At MW:Is SRR still greater than Monzon and Hagler

[brownpimp88]

Tunney lost to no heavyweight while besting the top contenders of the day as well as the reigning world champion and had only one loss on his record, which equaled over 87 fights while displaying skills that can only be considered the foundation for modern fighters; he was well ahead of his time. One loss in 88 fights as opposed to Holyfield's record....hmmm.

Johnson, on the other hand, fought and beat the toughest fighters of his era, both Black and White: Frank Childs, George Gardiner, Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Jim Flynn, Al Kaufman, Frank Moran and no telling how many others. He was also ahead of his time and, like Tunney, fought many, many more times that Evander Holyfield with a better win percentage.

Holyfield has lost to Bowe twice of three, Lewis twice of two, Moorer once of two as oppossed to wins over a post-prison Tyson and a 1 point majority verdict over Rid**** Bowe, who was one of the sports biggest underachievers. His biggest wins at heavyweigtht are over Bowe, Mercer, Moorer, and a past his best Tyson....oh, and a 42 year old Foreman.





....no comparison.

dude what ur doing is a joke, tunney beat lesser heavyweights. When u make a top 10 heavyweight list, u bring up who they beat at heavyweight. The fact that he was put in the hospital for a week against greb, is sad.

[Kid Achilles]

The fact that you keep posting on a subject you know nothing about, get owned daily, and come back for more is sad.

[brownpimp88]

Robinson fought as a middleweight in a more talent rich era than either Monzon or Hagler. I would like to see how someone could argue otherwise.

i dont see guys like turpin, olson and graziano make a top 80 of all times list. They are famous for beating robinson. You dont understand the logic that if you lose to a fighter, its a con. He lost 17 times at that weight class, guess what, it matters.

You dont know how talent rich the other divisions were, those guys just came at the wrong time. Would i favour turpin, graziano or olson to beat hagler and monzon, sorry aint happening.

[brownpimp88]

The fact that you keep posting on a subject you know nothing about, get owned daily, and come back for more is sad.

u love the "white era" of boxing, you dont listen to logic, ur actually considered a joke by many people i've talked to. I'm not trying to be racist but its true. There is a reason holyfield is usually ranked higher, maybe its cuz they look at reality rather than legacy.

[Kid Achilles]

The white era...right. So every era is the white era in boxing except for the 70's and 80's right? Because you like those eras.

It's you, not me, who's being selective in what eras you choose to acknowledge.

[brownpimp88]

The white era...right. So every era is the white era in boxing except for the 70's and 80's right? Because you like those eras.

It's you, not me, who's being selective in what eras you choose to acknowledge.

No, i consider a certain time frame as the white era cuz hispanics werent involved at that time and the blacks didnt get equal oppurtunity. Everyone will question how those guys did if they fought black people as champs, cough* dempsey* cough.

[Kid Achilles]

I think the 50's were the strongest era of boxing (not for heavyweights but overall, all the weight classes), not the 20's. Just because I respect Dempsey as a fighter for his talents and skills doesn't mean I think the 20's were a particulary strong era.

And yes I do question how Dempsey would have done against Wills but where are these scores of other black fighters that deserved to fight him? I'm sorry but avoiding one man (and Dempsey even signed for that fight, he was willing), a man many say was custom tailored for Jack to beat, does not ruin a fighter's legacy.

I'd have preferred if Dempsey were to give Wills a shot but it's not like Dempsey himself was personally responsible for the racism at the time. Even Johnson drew the color line because it was accepted at the time. It was wrong, it was evil, but it wasn't Dempsey's fault personally.

And avoiding Wills does not mean he'd lose to him any more than the fact that Lennox Lewis avoiding Byrd meant he thought he would lose to Chris Byrd. Lewis wanted no part of Byrd because he knew that fight wouldn't sell. Should we attack Lewis's legacy for not fighting Chris Byrd now?

[Sir_Jose]

Based on his style and competition....the 1970's were a tougher era than the 1980's at middleweight. Monzon beat Benvenuti twice, Griffith twice, a prime Briscoe, prime Valdez twice, and Napoles...who was an exceptional welterweight champ.

Hagler had Hearns, Mugabi, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Obelmijias, Sibson, Lee, Minter, and Duran...who wasn't even close to a natural middlweight, and had trouble with him. I'm not saying Hagler wasn't great; but he wasn't as good as Monzon according to the evidence.

Monzon was very tall for a middlweight and used it well along with his reach; good jab, great right, great chin...and fought better opposisiton than Hagler. So, not only did he make more defenses, he beat better fighters, and I think he could have beaten Hagler.

alot of people think Hangler fought in the deepest era in the historyof the middleweight division. He fought all those tough ass Philly fighters like Cyclone Hart, Willie "The Worm" Monroe, "Boogaloo" Watts and Bennie Briscoe. Also wins over Antuofermo 2x, Minter, Hamsho 2x, Duran and Mugabi.

add a win over Hearns and a contraversiol fight with Ray Leonard.

Haglers resume KO 1 Mozon

and im a Monzon fan.

[brownpimp88]

I think the 50's were the strongest era of boxing (not for heavyweights but overall, all the weight classes), not the 20's. Just because I respect Dempsey as a fighter for his talents and skills doesn't mean I think the 20's were a particulary strong era.

you mean mid forties-early 50's right, cuz 55-64 was the decline of boxing.

As sabbath pointed out, 17/80 best fighters from ring magazine fought a good amount of thier career in the 80s.

[Sir_Jose]

I would also put the 80's up against any era.