View Full Version : Bert Sugars top 100- is he too old school?


HaglerSteelChin
12-30-2009, 12:10 AM
I just got the book today and have seen his list before. It is a bit different from the ESPN and Ring Magazine list. There are many modern fighters as DLH, Mayweather Jr, Eric Morales who dont make it. How can Fighting Harada not make top 100 and Pancho Villa be so high?

Ricardo Lopez higher than Benitez and MOnzon? I think Sugar as a journalist brings personal bias into this. Although i actually do like his commentary.

Thread Stealer
12-30-2009, 12:47 AM
I don't like how he didn't have Michael Spinks in the top 100.

Spinks is one of the greatest light-heavyweights ever, a division that's been around a long time and has a good history with terrific fighters. And then he moved up and became the recognized heavyweight champ.

HaglerSteelChin
12-30-2009, 12:53 AM
I don't like how he didn't have Michael Spinks in the top 100.

Spinks is one of the greatest light-heavyweights ever, a division that's been around a long time and has a good history with terrific fighters. And then he moved up and became the recognized heavyweight champ.

Michael Spinks did make it on some of the other lists. I think he will be remembered alot for that lost to Tyson in 90 seconds. But i think he had a greater accomplishment than many who go from cruiser to HW as Holyfied did. That is an extra 25lbs at minimum and likely 40 pounds since most will at 215 or more during his time. He was the first to beat the Legendary Holmes even if some didnt agree with both decisions in those fights. One bad loss shouldnt destroy an entire legacy.

BennyST
12-30-2009, 02:49 AM
I just got the book today and have seen his list before. It is a bit different from the ESPN and Ring Magazine list. There are many modern fighters as DLH, Mayweather Jr, Eric Morales who dont make it. How can Fighting Harada not make top 100 and Pancho Villa be so high?

Ricardo Lopez higher than Benitez and MOnzon? I think Sugar as a journalist brings personal bias into this. Although i actually do like his commentary.

I could see Lopez being higher than Benitez maybe but not Monzon.

TBear
12-30-2009, 05:15 AM
Everybody has a different list, it's a difference of opinion, Bert has been around awhile so we'd expect his to be solid, but any list can/would be debated.

sonnyboyx2
12-30-2009, 08:02 AM
Everybody has a different list, it's a difference of opinion, Bert has been around awhile so we'd expect his to be solid, but any list can/would be debated.

very true..

The_Demon
12-30-2009, 09:06 AM
its just a matter of opinion,but i dont agree with his list completely

Ziggy Stardust
12-30-2009, 11:52 AM
Ain't nothing wrong with "old school"; that being said, Burt Sugar is a bit of a joke among boxing historians. He isn't really a boxing historian in anycase: He's just a journalist and not a particularly good one at that.

Poet

sonnyboyx2
12-30-2009, 12:52 PM
Ain't nothing wrong with "old school"; that being said, Burt Sugar is a bit of a joke among boxing historians. He isn't really a boxing historian in anycase: He's just a journalist and not a particularly good one at that.

Poet

Burt Sugar has attended more boxing shows than you could ever dream of, The guy writes books, newspaper articles and does guest appearances on TV talking about Historical Boxing yet you claim the guy is nothing but a Joke? how stupid can you get.. your posts are now bordering on a level as ridiculous as Mr Boxers... its only a matter of time unto you both are known as the Laurel & Hardy` of this boxing forum :*******:

phallus
12-30-2009, 11:08 PM
i don't agree with everyone on his list but he's seen alot more of the old fighters than we have. lol, no one on this forum is as old as sugar

HaglerSteelChin
12-30-2009, 11:36 PM
I agree nothing wrong with being old school but he seems saturated with guys from the 1930's and earlier. De La Hoya, Mayweather Jr, Morales are not top 100? Also the book has alot of editing errors, it may seem trivial but if you tell somone Duran won his 3rd weight class at 160 instead of 4 than his incorrect facts make you look stupid. Also some of his analogies seem just tastless comparing stuff with "people dying while being thrown to lions during the roman empire", "vietnam body counts", "wam bam thank you mam" not exactly in the best taste.

Joey Giardello
12-31-2009, 01:35 AM
I dont understand how bert doesnt rate michael spinks in his top 100? for me the guy is a top 50 fighter no questions asked! also he rates grazino and zale but not trinidad or holman williams?

HaglerSteelChin
12-31-2009, 01:53 AM
I dont understand how bert doesnt rate michael spinks in his top 100? for me the guy is a top 50 fighter no questions asked! also he rates grazino and zale but not trinidad or holman williams?

Being a journalist he has a personal relationship with many boxers. Its hard to believe that personal bias is not put there. Spinks beat Holmes who had over 20 defenses-even if it was a close decision. He went from LHW which is lower than Cruiser, he was unbeaten until the Tyson KO. He is definitely top 100. FIghting Harada beats Eder Jofre twice but Jofre makes #28 and Harada cant make top 100?

JAB5239
12-31-2009, 06:19 AM
I agree nothing wrong with being old school but he seems saturated with guys from the 1930's and earlier. De La Hoya, Mayweather Jr, Morales are not top 100? Also the book has alot of editing errors, it may seem trivial but if you tell somone Duran won his 3rd weight class at 160 instead of 4 than his incorrect facts make you look stupid. Also some of his analogies seem just tastless comparing stuff with "people dying while being thrown to lions during the roman empire", "vietnam body counts", "wam bam thank you mam" not exactly in the best taste.

Don't quote me on this, but I'd imagine his criteria has a lot to do with the amount of fights a fighter had and how good his comp was. Floyd Mayweather is as talented a fighter as we've ever seen, but based on who and how often he and his competition fight he isn't even comparable to many fighters throughout history who fought much, much more and against all the top fighters. Him and others not making the top 100 is a bit of a leap for me too, But to each his own.

Ziggy Stardust
12-31-2009, 09:46 AM
Burt Sugar has attended more boxing shows than you could ever dream of, The guy writes books, newspaper articles and does guest appearances on TV talking about Historical Boxing yet you claim the guy is nothing but a Joke?

He's seen all those fights yet learned so little. It took Bert Sugar until the 1990s for God's sake to rate Muhammed Ali a top-5 Heavyweight. Sugar is as biased as they come: Not surprising since he's a journalist and not a historian. Sugar never lets the facts interfere with a good story which is why he perpetuates such myths as "Willie Pep won a round without throwing a single punch" long after those myths have been demonstrated to be false.

how stupid can you get.. your posts are now bordering on a level as ridiculous as Mr Boxers... its only a matter of time unto you both are known as the Laurel & Hardy` of this boxing forum :*******:

How asinine can YOU get? You've reduced yourself to an embittered internet troll along the lines of Slimeypoophead: Trolling the Boxing History section to discover which fighters get respect then trying (and failing) to discredit and malign them. Really, you're just a sad little man :bottle:

Poet

sonnyboyx2
12-31-2009, 10:42 AM
He's seen all those fights yet learned so little. It took Bert Sugar until the 1990s for God's sake to rate Muhammed Ali a top-5 Heavyweight. Sugar is as biased as they come: Not surprising since he's a journalist and not a historian. Sugar never lets the facts interfere with a good story which is why he perpetuates such myths as "Willie Pep won a round without throwing a single punch" long after those myths have been demonstrated to be false.



How asinine can YOU get? You've reduced yourself to an embittered internet troll along the lines of Slimeypoophead: Trolling the Boxing History section to discover which fighters get respect then trying (and failing) to discredit and malign them. Really, you're just a sad little man :bottle:

Poet

No Trolling here mate.. just tit-bits from a guy who knows his boxing history..i never discredit any fighters, i tell it how i see it unlike yourself, ... on the Hagler vs Leonard thread i could have easily pointed out that Hagler turned down $12 million to fight Leonard in a 1990 rematch yet i never mentioned it simply because that would be what you call "discrediting a fighter" where as it bore no relevance to the topic of who won their fight... so you can continue your game of trying to assasinate my knowledge and character which you will never succeed in doing...

now hurry on back to your buddy "Mr Boxer" and between you both you can come up with a couple more ridiculous comments that will bring the New Year in with a good laugh for everyone...

GJC
01-01-2010, 05:05 PM
on the Hagler vs Leonard thread i could have easily pointed out that Hagler turned down $12 million to fight Leonard in a 1990 rematch

Would like to see a source on that, i.e. Hagler saying he turned it down.
Even so he didn't offer an immediate rematch after the 87 fight so offering one 3 years later when Hagler had been eating Pasta in Italy for a couple of years doesn't mean much IMO.

GJC
01-01-2010, 05:07 PM
I dont understand how bert doesnt rate michael spinks in his top 100? for me the guy is a top 50 fighter no questions asked! also he rates grazino and zale but not trinidad or holman williams?
That does kind of trivialise the list somewhat doesn't it?
I think like Nat Fleischer before him that Sugar gets a lot of kudos for being around a loooong time rather than for the veracity of his opinions.

sonnyboyx2
01-02-2010, 04:28 AM
Would like to see a source on that, i.e. Hagler saying he turned it down.
Even so he didn't offer an immediate rematch after the 87 fight so offering one 3 years later when Hagler had been eating Pasta in Italy for a couple of years doesn't mean much IMO.

here is a source.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/news/story?page=add_hagler_marvin

GJC
01-02-2010, 12:26 PM
here is a source.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/news/story?page=add_hagler_marvin
No mention of it in that link sonny?

GJC
01-02-2010, 12:30 PM
No mention of it in that link sonny?
My apologies I spotted it. Wouldn't really put that as more than newspaper talk really. Not saying it isn't true but would be more inclined to believe it if it quoted Hagler saying I turned it down because ......

sonnyboyx2
01-02-2010, 12:45 PM
My apologies I spotted it. Wouldn't really put that as more than newspaper talk really. Not saying it isn't true but would be more inclined to believe it if it quoted Hagler saying I turned it down because ......

the source is ESPN sports.. who are heavily involved in boxing so i see it as being correct, also i can remember a few articles back in the late 80s of Leonard saying he was willing to give Hagler a rematch... Lets not forget that Thomas Hearns shouted for a rematch with Hagler even fighting an eliminator against `Black Gold`Shuler yet he was never granted it by Marvin.

- v e t -
01-02-2010, 12:48 PM
I just got the book today and have seen his list before. It is a bit different from the ESPN and Ring Magazine list. There are many modern fighters as DLH, Mayweather Jr, Eric Morales who dont make it. How can Fighting Harada not make top 100 and Pancho Villa be so high?

Ricardo Lopez higher than Benitez and MOnzon? I think Sugar as a journalist brings personal bias into this. Although i actually do like his commentary.

nothing wrong with that IMO

finito was always underrated in the public eye

GJC
01-02-2010, 03:17 PM
the source is ESPN sports.. who are heavily involved in boxing so i see it as being correct, also i can remember a few articles back in the late 80s of Leonard saying he was willing to give Hagler a rematch... Lets not forget that Thomas Hearns shouted for a rematch with Hagler even fighting an eliminator against `Black Gold`Shuler yet he was never granted it by Marvin.

Like I said earlier whether it is true or not I give it little credence, I am sure that Hagler wanted an immediate rematch. To offer one a few years later when a guy has settled into retirement is a b/s move really.

I am aware that Hearns wanted a rematch but I guess the timeline was wrong, whatever your opinion of Hagler it is difficult to name a credible MW he ducked within his reign.

HaglerSteelChin
01-02-2010, 05:34 PM
nothing wrong with that IMO

finito was always underrated in the public eye

i can see Lopez higher than Benitez possibly but Monzon never. Monzon didnt lose in his last 70 or so fights and he beat several guys that went to the hall of fame as Griffith, Napoles, and Benevenutti, Lopez didnt have that competition.

But i would agree that often guys in the lower classes tend to be overlooked as fighters Pongsaklek Wonjongkam and Ivan Calderon who don't get the as much acclaim as others.

Joey Giardello
01-02-2010, 05:36 PM
Would like to see a source on that, i.e. Hagler saying he turned it down.
Even so he didn't offer an immediate rematch after the 87 fight so offering one 3 years later when Hagler had been eating Pasta in Italy for a couple of years doesn't mean much IMO.

sugar ray never wanted no part of a prime hagler, the 1987 hagler had seen better days, and can you imagine what the 1990 marvin would of looked like after 3 years of pasta and red wine lol

HaglerSteelChin
01-02-2010, 06:19 PM
sugar ray never wanted no part of a prime hagler, the 1987 hagler had seen better days, and can you imagine what the 1990 marvin would of looked like after 3 years of pasta and red wine lol

There is no doubt Leonard didnt want to fight Hagler in the early 1980's. After the Roldan fight Hagler called out Leonard when he was with HBO sitting as a commentator and before that as well. I have those Hagler fights and he wanted Leonard for a long time. Leonard saw the Mugabi fight and saw Hagler slowed a little due to the heavy punishment he had absorbed and thought his chance finally came to fight an older hagler. In addition, he put on all those stipulations Big Ring, Gloves size, and 12 RDS instead of 15. Nonetheless, my favorite two fighters finally collided in the ring, and if there would be a rematch than it should have been within 12 months of the fight and not in 1989 or 1990.

GJC
01-02-2010, 06:42 PM
There is no doubt Leonard didnt want to fight Hagler in the early 1980's. After the Roldan fight Hagler called out Leonard when he was with HBO sitting as a commentator and before that as well. I have those Hagler fights and he wanted Leonard for a long time. Leonard saw the Mugabi fight and saw Hagler slowed a little due to the heavy punishment he had absorbed and thought his chance finally came to fight an older hagler. In addition, he put on all those stipulations Big Ring, Gloves size, and 12 RDS instead of 15. Nonetheless, my favorite two fighters finally collided in the ring, and if there would be a rematch than it should have been within 12 months of the fight and not in 1989 or 1990.
That's my take on it too, plays well for the newspapers though I guess.

sonnyboyx2
01-03-2010, 04:55 AM
Like I said earlier whether it is true or not I give it little credence, I am sure that Hagler wanted an immediate rematch. To offer one a few years later when a guy has settled into retirement is a b/s move really.

I am aware that Hearns wanted a rematch but I guess the timeline was wrong, whatever your opinion of Hagler it is difficult to name a credible MW he ducked within his reign.

i agree... Hagler never ducked no MWs he was a great champion no doubt about it, but IMO he was not the superior of Leonard & Hearns

GJC
01-03-2010, 10:23 AM
i agree... Hagler never ducked no MWs he was a great champion no doubt about it, but IMO he was not the superior of Leonard & Hearns
P4P Leonard is superior.
Hearns is a tricky call on whether he was p4p better than Hagler.
Had he have put together a dominant reign or looked like doing so in one weight division I think it might have swung it for him, but I always had the feeling that there was always a better guy in any particular weight division to beat him.
Liked him to have stuck at light middle to be honest think he could have dominated there.

sonnyboyx2
01-03-2010, 10:51 AM
P4P Leonard is superior.
Hearns is a tricky call on whether he was p4p better than Hagler.
Had he have put together a dominant reign or looked like doing so in one weight division I think it might have swung it for him, but I always had the feeling that there was always a better guy in any particular weight division to beat him.
Liked him to have stuck at light middle to be honest think he could have dominated there.
common opponents they both fought Hearns came out best
although it is meaningless and only of interest to the anoraks.

Hagler vs Geraldo W Pts -- Hearns KO1
Hagler vs Duran W Pts --- Hearns KO2
Hagler vs Roldan TKO10 --- Hearns KO4
Hagler vs Leonard L12 ---- Hearns LTKO14 & D12

if Leonard vs Hearns (1) was fought over 12rds Hearns would have been a clear winner.

GJC
01-03-2010, 11:01 AM
common opponents they both fought Hearns came out best
although it is meaningless and only of interest to the anoraks.

Hagler vs Geraldo W Pts -- Hearns KO1
Hagler vs Duran W Pts --- Hearns KO2
Hagler vs Roldan TKO10 --- Hearns KO4
Hagler vs Leonard L12 ---- Hearns LTKO14 & D12

if Leonard vs Hearns (1) was fought over 12rds Hearns would have been a clear winner.

Yeah common opponents is one of the great red herrings, Hearns beat Duran comfortably, Barkley beat Hearns twice so naturally Barkley beats......

Ironically although I always say Leonard always did very well with the judges the 1st Hearns fight is one where I think he was getting ripped off.
An argument for another day maybe ;)

Rocker
01-03-2010, 11:35 AM
It's all in a matter of opinion but I don't agree with his list. It seems to have a certain amount of bias in it, in my opinion.

HaglerSteelChin
01-03-2010, 02:51 PM
It's all in a matter of opinion but I don't agree with his list. It seems to have a certain amount of bias in it, in my opinion.

I dont like getting into the race issue but its odd that 12 of the top 20 fighters are white. Dont get me wrong, some of those are greeat fighters but many due to segregation laws didnt even fight black fighters. Also the pool of latin fighters didnt really make it an impact until the 1930's and to a major extent in the 1950's.

Its important to consider the vast pool of fighters available to fight to consider true greatness.

GJC
01-03-2010, 03:09 PM
I dont like getting into the race issue but its odd that 12 of the top 20 fighters are white. Dont get me wrong, some of those are greeat fighters but many due to segregation laws didnt even fight black fighters. Also the pool of latin fighters didnt really make it an impact until the 1930's and to a major extent in the 1950's.

Its important to consider the vast pool of fighters available to fight to consider true greatness.
Never really noticed it to be honest, I don't agree with the list and re the race thing I personally wouldn't have Jack Johnson, great HW though he was, so high.
I can think of a fair few coloured fighters above him p4p. Ditto Chavez. Ditto Dempsey.
Not a big fan of Sugar's and think that maybe there is an element of who made great "copy" rather than a pure boxing viewpoint?

HaglerSteelChin
01-03-2010, 03:22 PM
Never really noticed it to be honest, I don't agree with the list and re the race thing I personally wouldn't have Jack Johnson, great HW though he was, so high.
I can think of a fair few coloured fighters above him p4p. Ditto Chavez. Ditto Dempsey.
Not a big fan of Sugar's and think that maybe there is an element of who made great "copy" rather than a pure boxing viewpoint?

Yes i think that is why he has Dempsey so high. Dempsey was one of early big celebrities of the sport. Even if some thought his gloves were loaded when he KOD the much bigger Willard by shattering his jaw in several places.
Ali at #7 is a joke, Ali beat 7 guys who went to the HOF and was champ on 3 occassions.

sonnyboyx2
01-03-2010, 03:44 PM
i cannot really disagree with his list.. yes it is mainly old school fighters but it would be picked apart by boxing fans if he had not chosen those ATG fighters... what if he had Kelly Pavlik at No22 could you honestly see Pavlik last more than 4rds against Marcel Cerdan who he has at No23. The fighters on Berts list are all legendary fighters who mostly fought when we had only 8 weight divisions with only one undisputed champion unlike today where we have 72 belts on offer

sonnyboyx2
01-03-2010, 04:03 PM
Never really noticed it to be honest, I don't agree with the list and re the race thing I personally wouldn't have Jack Johnson, great HW though he was, so high.
I can think of a fair few coloured fighters above him p4p. Ditto Chavez. Ditto Dempsey.
Not a big fan of Sugar's and think that maybe there is an element of who made great "copy" rather than a pure boxing viewpoint?

i understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that a Jack Johnson fight was 10 times bigger than Pacquiao vs Mayweather as was a Dempsey fight, todays fight fans do not grasp just how collossal fighters like those two was in their day, Tex Rickard Dempsey`s promotor had Madison Square Gardens built for Jack Dempsey such was the enormous interest in him, same with Jack Johnson who both Gilbert Old & Nat Fleitcher claimed was the greatest of all times with Gilbert Old making his statement at ringside after watching Holmes vs Norton in 1978... who are we compaired to those great writers who sat ringside fight after fight, year after year and put it into print for future generations to read.. yet we ignore it and sit watching on cold-flat-screen (TV) then call them jokers or biased or racist... just like posters on this topic who call Bert Sugar "A JOKE"..... why is the guy a joke.. i was at ringside in 2007 for Mosley vs Cotto at MSG Bert was just in front of me in the press section, he never spoke to me personally but i could overhear him talking to his colleagues and he most definately knows his stuff and should never be written off as some crazy old fool who knows nothing about boxing or is biased.. Bert was editor of Boxing Illustrated also editor of The Ring Magazine, he has wrote over 80 books on boxing history and is in a better position to compile a Top 100 greatest Boxers List than any man in the world.

T.Horton
01-03-2010, 05:32 PM
i understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that a Jack Johnson fight was 10 times bigger than Pacquiao vs Mayweather as was a Dempsey fight, todays fight fans do not grasp just how collossal fighters like those two was in their day, Tex Rickard Dempsey`s promotor had Madison Square Gardens built for Jack Dempsey such was the enormous interest in him, same with Jack Johnson who both Gilbert Old & Nat Fleitcher claimed was the greatest of all times with Gilbert Old making his statement at ringside after watching Holmes vs Norton in 1978... who are we compaired to those great writers who sat ringside fight after fight, year after year and put it into print for future generations to read.. yet we ignore it and sit watching on cold-flat-screen (TV) then call them jokers or biased or racist... just like posters on this topic who call Bert Sugar "A JOKE"..... why is the guy a joke.. i was at ringside in 2007 for Mosley vs Cotto at MSG Bert was just in front of me in the press section, he never spoke to me personally but i could overhear him talking to his colleagues and he most definately knows his stuff and should never be written off as some crazy old fool who knows nothing about boxing or is biased.. Bert was editor of Boxing Illustrated also editor of The Ring Magazine, he has wrote over 80 books on boxing history and is in a better position to compile a Top 100 greatest Boxers List than any man in the world.i think that you mean to say Gilbert Odd.

HaglerSteelChin
01-03-2010, 06:36 PM
Bert Sugar is not the most qualified person to write about boxing or evaluate fighters. As i said in my first post, i actually do like him as a person even if i think he is biased at times. Is sugar more qualified than Larry Merchant who has been around since the dinosaur age? Is he more qualified than people who have been both trainers and commentators as Emmanuel Steward and Gil Clancy? Bert Sugar was never a fighter or a trainer; that is like a non musician or the public determing who is the greatest composer? It just opinion.

For example, if you go by the public many people never thought of Handel as a top 5 composer, yet his peers thought the most about him. Beethoven said "handel is the greatest composer that ever lived......i would kneel before his tomb", Bach said " If i wasent Bach i would want to be Handel", Mozart "Handel understands effects better than all of us when he strikes its like a thunder bolt", and Haydn said Handel is the master of us all." Yet in most lists handel barely makes top 10.

Ali was considered the greatest HW by a fair amount of his peers and trainers- some even hated him as a person due to his big mouth. Yet Sugar has him 7. When almost no other journalist or boxer have him lower #4.

I tell you where i think he brings bias by having Lopez higher than Monzon. Monzon was a bad person he killed his wife, punch out photagraphers possibly some of sugar's friends. Monzon fought on a division where there is great amount of talent due to the fact that many fighters fight at MW. Lopez was a straw weight and fought at light flyweight. Monzon beat atleast 3 hall of fame fighters Benevenutti, Napoles, and Griffith and how many Lopez beat? Lopez was unbeaten in 52 fights and Monzon went his last 70 plus fights without a lost. Monzon had a record 14 title defenses in arubably the toughest division in boxing. But Lopez higher than Monzon? Lopez like 32 slots higher than Salvador Sanchez? Sanchez who beat fighters as Danny Red Lopez, Juan La Porte , Azulmah Nelson, Ruben Castillo and Wilfredo Gomez. Every list is debated as ESPN and RIng Magazine but there were just some fishy rankings.

sonnyboyx2
01-04-2010, 04:23 AM
Bert Sugar is not the most qualified person to write about boxing or evaluate fighters. As i said in my first post, i actually do like him as a person even if i think he is biased at times. Is sugar more qualified than Larry Merchant who has been around since the dinosaur age? Is he more qualified than people who have been both trainers and commentators as Emmanuel Steward and Gil Clancy? Bert Sugar was never a fighter or a trainer; that is like a non musician or the public determing who is the greatest composer? It just opinion.

For example, if you go by the public many people never thought of Handel as a top 5 composer, yet his peers thought the most about him. Beethoven said "handel is the greatest composer that ever lived......i would kneel before his tomb", Bach said " If i wasent Bach i would want to be Handel", Mozart "Handel understands effects better than all of us when he strikes its like a thunder bolt", and Haydn said Handel is the master of us all." Yet in most lists handel barely makes top 10.

Ali was considered the greatest HW by a fair amount of his peers and trainers- some even hated him as a person due to his big mouth. Yet Sugar has him 7. When almost no other journalist or boxer have him lower #4.

I tell you where i think he brings bias by having Lopez higher than Monzon. Monzon was a bad person he killed his wife, punch out photagraphers possibly some of sugar's friends. Monzon fought on a division where there is great amount of talent due to the fact that many fighters fight at MW. Lopez was a straw weight and fought at light flyweight. Monzon beat atleast 3 hall of fame fighters Benevenutti, Napoles, and Griffith and how many Lopez beat? Lopez was unbeaten in 52 fights and Monzon went his last 70 plus fights without a lost. Monzon had a record 14 title defenses in arubably the toughest division in boxing. But Lopez higher than Monzon? Lopez like 32 slots higher than Salvador Sanchez? Sanchez who beat fighters as Danny Red Lopez, Juan La Porte , Azulmah Nelson, Ruben Castillo and Wilfredo Gomez. Every list is debated as ESPN and RIng Magazine but there were just some fishy rankings.

good comments and you are entitled to your opinion, guys like Merchant, Clancy & Stewart have never been in a position as privledged as Sugar has to judge boxers from the past, Stewart & Clancy can only go by the fighters they was involved with and the fights those fighters took part in where as Sugar had access to Historical documentation, Photographs & films in his position as editor & chief of the Sports biggest 2 publications as well as attending 100s of fights at ringside, which will have included Sanchez, Monzon & Lopez.. who did Stewart or Clancy train who fought those fighters?... Sugar has 1st hand knowledge of those fighters because he sat in the best seat in the house writing his reports.. i honestly do not think you are grasping the immensity of the job as editor of those magazines during 1969-1999... however i do agree that all fight-lists are debatable and Bert Sugar`s is not `carved in stone`as tablets of fact. but i can certainly understand how he has great fighters of yester-year rated ahead of current fighters and fighters from the last 25yrs or so... Bert Sugar never needed to be a fighter or a trainer to compile his list, was Larry Merchant a fighter or a trainer?.. Sugar will have visited training camps and gymnasiums and been at the heart of the fight game for over half-a-century, i think we should try to understand why he has rated these fighters so highly instead of rubbishing his choice because we as boxing fans dont happen to agree that he does not rate our favourite fighter as highly as we think he should.

markkerr101
01-04-2010, 05:29 AM
i think he is way too old school

Ziggy Stardust
01-04-2010, 10:21 AM
Let's just say Bert never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. That's what makes him qualified to be a journalist.....and disqualifies him as a historian.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
01-04-2010, 01:08 PM
There is nothing wrong with having fighters from the past. I personally felt Bert had Monzon, Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Whitaker, Fitzsimmons, Jones Jr, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford all to low.

And I feel he had Tony Zale, Jack Dempsey, Kid Chocolate, Joe Frazier, Carlos Zarate, Rocky Graziano all to high.

That is off the top of my head however........

And how in the world can Michael Spinks, Felix Trinidad, and Fighting Harada not be in a top 100 list?

tanibanana
01-05-2010, 12:03 AM
There is nothing wrong with having fighters from the past. I personally felt Bert had Monzon, Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Whitaker, Fitzsimmons, Jones Jr, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford all to low.

And I feel he had Tony Zale, Jack Dempsey, Kid Chocolate, Joe Frazier, Carlos Zarate, Rocky Graziano all to high.

That is off the top of my head however........

And how in the world can Michael Spinks, Felix Trinidad, and Fighting Harada not be in a top 100 list?
Great Great Post..

let me add that Sugar also put Jack Johnson, Mickey Walker,
Stanley Ketchel too high..

and put Carlos Ortiz too low..

GJC
01-05-2010, 05:00 PM
Bert Sugar is not the most qualified person to write about boxing or evaluate fighters. As i said in my first post, i actually do like him as a person even if i think he is biased at times. Is sugar more qualified than Larry Merchant who has been around since the dinosaur age?


Given that I am only a few years younger than Merchant that dates me back to the cavemen then ;). As much as I would like to believe otherwise age does not give your opinions any more veracity than a logical knowledgeable 18 year old.
Sugar has been given many opportunities( i.e. seats access etc) that all of us would kill for but in my view that entitles him to his opinion and that opinion is as valid as anyone else***8217;s. Quite often in the media a journalist might be allocated Ice Hockey to present or commentate on. He has no knowledge or real love of the sport but he has a good voice is eloquent and is a good broadcaster. If he commentates on it for 50 years he will become a doyen on the sport but does he feel it in his bones? No
To be given an opportunity doesn***8217;t always mean you take full advantage of it.

Let's just say Bert never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. That's what makes him qualified to be a journalist.....and disqualifies him as a historian.

Poet

Poet a well read man such as yourself knows that historians can be as biased as the next man!
David Irving is a classic case, I despise his opinions and disagree with 80% of his views.
I have read a couple of his books, you should always read the other view with an open mind, and I would say that he researches very well is knowledgeable and writes well. But like a lot of historians he will ignore facts that don***8217;t fit and over emphasise points which re-inforce his view.
Bit like the Kennedy assassination theories, there are at least 6 credible well thought out theories well knit together well if you ignore a few nagging details and you can be swayed by any of them if you have an open mind.
Only one of them can be right though, shame I***8217;ll not last long enough to ever know!

Ziggy Stardust
01-05-2010, 05:13 PM
Poet a well read man such as yourself knows that historians can be as biased as the next man!

They ought not to be though. In my view, any academic subject is tainted when personal biases are allowed to run wild.

Where Sugar's concerned, his constant perpetuation of myths long since proven false destroy any credibility he might otherwise have. It's what makes him a storyteller rather than a historian. The facts are imaterial as long as the story is good. Again, great for a jouranlist but not for a historian.


David Irving is a classic case, I despise his opinions and disagree with 80% of his views. I have read a couple of his books, you should always read the other view with an open mind, and I would say that he researches very well is knowledgeable and writes well. But like a lot of historians he will ignore facts that donít fit and over emphasise points which re-inforce his view.

I've never read him. Isn't he that neo-Nazi/Holocaust denier? If so that explains why I haven't read him! If I already know a historian's premise is bad then I usually avoid his work since his conclusions will also be bad regardless of how logical his argument is :D In anycase, if he IS the Holcaust denier then I seriously doubt he has any real standing in the academic community however much assorted skinheads (are they even literate?) like his work :chairshot

PS. Not claiming you're a skinhead for having read a couple of his books ;)


Bit like the Kennedy assassination theories, there are at least 6 credible well thought out theories well knit together well if you ignore a few nagging details and you can be swayed by any of them if you have an open mind. Only one of them can be right though, shame Iíll not last long enough to ever know!

Chances are I won't either so don't feel bad :biggthump

Poet

mickey malone
01-06-2010, 12:45 AM
PS. Not claiming you're a skinhead for having read a couple of his books


LOL... GJC or GDR?

GJC
01-06-2010, 05:37 PM
[QUOTE=poet682006;7182458]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I've never read him. Isn't he that neo-Nazi/Holocaust denier? If so that explains why I haven't read him! If I already know a historian's premise is bad then I usually avoid his work since his conclusions will also be bad regardless of how logical his argument is :D In anycase, if he IS the Holcaust denier then I seriously doubt he has any real standing in the academic community however much assorted skinheads (are they even literate?) like his work :chairshot

PS. Not claiming you're a skinhead for having read a couple of his books ;)

Yep that's the guy. As for his standing in the academic community I couldn't say. Like to read history books and I think it is important to read both sides of an argument. Like I said I despise everything the guy stands for but I think he is a good historian as such but just capable of obscuring major facts or digging out obscure facts and over emphasising their importance.

p.s. You have to have hair to be a skinhead I waved mine away a fews years past :)