View Full Version : Heavyweight Rankings


Welsh Jon
11-08-2011, 03:22 PM
Been thinking of where I'd rank the late, great Smoking Joe in the history of the heavyweight division. Last time the Ring magazine ranked the heavyweight division they had him at 8th, which seems about right. The Ring's list was:

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Evander Holyfield
4.George Foreman
5.Larry Holmes
6.Rocky Marciano
7.Sonny Liston
8.Joe Frazier
9.Jack Johnson
10.Jack Dempsey
11.Ezzard Charles
12.Jim Jeffries
13.Jersey Joe Walcott
14.Mike Tyson
15.Gene Tunney
16.Harry Wills
17.Sam Langford
18.John L. Sullivan
19.Max Schmeling
20.Max Baer

My own top 15 is:

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.George Foreman
5.Larry Holmes
6.James J Jefferies
7.Evander Holyfield
8.Joe Frazier
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Sonny Liston
12.Jack Dempsey
13.Ezzard Charles
14.Mike tyson
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Barnburner
11-08-2011, 04:20 PM
I think Johnson is way too high but, I understand I'm in the minority here, same with Jeffries.

Welsh Jon
11-08-2011, 06:11 PM
I think Johnson is way too high but, I understand I'm in the minority here, same with Jeffries.

Johnson beat Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Bob Fitzsimmons, Stanley Ketchel and Jim Jefferies.

Jefferies beat Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Peter Jackson and Tom Sharkey. Lost only to a hall of famer in Johnson, and that only after a long time out of the ring.

Both exceptional CV's.

DarkTerror88
11-08-2011, 07:19 PM
I have Frazier at 5

1.) Louis
2.) Ali/Clay
3.) Johnson
4.) Foreman
5.) Frazier
6.) Liston
7.) Dempsey
8.) Marciano
9.) Holmes
10.) Holyfield
11.) Lewis
12.) Patterson
13.) Charles
14.) Jeffries
15.) Walcott
16.) Baer
17.) Schmeling
18.) Tunney
19.) Langford
20.) Corbett/W. Klitchko/Wills

Barnburner
11-09-2011, 03:07 AM
Johnson beat Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Bob Fitzsimmons, Stanley Ketchel and Jim Jefferies.
No way was that even near a prime Langford, Ketchel was a Middleweight and Fitzsimmons and Jeffries were worse than shot.
The versions of Jeanette he beat were quite inexperienced and he never actually gave him a shot at the title. He probably would have been more likely to win it than Jeffries and Joe still beat Johnson and took him to a draw at this stage in his career. Same story with McVea Johnson faught the inexperienced version who had about 10 fights. never granting him a title shot.


Jefferies beat Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Peter Jackson and Tom Sharkey. Lost only to a hall of famer in Johnson, and that only after a long time out of the ring.

Both exceptional CV's.

Fitzsimmons weighed 167 although it's still an OK win I suppose considering he won the LHW belt but, nothing that should be discussed in greatest wins.
Peter Jackson was 37 at the time of the Jeffries fight and I'm not certain of this but, I'm sure he'd already came down with TB or something because he died 3 years later.

The first Corbett win is a good win, the second one not so much. I do think the Sharkey bouts were good wins for Jeffries.

I also don't hold the Johnson loss against Jeffries for the reasons stated above.

TBear
11-09-2011, 03:32 AM
I may be alone but I got Larry Holmes at #3.

GoogleMe
11-09-2011, 05:30 AM
Been thinking of where I'd rank the late, great Smoking Joe in the history of the heavyweight division. Last time the Ring magazine ranked the heavyweight division they had him at 8th, which seems about right. The Ring's list was:

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Evander Holyfield
4.George Foreman
5.Larry Holmes
6.Rocky Marciano
7.Sonny Liston
8.Joe Frazier
9.Jack Johnson
10.Jack Dempsey
11.Ezzard Charles
12.Jim Jeffries
13.Jersey Joe Walcott
14.Mike Tyson
15.Gene Tunney
16.Harry Wills
17.Sam Langford
18.John L. Sullivan
19.Max Schmeling
20.Max Baer

My own top 15 is:

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.George Foreman
5.Larry Holmes
6.James J Jefferies
7.Evander Holyfield
8.Joe Frazier
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Sonny Liston
12.Jack Dempsey
13.Ezzard Charles
14.Mike tyson
15.Jersey Joe Walcott
A list without Holmes in top 15?

GoogleMe
11-09-2011, 05:31 AM
A list without Holmes in top 15?
Very sorry - I missed it at 5, even though I looked through the list a few times! /slap myself. HARD

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 06:17 AM
I have Frazier at 5

1.) Louis
2.) Ali/Clay
3.) Johnson
4.) Foreman
5.) Frazier
6.) Liston
7.) Dempsey
8.) Marciano
9.) Holmes
10.) Holyfield
11.) Lewis
12.) Patterson
13.) Charles
14.) Jeffries
15.) Walcott
16.) Baer
17.) Schmeling
18.) Tunney
19.) Langford
20.) Corbett/W. Klitchko/Wills



No Mike Tyson?

IronDanHamza
11-09-2011, 06:18 AM
1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.George Foreman
4.Jack Johnson
5.Sonny Liston
6.Evander Holyfield
7.Larry Holmes
8.Joe Frazier
9.Jack Dempsey
10.Mike Tyson

Capaedia
11-09-2011, 06:18 AM
Ring has Holyfield at #3?

Sweet Jesus

IronDanHamza
11-09-2011, 06:31 AM
Ring has Holyfield at #3?

Sweet Jesus

I think that list was done in the mid to late 90's. Not long after he upset Tyson and was considered just a notch below the Almighty God himself by the general public.

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 06:43 AM
The problem with lists like these is do you base them on legend/record?

Or do you base them on likely superiority in head to head matches?

Its the reason why I don't do them!

Based on his form between 1991 and 1995 Riddick Bowe deserves to be in any head to head list for example. The guy who turned up for all three Holyfield fights would beat many an ATG.

That Ring list was from the late 90s though, just after Holyfield beat Tyson......or Lennox Lewis would have been included. Ranking Holyfield ahead of Holmes and Foreman was a bit too much. Especially when you see the troubles that Evander had when he met old Foreman and old Holmes (both put up excellent efforts into their 40s and certainly won several rounds each, in their primes Holyfield would probably have lost to these two).

Capaedia
11-09-2011, 06:46 AM
I think that list was done in the mid to late 90's. Not long after he upset Tyson and was considered just a notch below the Almighty God himself by the general public.

If that's the case he may deserve the spot, since he's punched Tyson all the way to 14th place in a list from the '90s

IronDanHamza
11-09-2011, 06:51 AM
The problem with lists like these is do you base them on legend/record?

Or do you base them on likely superiority in head to head matches?

Its the reason why I don't do them!

Based on his form between 1991 and 1995 Riddick Bowe deserves to be in any head to head list for example. The guy who turned up for all three Holyfield fights would beat many an ATG.

That Ring list was from the late 90s though, just after Holyfield beat Tyson......or Lennox Lewis would have been included. Ranking Holyfield ahead of Holmes and Foreman was a bit too much. Especially when you see the troubles that Evander had when he met old Foreman and old Holmes (both put up excellent efforts into their 40s and certainly won several rounds each, in their primes Holyfield would probably have lost to these two).

I personally base the majorty of my reasoning on their resume and achievements.

But, I do consider H2H ability also, but it means little to their ranking in my personal opinion.

For example I have Bob Foster #8 on my LHW List despite the fact I feel he could beat most of the fighters ahead of him.

DarkTerror88
11-09-2011, 07:38 AM
No Mike Tyson?

I haven't made any changes to my list since 2 months ago. I was anti Tyson due to nuthuggers in my gym. Although my 10 will remain unchanged despite a different order, Tyson is between 10 and 15 realistically

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 07:49 AM
I personally base the majorty of my reasoning on their resume and achievements.

But, I do consider H2H ability also, but it means little to their ranking in my personal opinion.

For example I have Bob Foster #8 on my LHW List despite the fact I feel he could beat most of the fighters ahead of him.


Cool, I see your angle.

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 07:52 AM
I haven't made any changes to my list since 2 months ago. I was anti Tyson due to nuthuggers in my gym. Although my 10 will remain unchanged despite a different order, Tyson is between 10 and 15 realistically


Be your own man matey. Don't let nuthuggers influence you whichever way.......

jabsRstiff
11-09-2011, 08:46 AM
Though I love Holyfield and think he's an unquestionable all-time great....ranking him at heavyweight is a f*ckin' baffling thing for me. He was just so inconsistent. He had a lot of great wins and a respectable reign as champ, but he lost and/or struggled quite a bit as well.

He was amazing at Crusierweight and what he was able to do as a heavyweight was amazing considering he really wasn't a heavyweight. But, that doesn't mean he should rank amongst the best ever at that weight. The Ring definitely went a little nuts back then with that # 3 rating!

Scott9945
11-09-2011, 10:02 AM
Though I love Holyfield and think he's an unquestionable all-time great....ranking him at heavyweight is a f*ckin' baffling thing for me. He was just so inconsistent. He had a lot of great wins and a respectable reign as champ, but he lost and/or struggled quite a bit as well.

He was amazing at Crusierweight and what he was able to do as a heavyweight was amazing considering he really wasn't a heavyweight. But, that doesn't mean he should rank amongst the best ever at that weight. The Ring definitely went a little nuts back then with that # 3 rating!


Fighters on their way up are often understandably overrated, but I've never seen a veteran fighter suddenly become so ridiculously overrated like Holyfield did after beating Tyson.

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 10:16 AM
Yea, 3 is a bit high. But I'd say that Holyfield probably still justifies a top ten position at heavyweight.

I wouldn't rate him as high as the likes of Ali, Louis, Holmes or Foreman......but at heavyweight he has a very good argument to be considered alongside such names as Frazier, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, Marciano or Tyson.

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 10:27 AM
Fighters on their way up are often understandably overrated, but I've never seen a veteran fighter suddenly become so ridiculously overrated like Holyfield did after beating Tyson.


Clearly those behind the ranking list in Ring Magazine bought into the myth that the Tyson who steam rollered Bruno and Seldon was as good as he ever was in the late 80s.

These were no doubt the same people who thought that 1996 Holyfield was a walking corpse with a dicky heart who could be killed in the first round by Tyson!

That said, it is amazing that Holyfield is still campaigning for a title shot even now!! This morning I watched the return match with Riddick Bowe in 1993.....and even then the commentators Reg Gutteridge and Jim Watt were saying that Holyfield was post prime and not what he once was (and that was 18 years ago!!!).

jabsRstiff
11-09-2011, 10:34 AM
Fighters on their way up are often understandably overrated, but I've never seen a veteran fighter suddenly become so ridiculously overrated like Holyfield did after beating Tyson.


You're right. Even though I loved seeing Evander beat Tyson's ass....it didn't suddenly make me forget that he had also lost to Moorer and twice to Bowe not too long before that.

As for how long he's been fighting-

It's close to 27 years to the day of his pro debut. And when you take into consideration some of the incredible wars he's been in.....

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 10:40 AM
You're right. Even though I loved seeing Evander beat Tyson's ass....it didn't suddenly make me forget that he had also lost to Moorer and twice to Bowe not too long before that.

As for how long he's been fighting-

It's close to 27 years to the day of his pro debut. And when you take into consideration some of the incredible wars he's been in.....


I suppose the Tyson victory was seen as vindication for Holyfield fans.

Evander of course argued that his heart complaint was responsible for his sluggish performance against Moorer and that he had fought Bowe the third time with flu. To be fair, there did seem to be something wrong with him in both those fights.........

Emon723
11-09-2011, 10:42 AM
Tyson has always been underrated in the heavyweight rankings, that the likes of Liston, Walcott and Tunney were even rank higher by boxing historians, they only look at Tyson in the 90s, but not the peak Tyson in '86-'88, Liston and the late great Smokin Joe Frazier would definitely beat the Tyson post-prison era, but the Tyson under Kevin Rooney would be a pick'em fight vs Liston and Frazier.

On the other hand, rankings highly favored Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, no disrespect but boxing was fought differently in their time.

Barnburner
11-09-2011, 10:47 AM
Tyson has always been underrated in the heavyweight rankings, that the likes of Liston, Walcott and Tunney were even rank higher by boxing historians, they only look at Tyson in the 90s, but not the peak Tyson in '86-'88, Liston and the late great Smokin Joe Frazier would definitely beat the Tyson post-prison era, but the Tyson under Kevin Rooney would be a pick'em fight vs Liston and Frazier.

On the other hand, rankings highly favored Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, no disrespect but boxing was fought differently in their time.
I also agree Mike Tysons is quite under-rated these days. I think he deserves a Top 10 Spot. Despite it being a relativley weak era, he still won the Undisputed HW Champ at the youngest age in history. Then fired through 9 defences of his Undisputed Crown.

Rocky was in a weak era also and made 4 defences, against slightly better competition. Same story with Liston, Tyson shouldn't be far away from both Rocky or Liston IMO.

They all lack the signature win like Ali vs Foreman/Liston etc. Or amazing consistency like Joe Louis.

jabsRstiff
11-09-2011, 10:48 AM
Tyson has always been underrated in the heavyweight rankings, that the likes of Liston, Walcott and Tunney were even rank higher by boxing historians, they only look at Tyson in the 90s, but not the peak Tyson in '86-'88, Liston and the late great Smokin Joe Frazier would definitely beat the Tyson post-prison era, but the Tyson under Kevin Rooney would be a pick'em fight vs Liston and Frazier.

On the other hand, rankings highly favored Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, no disrespect but boxing was fought differently in their time.


There's a backlash against how overrated Tyson was during his career- overrated especially by those who weren't quite hardcore followers of the game. I know I was so annoyed by it all that I began underrating Tyson's career. Now, I've come down off of that high-horse and rate Tyson where he belongs....in the second half of the top ten.

Barnburner
11-09-2011, 10:52 AM
There's a backlash against how overrated Tyson was during his career- overrated especially by those who weren't quite hardcore followers of the game. I know I was so annoyed by it all that I began underrating Tyson's career. Now, I've come down off of that high-horse and rate Tyson where he belongs....in the second half of the top ten.
I agree that is reasonable positioning for Tyson.

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 10:55 AM
Tyson has always been underrated in the heavyweight rankings, that the likes of Liston, Walcott and Tunney were even rank higher by boxing historians, they only look at Tyson in the 90s, but not the peak Tyson in '86-'88, Liston and the late great Smokin Joe Frazier would definitely beat the Tyson post-prison era, but the Tyson under Kevin Rooney would be a pick'em fight vs Liston and Frazier.

On the other hand, rankings highly favored Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, no disrespect but boxing was fought differently in their time.


In an ATG heavyweight prime for prime head to head list I'd have Tyson in a top 10 spot, possibly top 5.

I don't think that anyone in history has an easy time in a 12 round fight with prime Tyson.

I've got a feeling that in decades to come we'll see Mike Tyson receive more recognition as a heavyweight ATG, he seems to have a fair few haters at the moment.

jabsRstiff
11-09-2011, 11:00 AM
I've got a feeling that in decades to come we'll see Mike Tyson receive more recognition as a heavyweight ATG, he seems to have a fair few haters at the moment.


I totally agree....and this will especially be the case should the division continue its spiral beneath the sewers of boxing history.

Sugarj
11-09-2011, 11:42 AM
I totally agree....and this will especially be the case should the division continue its spiral beneath the sewers of boxing history.

Absolutely!!!

I've no idea why every big, half athletic youngster isn't getting down to his local boxing gym.

The pathway to becoming a world class heavyweight and the riches which come with the prize has surely never been easier!

I can't knock the Klitschko's for being solid professionals in a weak era. Its amazing that they keep motivated and clearly in shape.

To be honest, the next really decent heavyweight will show up in the next five years, history shows us that someone special shows up every 10 or 15 years!

Dempsey prime 1921-1923
Louis prime 1938
Marciano prime 1953-1954
Ali prime 1966-1967
Holmes prime 1978-1979
Tyson prime 1988
Lewis prime 1999-2000

(All the above primes were separated by around 10 and 15 years).

I can't wait!!!!

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 12:12 PM
01. Muhammad Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. Jack Johnson
04. Jack Dempsey
05. Larry Holmes
06. Sonny Liston
07. Evander Holyfield
08. George Foreman
09. Rocky Marciano
10. Mike Tyson
11. Joe Frazier
12. Harry Wills

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 02:08 PM
The Ring rating Holyfield number three is a great example of why you should never slap an all-time rating on a fighter until he's retired. They did the same thing with Roberto Duran in 1980. There was an all-time pound-for-pound list, and I believe they had Duran (who had just defeated Leonard and had a record of like 72-1) rated #1 or #2 all-time. I don't think you'd find him anywhere near the top spot now.

I'd rate them something like this:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Frazier
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston

And if the Klitschkos continue to dominate, depending on how their careers wrap up, both will make their way into that top 10 (not necessarily at the bottom). Their era is no worse than the eras Joe Louis or Sonny Liston or even Mike Tyson dominated. But, again, it depends on how their careers finish up.

At the moment, though, Joe Frazier is right up there.

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 02:27 PM
They did the same thing with Roberto Duran in 1980. There was an all-time pound-for-pound list, and I believe they had Duran (who had just defeated Leonard and had a record of like 72-1) rated #1 or #2 all-time. I don't think you'd find him anywhere near the top spot now.

You do realize that Roberto Duran routinely makes top-10 All-Time p4p lists to this day? And with good reason considering he's the concensus GOAT at Lightweight.


Their era is no worse than the eras Joe Louis or Sonny Liston or even Mike Tyson dominated. But, again, it depends on how their careers finish up.

I'm sorry, but I've been watching boxing for 35 years and I've never seen the Heavyweight division this bad. The 1980s came close but it was still better than the backed-up cesspool we have today.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 02:49 PM
You do realize that Roberto Duran routinely makes top-10 All-Time p4p lists to this day? And with good reason considering he's the concensus GOAT at Lightweight.




I'm sorry, but I've been watching boxing for 35 years and I've never seen the Heavyweight division this bad. The 1980s came close but it was still better than the backed-up cesspool we have today.

Poet


Today, Roberto Duran isn't rated the best ever pound-for-pound, like he was then. That's my point.

And I've been watching boxing since the 1970s, and the guys the Klitschkos are beating aren't any worse than the guys Joe Louis beat, or the guys Sonny Liston beat, or the guys Mike Tyson feasted on before the Douglas fight. When Tyson was destroying everyone, people complained then that the division was terrible. Some with Louis. They didn't label them "Bums of the Month" because they thought he was defending against excellent challengers.

I'm not saying the Klitschkos deserve to be in the top 10 yet, it depends on how they finish up. They could both hold the title until they are 46 years old and both have more defenses than Joe Louis, and it would be foolish not to rate them near the top. Or they could lose in their next fights and not make the grade. It's too early to tell.

Look, I love the old-timers, and I think Joe Louis could beat everyone Vitali has beaten. But I also think Vitali could beat everyone Joe Louis beat. And when Joe Louis was Vitali's age, he was a bloated pro wrestler shooting heroin after matches.

Regardless, this is a Joe Frazier thread.

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 02:54 PM
Regardless, this is a Joe Frazier thread.

Then why did you turn it into a Klitschko propaganda thread? Just couldn't resist to the urge to big up your heros?

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 02:56 PM
Today, Roberto Duran isn't rated the best ever pound-for-pound, like he was then. That's my point.

Anybody good enough to crack the top-10 All-Time p4p is interchangable with anyone else making the cut not named Robinson. So it's not exactly outrageous to talk about Duran in that kind of company.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 02:57 PM
Then why did you turn it into a Klitschko propaganda thread? Just couldn't resist to the urge to big up your heros?

Poet

The Klitschkos aren't my "heroes." I've been banned from sites for insisting they fight each other to prove who is the real champ.

When I rate fighters, I rate them objectively. I was never an Ali fan, and always loved Frazier, but you see how I have them rated.

I just wanted to explain why I left the ninth and tenth spots open ... and it's because the Klitschkos are probably going to join my top 10 when all is said and done.

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 03:01 PM
Anybody good enough to crack the top-10 All-Time p4p is interchangable with anyone else making the cut not named Robinson. So it's not exactly outrageous to talk about Duran in that kind of company.

Poet

My point is you don't see Duran rated #1 P-4-P anymore because you judge his whole career. And his whole career doesn't warrant the top spot. Same with Holyfield. People in this thread couldn't understand why Evander was rated #3. It's because they rated him when he arguably scored his biggest win and they didn't wait to see how his career finished up.

Jesus. Do you just come on here to argue minute points?

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:02 PM
just wanted to explain why I left the ninth and tenth spots open ... and it's because the Klitschkos are probably going to join my top 10 when all is said and done.

They'll never warrent that sort of ranking. Vitali may crack the top-20 but Wlad doesn't make it past the top-20 to top-30. And that IS objective. They aren't that good. They're simply what's floated to the surface of the cesspool. Vitali couldn't even beat the best fighter he faced when that fighter was well past-it and out of shape.....and Lennox doesn't get any higher than 13 by my reckoning. Wlad got KTFO by tomato cans ffs.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:05 PM
My point is you don't see Duran rated #1 P-4-P anymore because you judge his whole career. And his whole career doesn't warrant the top spot. Same with Holyfield. People in this thread couldn't understand why Evander was rated #3. It's because they rated him when he arguably scored his biggest win and they didn't wait to see how his career finished up.

Jesus. Do you just come on here to argue minute points?

Fighters are rated based on their primes. Or do you drop Ali a few notches for losing to Berbeck when he was washed up? Duran's prime was at Lightweight where he's generally considered the best fighter in the history of the division.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 03:12 PM
They'll never warrent that sort of ranking.
Poet

That's an odd comment to make for someone who supposedly has watched boxing for 30 years. Wlad has made, what, 10 defenses of the IBF belt? Vitali has eight successful WBC title defenses. There are guys on some of these top 10 list that don't have anywhere near that many defenses (Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, etc.). Frazier only had 10 (if you count the defenses he made after beating Mathis).

And the Klitschkos could reign for years. Never say never.

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:15 PM
That's an odd comment to make for someone who supposedly has watched boxing for 30 years. Wlad has made, what, 10 defenses of the IBF belt? Vitali has eight successful WBC title defenses. There are guys on some of these top 10 list that don't have anywhere near that many defenses (Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, etc.). Frazier only had 10 (if you count the defenses he made after beating Mathis).

And the Klitschkos could reign for years. Never say never.

The number of defenses a fighter makes of an Alphacrap Belt is meaningless. The bottom line is who you fought and how good they were at the career stage you fought them at. Whether there was some worthless strap at stake for any of them is immaterial.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:18 PM
Case in point: Charley Burley never won a title but he beat Grade-A competition and gets ranked as a result over quite a few guys that had successful runs as Middleweight champ.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 03:21 PM
Fighters are rated based on their primes. Or do you drop Ali a few notches for losing to Berbeck when he was washed up? Duran's prime was at Lightweight where he's generally considered the best fighter in the history of the division.

Poet

Fighters ARE NOT rated based solely on their primes, because nitwits end up arguing over when "their prime" actually was.

Ali's "prime" was in the 1960s. Are you telling me you don't consider his wins in the 70s, after he lost to Norton, when rating him? His wins over Frazier and Foreman, etc., don't count? Because I can tell you NOBODY considered him in his prime when he lost to Norton. He certainly wasn't considered to be "in his prime" when he fought Foreman.

And I can pull that issue of Ring, and I am pretty sure that Duran's wins over Carlos Palomino (the recent Welterweight champ) and Sugar Ray Leonard (the reigning Welterweight champ) -- in addition to his Lightweight run -- had a lot to do with his rating.

So I have to call Bullsh*t on that "only rated based on their primes" comment.

Some fighters score their bigges wins well after their primes.

MASTERFUL
11-09-2011, 03:23 PM
Vitali and Wlad are the two most dominant fighters of all time. The numbers and stats don't lie.

Both Klitschkos would be dominant HW champs in any era.

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 03:23 PM
History section is a joke.

The American HW champs from the past weren't even real world champs, they were all frauds because they never competed against the superior Soviets/Eastern Europeans in the pros.

.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... take it up with the Kremlin, Boris.

It's not Ali's fault the Eastern Bloc wasn't allowed to turn pro.

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 03:29 PM
The number of defenses a fighter makes of an Alphacrap Belt is meaningless. The bottom line is who you fought and how good they were at the career stage you fought them at. Whether there was some worthless strap at stake for any of them is immaterial.

Poet

Then you must not rate Larry Holmes very high, because his biggest wins came against guys at the very end of their careers or at the very beginning, when they had a dozen fights or so.

Both Klitschkos have been named RING champ, and neither has lost since winning that title.

I love heavyweight history, but some guys apparently quit paying attention to it when the U.S. took a back seat. Which gives fuel to guys ... like Boris over there.

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:31 PM
Fighters ARE NOT rated based solely on their primes, because nitwits end up arguing over when "their prime" actually was.

Ali's "prime" was in the 1960s. Are you telling me you don't consider his wins in the 70s, after he lost to Norton, when rating him? His wins over Frazier and Foreman, etc., don't count? Because I can tell you NOBODY considered him in his prime when he lost to Norton. He certainly wasn't considered to be "in his prime" when he fought Foreman.

And I can pull that issue of Ring, and I am pretty sure that Duran's wins over Carlos Palomino (the recent Welterweight champ) and Sugar Ray Leonard (the reigning Welterweight champ) -- in addition to his Lightweight run -- had a lot to do with his rating.

So I have to call Bullsh*t on that "only rated based on their primes" comment.

Some fighters score their bigges wins well after their primes.

Completely missing the point. When you lose to a top opponent after you're past-prime that's the expected result. Most objective aren't going to hold that against a fighter. When you beat a top opponent after you're past your prime objective observers are going to give that fighter credit for doing something they weren't expected to do.

And btw, boxing historians argue over when a fighter's prime was ALL THE TIME. Why? Because if you don't take that sort of thing into consideration it's academic dishonesty.

Poet

joseph5620
11-09-2011, 03:32 PM
That's an odd comment to make for someone who supposedly has watched boxing for 30 years. Wlad has made, what, 10 defenses of the IBF belt? Vitali has eight successful WBC title defenses. There are guys on some of these top 10 list that don't have anywhere near that many defenses (Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, etc.). Frazier only had 10 (if you count the defenses he made after beating Mathis).

And the Klitschkos could reign for years. Never say never.

And they were all undisputed champions at some point in their careers. Something the Klitschko's will never be. And while I can understand why they will never fight each other, it doesn't change the fact the they are the two best heavyweights in the division. And they will never face each other.This is what will be held against them when their careers are over with.


I think Wlad has put together a solid career but Vitali doesn't have a leg to stand if you're going to compare him to top 10-12 all time heavyweights. He lost to the two best fighters he ever faced while in his prime and one of those opponents was past his (Lewis).Wlad lost by TKO to three fighters that were sub par. That can't be ignored or erased if you're going to throw fighters like Frazier or Foreman in this.

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:32 PM
Vitali and Wlad are the two most dominant fighters of all time. The numbers and stats don't lie.

Both Klitschkos would be dominant HW champs in any era.

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.

You've had three accounts banned in the last five days: Give it up Putin :jerk0ff9:

joseph5620
11-09-2011, 03:35 PM
Then you must not rate Larry Holmes very high, because his biggest wins came against guys at the very end of their careers or at the very beginning, when they had a dozen fights or so.
Both Klitschkos have been named RING champ, and neither has lost since winning that title.

I love heavyweight history, but some guys apparently quit paying attention to it when the U.S. took a back seat. Which gives fuel to guys ... like Boris over there.

When did Larry Holmes ever lose to a fighter on the level of Brewster, Purrity, or Sanders? He didn't even get knocked out by fighters like that when he was past 40.

Ziggy Stardust
11-09-2011, 03:38 PM
Then you must not rate Larry Holmes very high, because his biggest wins came against guys at the very end of their careers or at the very beginning, when they had a dozen fights or so.

Both Klitschkos have been named RING champ, and neither has lost since winning that title.

I love heavyweight history, but some guys apparently quit paying attention to it when the U.S. took a back seat. Which gives fuel to guys ... like Boris over there.

Holmes in fact DOES take a ranking hit from people who rank solely on resumes. Nothing new there. So does Dempsey.

Quit paying attention? Sorry, but I've seen just about every Klitschko fight that's been televised and have the majority of both their fights on video. Same thing with Lennox Lewis: I have his career set on video and have watched every one of them. The "no US Heavy = no watch" doesn't wash here.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Wlad lost by TKO to three fighters that were sub par. That can't be ignored or erased if you're going to throw fighters like Frazier or Foreman in this.

Sanders and Brewster were far from "sub-par." In fact, Brewster put together one of the more entertaining heavyweight reigns in recent years, with his fights against Klitschko, Krasniqi, Golota, Meehan and Liakhovich (which was arguably the best heavyweight fight of the decade).

And I see Jack Dempsey on a lot of lists, but didn't he get starched in one round by Fireman Jim Flynn before he won the title? Didn't he lose to Fat Boy Willie Meehan? Have you seen Meehan. I have a photo take at the Dempsey fight where he lost to Meehan. The guy is a joke.

The only difference is, you can't watch Dempsey getting starched in one round and laid out flat on his back on a loop over and over again before you make your top 10 list. So it's easy for "historians" to slam someone like Wlad -- who has had all his fights recorded -- and Dempsey, where only a fraction of his fights were ever recorded.

If you could watch Dempsey getting wasted in one round, I'm sure he'd drop off plenty of lists. Because he didn't exactly destroy the best competition of his era.

Wlad Klitschko is a fine heavyweight champion. So is Vitali. BOTH are Ring champs. I want them to fight each other to prove who is the best. I hold that against them. But, if they don't fight, you have to judge their careers on their own merits. And if these guys continue to reign for another 10 years ... everyone slamming them now will look like fools. That's why you never say they will NEVER be considered among the best. Their careers aren't over yet.

Foreman is rated so high by so many BECAUSE OF what he accomplished after coming back in his later years. He faced more top fighters in his second career than he did in his first.

If Wlad wracks up 25 or 26 title defenses, and is still kicking butts when he's 45 (which is well within the realm of possibility), anyone saying, "Yeah, but he punched himself out against Purrity when he was a kid so he gets nowhere near the top 20 all-time" is going to sound pretty ridiculous.

Scott9945
11-09-2011, 04:40 PM
Vitali and Wlad are the two most dominant fighters of all time. The numbers and stats don't lie.

Both Klitschkos would be dominant HW champs in any era.

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.


I'm not real thrilled about the new influx of agenda driven posters here. :sad:

IronDanHamza
11-09-2011, 05:08 PM
And they were all undisputed champions at some point in their careers. Something the Klitschko's will never be. And while I can understand why they will never fight each other, it doesn't change the fact the they are the two best heavyweights in the division. And they will never face each other.This is what will be held against them when their careers are over with.


I think Wlad has put together a solid career but Vitali doesn't have a leg to stand if you're going to compare him to top 10-12 all time heavyweights. He lost to the two best fighters he ever faced while in his prime and one of those opponents was past his (Lewis).Wlad lost by TKO to three fighters that were sub par. That can't be ignored or erased if you're going to throw fighters like Frazier or Foreman in this.

Does the same apply for Manny Pacquaio in your opinion?

It's a genuine question :lol1:

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 05:17 PM
I'm not real thrilled about the new influx of agenda driven posters here. :sad:

I understand what you're saying. Some fanboys just like to come in and spam boards. But, to me, there's not much difference between someone who says the "Klitschkos are the best ever" and people who say the "Klitschkos are not in the top 30 and will never be considered among the greats."

The truth is they are both very good. Both have better credentials than many guys who currently appear on some all-time lists. And they aren't finished yet.

Wlad won the Olympic Gold Medal. He is the Ring Champ. He's got 1o IBF title defenses under his belt and an 11th defense scheduled. If he's successful, only Louis, Holmes, Ali and Lewis will have more successful title defenses than Wlad. And Vitali has eight WBC defenses, is a Ring Champ as well, and he could easily pass Foreman as the oldest man to successfully defend the title. These guys are going to keep fighting and making millions until someone knocks them off. And I don't see anyone on the horizon.

And I'm not even a fan. I think I've rooted for everyone who has ever faced them. But facts are facts. And, in my mind, the people who ignore the facts are no better than the Klitschko fanatics.

Scott9945
11-09-2011, 05:24 PM
I understand what you're saying. Some fanboys just like to come in and spam boards. But, to me, there's not much difference between someone who says the "Klitschkos are the best ever" and people who say the "Klitschkos are not in the top 30 and will never be considered among the greats."

The truth is they are both very good. Both have better credentials than many guys who currently appear on some all-time lists. And they aren't finished yet.

Wlad won the Olympic Gold Medal. He is the Ring Champ. He's got 1o IBF title defenses under his belt and an 11th defense scheduled. If he's successful, only Louis, Holmes, Ali and Lewis will have more successful title defenses than Wlad. And Vitali has eight WBC defenses, is a Ring Champ as well, and he could easily pass Foreman as the oldest man to successfully defend the title. These guys are going to keep fighting and making millions until someone knocks them off. And I don't see anyone on the horizon.

And I'm not even a fan. I think I've rooted for everyone who has ever faced them. But facts are facts. And, in my mind, the people who ignore the facts are no better than the Klitschko fanatics.

For the record, you weren't one of the newbies I was referring to. And I like the K bros more than most of the other regulars here, so I mostly buy into everything you said here. So stick around, it's always good to have more objective and informed fans here. :)

joseph5620
11-09-2011, 05:27 PM
Does the same apply for Manny Pacquaio in your opinion?

It's a genuine question :lol1:

Good question and it should apply to Pacquiao when people start putting him ahead of fighters like Duran or Whitaker.

Dubblechin
11-09-2011, 05:32 PM
Good question. It does in my opinion when he's discussed with the all time greats.

Interesting. So, considering Henry Armstrong lost three of his first four fights, I guess any chance of being on a pound-for-pound list is out of the question?

I thought you guys only considered wins and losses in their primes?

That's why I never get in these discussions.

You base a fighters' career on his entire career. Ups, downs, wins, losses, quality of opponents, titles won, titles lost, all of it.

Any losses Pacquiao had as a "child" have been obliterated by the success he's had against the biggest names in the sport. And if Manny keeps fighting until he's old, and he racks up 10 or 12 losses in the next decade, then all that counts, too.

When his career is over, you base his all-time ranking on the whole career. A career includes ALL of it ... not just a few years that nobody can agree on.

joseph5620
11-09-2011, 05:49 PM
Interesting. So, considering Henry Armstrong lost three of his first four fights, I guess any chance of being on a pound-for-pound list is out of the question?
I thought you guys only considered wins and losses in their primes?

That's why I never get in these discussions.

You base a fighters' career on his entire career. Ups, downs, wins, losses, quality of opponents, titles won, titles lost, all of it.

Any losses Pacquiao had as a "child" have been obliterated by the success he's had against the biggest names in the sport. And if Manny keeps fighting until he's old, and he racks up 10 or 12 losses in the next decade, then all that counts, too.

When his career is over, you base his all-time ranking on the whole career. A career includes ALL of it ... not just a few years that nobody can agree on.

Henry Armstrong held three undisputed championships simultaneously when there were only 8 different divisions. That in itself puts him in an all time great discussion.

If you're referring to my comments about the Klitschko's what have they done that even remotely compares to that? And no, Pacquaio's accomplishments don't compare to that either. Of course he still has time to do bigger things but fighting JMM at this stage is not one of them.

IronDanHamza
11-09-2011, 08:35 PM
Good question and it should apply to Pacquiao when people start putting him ahead of fighters like Duran or Whitaker.

You're too late :lol1:

If you consider Pacquaio to not be in the Top 25 of all time the new era of fans look at you're a Zombie.

But, we've been here before and I know it will die down in due time so It's yet another one of those unbearble situation that you have to just make bearable.

joseph5620
11-10-2011, 01:23 AM
:lol1:You're too late :lol1:

If you consider Pacquaio to not be in the Top 25 of all time the new era of fans look at you're a Zombie.
But, we've been here before and I know it will die down in due time so It's yet another one of those unbearble situation that you have to just make bearable.

:lol1: Yeah I thought about that right after I posted it.

SCtrojansbaby
11-10-2011, 01:31 AM
Good question and it should apply to Pacquiao when people start putting him ahead of fighters like Duran or Whitaker.

Pacquiao's resume is better than Whitaker's

Emon723
11-10-2011, 01:39 AM
In an ATG heavyweight prime for prime head to head list I'd have Tyson in a top 10 spot, possibly top 5.

I don't think that anyone in history has an easy time in a 12 round fight with prime Tyson.

I've got a feeling that in decades to come we'll see Mike Tyson receive more recognition as a heavyweight ATG, he seems to have a fair few haters at the moment.

I agree that any other heavyweight greats wont have any picnic in a 12 round bout with a feared Mike Tyson, Iron Mike deserves at least a 10-12 ranking. putting him out of the top 15 is too much unfair.

bojangles1987
11-10-2011, 07:27 AM
You're too late :lol1:

If you consider Pacquaio to not be in the Top 25 of all time the new era of fans look at you're a Zombie.

But, we've been here before and I know it will die down in due time so It's yet another one of those unbearble situation that you have to just make bearable.

I don't know, that's only true with the insane Pacquiao fans I think, and with some people who just haven't seen the fighters that should be ranked ahead of Pac. I know there's a poll out there about where Pac should rank, probably like a dozen polls, I'm pretty sure Pac wasn't voted mostly to be top 25.

IronDanHamza
11-10-2011, 09:24 AM
I don't know, that's only true with the insane Pacquiao fans I think, and with some people who just haven't seen the fighters that should be ranked ahead of Pac. I know there's a poll out there about where Pac should rank, probably like a dozen polls, I'm pretty sure Pac wasn't voted mostly to be top 25.

Yeah, that's true.

Pac fans like yourself understand where he should be ranked but there's just a mass of morons who make up the majorty of the Pacquaio fan base unfortunately.

And when main stream media like ESPN look at Teddy Atlas like he's crazy when he say's he wouldn't be in his Top 25 it just adds more fuel to the fire.

IronDanHamza
11-10-2011, 09:26 AM
Pacquiao's resume is better than Whitaker's

I agree.

I have Pacquaio just a notch below Virgil Hill and Whitaker atleast 60 spaces below Hill.

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 11:59 AM
Good question and it should apply to Pacquiao when people start putting him ahead of fighters like Duran or Whitaker.

I'm just curious to hear your answer. Who did Roberto Duran beat (in your mind) to justify ranking him so high all-time?

Because I remember when Duran was a lightweight (and I don't get the impression some of you guys do). I watched him on television defending his lightweight title. I also remember the incredible hype surrounding him when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard (which, to me, were bigger than ANY wins he had at lightweight). My dad led the charge. He loved Duran.

But I also remember watching in disgust when Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit against Pat Lawlor on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard.

So could you do me a favor and name all the great lightweights Duran beat that render his victories so far superior to Manny Pacquiao's wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, etc.?

Because for the life of me I don't get this bull about Pacquiao being 60 spots below Virgil Hill garbage.

Play a video of Pacquiao's WORST moment in the ring, and play a video of Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor, and I can tell which is FAR more pathetic in my mind. Not to mention the No Mas fight, or the UNO MAS fight, which I paid to see and sat their cursing Duran all night for clearly just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I have no idea where Pacquiao will finish up all-time, because his career is not over yet, and I don't think he's beaten anyone as good as the Leonard that Duran beat, but Pacquiao has NEVER looked as bad as Duran did against Lawlor or in the second and third Leonard fights. And, in my mind, you have to consider ALL of it. The same human being who beat a lot of, frankly, nobody-that-great at Lightweight was the same person who quit against Leonard (twice) and quit against Lawlor and stunk out the joint plenty later on.

How anyone can look at Duran's entire career and rate him near the top spot is beyond me ... and I watched the guy fight for the better part of three decades. The only way you can do it is if you have selective amnesia ... and if you're going to do that for Duran and other old-timers, you should selectively forget the worst moments of someone like PAcquiao's career. Otherwise, you aren't judging them fairly.

If Duran had quit after beating Leonard with a record of 72-1, he'd have had solid claim. But you can't simply ignore all the terrible performances that followed over the next 20 YEARS! For 2/3 of his career, he looked like crap most of the time.

From 1942-1946, Jimmy Bivins might have been the best fighter on the planet. But that was only a fraction of his overall career, so you don't see him at the top of a lot of lists. I view Duran similarly.

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 12:18 PM
I'm just curious to hear your answer. Who did Roberto Duran beat (in your mind) to justify ranking him so high all-time?

Because I remember when Duran was a lightweight (and I don't get the impression some of you guys do). I watched him on television defending his lightweight title. I also remember the incredible hype surrounding him when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard (which, to me, were bigger than ANY wins he had at lightweight). My dad led the charge. He loved Duran.

But I also remember watching in disgust when Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit against Pat Lawlor on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard.

So could you do me a favor and name all the great lightweights Duran beat that render his victories so far superior to Manny Pacquiao's wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, etc.?

Because for the life of me I don't get this bull about Pacquiao being 60 spots below Virgil Hill garbage.

Play a video of Pacquiao's WORST moment in the ring, and play a video of Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor, and I can tell which is FAR more pathetic in my mind. Not to mention the No Mas fight, or the UNO MAS fight, which I paid to see and sat their cursing Duran all night for clearly just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I have no idea where Pacquiao will finish up all-time, because his career is not over yet, and I don't think he's beaten anyone as good as the Leonard that Duran beat, but Pacquiao has NEVER looked as bad as Duran did against Lawlor or in the second and third Leonard fights. And, in my mind, you have to consider ALL of it. The same human being who beat a lot of, frankly, nobody-special at Lightweight was the same person who quit against Leonard (twice) and quit against Lawlor and stunk out the joint plenty later on.

How anyone can look at Duran's entire career and rate him near the top spot is beyond me ... and I watched the guy fight for the better part of three decades. The only way you can do it is if you have selective amnesia ... and if you're going to do that for Duran and other old-timers, you should selectively forget the worst moments of someone like PAcquiao's career. Otherwise, you aren't judging them fairly.

For five years, during WWII, Jimmy Bivins might have been the best fighter on the planet. But that was only a fraction of his overall career, so you don't seem him at the top of a lot of lists.

And NOW we see the agenda. Apparently you've never heard of Esteban DeJesus who is considered an ATG Lightweight.


If Duran had quit after beating Leonard with a record of 72-1, he'd have had solid claim. But you can't simply ignore all the terrible performances that followed over the next 20 YEARS! For 2/3 of his career, he looked like crap most of the time.

Because no one (except YOU and assorted NSB ignoramuses with an agenda) hold fights that occurred when a fighter was washed-up against the fighter.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 12:35 PM
And NOW we see the agenda. Apparently you've never heard of Esteban DeJesus who is considered an ATG Lightweight.




Because no one (except YOU and assorted NSB ignoramuses with an agenda) hold fights that occurred when a fighter was washed-up against the fighter.

Poet

I don't have an "agenda" ... I just asked question. And I know who the hell Esteban DeJesus is. I watched their third fight live. Did you? Were you even born then?

But I certainly don't consider Esteban DeJesus MILES ahead of Marco Antonio Barrera, or Erik Morales or other great fighters Pacquiao has beaten. Hell, I think Morales and Barrera were better than DeJesus.

And you named ONE guy. Who were ALL the great Lightweights he beat that leave Pacquaio's biggest wins in the dust?

A lot of fighters are AWESOME for a period of time. Duran was one of them. The problem was the VAST MAJORITY of his career he WASN'T. And if a guy was mediocre to terrible for 2/3 of his career, I have a hard time rating him near the top of every fighter who ever fought ALL-TIME. That certainly doesn't make me ignorant. It makes me clear-headed and unbiased.

IronDanHamza
11-10-2011, 12:35 PM
I'm just curious to hear your answer. Who did Roberto Duran beat (in your mind) to justify ranking him so high all-time?

Because I remember when Duran was a lightweight (and I don't get the impression some of you guys do). I watched him on television defending his lightweight title. I also remember the incredible hype surrounding him when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard (which, to me, were bigger than ANY wins he had at lightweight). My dad led the charge. He loved Duran.

But I also remember watching in disgust when Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit against Pat Lawlor on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard.

So could you do me a favor and name all the great lightweights Duran beat that render his victories so far superior to Manny Pacquiao's wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, etc.?

Because for the life of me I don't get this bull about Pacquiao being 60 spots below Virgil Hill garbage.
Play a video of Pacquiao's WORST moment in the ring, and play a video of Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor, and I can tell which is FAR more pathetic in my mind. Not to mention the No Mas fight, or the UNO MAS fight, which I paid to see and sat their cursing Duran all night for clearly just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I have no idea where Pacquiao will finish up all-time, because his career is not over yet, and I don't think he's beaten anyone as good as the Leonard that Duran beat, but Pacquiao has NEVER looked as bad as Duran did against Lawlor or in the second and third Leonard fights. And, in my mind, you have to consider ALL of it. The same human being who beat a lot of, frankly, nobody-that-great at Lightweight was the same person who quit against Leonard (twice) and quit against Lawlor and stunk out the joint plenty later on.

How anyone can look at Duran's entire career and rate him near the top spot is beyond me ... and I watched the guy fight for the better part of three decades. The only way you can do it is if you have selective amnesia ... and if you're going to do that for Duran and other old-timers, you should selectively forget the worst moments of someone like PAcquiao's career. Otherwise, you aren't judging them fairly.

If Duran had quit after beating Leonard with a record of 72-1, he'd have had solid claim. But you can't simply ignore all the terrible performances that followed over the next 20 YEARS! For 2/3 of his career, he looked like crap most of the time.

From 1942-1946, Jimmy Bivins might have been the best fighter on the planet. But that was only a fraction of his overall career, so you don't see him at the top of a lot of lists. I view Duran similarly.

Who said that?

Who would dare say something so blasphemous?!

He is only 2 or 3 spots lower..

But Pernell Whitaker on the other hand? He's atleast 60 places lower.

But that's common knowledge, obviously.

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 12:43 PM
I don't have an "agenda" ... I just asked question. And I know who the hell Esteban DeJesus is. I watched their third fight live. Did you? Were you even born then?

I've been watching boxing since 1973 so you can secure that sh1t right now Junior.


But I certainly don't consider Esteban DeJesus MILES ahead of Marco Antonio Barrera, or Erik Morales or other great fighters Pacquiao has beaten.

Yeah? You also think what a washed-up Duran did against Lawler is relevant to Duran's all-time standing which destoys any pretense of credibility you might have thought that you had.


Hell, I think Morales and Barrera were better than DeJesus.

And THERE'S your first problem: You should leave the thinking to those who are qualified.....it's an activity you clearly can't handle.

Poet

joseph5620
11-10-2011, 01:53 PM
I'm just curious to hear your answer. Who did Roberto Duran beat (in your mind) to justify ranking him so high all-time?
Because I remember when Duran was a lightweight (and I don't get the impression some of you guys do). I watched him on television defending his lightweight title. I also remember the incredible hype surrounding him when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard (which, to me, were bigger than ANY wins he had at lightweight). My dad led the charge. He loved Duran.

But I also remember watching in disgust when Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit against Pat Lawlor on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard.

So could you do me a favor and name all the great lightweights Duran beat that render his victories so far superior to Manny Pacquiao's wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, etc.?

Because for the life of me I don't get this bull about Pacquiao being 60 spots below Virgil Hill garbage.

Play a video of Pacquiao's WORST moment in the ring, and play a video of Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor, and I can tell which is FAR more pathetic in my mind. Not to mention the No Mas fight, or the UNO MAS fight, which I paid to see and sat their cursing Duran all night for clearly just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I have no idea where Pacquiao will finish up all-time, because his career is not over yet, and I don't think he's beaten anyone as good as the Leonard that Duran beat, but Pacquiao has NEVER looked as bad as Duran did against Lawlor or in the second and third Leonard fights. And, in my mind, you have to consider ALL of it. The same human being who beat a lot of, frankly, nobody-that-great at Lightweight was the same person who quit against Leonard (twice) and quit against Lawlor and stunk out the joint plenty later on.

How anyone can look at Duran's entire career and rate him near the top spot is beyond me ... and I watched the guy fight for the better part of three decades. The only way you can do it is if you have selective amnesia ... and if you're going to do that for Duran and other old-timers, you should selectively forget the worst moments of someone like PAcquiao's career. Otherwise, you aren't judging them fairly.

If Duran had quit after beating Leonard with a record of 72-1, he'd have had solid claim. But you can't simply ignore all the terrible performances that followed over the next 20 YEARS! For 2/3 of his career, he looked like crap most of the time.

From 1942-1946, Jimmy Bivins might have been the best fighter on the planet. But that was only a fraction of his overall career, so you don't see him at the top of a lot of lists. I view Duran similarly.

Duran beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard who was better than Cotto, Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Barrera. Paquiao also lost to Morales who was past his prime in the first fight and well past his prime in the rematches(coming off a loss too). And no, Pacquaio was not a "child" in 2005. I'll also add that when Duran moved up he wasn't asking for silly weight catches or winning titles from fighters like Margarito who doesn't have one significant win at 154. And Duran was fighting killers like Hagler and Hearns with no weight clauses. Nobody on Pacquaio's resume compares to that. 37 year old Duran beating Iran Barkley (coming off a KO of Hearns)moving to 160 is far more impressive than Pacquaio fighting a past it Margarito(coming off brutal KO loss,inactivity) at a 150 pound catchweight for a bogus title. Even Duran beating Davey Moore at 154 was was a better win than that.



Lightweights? Duran also became undisputed lightweight champion by beating an ATG in Dejesus. That's a lot more impressive than beating David Diaz. Paquiao hasn't been undisputed in any of his weight classes. Since you want to use Pacquaio's youth as an excuse, when Duran was only 19 he stopped Ernesto Marcel who went on to became a successful champion. Pacquiao is a great fighter and always will be. He still has time to do more. But if you try to compare him to Duran you're going to lose.



*The Pacquiao "below Virgil Hill" is a running joke because SCtrojans ridiculously believes Virgil Hill ranks higher than Pernell Whitaker on an all time list.

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 01:59 PM
Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

Translation: Boxing Historians are wrong and YOU, Fan Boi with the DubbleChin, know better than they. GTFOH Junior, you aren't even qualified to form conclusions about what color trunks a fighter's wearing let alone form them about anything significant.

Poet

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 02:11 PM
[QUOTE=joseph5620;11398547][U]

Duran beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard who was better than Cotto, Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Barrera. Paquiao also lost to Morales who was past his prime in the first fight and well past his prime in the rematches(coming off a loss too). And no, Pacquaio was not a "child" in 2005. I'll also add that when Duran moved up he wasn't asking for silly weight catches or winning titles from fighters like Margarito who doesn't have one significant win at 154. And Duran was fighting killers like Hagler and Hearns with no weight clauses. Nobody on Pacquaio's resume compares to that. 37 year old Duran beating Iran Barkley (coming off a KO of Hearns)moving to 160 is far more impressive than Pacquaio fighting a past it Margarito(coming off brutal KO loss,inactivity) at a 150 pound catchweight for a bogus title. Even Duran beating Davey Moore at 154 was was a better win than that. Lightweights? Duran also became undisputed lightweight champion by beating an ATG in Dejesus. That's a lot more impressive than beating David Diaz. Paquiao hasn't been undisputed in any of his weight classes. Since you want to use Pacquaio's youth as an excuse, when Duran was only 19 he stopped Ernesto Marcel who went on to became a successful champion. Pacquiao is a great fighter and always will be. He still has time to do more. But if you try to compare him to Duran you're going to lose.

I said Pacquiao hasn't beaten anyone as good as Leonard a few posts ago.

Duran didn't beat anyone at lightweight better than Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Cotto, etc. Dejesus wasn't miles better than any of those guys. Neither was Marcel.

Their "big wins" are comparable, with the exception of Duran's win over Leonard.

But Pacquiao also doesn't have 20 years of terrible performances and losses, either. And you can't simply IGNORE those terrible performance that went on FOR DECADES.

For as incredible as Duran's win over Leonard was, his performances in fights 2 and 3 were huge public embarrassments. I was one of those people who cut Duran slack all through the eighties for his piss-poor showings, because of the great performances he had earlier. But when he came in fat and out of shape against a nobody like Pat Lawlor and QUIT when he got punched inthe armpit (no injury, it just hurt and he quit) ... THAT WAS IT FOR ME.

The best fighter EVER NEVER does that. He NEVER quits because he has to poop. Enough.

If Pacquiao wins Saturday and retires, he's rated above Duran in my opinion, because Duran's losses and poor showings drop him way down in my book.

But Pacquaio seems like he's going to hang on until he's old and lose alot later ... like Duran did ... and I will hold whatever poor showings he has down the road against him, too, just like I do others.

You have to judge them all equally by their entire careers.

joseph5620
11-10-2011, 02:14 PM
Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

A lot of people don't ignore those type of losses which is why many feel that fighters like Jones Jr or Holyfield are tarnishing their legacies. I don't deny that. And in a way it does because of the perception from a lot of fans even though I personally don't see it that way. That's why you have admire fighters like Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, or Lennox Lewis who were smart enough to step away at the right time. Hagler knew when to retire too. But it doesn't change the fact that Holyfield and other past it fighters didn't suffer from embarrassing losses until they got old.


And I've seen plenty of people dumb enough to believe that Jones was still at or near his best when he lost to Calzaghe. Mainly because they really didn't follow Jones when he was at his best.

joseph5620
11-10-2011, 02:18 PM
[QUOTE=joseph5620;11398547]

Duran beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard who was better than Cotto, Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Barrera. Paquiao also lost to Morales who was past his prime in the first fight and well past his prime in the rematches(coming off a loss too). And no, Pacquaio was not a "child" in 2005. I'll also add that when Duran moved up he wasn't asking for silly weight catches or winning titles from fighters like Margarito who doesn't have one significant win at 154. And Duran was fighting killers like Hagler and Hearns with no weight clauses. Nobody on Pacquaio's resume compares to that. 37 year old Duran beating Iran Barkley (coming off a KO of Hearns)moving to 160 is far more impressive than Pacquaio fighting a past it Margarito(coming off brutal KO loss,inactivity) at a 150 pound catchweight for a bogus title. Even Duran beating Davey Moore at 154 was was a better win than that. Lightweights? Duran also became undisputed lightweight champion by beating an ATG in Dejesus. That's a lot more impressive than beating David Diaz. Paquiao hasn't been undisputed in any of his weight classes. Since you want to use Pacquaio's youth as an excuse, when Duran was only 19 he stopped Ernesto Marcel who went on to became a successful champion. Pacquiao is a great fighter and always will be. He still has time to do more. But if you try to compare him to Duran you're going to lose.

I said Pacquiao hasn't beaten anyone as good as Leonard a few posts ago.

Duran didn't beat anyone at lightweight better than Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Cotto, etc. Dejesus wasn't miles better than any of those guys. Neither was Marcel.

Their "big wins" are comparable, with the exception of Duran's win over Leonard.

[U]But Pacquiao also doesn't have 20 years of terrible performances and losses, either. And you can't simply IGNORE those terrible performance that went on FOR DECADES.

For as incredible as Duran's win over Leonard was, his performances in fights 2 and 3 were huge public embarrassments. I was one of those people who cut Duran slack all through the eighties for his piss-poor showings, because of the great performances he had earlier. But when he came in fat and out of shape against a nobody like Pat Lawlor and QUIT when he got punched inthe armpit (no injury, it just hurt and he quit) ... THAT WAS IT FOR ME.

The best fighter EVER NEVER does that. He NEVER quits because he has to poop. Enough.

If Pacquiao wins Saturday and retires, he's rated above Duran in my opinion, because Duran's losses and poor showings drop him way down in my book.

But Pacquaio seems like he's going to hang on until he's old and lose alot later ... like Duran did ... and I will hold whatever poor showings he has down the road against him, too, just like I do others.

You have to judge them all equally by their entire careers.

If you're going to use that criteria then why would you not use it for Pacquiao's embarrassing knockout losses? You can't have it both ways.

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 02:19 PM
Translation: Boxing Historians are wrong and YOU, Fan Boi with the DubbleChin, know better than they. GTFOH Junior, you aren't even qualified to form conclusions about what color trunks a fighter's wearing let alone form them about anything significant.

Poet

Boxing historians aren't wrong, you are. Historians opinions change based on a fighter's losses. That's what I'm saying.You disagree. But I defy you to show me another Ring P4P list that has Duran rated #1 or #2 after that 1980 poll ... because after he started to suck, he dropped.

And I bet you $10,000 the next time Ring comes out with all-time heavyweight list, freaking Evander Holyfield isn't going to be rated #3, like he was after he beat Tyson. Because he's lost like 10 times since then, and he'll drop down.

And he'll drop because HISTORIANS COUNT LOSSES, too, because those are part of a fighter's OVERALL CAREER HISTORY.

They don't ignore losses, they weigh how much the losses take away from a fighter's wins. They don't pretend the losses didn't happen.

I don't know where the hell you got that. But you are wrong.

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 02:19 PM
A lot of people don't ignore those type of losses which is why many feel that fighters like Jones Jr or Holyfield are tarnishing their legacies. I don't deny that. And in a way it does because of the perception from a lot of fans even though I personally don't see it that way. That's why you have admire fighters like Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, or Lennox Lewis who were smart enough to step away at the right time. Hagler knew when to retire too. But it doesn't change the fact that Holyfield and other past it fighters didn't suffer from embarrassing losses until they got old.


And I've seen plenty of people dumb enough to believe that Jones was still at or near his best when he lost to Calzaghe. Mainly because they really didn't follow Jones when he was at his best.

Anybody judging Jones or Holyfield based off those performances is a fvcking moron. I'm sorry but no boxing historian is going to hold the Green fight against Jones. That's the realm of low-intellect casual "fans" like Dubblechin.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 02:25 PM
Boxing historians aren't wrong, you are. Historians opinions change based on a fighter's losses. That's what I'm saying.You disagree. But I defy you to show me another Ring P4P list that has Duran rated #1 or #2 after that 1980 poll ... because after he started to suck, he dropped.

And I bet you $10,000 the next time Ring comes out with all-time heavyweight list, freaking Evander Holyfield isn't going to be rated #3, like he was after he beat Tyson. Because he's lost like 10 times since then, and he'll drop down.

And he'll drop because HISTORIANS COUNT LOSSES, too, because those are part of a fighter's OVERALL CAREER HISTORY.

They don't ignore losses, they weigh how much the losses take away from a fighter's wins. They don't pretend the losses didn't happen.

I don't know where the hell you got that. But you are wrong.

Yeah, right Buddy.....Ali lost stock for losing to Holmes and Berbeck.....RIIIIIIGHT. Dayum Ray Leonard sure dropped when he lost to Camacho.....RIIIIIGHT. Historian count PRIME losses not washed-up losses: The problem is you're incapable of perceiving what prime is which is a distinction boxing historians don't have a problem with.

And btw, you're confusing a journalist who works for Ring Magazine with a boxing historian. They aren't the same thing. Then again you're probably too much of a dumb fvck too know the difference :hand9:

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 02:31 PM
And in a way it does because of the perception from a lot of fans even though I personally don't see it that way.

Who really gives a sh1t what casual fans think? Casual fans are idiots. What they "think", and I use the term VERY loosely, is irrelevant.

Poet

Barnburner
11-10-2011, 02:36 PM
Another thing to note past prime losses can actually help a fighters ranking, for example Duran vs Hagler.

joseph5620
11-10-2011, 02:42 PM
Who really gives a sh1t what casual fans think? Casual fans are idiots. What they "think", and I use the term VERY loosely, is irrelevant.

Poet



I agree with you Poet. But unfortunately casual fans seem to be the majority here (NSB) and even on TV. Look at some of the ignorant idiots on ESPN making stupid comments about boxing when they should know better. And they're getting paid.

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 02:44 PM
Yeah, right Buddy.....Ali lost stock for losing to Holmes and Berbeck.....RIIIIIIGHT. Dayum Ray Leonard sure dropped when he lost to Camacho.....RIIIIIGHT. Historian count PRIME losses not washed-up losses: The problem is you're incapable of perceiving what prime is which is a distinction boxing historians don't have a problem with.

And btw, you're confusing a journalist who works for Ring Magazine with a boxing historian. They aren't the same thing. Then again you're probably too much of a dumb fvck too know the difference :hand9:

How did Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick hurt his standing? I have him #2 all time, because he lost to the best heavyweight in the world and to a future WBC champ. Those losses didn't diminish his big wins.

THAT'S MY POINT.

You consider it all.

If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 or 15 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ...and he continued to embarrass himself for decades ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high.

But just go ahead and PICK WHICH PART OF HISTORY YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and what you want to ignore -- JOE PATERNO -- and I'm sure it'll all work out just fine.

Genius.

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 02:50 PM
How did Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick hurt his standing? I have him #2 all time, because he lost to the best heavyweight in the world and to a future WBC champ. Those losses didn't diminish his big wins.

THAT'S MY POINT.

You consider it all.

If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high.

But just go ahead and PICK WHICH PART OF HISTORY YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and what you want to ignore -- JOE PATERNO -- and I'm sure it'll all work out just fine.

Genius.

Boxing Historians take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding a fight including what career stage the fighters were in. It's YOU who are cherry picking: You just want the name of the fighter and choose to ignore everything else. That's cherry picking FACTS and is typical of the intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from moronic casual fans.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 04:49 PM
How did Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick hurt his standing? I have him #2 all time

And btw thank you for finally admitting that losses when you're washed up dosen't hurt your standing :tragedy:

McGoorty
11-10-2011, 04:56 PM
Boxing historians aren't wrong, you are. Historians opinions change based on a fighter's losses. That's what I'm saying.You disagree. But I defy you to show me another Ring P4P list that has Duran rated #1 or #2 after that 1980 poll ... because after he started to suck, he dropped.

And I bet you $10,000 the next time Ring comes out with all-time heavyweight list, freaking Evander Holyfield isn't going to be rated #3, like he was after he beat Tyson. Because he's lost like 10 times since then, and he'll drop down.

And he'll drop because HISTORIANS COUNT LOSSES, too, because those are part of a fighter's OVERALL CAREER HISTORY.

They don't ignore losses, they weigh how much the losses take away from a fighter's wins. They don't pretend the losses didn't happen.

I don't know where the hell you got that. But you are wrong.
No, losses are losses that's true,,, but on degrees, you know that, if he lost when washed up,.. to a bum who never did anything,.. still a pretty bad loss.... but to a HOF'r... understandable....... I don't count them a whole lot,.. it just takes a bit of lustre off, but not much...... same as a loss when 18 years of age to a world class man in his late 20's doesn't hardly affect Les Darcy's career resume, especially as he never went down, and went 20 rounds..... just to use an example of one fighter....... but of course you can't just say we'll strike a decision or stoppage loss off their record... especially when its say Haglers decision loss to Leonard...... we can argue that Hagler should have won the fight, but that loss stands....... unless you can prove the fight was a fix beyond doubt of course,... I'm happy to strike a "loss" like that off the boxrec stats. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- just one thing,.. No Decision contests on Boxrec........ None of those 10 round ND's count as wins or losses, there is NOTHING OFFICIAL about them... the mass of newspaper decisions are nothing more than a guide and of interest to the fan or historian.... Plus many of those newspaper decisions had opposite verdicts and accounts.

McGoorty
11-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Anybody judging Jones or Holyfield based off those performances is a fvcking moron. I'm sorry but no boxing historian is going to hold the Green fight against Jones. That's the realm of low-intellect casual "fans" like Dubblechin.

Poet
I don't think anyone should get too carried away by that green loss, but it happened just the same, Poet, Green was nothing near as good as Jones, but you cannot just take all credit away from Danny Green, for a fighter with the lower level of talent, a win over Jones, even at that stage of his career ranks very high on Greens achievements, the highlight definitely. Point I'm making mate is that there are always two men in there. Roy Jones's biggest mistake was that as usual he thought a fight was all about him, Green manned up, walked out and put doubt in a million minds, ohhhh dear, me boyo's chin seems prett-ty vulnerable. It is Roy Jones's responsibility to judge if he is still capable of handling his next opponent,.... there MUST be a price to pay for hubris,,,, a particular trait of many fighters who still think they are unbeatable. ......... I don't at all disagree that the loss was no catastrophe........... but sometimes, a lesser fighter beats a big name,.... it doesn't make Green a legend in any way ('cept in his mind and his mates).. No-one twisted Roys arm into the Green fight... In my opinion, once a sportsmans best days are gone... do yourself a favour and get out and hang the gloves up, and it'll stop me cringing when they do.

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 05:13 PM
And btw thank you for finally admitting that losses when you're washed up dosen't hurt your standing :tragedy:

Classic Paterno. You selectively chose not read this on the next line JoePa: "If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 or 15 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ...and he continued to embarrass himself for decades ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high."

Why are you so threatened by common sense? What is so difficult to understand about this?

If you beat Leonard, that's great. If you turn right around and quit against Leonard in the second fight and put up zero effort until the last round in the third fight ... that sort of takes away from the accomplishment of the first fight.

You spend eight years dominating at Lightweight, and you spend 20 years stinking out the joint ... and humiliating yourself in public. That 20 years of mediocrity and embarrassment tarnishes the parade of the other accomplishments.

It's the old one step forward, two steps back principle.

Contrast him to someone like Carlos Monzon or Hagler, who went out losing his title in controversial fashion and never came back, never spent decades losing to the likes of Frank Tate and Chris Eubank. Never showed up bloated and out of shape and quit against some journeyman like Sanderline Williams -- thanks to a punch to the armpit.

There's something to be said for fighters who reach the top, fight the best, and then get the hell out. Their overall careers are more impressive historically than people who are solid for a period and suck the majority of the time (like Duran). It's fine if you remember him when he was on top, but if you have to spend two decades telling people he used to be a lot better than the fat tub of goo boring everyone to death they are currently watching ... at some point the bad years level out the good. And it's not fair to the guys who didn't stink out the joint to rate the guy who sucked the majority of his career ahead of them.

That's all.

Dubblechin
11-10-2011, 05:17 PM
there MUST be a price to pay for hubris,,,, In my opinion, once a sportsmans best days are gone... do yourself a favour and get out and hang the gloves up, and it'll stop me cringing when they do.

Exactly.

Thank you. You said it much better than I did -- and in fewer words.

McGoorty
11-10-2011, 05:20 PM
But the problem with Green is, even today,a washed up has been...... even now Green is a GREEN fighter,.. when are we gonna see guys who have enough decent fights to become seasoned professionals, I'm an Aussie, but I want to put a boot up the azz of the way Australian boxing is these days.... just look at how many fights our top fighters have had from jeff fenech till today.... The dickheads here think a fighter with 30 professional fights in a lifetimetime gives them the right to everlasting ATG status..... I WANT TO SEE A REALLY GREAT AUSSIE FIGHTER IN MY LIFETIME.... Can somebody help us out of this mess..... pretty please !!!!!!!......... anyone ????

Welsh Jon
11-10-2011, 07:58 PM
Who would have imagined the tangents that sprang out of this little old thread of mine?

Ziggy Stardust
11-10-2011, 09:02 PM
Classic Paterno. You selectively chose not read this on the next line JoePa: "If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 or 15 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ...and he continued to embarrass himself for decades ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high."

Why are you so threatened by common sense? What is so difficult to understand about this?

If you beat Leonard, that's great. If you turn right around and quit against Leonard in the second fight and put up zero effort until the last round in the third fight ... that sort of takes away from the accomplishment of the first fight.

You spend eight years dominating at Lightweight, and you spend 20 years stinking out the joint ... and humiliating yourself in public. That 20 years of mediocrity and embarrassment tarnishes the parade of the other accomplishments.

It's the old one step forward, two steps back principle.

Contrast him to someone like Carlos Monzon or Hagler, who went out losing his title in controversial fashion and never came back, never spent decades losing to the likes of Frank Tate and Chris Eubank. Never showed up bloated and out of shape and quit against some journeyman like Sanderline Williams -- thanks to a punch to the armpit.

There's something to be said for fighters who reach the top, fight the best, and then get the hell out. Their overall careers are more impressive historically than people who are solid for a period and suck the majority of the time (like Duran). It's fine if you remember him when he was on top, but if you have to spend two decades telling people he used to be a lot better than the fat tub of goo boring everyone to death they are currently watching ... at some point the bad years level out the good. And it's not fair to the guys who didn't stink out the joint to rate the guy who sucked the majority of his career ahead of them.

That's all.

First off, "Joe Douchebag".....the only one offending common sense is YOU. Common sense if first and foremost about getting it right. Getting it right in this case means beating a washed-up fighter gets you no credit. Duh! The dude is washed-up.....that's common sense.

Secondly, nobody gives a sh1t whether you or any other casual fan is offended seeing a washed-up "tub of goo" fighting when he's ancient: Your emotional spasms over it are meaningless. It doesn't change or take away what the dude did in his prime. If you can't intellectually handle that then quite frankly you should go slit your wrists because you're too much of an idiot to be sharing oxygen with intelligent people.

And btw Joe Goebbels, I hate Penn State.....

Now go fvck yourself

crold1
11-10-2011, 09:54 PM
Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

Run arguably goes back to Ledwaba in 2001 IMO...but who's counting.

Good to see you around Dodge. You always liven things up. :)

SBleeder
11-11-2011, 09:46 AM
If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 or 15 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ...and he continued to embarrass himself for decades ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high.


Where do you rank Ezzard Charles P4P all time?

Dubblechin
11-11-2011, 01:21 PM
Run arguably goes back to Ledwaba in 2001 IMO...but who's counting.

Good to see you around Dodge. You always liven things up. :)

Good to see you too, Cliff. It's been a very long time.

:friday:

crold1
11-11-2011, 01:30 PM
Good to see you too, Cliff. It's been a very long time.

:friday:

Where you been bro?

Dubblechin
11-11-2011, 02:01 PM
Where you been bro?

Everywhere but here I guess.