception of the motions of the universe and their repetitions. Years and such is our imposition on time.

[OLD FOGEY]

Top 10 fighters from 1891-1900

10 Pedlar Palmer
9 Jack Dempsey
8 James J Corbett
7 Peter Jackson
6 Young Griffo
5 Terry McGovern
4 James J Jeffries
3 Jack McAuliffe
2 Bob Fitzsimmons
1 George Dixon

Mentions:

Billy Plimmer, , Billy Murphy, Ben Jordan, George Lavigne, Joe Walcott, Tommy Ryan, Mysterious Billy Smith, Kid McCoy and John L Sullivan

Top 10 fighters from 1901 to 1910

10 Tommy Ryan
9 Jim Driscoll
8 James J Jeffries
7 Joe Walcott
6 Stanley Ketchel
5 Terry McGovern
4 Jack Johnson
3 Sammy Langford
2 Abe Attell
1 Joe Gans

Mentions:

Owen Moran, Jimmy Walsh, Ben Jordan, Young CorbettII, Battling Nelson, Jack Sullivan, Billy Papke, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack O’Brien and Tommy Burns

Top 10 fighters 1911 to 1920

10 Jim Driscoll
9 Harry Wills
8 Jack Johnson
7 Benny Leonard
6 Freddie Welsh
5 Jack Britton
4 Ted Lewis
3 Georges Carpentier
2 Johnny Kilbane
1 Jimmy Wilde

Mentions:

Kid Williams, Pete Herman, Abe Attell, Ad Wolgast, Dixie Kid, Mike Gibbons, Les Darcy, Mike O’Dowd, Sammy Langford, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette and Jack Dempsey


Top 10 fighters 1921 to 1930

10 Sammy Mandell
9 Harry Wills
8 Jack Dempsey
7 Al Brown
6 Tommy Loughran
5 Gene Tunney
4 Pancho Villa
3 Harry Greb
2 Mickey Walker
1 Benny Leonard

Mentions:

Jimmy Wilde, Fidel la Barba, Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Dundee, Kid Kaplan, Benny Bass, Tony Canzoneri, Bat Battalino, Pinkey Mitchell, Jackie Berg, Jack Britton, Joe Dundee, Jackie Fields, Tiger Flowers, Georges Carpentier, Jack Delaney and Maxie Rosenbloom


Top 10 fighters 1931 to 1940

10 Jimmy McLarnin
9 Jackie Berg
8 Benny Lynch
7 Billy Conn
6 Tony Canzoneri
5 Mickey Walker
4 Barney Ross
3 Maxie Rosenbloom
2 Joe Louis
1 Henry Armstrong

Mentions:

Midget Wolgast, Jackie Brown, Little Dado, Al Brown, Kid Chocolate, Baby Arizmendi, Freddie Miller, Joey Archibald, Jackie Fields, Lou Ambers, Fritzie Zivic, Charley Burley, Gorilla Jones, Marcel Thil, Freddie Steele, John Henry Lewis, Max Schmeling, Max Baer and James J Braddock

Top 10 fighters 1941 to 1950

10 Jake LaMotta
9 Rinty Monaghan
8 Sandy Saddler
7 Manuel Ortiz
6 Joe Louis
5 Ezzard Charles
4 Ike Williams
3 Charley Burley
2 Willie Pep
1 Ray Robinson

Mentions:

Jackie Paterson, Vic Toweel, Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Tippy Larkin, Fritzie Zivic, Red Cochrane, Tommy Bell, Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano, Marcel Cerdan, Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills, Archie Moore and Billy Conn

Not to change the subject after the fascinating discussion on dating (yawn) which I share the blame for, but aren't you badly underrating Tommy Ryan. Ryan fought from 1887 to 1907. He lost only three fights, one on a foul to George Green, and twice to the great Kid McCoy. He avenged the loss to Green by knockout in his next fight. He was welterweight champion from 1894 to 1898 and middleweight champion from 1898 to 1907. He was never beaten for either title.
Only McCoy stopped him in 109 fights, in a 15 round knockout, Ryan's only bad defeat.
With a record like that, I think he should rate much higher than #10 for his decade.

[TBooze]

Not to change the subject after the fascinating discussion on dating (yawn) which I share the blame for, but aren't you badly underrating Tommy Ryan. Ryan fought from 1887 to 1907. He lost only three fights, one on a foul to George Green, and twice to the great Kid McCoy. He avenged the loss to Green by knockout in his next fight. He was welterweight champion from 1894 to 1898 and middleweight champion from 1898 to 1907. He was never beaten for either title.
Only McCoy stopped him in 109 fights, in a 15 round knockout, Ryan's only bad defeat.
With a record like that, I think he should rate much higher than #10 for his decade.

I see your point, but the nine above him were damn fine fighters themselves, maybe there is scope to give him a place on the 1891-1900 list.

[TBooze]

That's not true. At all. And you know it.

You do not seem to understand the Gregorian calender, read up on it and you can put this debate to rest.;)

[OLD FOGEY]

That's not true. At all. And you know it.

You are bringing this up again--so, no, I don't know that at all. The year 1800 is by definition the last year of the 18th century--18 x 100. That is what 1800 means mathematically. 1801 means you have completed 18 x 100 and are now adding the 1st year of the 19th century,
This is perhaps an esoteric point, but I think you gentlemen are much younger than I am, so I will give you a word of advice. Know what you know in this world and what you don't know. There is nothing particularly wrong with being ignorant on certain matters. We all are. I would say I'm ignorant on about 99% of topics that might come up. There is something wrong with being stubborn when your error is pointed out.

The fact is the count on the Gregorian calendar starts at the year 1, not at some year zero, and the year 100 completes the first century.

One fact that probably confuses young people is that the turn of the millenium was celebrated in 2000, but that was really an ignorant error and was so pointed out by quite a number of people, mainly teachers, but who listens to teachers these days. It is a good lesson, though.
There is an old saying that fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong, but this in fact proves that the whole world can be wrong.

I remember talking to Arthur C Clark in 1968, the year the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey" came out. He wrote the original story on which the movie was based and was traveling around promoting the movie. If I remember, the original story was called "Starchild" but my memory might be failing me. I asked why the title "2001" was chosen and Clark told me it was because it would be the 1st year of the new millenium.

[Manassa]

OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.

[Doppleganger]

I believe Old Fogey is correct. Year zero does not exist in the Gregorian Calender. Therefore 1800 is technically the last year of the 18th century, as is 2000 was the last year of the 20th Century. We should have celebrated the start of the new millenium at Midnight on Jan 1st 2001.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[cross_trainer]

OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.

Sounds reasonable enough. He's saying that the Gregorian calendar worked in the way he described, even though it doesn't make sense to us. So despite the logic of your arguments, that was the "official" way to tell time. Not a logical way, but the official way.

At the moment, I'd just prefer that you apply your wizardly mind to creating a P4P list, though. :good

[Sonny's jab]

OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.

I think OLD FOGEY is correct.

1800 is a whole year, and it is the last year of the 18th Century.
Jan 1st 1801 is the beginning of the 19th Century.

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.

I am often confused about a lot of things. What I was corrected on is that the year 1800 is part of the 18th and not the 19th century. The 19th century began with the year 1801.

Don't bet your life on this one. It is a pretty esoteric point which does not matter to anyone's life much one way or the other and is probably not worth the posts it has been given, but in this case I know I'm right. If you actually agree with me, okay.

Have a good day and happy posting!

[Doppleganger]

I am often confused about a lot of things. What I was corrected on is that the year 1800 is part of the 18th and not the 19th century. The 19th century began with the year 1801.

Don't bet your life on this one. It is a pretty esoteric point which does not matter to anyone's life much one way or the other and is probably not worth the posts it has been given, but in this case I know I'm right. If you actually agree with me, okay.

Have a good day and happy posting!

You are 100% correct Old Fogey on this one so feel free to bet your life on it. :good

[TBooze]

Well it only took 40 posts to come to the same conclusion that I posted yesterday! I still cannot figure out what this has to do with the title of the thread....

The reason I say this is there was never a year '0' in our Gergorian calender so actually crosstrainer is right a decade is year 1 to year 10 and so on for our calender...

[Manassa]

All I can do is repeat myself...

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

You should refer to your 'year 1' as 'the first year' - it's more adequate. By saying 'year 1' you make it sound as though time started at the point 'one' - it did not, and I think you are realizing this now.

In the most basic definition I can give; year numbers signify the end of something, rather than the start. 'One' represents the end of the first year, 'two' represents the end of the second and so on - 'two' is not the start of the second year, but the third. The third year will tick away and eventually hit the 'three' mark, where the fourth year will begin.

Time didn't start at 0AD, our world as we know it is much older than that, but I have been using it as a simpler checkpoint in which to measure from. Time starts at the zero point, and when it reaches 'one', one year has passed. at 1AD, one year had passed already, since there was a time gap between 0AD and the former.

Again, look at a stopwatch. It doesn't immediately display '1:00:00', it starts at 0:00:00 and there is a gap of one second, the first second, before it reaches 1:00:00.

'One' is indeed the name of the first year... But it doesn't start at one, it starts at zero. Sometimes this can differ however, as in months where the first day is marked 'day 1'. But you cannot apply this to the measurement of years - years start from zero.

[cross_trainer]

All I can do is repeat myself...

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

You should refer to your 'year 1' as 'the first year' - it's more adequate. By saying 'year 1' you make it sound as though time started at the point 'one' - it did not, and I think you are realizing this now.

In the most basic definition I can give; year numbers signify the end of something, rather than the start. 'One' represents the end of the first year, 'two' represents the end of the second and so on - 'two' is not the start of the second year, but the third. The third year will tick away and eventually hit the 'three' mark, where the fourth year will begin.

Time didn't start at 0AD, our world as we know it is much older than that, but I have been using it as a simpler checkpoint in which to measure from. Time starts at the zero point, and when it reaches 'one', one year has passed. at 1AD, one year had passed already, since there was a time gap between 0AD and the former.

Again, look at a stopwatch. It doesn't immediately display '1:00:00', it starts at 0:00:00 and there is a gap of one second, the first second, before it reaches 1:00:00.

'One' is indeed the name of the first year... But it doesn't start at one, it starts at zero. Sometimes this can differ however, as in months where the first day is marked 'day 1'. But you cannot apply this to the measurement of years - years start from zero.

We know. This makes sense. It should work that way.

But the older Gregorian calendar DID NOT work that way. It did not make sense, but was the official way of doing it. That is the method we're using.


Look, forget it. Duran's career is the same regardless of whether he lived under a Gregorian or a modern calendar. Let's get to the pound for pound lists and forget the niceties of date, shall we?

[Nick Balsamo]

Top 10 fighters 1951 to 1960

10 Floyd Patterson
9 Carmen Bassilio
8 Jimmy Curruthers
7 Kid Gavilan
6 Rocky Marciano
5 Pascual Perez
4 Joe Brown
3 Sandy Saddler
2 Archie Moore
1 Ray Robinson

Mentions:

Dado Marino, Alphonse Halimi, Willie Pep, Hogan Kid Bassey, Davey Moore, Carlos Ortiz, Don Jordan, Bobo Olson, Gene Fullmer, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ingemar Johansson

Top 10 fighters 1961 to 1970

10 Dick Tiger
9 Nicolino Loche
8 Bob Foster
7 Jose Napoles
6 Vincente Saldivar
5 Muhammad Ali
4 Nino Benvenuti
3 Carlos Ortiz
2 Eder Jofre
1 Emile Griffith

Mentions:

Pone Kingpetch, Fighting Harada, Lionel Rose, Ruben Olivares, Davey Moore, Sugar Ramos, Flash Elorde, Ismael Laguna, Duilio Loi, Benny Paret, Luis Rodriguez, Curtis Cokes, Ki-Soo Kim, Joey Giardello, Carlos Monzon, Willie Pastrano, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier

Top 10 fighters 1971 to 1979

10 Eder Jofre
9 Ruben Olivares
8 Alexis Arguello
7 Antonio Cervantes
6 Bob Foster
5 Jose Napoles
4 Carlos Zarate
3 Muhammad Ali
2 Carlos Monzon
1 Roberto Duran


Mentions:

Yuko Gushiken, Alfonso Zamora, Lupe Pintor, Wilfredo Gomez, Ernesto Marcel, Danny Lopez, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu (Suzuki), Nicolino Loche, Wilfred Benitez, Pipino Cuevas, Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard, Rodrigo Valdez, John Conteh, Victor Galindez, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and Ken Norton


Top 10 fighters 1980 to 1989

10 Roberto Duran
9 Aaron Pryor
8 Eusebio Pedroza
7 Julio Cesar Chavez
6 Larry Holmes
5 Michael Spinks
4 Tommy Hearns
3 Mike Tyson
2 Marvin Hagler
1 Ray Leonard

Mentions:

Alexis Arguello, Hector Camacho, Lupe Pintor, Sot Chitalada, Michael Nunn, Jeff Fenech, Myung Woo Yuh, Jung Koo Chang, Mike McCallum, Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker, Jeff Chandler, Khoasio Galaxy, Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson




Top 10 fighters 1990 to 1999



10 Julio Cesar Chavez
9 James Toney
8 Felix Trinidad
7 Naseem Hamed
6 Terry Norris
5 Pernell Whitaker
4 Evander Holyfield
3 Ricardo Lopez
2 Roy Jones Jr
1 Oscar de la Hoya

Mentions:

Virgil Hill, Nigel Benn, Saman Sorjaturong, Kostya Tszyu, Azumah Nelson, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Marco Antonio Barrera, Bernard Hopkins, Shane Mosley, Riddick Bowe, Brian Mitchell, Dariusz Michalczewski, Kaosai Galaxy, Orlando Canizales and Lennox Lewis

Fire away, there is scope for a lot of improvement pre 1960, I am open to suggestions.





Excellent list, but what about Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson in your honorable mentions ?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Old Fogey is right, but I agree with Manassa in that it shouldn't be the case, but it is and that's that. Anyway, can we get back to what should be a crackin' thread. :good

[Manassa]

So basically, I should have designed the calendar.

Why can't everyone be as intelligent as me? We'd be experimenting with teleportation and worm hole manipulation by now.

[TBooze]

Excellent list, but what about Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson in your honorable mentions ?

I gave mentions to the fighters I had rated 11 to 25 in the 80s and 90s. I had Johnson rated at #35 for the 90s.