I disagreed as soon as I saw the name Bert Sugar. To me he is more of a boxing personality than a boxing expert or a boxing historian.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Do You Agree With This? (From Bert Sugar Rankings)
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by TheMexHurricane View Post5 is very accurate. Merchant likes to point out that Mexicans have alot of fighters(so do the Japanese)--well, the old time boxing world was mostly Americans. Boxing wasn't nowhere near as global as it is today...... so by Merchants thinking, today's fighters are much better than yesterday's since there are more of them. Take that larry, you dumb old man. You don't even know when you're fighting yourself!!!!!!
2,3 and 4 are dumb as hell.
1 is possible since Whitaker at times struggled vs guys with speed. He was matched with guys that suited his style alot.
Old fighters suck. Period.
Poet
Comment
-
Originally posted by RubenSonny View PostReally? Why do you think that?
But for me, McLarnin is Top 20 Minimum.
He beat two Top 20-25 ATG's IMO in Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri.
Beat a long list of HOF'ers, almost the most in history if I'm not mistaken (Albeit some were worthless I.e Benny Leonard) but it's still an impressive feat.
Ray Leonard has undeniable quality. But does his quality compare to wins over Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri? I'm not so sure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostIt's argubale. Considering it is Ray Leonard after all. Ray Leonard is a great fighter.
But for me, McLarnin is Top 20 Minimum.
He beat two Top 20-25 ATG's IMO in Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri.
Beat a long list of HOF'ers, almost the most in history if I'm not mistaken (Albeit some were worthless I.e Benny Leonard) but it's still an impressive feat.
Ray Leonard has undeniable quality. But does his quality compare to wins over Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri? I'm not so sure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by McGoorty View PostYeah, good points there, if you compare the names, AND if you are like me and have a problem with the fact R. Leonard only had 39 fights....... Just far too much inactivity, and McLarnin never even heard of that word.
Good wins over;
Lou Ambers
Pancho Villa
Billy Petrolle x2
Young Corbet 3
Sammy Mandell x2
I mean, that's one hell of a resume and I'm going off memory I think I have left some out.
Truley one of the greatest fighters of all time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostIt's argubale. Considering it is Ray Leonard after all. Ray Leonard is a great fighter.
But for me, McLarnin is Top 20 Minimum.
He beat two Top 20-25 ATG's IMO in Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri.
Beat a long list of HOF'ers, almost the most in history if I'm not mistaken (Albeit some were worthless I.e Benny Leonard) but it's still an impressive feat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RubenSonny View PostThats just a face value fact and not really putting wins into context. Not all HOFers are equal in fact there is a such a huge range in quality between some HOFers, a win over Ray Robinson is a fair few galaxies apart from a win over Barry McGuigan. Additionally, when is more important to who as you touched on, the fact that atleast 5 of those win over HOF'ers are worthless is proof, Labarba x3, Fields and Leonard are all worthless. There may even be more, I don't know, I don't respect the HOF enough to know all the fighters. Also there are many fighters who aren't in the HOF who are greater than some of those inducted.
It's also important to consider what career stage an ATG name on someone's resume was. A win over a washed-up great is of no value at all while a win over a great who's somewhat past-it is only partial value. Holmes' win over a prime Mike Weaver is worth far more than his win over a washed-up Ali.
Poet
Comment
-
Originally posted by poet682006 View PostI prefer using the ATG label rather than HOF as the IBHOF isn't exactly a byword for greatness. A number of non-greats have gotten in while certified greats still wait and may never make it.
It's also important to consider what career stage an ATG name on someone's resume was. A win over a washed-up great is of no value at all while a win over a great who's somewhat past-it is only partial value. Holmes' win over a prime Mike Weaver is worth far more than his win over a washed-up Ali.
Poet
Comment
Comment