View Full Version : Ezzard Charles or Ray Leonard?


CCobra
01-23-2010, 04:02 PM
Who do you rank higher P4P? Ezzard Charles or Sugar Ray Leonard. I see a lot of people ranking Leonard ahead of Charles and for the life of me I cannot see why. I personally have Charles ahead by quite a margin.

Method Checker
01-23-2010, 04:14 PM
Both Leonard and Charles beat 5 lineal champions.

Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, Kalule, Hearns and Hagler.

Charles beat Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Moore and Lesvenich.

What also needs to be taken into consideration are the top contenders beaten. I think Charles has a big lead on that one. But, then again, Leonard won more lineal titles than Charles.

It's all debatable and I do find them to be pretty close on an all-time great list.

CCobra
01-23-2010, 04:54 PM
What also needs to be taken into consideration are the top contenders beaten. I think Charles has a big lead on that one. But, then again, Leonard won more lineal titles than Charles.

It's all debatable and I do find them to be pretty close on an all-time great list.

Charles was denied a shot at both the Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight titles. Had he got the shot he deserved both times and won, he'd be a 3 weight world champion a time when there were no junior and super divisions. Ezzard Charles beat more HOFers, more elite fighters, more top contenders and fought all comers multiple times.

Leonard is an ATG, but I think Charles is just that much better than Leonard. H2H I'd take Charles too, he'd have busted him up in a MW, SMW or LHW title fight.

Method Checker
01-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Charles was denied a shot at both the Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight titles. Had he got the shot he deserved both times and won, he'd be a 3 weight world champion a time when there were no junior and super divisions. Ezzard Charles beat more HOFers, more elite fighters, more top contenders and fought all comers multiple times.

Leonard is an ATG, but I think Charles is just that much better than Leonard. H2H I'd take Charles too, he'd have busted him up in a MW, SMW or LHW title fight.

Of those HOFers, who were the better fighters? Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez and he defeated them when they were in their prime.

Charles beat Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Moore, L. Marshall and Burley. Granted that's more than Leonard's, but Bivins, Walcott and Louis weren't in their prime. Charles also lost to Walcott twice afterward.

wmute
01-23-2010, 05:26 PM
Who do you rank higher P4P? Ezzard Charles or Sugar Ray Leonard. I see a lot of people ranking Leonard ahead of Charles and for the life of me I cannot see why. I personally have Charles ahead by quite a margin.

Because most human beings lack perspective.

cotto16
01-23-2010, 06:53 PM
Of those HOFers, who were the better fighters? Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez and he defeated them when they were in their prime.

Charles beat Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Moore, L. Marshall and Burley. Granted that's more than Leonard's, but Bivins, Walcott and Louis weren't in their prime. Charles also lost to Walcott twice afterward.

And Bivins and Marshell also beat Charles!

JAB5239
01-23-2010, 08:28 PM
Charles was denied a shot at both the Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight titles. Had he got the shot he deserved both times and won, he'd be a 3 weight world champion a time when there were no junior and super divisions. Ezzard Charles beat more HOFers, more elite fighters, more top contenders and fought all comers multiple times.

Leonard is an ATG, but I think Charles is just that much better than Leonard. H2H I'd take Charles too, he'd have busted him up in a MW, SMW or LHW title fight.


I agree with this completely. Good post.

One more round
01-23-2010, 09:19 PM
Charles was the real deal. Ability wise, I think he was better than Ray Robinson. He did things that were technically far ahead of most of his contemporaries.

sonnyboyx2
01-24-2010, 05:03 AM
Charles was denied a shot at both the Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight titles. Had he got the shot he deserved both times and won, he'd be a 3 weight world champion a time when there were no junior and super divisions. Ezzard Charles beat more HOFers, more elite fighters, more top contenders and fought all comers multiple times.

Leonard is an ATG, but I think Charles is just that much better than Leonard. H2H I'd take Charles too, he'd have busted him up in a MW, SMW or LHW title fight.

i also agree with this post... Ezzard Charles was No1 contender for Tony Zale`s World Middleweight Title when the 2nd World War broke out...

What is very surprising to me is that when someone posts their ATG Top 10 Heavyweights Ezzard Charles is never in that list, yet if it is to be even suggested that Charles could beat fighters on that list you will "immediately be shot down in flames" with quotes like, "He was too little... He was only a light-heavy... He would be killed in the 1st round by a 6ft 6ins 250lb guy... He would never get past the jab... etc etc etc... these quotes could not be further from the truth... The same thing applies to Floyd Patterson who was a "Fantastic Boxer/Puncher" yet he barely makes most peoples Top ATG 30 list.... Ezzard Charles, Floyd Patterson & Muhammad Ali are the top 3 boxers in heavyweight history..

CCobra
01-24-2010, 05:28 AM
Of those HOFers, who were the better fighters? Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez and he defeated them when they were in their prime.

Charles beat Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Moore, L. Marshall and Burley. Granted that's more than Leonard's, but Bivins, Walcott and Louis weren't in their prime. Charles also lost to Walcott twice afterward.

Hagler & Duran were both post-prime. Hearns was overtrained (not Leonard's fault.. but was trailing when he stopped hearns.) and denied a rematch for a long time. Benitez is a good fighter, but I'd take Burley, Bivins, Moore, Marshall & Maxim over him as being better wins.

The depth that Charles' resume has is just incredible. He fought every top contender, every champion and every elite fighter that would fight him from middleweight to heavyweight - no exceptions. The guy was way past his best and still taking on all comers like Harold Johnson and Rocky Marciano. In fact, he came close to beating prime Rocky twice.

Leonard's resume isn't as impressive as it's made out to be.. he beat 4 great fighters (two post-prime) and the rest is filled with average contenders and "retirements".

And Bivins and Marshell also beat Charles

So what? Hearns (unofficial) and Duran also beat Sugar Ray Leonard.

Charles was the real deal. Ability wise, I think he was better than Ray Robinson. He did things that were technically far ahead of most of his contemporaries.

i also agree with this post... Ezzard Charles was No1 contender for Tony Zale`s World Middleweight Title when the 2nd World War broke out...

What is very surprising to me is that when someone posts their ATG Top 10 Heavyweights Ezzard Charles is never in that list, yet if it is to be even suggested that Charles could beat fighters on that list you will "immediately be shot down in flames" with quotes like, "He was too little... He was only a light-heavy... He would be killed in the 1st round by a 6ft 6ins 250lb guy... He would never get past the jab... etc etc etc... these quotes could not be further from the truth... The same thing applies to Floyd Patterson who was a "Fantastic Boxer/Puncher" yet he barely makes most peoples Top ATG 30 list.... Ezzard Charles, Floyd Patterson & Muhammad Ali are the top 3 boxers in heavyweight history..

Patterson is a top 25 HW, Charles is top 20 and Ali is top 2.

Method Checker
01-24-2010, 03:39 PM
Hagler & Duran were both post-prime. Hearns was overtrained (not Leonard's fault.. but was trailing when he stopped hearns.) and denied a rematch for a long time. Benitez is a good fighter, but I'd take Burley, Bivins, Moore, Marshall & Maxim over him as being better wins.
Post-prime and over-trained? Those are just excuses.

In reality, Hagler, as great as he was, lost to a welterweight who had been out for a couple of years. He beat one of the greatest middleweights of all-time in his comeback fight.

Duran was out-boxed by Leonard twice. The third time, he wasn't in his prime. The second time, he was. Just because it wasn't at lightweight doesn't mean it wasn't in his prime.

And if you're bashing his Hearns win because he was behind on the scorecard, then that means Ali's victory of Lyle should be bashed because he was behind on the scorecards, as well. Nobody thinks like that, unless they're looking for excuses.

The depth that Charles' resume has is just incredible. He fought every top contender, every champion and every elite fighter that would fight him from middleweight to heavyweight - no exceptions. The guy was way past his best and still taking on all comers like Harold Johnson and Rocky Marciano. In fact, he came close to beating prime Rocky twice.
He has a great resume and he did take on all of the top contenders, but match his greatest wins to Leonard's greatest wins. I think most people will agree that Leonard has the greater wins.

And he didn't come close to beating Marciano. He lost a clear decision and got knocked out in the second fight.

Leonard's resume isn't as impressive as it's made out to be.. he beat 4 great fighters (two post-prime) and the rest is filled with average contenders and "retirements".
It's all excuses. If you can't present a valid argument, you shouldn't be debating.

wmute
01-25-2010, 11:37 AM
Post-prime and over-trained? Those are just excuses.

In reality, Hagler, as great as he was, lost to a welterweight who had been out for a couple of years. He beat one of the greatest middleweights of all-time in his comeback fight.

Duran was out-boxed by Leonard twice. The third time, he wasn't in his prime. The second time, he was. Just because it wasn't at lightweight doesn't mean it wasn't in his prime.

And if you're bashing his Hearns win because he was behind on the scorecard, then that means Ali's victory of Lyle should be bashed because he was behind on the scorecards, as well. Nobody thinks like that, unless they're looking for excuses.


He has a great resume and he did take on all of the top contenders, but match his greatest wins to Leonard's greatest wins. I think most people will agree that Leonard has the greater wins.

And he didn't come close to beating Marciano. He lost a clear decision and got knocked out in the second fight.


It's all excuses. If you can't present a valid argument, you shouldn't be debating.

Charles' resume leaves no space for those. Leonard''s does. This is why Charles is ranked higher.

Obama
01-25-2010, 01:57 PM
Charles was the best LHW in the 40s...even better than Archie Moore. Charles is also rated p4p higher than all the fighters he beat, except for maaaaybe Joe Louis (close). I wouldn't rate Leonard over Duran or Hearns p4p. I'll explain Hearns briefly.

WW: Leonard > Hearns
JMW: Hearns > Leonard
MW: Leonard > Hearns
SMW: Hearns > Leonard
LHW: Hearns > Leonard

3-2 Hearns.

Going by best wins, Leonard's best win is Hearns (would be Hagler if he wasn't past his prime), while Charles' best win is Moore.

Leonard is realistically 1-1 with Hearns, said so himself.
Charles is 3-0 with Moore.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 02:30 PM
Charles was the best LHW in the 40s...even better than Archie Moore. Charles is also rated p4p higher than all the fighters he beat, except for maaaaybe Joe Louis (close). I wouldn't rate Leonard over Duran or Hearns p4p. I'll explain Hearns briefly.

WW: Leonard > Hearns
JMW: Hearns > Leonard
MW: Leonard > Hearns
SMW: Hearns > Leonard
LHW: Hearns > Leonard

3-2 Hearns.

Going by best wins, Leonard's best win is Hearns (would be Hagler if he wasn't past his prime), while Charles' best win is Moore.

Leonard is realistically 1-1 with Hearns, said so himself.
Charles is 3-0 with Moore.

I'm all for debating and hearing opinions but that was just stupid.

Obama
01-25-2010, 02:31 PM
I'm all for debating and hearing opinions but that was just stupid.

Thanks for admitting that you're defeated.

donkim
01-25-2010, 02:36 PM
Thanks for admitting that you're defeated.


Grow up dunce.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 02:39 PM
Thanks for admitting that you're defeated.

Defeated by what? That wasn't a valid argument..

One of the reasons you gave of why you think Charles is greater than Leonard is because, in a series of fantasy match-ups, Hearns beats Leonard 3 out of 5 times. How are fantasy match-ups supposed to define where someone is ranked all-time?

CCobra
01-25-2010, 02:39 PM
Post-prime and over-trained? Those are just excuses.

Excuses that Hearns himself never used. It was Manny Steward who said himself that Hearns had over-trained himself.

Post-prime is not an excuse. Hagler was past his best, that much was obvious in watching him fight.

Duran was out-boxed by Leonard twice. The third time, he wasn't in his prime. The second time, he was. Just because it wasn't at lightweight doesn't mean it wasn't in his prime.

The first fight was close but Duran got the decision and you don't see many people complaining about it. It's common knowledge that Leonard offered Duran a lot of money for a rematch knowing how bloated Duran would be and how much weight he'd have to lose to make the weight.

And if you're bashing his Hearns win because he was behind on the scorecard, then that means Ali's victory of Lyle should be bashed because he was behind on the scorecards, as well. Nobody thinks like that, unless they're looking for excuses.

I'm not bashing his win over Hearns. I'm saying that an over-trained Hearns was beating Leonard until he inevitably gassed and then get stopped. Leonard gets full credit for a win over Hearns, the win I consider to be the best on his entire resume.

He has a great resume and he did take on all of the top contenders, but match his greatest wins to Leonard's greatest wins. I think most people will agree that Leonard has the greater wins.

Most people who give the edge to Leonard are people who probably don't know the quality of fighters Charles faced. Archie Moore trumps any win on Leonard's resume. Charley Burley, Joey Maxim, Lloyd Marshall, Jersey Joe Walcott.. these are all great fighters. Leonard beat 4 great fighters and that's it with his resume, it doesn't go any deeper then that. Charles beat great fighters and good fighters one after the other.

Look at Leonard.. beat Hagler, Hearns, Duran & Benitez yet he was beaten by Duran and unofficially beaten by Hearns in the return (something that Leonard himself acknowledges).

And he didn't come close to beating Marciano. He lost a clear decision and got knocked out in the second fight.

Marciano had to knock Charles out and was in danger of being stopped if he didn't. Charles was years past his prime and was able to take Marciano close twice and was very close to stopping him the second time.

Obama
01-25-2010, 02:41 PM
Defeated by what? That wasn't a valid argument..

One of the reasons you gave of why you think Charles is greater than Leonard is because, in a series of fantasy match-ups, Hearns beats Leonard 3 out of 5 times. How are fantasy match-ups supposed to define where someone is ranked all-time?

That wasn't a fantasy matchup. :rofl:

It was a rating of the fighters at those weights. Leonard can only be regarded as the better Welterweight and Middleweight. No one with half a brain would dare rate him ahead of Hearns in the 3 other divisions I listed. Their resumes make it beyond obvious.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 02:57 PM
Excuses that Hearns himself never used. It was Manny Steward who said himself that Hearns had over-trained himself.
Ever thought that he was making an invalid excuse because the best fighter he ever trained got beat?

Post-prime is not an excuse. Hagler was past his best, that much was obvious in watching him fight.
Was Leonard in his prime? Did Hagler not fight for three years before that fight?

The first fight was close but Duran got the decision and you don't see many people complaining about it. It's common knowledge that Leonard offered Duran a lot of money for a rematch knowing how bloated Duran would be and how much weight he'd have to lose to make the weight.
That's just an excuse. He didn't get big enough to where it would make him lose. He was just able to brawl with Leonard but not box. It didn't matter how lazy he was out of the ring.

I'm not bashing his win over Hearns. I'm saying that an over-trained Hearns was beating Leonard until he inevitably gassed and then get stopped. Leonard gets full credit for a win over Hearns, the win I consider to be the best on his entire resume.
He may have been ahead on the scorecards but that doesn't change the fact that he lost fair and square.

Most people who give the edge to Leonard are people who probably don't know the quality of fighters Charles faced. Archie Moore trumps any win on Leonard's resume. Charley Burley, Joey Maxim, Lloyd Marshall, Jersey Joe Walcott.. these are all great fighters. Leonard beat 4 great fighters and that's it with his resume, it doesn't go any deeper then that. Charles beat great fighters and good fighters one after the other.
In Charles' generation fighters fought a lot. It was different with Leonard's. And most of the fighters you named aren't better than Leonard's.

Look at Leonard.. beat Hagler, Hearns, Duran & Benitez yet he was beaten by Duran and unofficially beaten by Hearns in the return (something that Leonard himself acknowledges).
Charles was beaten Walcott, Bivins, L. Marshall, R. Layne and other top contenders in his prime. Duran, Hearns and Hagler (maybe Benitez) are generally ranked ahead of them.

Marciano had to knock Charles out and was in danger of being stopped if he didn't. Charles was years past his prime and was able to take Marciano close twice and was very close to stopping him the second time.
He didn't come close to winning the first time. It was a clear win for Marciano. The second time he was knocked out and that's that. Plus, Marciano wasn't a very good technical boxer and it's not a surprise to see him win from being behind on the scorecards.

Ziggy Stardust
01-25-2010, 03:06 PM
Charles was beaten Walcott, Bivins, L. Marshall, R. Layne and other top contenders in his prime. Duran, Hearns and Hagler (maybe Benitez) are generally ranked ahead of them.

Since you have already pointed out both Leonard and Hagler were past-prime for that fight why are you using it as an example? At least be consistant ffs.

He didn't come close to winning the first time. It was a clear win for Marciano. The second time he was knocked out and that's that. Plus, Marciano wasn't a very good technical boxer and it's not a surprise to see him win from being behind on the scorecards.

Yeah, the first fight was such a clear win for Marciano that some ringside observers thought Charles won.

Poet

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 03:09 PM
That wasn't a fantasy matchup. :rofl:

It was a rating of the fighters at those weights. Leonard can only be regarded as the better Welterweight and Middleweight. No one with half a brain would dare rate him ahead of Hearns in the 3 other divisions I listed. Their resumes make it beyond obvious.

Going by resume, let's try it:

Welterweight: You, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better, at this division.

Light middleweight: You're right on this one. Hearns' resume clearly smashes Leonard's.

Middleweight: Another division that you, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better.

Super middleweight: Hearns beat James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. Leonard beat Duran and Lalonde. Leonard's wins are better.

Light heavyweight: Hearns wins on this one. He simply beat the better fighters, at this division.

In the end, that makes it 3-2 Leonard.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 03:14 PM
Since you have already pointed out both Leonard and Hagler were past-prime for that fight why are you using it as an example? At least be consistant ffs.
I never stated that Hagler was past his prime. I said Leonard was. And if there was a comparison of who was more past their prime (not saying Hagler is), Leonard would outshine Hagler.

Yeah, the first fight was such a clear win for Marciano that some ringside observers thought Charles won.
The majority of people, including myself, agree that Marciano won. Yes, Charles did manage to win himself a good amount of rounds and make it a good contest, but Marciano was the clear winner.

CCobra
01-25-2010, 03:17 PM
The following resume evaluation is courtesy of Obama:

Ezzard Charles
Notable Wins:
Joe Sutka
Teddy Yarosz [Over the hill]
Anton Christofordis
Charley Burley (x2)
Booker Beckwith
Jose Basora
Mose Brown
Joey Maxim (x5) [Debatably Green / Pre-Prime in first two fights, Prime in last three fights]
Tommy Tee Hubert (x2)
Archie Moore (x3)
Lloyd Marshall (x2) [Post-Prime]
Oakland Billy Smith (x2)
Jimmy Bivins (x4) [Debatably Prime / Post-Prime in first 3 fights, Over the hill in 4th fight]
Erv Sarlin (x2)
Fitzie Fitzpatrick (x2)
Joe Matisi
Sam Baroudi
Elmer Ray
Joe Baksi
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Gus Lesnevich [Post-Prime]
Freddie Beshore
Joe Louis
Nick Barone
Lee Oma
Rex Layne (x2)
Cesar Brion
Wes Bascom
Tommy Harrison
Billy Gilliam
Larry Watson
Coley Wallace
Bob Satterfield
Charley Norkus
John Holman
Paul Andrews
Toxie Hall
Notable Losses:
Kid Tunero [Charles Pre-Prime]
Jimmy Bivins
Lloyd Marshall
Elmer Ray
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Rex Layne
Nino Valdes [Charles Post-Prime]
Harold Johnson [Charles Post-Prime]
Rocky Marciano (x2) [Charles Post-Prime]
John Holman [Charles Post-Prime]
Questionable Wins:
Paul Andrews
Bob Albright I
Questionable Losses:
Kid Tunero
Elmer Ray


'A' level wins:
Burley (x2), Maxim (x3), Moore (x3), Bivins (x3), Walcott (x2)
'A-' level wins:
Smith (x2), Ray, Layne (x2)
'B' level wins:
Yarosz, Christofordis, Beckwith, Basora, Maxim (x2), Marshall (x2), Bivins, Baroudi, Baksi, Lesnevich, Louis, Barone, Oma, Brion, Harrison, Satterfield, Norkus, Holman, Andrews
'B-' level wins:
Sutka, Brown, Hubert, Sarlin, Fitzpatrick, Matisi, Beshore, Bascom, Gilliam, Watson, Wallace, Hall

Point Total: 18 + 6 + 19 + 6 ***8211; 21.5 = 27.5

The depth of Charles resume is simply incredible. You could not bring me that sort of depth from Leonard's resume.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 03:26 PM
The following resume evaluation is courtesy of Obama:

Ezzard Charles
Notable Wins:
Joe Sutka
Teddy Yarosz [Over the hill]
Anton Christofordis
Charley Burley (x2)
Booker Beckwith
Jose Basora
Mose Brown
Joey Maxim (x5) [Debatably Green / Pre-Prime in first two fights, Prime in last three fights]
Tommy Tee Hubert (x2)
Archie Moore (x3)
Lloyd Marshall (x2) [Post-Prime]
Oakland Billy Smith (x2)
Jimmy Bivins (x4) [Debatably Prime / Post-Prime in first 3 fights, Over the hill in 4th fight]
Erv Sarlin (x2)
Fitzie Fitzpatrick (x2)
Joe Matisi
Sam Baroudi
Elmer Ray
Joe Baksi
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Gus Lesnevich [Post-Prime]
Freddie Beshore
Joe Louis
Nick Barone
Lee Oma
Rex Layne (x2)
Cesar Brion
Wes Bascom
Tommy Harrison
Billy Gilliam
Larry Watson
Coley Wallace
Bob Satterfield
Charley Norkus
John Holman
Paul Andrews
Toxie Hall
Notable Losses:
Kid Tunero [Charles Pre-Prime]
Jimmy Bivins
Lloyd Marshall
Elmer Ray
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Rex Layne
Nino Valdes [Charles Post-Prime]
Harold Johnson [Charles Post-Prime]
Rocky Marciano (x2) [Charles Post-Prime]
John Holman [Charles Post-Prime]
Questionable Wins:
Paul Andrews
Bob Albright I
Questionable Losses:
Kid Tunero
Elmer Ray


'A' level wins:
Burley (x2), Maxim (x3), Moore (x3), Bivins (x3), Walcott (x2)
'A-' level wins:
Smith (x2), Ray, Layne (x2)
'B' level wins:
Yarosz, Christofordis, Beckwith, Basora, Maxim (x2), Marshall (x2), Bivins, Baroudi, Baksi, Lesnevich, Louis, Barone, Oma, Brion, Harrison, Satterfield, Norkus, Holman, Andrews
'B-' level wins:
Sutka, Brown, Hubert, Sarlin, Fitzpatrick, Matisi, Beshore, Bascom, Gilliam, Watson, Wallace, Hall

Point Total: 18 + 6 + 19 + 6 21.5 = 27.5

The depth of Charles resume is simply incredible. You could not bring me that sort of depth from Leonard's resume.
Like I said before, fighters in those days fought a lot more than any of the modern fighters.

The reason a lot of them are HOFers is because they each hold wins over each other. That's because they fought a lot during those days and had to fight just to make a living. It's different than any of the current generations where if you were a top star, you didn't need to fight, as much.

Just compare Ali and Greb. Greb had a lot more wins than Ali and could've arguably fought more A level, B level and C level fighters, but Ali is still regarded as the greater fighter.

wmute
01-25-2010, 03:57 PM
Going by resume, let's try it:

Welterweight: You, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better, at this division.

Light middleweight: You're right on this one. Hearns' resume clearly smashes Leonard's.

Middleweight: Another division that you, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better.

Super middleweight: Hearns beat James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. Leonard beat Duran and Lalonde. Leonard's wins are better.

Light heavyweight: Hearns wins on this one. He simply beat the better fighters, at this division.

In the end, that makes it 3-2 Leonard.

Duran at age 38, 30 pounds and some north of his prime, and a LHW drained by more than one weight class, are hardly better than anything, especially since Hearns beat Leonard at 168, by Leonard's own admission.

wmute
01-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Like I said before, fighters in those days fought a lot more than any of the modern fighters.

The reason a lot of them are HOFers is because they each hold wins over each other. That's because they fought a lot during those days and had to fight just to make a living. It's different than any of the current generations where if you were a top star, you didn't need to fight, as much.

Just compare Ali and Greb. Greb had a lot more wins than Ali and could've arguably fought more A level, B level and C level fighters, but Ali is still regarded as the greater fighter.

That's why they managed to leave no doubts, excuses or anything like that. You saw enough of them against everyone to know who beat who.

Also, they tended not retire to avoid rematches of close fights.

Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Duran at age 38, 30 pounds and some north of his prime, and a LHW drained by more than one weight class, are hardly better than anything, especially since Hearns beat Leonard at 168, by Leonard's own admission.
Duran wasn't at his best but it was still a better win than either Kinchen or Olajide.

donkim
01-25-2010, 04:12 PM
Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.


LMAO at this Duran and Hagler apologist having the nerve to accuse others of ducking certain fighters.


Your idols ducked and dropped their title's rather than face their mandatories,one of which you included on that list of fighters that Leonard "supposedly" ducked.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 04:16 PM
That's why they managed to leave no doubts, excuses or anything like that. You saw enough of them against everyone to know who beat who.
It was common for a fighter to beat someone and then lose to that same person in a rematch multiple times.

Also, they tended not retire to avoid rematches of close fights.
So retiring because of a vision problem means they're ducking someone?

Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.
He was finishing off his career and you're bashing him for not continuing against the up and coming fighters of a future generation? Wow..

wmute
01-25-2010, 04:16 PM
LMAO at this Duran and Hagler apologist having the nerve to accuse others of ducking certain fighters.


Your idols ducked and dropped their title's rather than face their mandatories,one of which you included on that list of fighters that Leonard "supposedly" ducked.

Who ducked who exactly? Are you new to the sport? I am asking because you seem to worry about mandatories...

donkim
01-25-2010, 04:21 PM
Who ducked who exactly? Are you new to the sport? I am asking because you seem to worry about mandatories...



Duran ducked McCallum(his mandatory) and Miss.Marvis ducked Graham(his mandatory).



You're accusing Leonard of avoiding fighters that he didn't have to fight and yet turn a blind eye to fighters that your idols did have to fight.

wmute
01-25-2010, 04:22 PM
It was common for a fighter to beat someone and then lose to that same person in a rematch multiple times.


Charles went 3-0 against Moore, and he is on the winning side of most series he had against other HoFers.


So retiring because of a vision problem means they're ducking someone?


Are you talking about Hagler or Hearns? Because I was talking about Hagler.


He was finishing off his career and you're bashing him for not continuing against the up and coming fighters? Wow..

What was Charles doing at that age? I am not blaming Leonard for taking wise business decisions, but wise business decions do not constitute a legacy.

wmute
01-25-2010, 04:25 PM
Duran wasn't at his best but it was still a better win than either Kinchen or Olajide.

I would not be quite sure, considering Duran had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight. It was a better win by name, not by relevance at the weight.

black.ink
01-25-2010, 04:33 PM
Ezzard's resume far surpasses Leonard's as Charles consistently fought great contenders to numerous hall of famer's in one of boxing's toughest era's.

He is arguably the greatest Light Heavyweight of all-time, and top 10 Heavyweight of all-time.

People seem to forget that Charles lacked his killer instinct after the unfortunate events following the Sam Baroudi fight, and that he never went for the knock-out as much as previous fights, following that disaster. If the Baroudi death never happened, who knows what Charles could have achieved if his mind was still 100%.

Also, i'm not so sure Method Checker has seen the Charles/Marciano fights. A past-prime Charles fought a close fight in their first encounter, not a clear decision as he suggested, and in their second meeting, Charles had busted up Rocky's nose pretty bad which nearly forced the fight to be stopped. Marciano showed his heart and true grit in that fight, to come back and knock Charles out. A past-prime Charles.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 04:37 PM
Charles went 3-0 against Moore, and he is on the winning side of most series he had against other HoFers.
I was specifically talking about his opponents, rather than himself. Some of his opponents were HOFers because they beat each other and then lost to each other in series. Anyone who does that nowadays wouldn't likely become a hall of famer.

Are you talking about Hagler or Hearns? Because I was talking about Hagler.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about Hearns.

The Hagler rematch never happened because they couldn't agree on negotiations. Leonard "retired" and Hagler walked away fed up.

Leonard did retire a lot but that doesn't change what he accomplished.

What was Charles doing at that age? I am not blaming Leonard for taking wise business decisions, but wise business decions do not constitute a legacy.

You mean what was Charles doing past his prime? Fighting on to make a living. But the fact is that he lost most of his fights against top notch opponents.

donkim
01-25-2010, 04:38 PM
I would not be quite sure, considering Duran had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight. It was a better win by name, not by relevance at the weight.


Typical Duran apologist.The weight class that Duran fought Leonard at was the exact weight that he fought Iran barkley at.......regardless of which title was contested


Now granted,Duran picked up a gift decision against barkley,but Duran apologists such as yourself still claim what a great win and a great performance that it was by Duran.



You can't have it both ways,laddy.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 04:39 PM
I would not be quite sure, considering Duran had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight. It was a better win by name, not by relevance at the weight.

Despite it being for a title in another weight division, Duran and Leonard fought at the same weight as Duran's last fight against Barkley where Duran won a middleweight title. Even though it is a somewhat controversial fight, he still fought competitively and managed to win a title.

CCobra
01-25-2010, 04:51 PM
Ezzard's resume far surpasses Leonard's as Charles consistently fought great contenders to numerous hall of famer's in one of boxing's toughest era's.

He is arguably the greatest Light Heavyweight of all-time, and top 10 Heavyweight of all-time.

People seem to forget that Charles lacked his killer instinct after the unfortunate events following the Sam Baroudi fight, and that he never went for the knock-out as much as previous fights, following that disaster. If the Baroudi death never happened, who knows what Charles could have achieved if his mind was still 100%.

Also, i'm not so sure Method Checker has seen the Charles/Marciano fights. A past-prime Charles fought a close fight in their first encounter, not a clear decision as he suggested, and in their second meeting, Charles had busted up Rocky's nose pretty bad which nearly forced the fight to be stopped. Marciano showed his heart and true grit in that fight, to come back and knock Charles out. A past-prime Charles.

Excellent post.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 04:55 PM
Also, i'm not so sure Method Checker has seen the Charles/Marciano fights. A past-prime Charles fought a close fight in their first encounter, not a clear decision as he suggested, and in their second meeting, Charles had busted up Rocky's nose pretty bad which nearly forced the fight to be stopped. Marciano showed his heart and true grit in that fight, to come back and knock Charles out. A past-prime Charles.
If I didn't see it, I wouldn't be talking about it. So don't act like I haven't seen it just because my opinions differ from yours.

Like I said, Charles managed to win a good number of rounds but I felt Marciano was the clear winner. That doesn't mean it was shut-out, though.

And I already elaborated on the second fight. Marciano came back and did what he needed to do to win, after being ahead on the scorecards.

wmute
01-25-2010, 04:58 PM
Duran ducked McCallum(his mandatory) and Miss.Marvis ducked Graham(his mandatory).



You're accusing Leonard of avoiding fighters that he didn't have to fight and yet turn a blind eye to fighters that your idols did have to fight.

1) I am not turning a blind eye I am talking about oldtimers vs Leonard, not contemporary versus Leonard


2) "have to" fight is not really determined by mandatories (especially when you hold a number of belts)... That being said, While I am sure Duran wanted none of McCallum, it is hard to imagine Hagler "ducking" Graham.

wmute
01-25-2010, 05:01 PM
Typical Duran apologist.The weight class that Duran fought Leonard at was the exact weight that he fought Iran barkley at.......regardless of which title was contested


Now granted,Duran picked up a gift decision against barkley,but Duran apologists such as yourself still claim what a great win and a great performance that it was by Duran.



You can't have it both ways,laddy.

Despite it being for a title in another weight division, Duran and Leonard fought at the same weight as Duran's last fight against Barkley where Duran won a middleweight title. Even though it is a somewhat controversial fight, he still fought competitively and managed to win a title.

We were talking better 168 record between Hearns and Leonard, right? So I welcome your point, but it has nothing to do with who had the better run at 168.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 05:08 PM
We were talking better 168 record between Hearns and Leonard, right? So I welcome your point, but it has nothing to do with who had the better run at 168.

Leonard still fought for the title in that division. He weighed in at 165, against Lalonde, two fights prior to the third Duran fight.

wmute
01-25-2010, 05:10 PM
I was specifically talking about his opponents, rather than himself. Some of his opponents were HOFers because they beat each other and then lost to each other in series. Anyone who does that nowadays wouldn't likely become a hall of famer.


I see your point, especially when applied to Charles' opponents rather than himself. However I disagree with the statement about fighters splitting series, Marquez, Vazquez will be HOF (I hope). Mosley will be and he is 0-2 against Forrest and Winky.



Sorry. I thought you were talking about Hearns.

The Hagler rematch never happened because they couldn't agree on negotiations. Leonard "retired" and Hagler walked away fed up.

Leonard did retire a lot but that doesn't change what he accomplished.


It does not change what he accomplished, but it casts it in a different light. We are dead sure now that Charles beats Moore, not the same for Leonard over Hearns or Hagler (although in the former circumstance the lack of a rematch was not quite under his control)


You mean what was Charles doing past his prime? Fighting on to make a living. But the fact is that he lost most of his fights against top notch opponents.

No I mean what was Charles doing at the same age at which Leonard was fighting Duran and Hearns and starving Lalonde?

wmute
01-25-2010, 05:11 PM
Leonard still fought for the title in that division. He weighed in at 165, against Lalonde, two fights prior to the third Duran fight.

I am missing your point here.

TheGreatA
01-25-2010, 05:16 PM
1) I am not turning a blind eye I am talking about oldtimers vs Leonard, not contemporary versus Leonard


2) "have to" fight is not really determined by mandatories (especially when you hold a number of belts)... That being said, While I am sure Duran wanted none of McCallum, it is hard to imagine Hagler "ducking" Graham.

It's difficult to blame Duran for it since Steward signed the Hearns-Duran superfight behind McCallum's back. Did Duran duck McCallum to fight Hearns? Maybe but that was the move that made sense. This was the fight that the public wanted to see while McCallum was relatively unknown at the time, despite being the mandatory.

Hagler effectively retired after Mugabi and was only interested in fighting Leonard at that point.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 05:33 PM
I see your point, especially when applied to Charles' opponents rather than himself. However I disagree with the statement about fighters splitting series, Marquez, Vazquez will be HOF (I hope). Mosley will be and he is 0-2 against Forrest and Winky.
Marquez and Mosley (and MAYBE Vazquez) will most likely be HOFers because of what they accomplished in their careers.

Some of the HOFers that Charles beat were just top contenders who beat other top contenders or past-prime champions in multiple series when they had to make a living by fighting every month.

It does not change what he accomplished, but it casts it in a different light. We are dead sure now that Charles beats Moore, not the same for Leonard over Hearns or Hagler (although in the former circumstance the lack of a rematch was not quite under his control)
Disputes on negotiations shouldn't only be blamed on one fighter but both.

No I mean what was Charles doing at the same age at which Leonard was fighting Duran and Hearns and starving Lalonde?
He lost to an old Walcott twice.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 05:34 PM
I am missing your point here.

There was a comparison between what Hearns did in that division and what Leonard did in that division.

Leonard fought and beat Lalonde and Duran for a title in that division.

wmute
01-25-2010, 05:49 PM
It's difficult to blame Duran for it since Steward signed the Hearns-Duran superfight behind McCallum's back. Did Duran duck McCallum to fight Hearns? Maybe but that was the move that made sense. This was the fight that the public wanted to see while McCallum was relatively unknown at the time, despite being the mandatory.

Hagler effectively retired after Mugabi and was only interested in fighting Leonard at that point.

Yes, I did not know the detail of the signing of the fight, but only a fool would have fought McCallum instead of Hearns, edit considering the money difference. I don't know about ducking, but why fight McCallum, if you can do without him?

wmute
01-25-2010, 06:25 PM
There was a comparison between what Hearns did in that division and what Leonard did in that division.

Leonard fought and beat Lalonde and Duran for a title in that division.

As I noted above, that's not a relevant run, moreover he also lost to the guy we are comparing him to.

(If Duran weighed in at 160, that is not a very good sign for his relevance at 168)

wmute
01-25-2010, 06:34 PM
Marquez and Mosley (and MAYBE Vazquez) will most likely be HOFers because of what they accomplished in their careers.

Some of the HOFers that Charles beat were just top contenders who beat other top contenders or past-prime champions in multiple series when they had to make a living by fighting every month.


Those contenders would be champions now, and considering how hard it was for certain fighters to get a shot back then (Burley...) they would most likely be lineal champs.


Disputes on negotiations shouldn't only be blamed on one fighter but both.


Considering Leonard's negotations history, it's hard to blame anyone else.


He lost to an old Walcott twice.

He fought the cream of the division he was in, that included losing to the champion. The old men Leonard was fighting happened to not be the cream of the division he was dwelling (60-68).

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 06:35 PM
As I noted above, that's not a relevant run, moreover he also lost to the guy we are comparing him to.

(If Duran weighed in at 160, that is not a very good sign for his relevance at 168)

Leonard fought Duran at around the same weight of 160. That made it a fair contest, I would say. You and I both know that if Duran weighed in at 168, you would give Leonard more heat.

But if you must, take away Leonard's victory over Duran in that division and leave only Lalonde to compare with Hearns' opponents. Lalonde was better than Kinchen and Olajide.

wmute
01-25-2010, 06:37 PM
Leonard fought Duran at around the same weight of 160. That made it a fair contest, I would say. You and I both know that if Duran weighed in at 168, you would give Leonard more heat.

But if you must, take away Leonard's victory over Duran in that division and leave only Lalonde to compare with Hearns' opponents. Lalonde was better than Kinchen and Olajide.

A healthy Lalonde might have been better, not one fighting more than one weight class beyond his.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 06:40 PM
Those contenders would be champions now, and considering how hard it was for certain fighters to get a shot back then (Burley...) they would most likely be lineal champs.
Just because you think they would've been doesn't automatically they would've.

He fought the cream of the division he was in, that included losing to the champion. The old men Leonard was fighting happened to not be the cream of the division he was dwelling (60-68).

Leonard was at the end of his career and he fought a reigning titleholder. Ask people who had the better career past their prime and see what answers you get.

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 06:42 PM
A healthy Lalonde might have been better, not one fighting more than one weight class beyond his.

Another unproven excuse. If you can't bring good arguments to the table, don't bother debating.

wmute
01-25-2010, 06:54 PM
Just because you think they would've been doesn't automatically they would've.


You just need to count major belts to agree on the champ part.

As for the lineal part... take Burley, he beats Zivic in a non title fight, and then he is never allowed to fight him for the title. Robinson pulls out because of money. Burley beat Moore when Moore had no title...


Leonard was at the end of his career and he fought a reigning titleholder. Ask people who had the better career past their prime and see what answers you get.

In their early 30s? Let's see Roy Jones, Pernell Whitaker, Roberto Duran, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney... This while sticking to fighters that came after or around Leonard's time. I will be graciouis and not dig in the vast ocean of those that came before him. Unless you want to tell me that Leonard prime is 1979-1981, in which case he should simply not be mentioned with Charles.

wmute
01-25-2010, 06:54 PM
Another unproven excuse. If you can't bring good arguments to the table, don't bother debating.

Unproven? 175 champ, fighting at a catchweight of 167? Which part is not proven?

donkim
01-25-2010, 06:57 PM
1) I am not turning a blind eye I am talking about oldtimers vs Leonard, not contemporary versus Leonard.


Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.

And yet you drifted off and went out of your way to discredit Leonard,to claim that he ducked the fighters listed,and yet one particular fighter(and I bet you rate him very highly) did legitimately duck one of the names listed.


2) "have to" fight is not really determined by mandatories (especially when you hold a number of belts)... That being said, While I am sure Duran wanted none of McCallum, it is hard to imagine Hagler "ducking" Graham.




It's not hard to imagine because he did.Graham was Hagler's mandatory challenger throughout most of 1986 and Hagler had plenty of time to make a defense.Hagler had no issue in giving rematches to undeserving challengers such as Obelmejias and Hamsho,two men who Hagler more than beat convincingly.




We were talking better 168 record between Hearns and Leonard, right? So I welcome your point, but it has nothing to do with who had the better run at 168.



I would not be quite sure, considering Duran had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight. It was a better win by name, not by relevance at the weight.



You may have been,but then you came out with this stupid post of which I picked up and corrected you on.

wmute
01-25-2010, 07:01 PM
And yet you drifted off and went out of your way to discredit Leonard,to claim that he ducked the fighters listed,and yet one particular fighter(and I bet you rate him very highly) did legitimately duck one of the names listed.


Are you obsessed with Duran? This is a thread about Charles and Leonard.




It's not hard to imagine ecause he did.Graham was Hagler's mandatory challenger throughout most of 1986 and Hagler had plenty of time to make a defense.Hagler had no issue in giving rematches to undeserving challengers such as Obelmejias and Hamsho,two men who Hagler more than beat convincingly.


What was Hagler doing by 1986?



You may have been,but then you came out with this stupid post of which I picked up and corrected you on.

I don't get your point here sorry

wmute
01-25-2010, 07:03 PM
Good night people, I will be back tomorrow or in a couple of days.

donkim
01-25-2010, 07:11 PM
Are you obsessed with Duran? This is a thread about Charles and Leonard.

Completely avoiding the post.


What was Hagler doing by 1986?


Avoiding his mandatory challengers.


Interesting that you respond here,but you completely blank the post concerning Duran.






I don't get your point here sorry


You made this post


I would not be quite sure, considering Duran had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight. It was a better win by name, not by relevance at the weight.



Duran fought as a middleweight against Leonard the third time,the same weight class that he had fought and "won" a world title against Iran barkley at.




Do you understand that?

Method Checker
01-25-2010, 07:17 PM
You just need to count major belts to agree on the champ part.
I'm not talking about ABC championships. I consider them titleholders rather than champions, since any good fighter can get one these days.

As for the lineal part... take Burley, he beats Zivic in a non title fight, and then he is never allowed to fight him for the title. Robinson pulls out because of money. Burley beat Moore when Moore had no title...
I never said all of his opponents were overrated. Burley is an exceptional case.

Take others for example such as L. Marshall, Bivins, R. Layne, Baksi, Valentino, etc. HOFers and top contenders who only became such from beating each other over and over again. Don't get me wrong, they're good fighters, but not championship material.

In their early 30s? Let's see Roy Jones, Pernell Whitaker, Roberto Duran, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney... This while sticking to fighters that came after or around Leonard's time. I will be graciouis and not dig in the vast ocean of those that came before him. Unless you want to tell me that Leonard prime is 1979-1981, in which case he should simply not be mentioned with Charles.
Each fighter's prime is different and Leonard's was short, but it wasn't from 1979-1981. I would say it was from 1978-1982.

Unproven? 175 champ, fighting at a catchweight of 167? Which part is not proven?
He performed good enough to knock Leonard down. The very same Leonard who took punches from the likes of Hearns and Hagler and just laughed in their faces.

wmute
01-26-2010, 05:18 PM
Completely avoiding the post.



What post would I be avoiding exactly? This is thread about Leonard and Charles. Are you putting down Duran? Wether I agree or disagree, you are diminishing Leonard's accomplishments. In other words you are making my point. thank you.



Avoiding his mandatory challengers.


Hagler was chasing Leonard and was fighting once a year. You can call it avoiding challengers if you want.


Interesting that you respond here,but you completely blank the post concerning Duran.


What am I blanking? You can trash all you want about Duran. This is a thread about Charles and Leonard. Again, why would I bother saying anything about Duran here and now if I disagreed. By putting him down, you are making a point that Charles is deservedly ranked higher than Leonard.


Duran fought as a middleweight against Leonard the third time,the same weight class that he had fought and "won" a world title against Iran barkley at.


Do you understand that?

So let me get this straight, Duran beats Barkley at 160, Leonard fights him at 160, and it counts as a good win at 168? Is this what you are trying to say? It sounds quite stupid. We were talking resumes at 168. Duran never beat anyone relevant at 168. How does Barkley all of a sudden matter at 168, since the fight took place at 160?

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 05:33 PM
Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins weren't championship material? Why did they beat so many champions then?

wmute
01-26-2010, 05:43 PM
I'm not talking about ABC championships. I consider them titleholders rather than champions, since any good fighter can get one these days.


Fine. Leonard has not fought the lineal champ of a division after Hagler.



I never said all of his opponents were overrated. Burley is an exceptional case.


Take others for example such as L. Marshall, Bivins, R. Layne, Baksi, Valentino, etc. HOFers and top contenders who only became such from beating each other over and over again. Don't get me wrong, they're good fighters, but not championship material.


You should move Bivins away from the list of non championship material. He beat a few world champions plus Burley if i am not mistaken. Possibly Marshall too, but I would not be as sure of this as I am of Bivins.


Each fighter's prime is different and Leonard's was short, but it wasn't from 1979-1981. I would say it was from 1978-1982.


I agree, and fighters with shorter primes are deservedly ranked lower than those who manages to stay at the top for a longer time.


He performed good enough to knock Leonard down. The very same Leonard who took punches from the likes of Hearns and Hagler and just laughed in their faces.

Being weight drained does not usually affect your power, or the ability to land a few punches in the early rounds. It does however has an effect on stamina and ability to take punches as the fight goes on. You have seen the fight, so you know where I am going.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 05:55 PM
Lloyd Marshall beat the following men:

Ezzard Charles (although beaten 2 out of 3)
Charley Burley
Holman Williams
Jake LaMotta
Joey Maxim
Freddie Mills
Ken Overlin
Lou Brouillard
Teddy Yarosz
Jack Chase
Shorty Hogue

and is inducted into the IBHOF.

37 year old Marshall in action vs former heavyweight title challenger Tommy Farr:

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=34811

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 05:58 PM
Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins weren't championship material? Why did they beat so many champions then?

Top contenders beat future and past champions all the time. Does that mean they should automatically be a champion?

wmute
01-26-2010, 06:01 PM
Top contenders beat future and past champions all the time. Does that mean they should automatically be a champion?

When they never get a shot from the same men they beat...

donkim
01-26-2010, 06:03 PM
What post would I be avoiding exactly? This is thread about Leonard and Charles. Are you putting down Duran? Wether I agree or disagree, you are diminishing Leonard's accomplishments. In other words you are making my point. thank you.


Yes it is about Leonard and Charles,and then you changed the subject and listed a number of fighters who Leonard apparently "avoided" and it's pretty well known by now that you rate Duran and Hagler very highly,and I thought it was quite funny that you would list these fighters that Leonard avoided in which one was legitimately avoided by Duran.







Hagler was chasing Leonard and was fighting once a year. You can call it avoiding challengers if you want.



Yes,I will call it avoiding challengers.Hagler had plenty of time to defend against Herol Graham and he didn't because he knew the risk involved and happily vacated his title to do so.


What am I blanking? You can trash all you want about Duran. This is a thread about Charles and Leonard. Again, why would I bother saying anything about Duran here and now if I disagreed. By putting him down, you are making a point that Charles is deservedly ranked higher than Leonard.




In case you've been misreading my posts,I never even brought up Leonard and Charles,I responded to one particular post of yours in which you claimed Leonard was "avoiding" the fighters listed.


So let me get this straight, Duran beats Barkley at 160, Leonard fights him at 160, and it counts as a good win at 168? Is this what you are trying to say? It sounds quite stupid. We were talking resumes at 168. Duran never beat anyone relevant at 168. How does Barkley all of a sudden matter at 168, since the fight took place at 160?



I never brought up resume's at 168.

You claimed that Duran "had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight" in regards to the super middleweight division,the fight never even took place at 168

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 06:05 PM
You should move Bivins away from the list of non championship material. He beat a few world champions plus Burley if i am not mistaken. Possibly Marshall too, but I would not be as sure of this as I am of Bivins.
Like I said. Future and past champions get beat by top contenders all the time. It happens. That doesn't automatically mean they would've been a champion.

I agree, and fighters with shorter primes are deservedly ranked lower than those who manages to stay at the top for a longer time.
Do you even know what a prime is? A prime the absolute peak of a fighter's career where he can perform at his best. Ali's was from 1964 to 1967. Does that mean he should be ranked lower than Leonard? No. Because you can still be good after your prime.

Being weight drained does not usually affect your power, or the ability to land a few punches in the early rounds. It does however has an effect on stamina and ability to take punches as the fight goes on. You have seen the fight, so you know where I am going.
I saw the tide shifting and Leonard adapting. Fighter's get tired as they go into the later rounds.

You're clearly just taking it out of line now and until you get some sense of respect, I'm not going to continue debating with you. Bye now.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 06:14 PM
Top contenders beat future and past champions all the time. Does that mean they should automatically be a champion?

How many title shots did Lloyd Marshall receive? He was the top contender at middleweight and light heavyweight yet never received a shot, despite beating champions in non-title bouts.

He was world champion material, simple as that.

wmute
01-26-2010, 06:40 PM
Yes it is about Leonard and Charles,and then you changed the subject and listed a number of fighters who Leonard apparently "avoided" and it's pretty well known by now that you rate Duran and Hagler very highly,and I thought it was quite funny that you would list these fighters that Leonard avoided in which one was legitimately avoided by Duran.


I did not change the subject, I was pointing out how Leonard spent his early 30s without fighting the best of his division, while Charles was fighting everyone. I am glad you found the observation amusing.



Yes,I will call it avoiding challengers.Hagler had plenty of time to defend against Herol Graham and he didn't because he knew the risk involved and happily vacated his title to do so.


Suit yourself.





In case you've been misreading my posts,I never even brought up Leonard and Charles,I responded to one particular post of yours in which you claimed Leonard was "avoiding" the fighters listed.


In other words you were "trolling". Thank you





I never brought up resume's at 168.

You claimed that Duran "had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight" in regards to the super middleweight division,the fight never even took place at 168

I was following up on a debate about 168, the point about Duran started because the respective runs of Hearns and Leonard at 168 were being compared. One poster was proposing Duran as a good 168 win. I pointed out that Duran got close to zero done at 168 and the Barkley fight was at 160, so it did not quite matter for Duran's relevance at 168. Which part of my point you disagree with?

wmute
01-26-2010, 06:47 PM
Like I said. Future and past champions get beat by top contenders all the time. It happens. That doesn't automatically mean they would've been a champion.


You are missing a relevant point. These fighters (Bivins and -I am trusting theGreatA memory on this one) beat champions multiple times, before, after (and sometimes during their reign in non title bouts) and never get a shot at said champions. In fact, they never got a shot at any champion. By any standards they are considered championship material.


Do you even know what a prime is? A prime the absolute peak of a fighter's career where he can perform at his best. Ali's was from 1964 to 1967. Does that mean he should be ranked lower than Leonard? No. Because you can still be good after your prime.


Yes, Ali was the dominant heavyweight for years. Leonard has only one important win after his prime.


I saw the tide shifting and Leonard adapting. Fighter's get tired as they go into the later rounds.


Fighters who are weight drained get tired easier as they go into later rounds.


You're clearly just taking it out of line now and until you get some sense of respect, I'm not going to continue debating with you. Bye now.

And when would I have lost "sense of respect" exactly?

EzzardFan
01-26-2010, 08:06 PM
What is very surprising to me is that when someone posts their ATG Top 10 Heavyweights Ezzard Charles is never in that list, yet if it is to be even suggested that Charles could beat fighters on that list you will "immediately be shot down in flames" with quotes like, "He was too little... He was only a light-heavy... He would be killed in the 1st round by a 6ft 6ins 250lb guy... He would never get past the jab... etc etc etc... these quotes could not be further from the truth... The same thing applies to Floyd Patterson who was a "Fantastic Boxer/Puncher" yet he barely makes most peoples Top ATG 30 list.... Ezzard Charles, Floyd Patterson & Muhammad Ali are the top 3 boxers in heavyweight history..

I did!

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7280270#post7280270

I put him at number 6 :) And only because I fear a prime Liston might have knocked his head off.

He lost to an old Walcott twice.

Where's the shame in that. Walcott was one of the greatest fighters of his era. Like Charles and Moore he was denied a title shot for years. Also like them a lot of the time he couldn't even afford to eat. Walcott put Joe Louis on his ass with a left hook to the jaw in 1947 in the fourth round and went on to lose a close decision. Louis was still a force back then. Walcott was a precursor to Ali in a lot of ways. The Ali shuffle was just an update on the Walcott shuffle. An ageing Walcott also took Marciano 13 rounds in their first fight. Don't knock old Joe he was almost as underrated as Ezzard.

When Charles was fighting there were no supper middleweight or cruiserweight divisions. Yet he could have won titles at all three. That's like being able to beat everyone in 5 weight divisions these days. Charles was naturally around 168-175 yet he beat top heavyweights.

The first fight with Marciano was very close. The reason Charles lost that fight was because a belt doesn't usually get handed over on points unless there's a wide margin. Had Charles been the champion going into that fight then his performance would have been enough to retain the title.

In the second fight Rocky was only seconds away from being stopped on a TKO. His nose was split in two. That's about as close as it gets!

Charles prime lasted over 10 years. Charles should have quit after his second defeat by Marciano. I love Ray Leonard, he's great to watch, but he stuck most of his best years up his nose.

BTW I'd just like to add that I'm really glad I found this forum. Didn't realise there were so many people out there like me who fully appreciated Ezzard Charles :)

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 08:09 PM
You are missing a relevant point. These fighters (Bivins and -I am trusting theGreatA memory on this one) beat champions multiple times, before, after (and sometimes during their reign in non title bouts) and never get a shot at said champions. In fact, they never got a shot at any champion. By any standards they are considered championship material.

Yes, Ali was the dominant heavyweight for years. Leonard has only one important win after his prime.

Fighters who are weight drained get tired easier as they go into later rounds.

And when would I have lost "sense of respect" exactly?

Owning someone with logic is apparently "dissing" them. BTW, great to see you haven't lost your form! We need more of it around here these days ;)

Poet

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 09:23 PM
Owning someone with logic is apparently "dissing" them. BTW, great to see you haven't lost your form! We need more of it around here these days ;)

Poet

Owning with logic? More like personal attacks. If he wants to continue debating, I want an apology first.

And poet, don't ever quote anything related to me ever again. You don't deserve the honor. You may think you're intelligent but I find you to be quite the opposite. To add to that, you post in a spice girl pink font and have 40 year old men in stripper costumes in your sig. Back off.

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 09:43 PM
Owning with logic? More like personal attacks. If he wants to continue debating, I want an apology first.

There was nothing personal in any of his responses. He made reasonable, logical points and you could neither handle it or respond to them.

And poet, don't ever quote anything related to me ever again. You don't deserve the honor. You may think you're intelligent but I find you to be quite the opposite. To add to that, you post in a spice girl pink font and have 40 year old men in stripper costumes in your sig. Back off.

Oh you seriously don't want to go there with me. I'll chew you up and spit you out if you want to start a flame war. As for me not deserving the honor? You're so far beneath me intellectually that you may as well be an earthworm. There is certainly nothing in any of you meager resume of posts that would indicate anything resembling boxing knowledge or even intelligence. Seriously, you should be thankful that I even condescend to address you because normally someone of your proven lack of intellect isn't worth my time and even commanding a moment of my time is an honor FAR above your station and measure. I mean really: You're an untermenschen troglodyte that's managed to pick fights with two of the best posters in the boxing history section (TheGreatA and wmute) in just your first two or three days posting here. They have more knowledge about boxing in their respective pinkies than you're ever likely to possess in your lifetime. Have a nice day Junior!

Poet

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 09:52 PM
Oh you seriously don't want to go there with me. I'll chew you up and spit you out if you want to start a flame war. As for me not deserving the honor? You're so far beneath me intellectually that you may as well be an earthworm. There is certainly nothing in any of you meager resume of posts that would indicate anything resembling boxing knowledge or even intelligence. Seriously, you should be thankful that I even condescend to address you because normally someone of your proven lack of intellect isn't worth my time and even commanding a moment of my time is an honor FAR above your station and measure. I mean really: You're an untermenschen troglodyte that's managed to pick fights with two of the best posters in the boxing history section (TheGreatA and wmute) in just your first two or three days posting here. They have more knowledge about boxing in their respective pinkies than you're ever likely to possess in your lifetime. Have a nice day Junior!

Translation: I'll respond by saying I'm smarter than him in a couple of different ways and then leave.

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 09:55 PM
Translation: I'll respond by saying I'm smarter than him in a couple of different ways and then leave.

Give it up! You're just making yourself look like a bigger moron than you already do :rofl:

Poet

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 10:01 PM
Give it up! You're just making yourself look like a bigger moron than you already do :rofl:

Poet

Oh, really now? You haven't given any opinions related to the thread topic. You're in here to troll and you say I'm a moron? Ha. I laugh at your irony.

Go and play with your dolls. I'm sure the men in your sig would love to join you, as well.

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 10:09 PM
Oh, really now? You haven't given any opinions related to the thread topic. You're in here to troll and you say I'm a moron? Ha. I laugh at your irony.

Go and play with your dolls. I'm sure the men in your sig would love to join you, as well.

Trolling? More like laughing at a pre-pubescent idiot who's getting schooled by his betters :rofl: You have yet to say anything remotely intelligent on the thread's subject or in any other thread for that matter. The only thing that can really be gleaned from any of your posts is that you're a Ray Leonard nuthugger and possibly a ***** as well (just to educate your limited intellect, a "*****" is a Fraud Gayweather nuthugger). Now little boy, tap out biotch :bottle:

Poet

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 10:22 PM
Trolling? More like laughing at a pre-pubescent idiot who's getting schooled by his betters :rofl: You have yet to say anything remotely intelligent on the thread's subject or in any other thread for that matter. The only thing that can really be gleaned from any of your posts is that you're a Ray Leonard nuthugger and possibly a ***** as well (just to educate your limited intellect, a "*****" is a Fraud Gayweather nuthugger). Now little boy, tap out biotch :bottle:

Poet

I have given my opinion on the debate of who is the greater fighter. Whether or not you agree with my opinions is none of my concern. However, you haven't given your opinion. You've just bashed my posts in this thread without making a helpful contribution.

You really do talk as if you're a child. Nuthugger? *****? Are you really 41? Maybe you are and that's just the type of language you use with kids when you hang around at the local schoolyard.

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 10:28 PM
I have given my opinion on the debate of who is the greater fighter. Whether or not you agree with my opinions is none of my concern. However, you haven't given your opinion. You've just bashed my posts in this thread without making a helpful contribution.

Untermenschen like yourself aren't entitled to opinions: When I want your opinion I'll give it to you.


You really do talk as if you're a child. Nuthugger? *****? Are you really 41? Maybe you are and that's just the type of language you use with kids when you hang around at the local schoolyard.

Hmmmmm, this coming from someone who resorted to "gay" insinuations right from the start? Seriously Dude, your maturity level is more appropriate for posting in NSB with the kiddies not posting in one of the adult sections like Boxing History.

Poet

Obama
01-26-2010, 10:32 PM
Going by resume, let's try it:

Welterweight: You, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better, at this division.

Light middleweight: You're right on this one. Hearns' resume clearly smashes Leonard's.

Middleweight: Another division that you, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better.

Super middleweight: Hearns beat James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. Leonard beat Duran and Lalonde. Leonard's wins are better.

Light heavyweight: Hearns wins on this one. He simply beat the better fighters, at this division.

In the end, that makes it 3-2 Leonard.

Leonard - Duran III might have been for the SMW title, but it was fought at the MW limit. Leonard weighed 160, Duran weighed 158.

Leonard - Hearns II is a SMW fight (despite the fact that Leonard tried to drain Hearns, again). This fight clearly favored Hearns.

Hearns SMW resume: Kinchen, Olajide, Leonard
Leonard SMW resume: Lalonde

It's not close. As stated before, anyone with half a brain would consider Hearns the greater Super Middleweight.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 11:38 PM
Untermenschen like yourself aren't entitled to opinions: When I want your opinion I'll give it to you.
When you want my opinion.. you'll give it to me? Wow. You are smart.

Hmmmmm, this coming from someone who resorted to "gay" insinuations right from the start? Seriously Dude, your maturity level is more appropriate for posting in NSB with the kiddies not posting in one of the adult sections like Boxing History.
Kiddies? Adult section? These are signs that you need a life.

EzzardFan
01-27-2010, 06:57 AM
This thread is not about Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, or Marvellous Marvin Hagler. Please take your dispute somewhere else. You're ruining this thread.