Is SRL a Top 5 All Time Great?

#1) Pernell Whitaker #2) Willie Pep #3) Sugar Ray Robinson As I have said in all of my lists, they do not give medals for 4th place for a reason. Anything beyond #3 is unimportant. Roy Jones is nipping at Sugar Ray Robinson's heels Yeah, but this isn't a competition, it's a list. Oh well, if that's the way you do things, it's the way you do things. Based on head to head and in ring performance I rate Jones, Robinson, and Whitaker at the top.

No, my number 1 is Pernell Whitaker. Mind if I see your list? Yours is rated on head to head and ring ability solely, whereas I go by different criteria, with resume and accomplishments mixed in. I judge a lot of a fighters greatness on what they accomplished and did in the ring.

not top 5 but definetely top 10

The detriment to biasing fighters based on their record, especially old fighters, is that you have no reference as to the quality of the fighter that showed up. The record does not distinguish between a fighter that took the fight on 1 weeks notice, a fighter that had to lose 100lb on fight week, and a fighter that showed up in top shape. It doesn't account for robberies, broken hands, thrown fights, or shot fighters. A record doesn't account for that, which is why you have to do the research. The Ray Robinsons that Carmen Basillio beat was no the same Ray Robinson that Randy Turpin beat, which was not the same Ray Robinson that Jake LaMotta beat. Relying on resumes severely distorts rankings and analysis. Its a fact. Again, it has to do with research. Obviously Joey Archer's win over Robinson doesn't count for much, just as Pazienza's wins over Duran don't count for much, etc etc. You take me for someone who hasn't done the research and relies on boxrec, which is where you're mistaken. A name and a number is far less informative than a film. Your attempt to argue that ranking fighters based on who they beat rather than how they beat them is appallingly ignorant. It's a combo of both. If someone beat much better fighters than someone else, the one guy beating a bunch of lesser in more impression fashion, sorry, I'm not going to rank him above. That is logic. Its the difference between that way in which Floyd Mayweather beat Arturo Gatti and the way in which Carlos Baldomir beat Arturo Gatti. On paper, they look the same. In reality they were completely different levels of performances.OK, which is why I do my rankings on a combo of them all, resume being the highest thing that is taken into account. Your argument is about how they do it, which is also part of my criteria. I base ATG status on a mixture of: Resume In ring performance Head to head ability I rank Charles above Duran on the basis of having a better resume and for his size being just as good in comparison with other greats as Duran in a head to head sense. You rate Duran higher based on in-ring performance. You base your rankings solely on footage rather than what someone accomplished in their career, so I assume you rate Roy Jones the best of all time.

on a side note.....watching ESPN Classic right now, they rank SRL #8 all time best boxer...

You should consult boxrec for an accurate formula for determining ratings, unless of course you want to rate fighters on their ability in which case it doesn't make a difference at all. Duran is much much more skilled than Ezzard Charles. Im not knocking Ezzard Charles, as he was a great LHW, but comparing him to Roberto Duran in absolute skill level is absolutely absurd. You must follow Burt Sugars philosophy, because obviously being able to thrash a fighter in a head to head match-up doesn't make you greater than them... wait, yes it does. Burt Sugar used the same argument against Larry Holmes in claiming that Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever. Larry Holmes said Muhammad Ali would beat Joe Louis. Bert Sugars response... "That doesn't make him greater". Really then Bert, what does? Oh yes, thats right, by your criteria your name has to start with J and end with oe Louis to be the greatest. I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. To be the best, you have to beat the best. Im sure you have heard that saying, well it holds true in determining ATG status, to be the best, you have to be able to beat everyone that is listed below you. Ezzard Charles would not beat Roberto Duran. No thanks, Boxrec has Jose Luis Castill ranked as the #4 JWW in the world. And I'm a big Duran fan, but c'mon, are you serious? No Way he could beat a prime Charles.

He's top 10 but not in my top 5.

I voted yes purley based on what he could do in the ring. Im sure there are many fighters with a better resume, but from what i know and have seen, Leonard was one of the best fighters ever. Fighters records can be misleading. I couldnt compare Leonard to a fighter ive never seen, based on what Boxrec shows me.

Fighting is a head to head sport. The goal of fighting is to win a head to head match-up. The goal of fighting is NOT to compile the best resume. The goal of fighting is NOT to beat a fighter in resumes. LOL, you're just getting silly now. Of course the point is to win, that's what a resume is, a list of names you've beaten. If you've beaten the best, odds are you're a pretty damn good head to head fighter yourself. Charles had a better boxing career as far as quality of opposition beaten than Duran. The goal of fighting is to win, which at the same time is compiling a good resume. You're not making sense with this. In order to greater than a fighter you have to be able to beat him strait up. Ezzard Charles could not beat Roberto Duran. I have many Charles fights in my archive. I am well versed in his style. Comparing him to Ray Robinson is a bit of a stretch, unless you are talking about body type. Exxard Charles could not beat Roberto Duran? Charles fought from MW to HW. Duran fought no higher than MW. Charles would brutally stop him. Head to head P4P matchups are pure speculation, and some of the worst kind if you ask me. If you made Charles smaller you'd have to increase his speed and other factos would have to change, etc. Same if you made Duran bigger, too many viariables need to change, which is why I base a fighters's greatness on what they did, rather than what they were capable of doing, as you do. I'd say my method is a bit more reliable. It is people that rank fighters as you do that keep ATG fighters such as Nicolino Locche regulated to the obscure pages of the history books. Locche beat Cervantes and is known as one of the slickest, most skilled defensive fighters of all time. People can make names for themselves based on how they fight as well, just not higher than someone with a Charles-like resume. Locche was a man with great talent, but few opportunities. His one great achievement in 136 fights, HUMILIATING Antonio Cervantes. Locche would stack up favorably to anyone in a head to head match-up, but if you go strictly by resume, you would assume he is a joke. Anyone who shuts out Cervantes is no joke. Same thing with Loi beating Ortiz twice, you can see what level someone is by who they beat. Both Charles and Duran were clearly world-class, Charles just proved it more. I'm going to re-instate my main point though, which is what I want you to focus on when responding.. "Same if you made Duran bigger, too many viariables need to change, which is why I base a fighters's greatness on what they did, rather than what they were capable of doing, as you do."

You should consult boxrec for an accurate formula for determining ratings, unless of course you want to rate fighters on their ability in which case it doesn't make a difference at all. Duran is much much more skilled than Ezzard Charles. Im not knocking Ezzard Charles, as he was a great LHW, but comparing him to Roberto Duran in absolute skill level is absolutely absurd. You must follow Burt Sugars philosophy, because obviously being able to thrash a fighter in a head to head match-up doesn't make you greater than them... wait, yes it does. Burt Sugar used the same argument against Larry Holmes in claiming that Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever. Larry Holmes said Muhammad Ali would beat Joe Louis. Bert Sugars response... "That doesn't make him greater". Really then Bert, what does? Oh yes, thats right, by your criteria your name has to start with J and end with oe Louis to be the greatest. I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. To be the best, you have to beat the best. Im sure you have heard that saying, well it holds true in determining ATG status, to be the best, you have to be able to beat everyone that is listed below you. Ezzard Charles would not beat Roberto Duran. So you rate P4P strictly on how they would do if they were the same size in a head to head matchup? In that case I've heard many say someone like Cristian Mijares is better than a lot of guys that have accomplished more. Does that make him P4P a greater fighter? And no, you're way off base when you talk about Duran being much more skilled. WAY off base. Charles in his prime was like a bigger Ray Robinson(though not as quick at higher weights). Had everything Ray had, except the charisma. He had immense power, good speed, a good jab, and a great array of power punches. He could box from the outside or hurt you on the inside. You could argue that Duran was more skilled, but you may have to make the same case for Duran over Robinson, being as Charles and Robinson were so similar in style. Either way, I base my rankings on resume just as much if not more than head to head. You seem to base your solely on head to head, which could lead to a lot of inconsistencies.

not to discredit him at all but I would not put him in all time top 5 greatest ever..

I really have problems with people willing to rate a fighter with ZERO footage of him as #2 ATG. Placing Ezzard Charles above Roberto Duran is also quite absurd. Id actually like to see you argue as to why Ezzard Charles deserves to be above Roberto Duran in ATG status. I rate Greb #2 based on having easily the best resume in the history of boxing, and of many accounts of him that I have read. Absurd to rate Charles above Duran? The only thing absurd was that statement. Charles had one of the very best resumes of all time. EASILY better than Duran's resume. Charles: Yarosz, Burley X2, Maxim X4, Moore X3(arguably the best set of wins in boxing history), Marshall X2, Oakland Billy Smith X2, Bivins X4, Elmer Ray, Walcott, Valentino, Joe Louis, Layne, Satterfield, etc. Duran: Leonard, Dejesus X2, Buchanan, Moore, Barkley, Cuevas, Palomino, Bizzarro, Lampkin, Ishimatsu, Kobayashi, Marcel, etc. Charles wins.

Fuck no, anybody who would say otherwise must be new to the sport. With guys like Ray Robinson, Sandy Sadler, Harry Greb, Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Pernell Whitaker, George Foreman, and many others dotting the landscape, Leonard is top 15 IMO.

NINE? OH MAN.SO YOU THINK EVERYBODY ABOVE HIM ASIDE FROM DURAN ROBINSON CAN BEAT HIM? The guys above him rate higher P4P. They are all bigger than him for the most part, so yeah most of the guys above him could beat him. You think he beats Ali? LOL.

#9 for me. Mind if I see your list? Here's mine 1. Ray Robinson 2. Harry Greb 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Muhammad Ali 5. Sam Langford 6. Ezzard Charles 7. Barney Ross 8. Roberto Duran 9. Ray Leonard 10. Pernell Whitaker NINE? OH MAN.SO YOU THINK EVERYBODY ABOVE HIM ASIDE FROM DURAN ROBINSON CAN BEAT HIM?

at welterweight

haha, I had to do it, our conversation in the other thread was bothering me. haha IM SORRY RANE.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha YES YES AND YES. haha, I had to do it, our conversation in the other thread was bothering me. haha

that first fight with duran is one of my favorite fights of all time.......very underrated when people talk of the greatest fights ever

Top5 easily and without a question. Olympic gold medal, beat the best lw of all time, only fighter to beat Tommy Hearns (for me best LMW of all time) @147 or 54, beat the greatest MW of all time, first man to defeat ultra-gifted Wilfred Benitez. Also one of the most gifted boxers of all time.Olympic medal means shit. He also lost to Duran. He beat Hearns and Hagler(though controversially) and Benitez. I can name more than 5 fighters with a better overall resume. Also, Leonard had those 4 great wins, otherwise his resume is rather thin. Your comment about being one of the most gifted is true though, depends on how highh you rank head to head ability, and how high you rank him.