Benny Leonard

[brownpimp88]

Whitaker wasn't in a car crash either that almost killed him.

isnt it kinda funny that after the planecrash, willie pep was beating all of his worldclass opponents, except saddler?

[butterfly1964]

isnt it kinda funny that after the planecrash, willie pep was beating all of his worldclass opponents, except saddler?

So are you saying that Pep was 100% after the plane crash?

[Yogi]

Benny Leonard and Julio Ceasar Chavez are very similar, both men are major legends and they had great careers. However, niether man defeated a truly GREAT fighter. Both of them beat alot of very good or good fighters. Pernell whitaker indeed beat another all time great named azumah nelson. Look you can say nelson wasnt that good at 135 or he was a bit past is peak, i dont care. The fact of the matter is that pernell beat an elite all time great, chavez and benny leonard did not do that.

Chavez beat 3 very good fighters like camacho, rosario and meldrick taylor. Benny leonard beat 3 very good fighters like tendler, welsh and kansas. Are either of these men elites in thier respective division, nope. Azumah nelson is considered top 5 in one division and top 10 in another. You cant get more elite than that.

Pimp, just because you like to quote their ratings so often, I thought you'd like to take a look at this, which is The Ring's all-time featherweight rankings from their Jan 2002 issue;

1. Willie Pep
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sandy Saddler
4. Freddie Miller
5. Kid Chocolate
6. Johnny Kilbane (knocked out in three rounds by Benny Leonard)
7. Salvador Sanchez
8. Alexis Arguello
9. Eusibio Pedroza
10. Johnny Dundee
11. Terry McGovern
12. George Dixon
13. Vicente Saldivar
14. Chalky Wright
15. Azumah Nelson
16. Petey Sarron
17. Battling Battalino
18. Jim Driscoll
19. Abe Attell
20. Baby Arizmendi

Just reading up on that Leonard/Kilbane fight, and I see that it was quite hyped back in them days and there's lots of info on it, which would be understandable considering it pitted the lightweight & featherweight champions against each other...Both are spoken of very highly by the press and with plenty of respect during the buildup to the proceedings (both also reported in great shape & confident), especially Kilbane, who suprisingly enough was "installed as an 8 to 5 favorite over Benny Leonard" (Washington Post, July25th, 1917).

Come fight time, Kilbane was reportedly not much of a match for Leonard on that night, as all the reports I'm reading states that the brief fight was very one-sided in Leonard's favour ("Leonard gave Kilbane the worst beating of his career", so says the Modesto Evening News) before a final right cross to the chin in the third ended the drubbing and brought the towel in from Kilbane's corner.

Interesting to note that this Leonard/Kilbane fight happened shortly after (two plus months) Kilbane had just outboxed the then-reigning lightweight champion, Freddie Welsh, in a ten round bout, and that performance by Kilbane against Welsh had obviously shown that he was capable of competing with the best at lightweight during that time.

[brownpimp88]

Pimp, just because you like to quote their ratings so often, I thought you'd like to take a look at this, which is The Ring's all-time featherweight rankings from their Jan 2002 issue;

1. Willie Pep
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sandy Saddler
4. Freddie Miller
5. Kid Chocolate
6. Johnny Kilbane (knocked out in three rounds by Benny Leonard)
7. Salvador Sanchez
8. Alexis Arguello
9. Eusibio Pedroza
10. Johnny Dundee
11. Terry McGovern
12. George Dixon
13. Vicente Saldivar
14. Chalky Wright
15. Azumah Nelson
16. Petey Sarron
17. Battling Battalino
18. Jim Driscoll
19. Abe Attell
20. Baby Arizmendi

Just reading up on that Leonard/Kilbane fight, and I see that it was quite hyped back in them days and there's lots of info on it, which would be understandable considering it pitted the lightweight & featherweight champions against each other...Both are spoken of very highly by the press and with plenty of respect during the buildup to the proceedings (both also reported in great shape & confident), especially Kilbane, who suprisingly enough was "installed as an 8 to 5 favorite over Benny Leonard" (Washington Post, July25th, 1917).

Come fight time, Kilbane was reportedly not much of a match for Leonard on that night, as all the reports I'm reading states that the brief fight was very one-sided in Leonard's favour ("Leonard gave Kilbane the worst beating of his career", so says the Modesto Evening News) before a final right cross to the chin in the third ended the drubbing and brought the towel in from Kilbane's corner.

Interesting to note that this Leonard/Kilbane fight happened shortly after (two plus months) Kilbane had just outboxed the then-reigning lightweight champion, Freddie Welsh, in a ten round bout, and that performance by Kilbane against Welsh had obviously shown that he was capable of competing with the best at lightweight during that time.

isnt it ironic that azumah nelson is in the ring's 80 best of the last 80 years, and those guys are not. Maybe in a pound for pound prespective, he is a better boxer than any guy leonard has ever beat. When i hear the name azumah nelson, all time great comes with it.

Azumah nelson was a world class opponent till the age of 40 pal. He arguably beat a prime genaro hernandez at the age of 39, many people think he was on the short end of the stick in that one. Sure his draw with fenech was controversial, he beat him in the rematch didnt he? Azumah wasnt even in his prime by then.

The azumah nelson from 84-90 is an all time great. A green nelson took sanchez the distance, he was green as grass back then.

You want to use ring as a source, lol. They clearly think pernell whitaker is better than your gods ike williams, carlos ortiz, tony canzonori and joe gans. Guess what pal, he is techincally superior to them all.

[brownpimp88]

So are you saying that Pep was 100% after the plane crash?

before the planecrash he was soundly defeated by sammy angott. Pernell in his prime only gets robbed, no one soundly defeats that ******a pea.

[butterfly1964]

before the planecrash he was soundly defeated by sammy angott. Pernell in his prime only gets robbed, no one soundly defeats that ******a pea.

How do you know he was "soundly" defeated?

[brownpimp88]

How do you know he was "soundly" defeated?

do research kid, willie pep aint no defensive master, pernell whitaker is.

Respect Him!

[butterfly1964]

do research kid, willie pep aint no defensive master, pernell whitaker is.

Respect Him!

....

[brownpimp88]

....

willie pep wished his defense was as good. Floyd is fighting nowdays and he is the top slickster. why dont u ask him who is the better fighter between pep and whitaker, i can guarantee he would say its pernell.

Only those "experts" that adore italians from the old days will truly say pep is better.

Pep fought 2 guys in the ring 80 best of the last 80 years, pernell fought like 4.

[Yogi]

isnt it ironic that azumah nelson is in the ring's 80 best of the last 80 years, and those guys are not. Maybe in a pound for pound prespective, he is a better boxer than any guy leonard has ever beat. When i hear the name azumah nelson, all time great comes with it.

Azumah nelson was a world class opponent till the age of 40 pal. He arguably beat a prime genaro hernandez at the age of 39, many people think he was on the short end of the stick in that one. Sure his draw with fenech was controversial, he beat him in the rematch didnt he? Azumah wasnt even in his prime by then.

The azumah nelson from 84-90 is an all time great. A green nelson took sanchez the distance, he was green as grass back then.

You want to use ring as a source, lol. They clearly think pernell whitaker is better than your gods ike williams, carlos ortiz, tony canzonori and joe gans. Guess what pal, he is techincally superior to them all.

First off, no I don't find it ironic how guys like Freddie Welsh & Johnny Kilbane weren't included in The Ring's "80 best of 80 years" issue (both appear in their all-time divisional rankings at 12th and 6th respectively...and in case you can't figure it out for yourself, by their "all-time rankings" they're ratings consist of those who fought from the beginning of the MoQ era and on) , which was indicated quite clearly in that issue as being their (or Detloff's) rating/opinion of the 80 best fighters since their first first issue dated Feb of 1922, which would obviously disqualify both Welsh & Kilbane from an appearance in that issue, because, you know...with the exception of the very last fight of each of their careers, they fought their entire career before The Ring came into being.

But speaking of irony and I'm only bringing this up because you brought up the fight in question, what I do find "ironic" is how the whole momemtum of the Hernandez/Nelson fight somehow changed completely once Nelson landed that right hand to Hernandez' throat well after the bell to end the 7th round...Up to that point in the fight Hernandez had things going his way and he held a very clear advantage over Nelson over the first half of the fight by boxing him and keeping him out at the end of the jab (Nelson came on "strong" after that, Hernandez became more reluctant, and that "rally" by Nelson made it very close at the end of twelve).

Azumah Nelson was a very good fighter, though, and I would agree that his longevity at the upper levels of boxing makes him a "great" fighter in history. But, having followed him all throughout his pro career, there wasn't one occasion where I ever thought of him as one of the very elite p4p fighters in the sport at any time in his career, as he was always, at the very most, one of the guys that would fill out a bottom position on such a list of ten from me...While Nelson has defeated his share of "good" opponents thoughout out his career (and not always convincingly...a few very close fights went his way, as well), especially at 130, I'm just cross-referencing his record against the year-end p4p rankings from his time, and I see that he's never once won a fight against someone who was considered one of the p4p ten best in the sport at the time he fought them. If you're counting Jeff Fenech as Nelson's best win then you got to know that that win by Nelson was coming against a fighter who himself was also likely past his best, suffering from well known chronic hand problems, and may have even lost his "heart" for the sport after the first Nelson fight, as I've heard reported before (in addition to looking "off" right from the get-go in the rematch, Fenech also didn't do anything of note after the Nelson fight besides get himself knocked out a couple of times by guys that he likely eats up at his best).

And hey...a "green" Nelson may have given Sanchez a good fight before Sal took over late, but Sanchez was known to do that in the past, as evidence by the Patrick Ford fight, who incidently and if he had a little "luck" on his side, could've very well gotten the decision over Sanchez in their fight as he confused and bettered Sal for much of the first half of the fight with his patient outside boxing from long range and behind the jab & legs...Sanchez eventually figured out Ford's style (much like he did Nelson's) and had some good success in winning most of the rounds in the late goings, but it was still a very tight and close fight when the 15 rounds were up. Whether it be against an inexperienced pro (Nelson, Ford, and Laporte, who also gave Sanchez some anxious moments early in that fight before Sal again took over late) or against another who wasn't expected to challenge him much (Cowdell), Sanchez had his tendencies to fight down to just above his opponent's level, as well as a proven ability to fight amazingly well when the odds weren't so much in his favour (Gomez and Lopez).

While I'm not meaning to say that both Ford & Nelson were on the same level at featherweight, because I, no doubt, do have a higher opinion of Nelson as a fighter, I also can't say that I'm nearly impressed enough to say that Sanchez/Nelson fight is any great indication that Nelson was an elite "all-timer" at featherweight when a percieved inferior fighter (Ford) at roughly the same career stage is also going right down to the wire with Sanchez and if anything is even doing better against Sal than did Nelson...Beyond the Sanchez fight, a victory over a washed up Gomez and wins over the likes of Villasana, Cabrera and Cowdell just don't do it for me, and Nelson is just not someone I'm ever going to pick as one of the ten greatest featherweight or anything overly close to that...Top 20, maybe.

And I only brought up The Ring's (Detloff's) featherweight ratings because you seem to spout off about their (Detloff's) "top 80" issue with much frequency and seem to like to back up your own "opinion" with their's in that issue, so I thought you'd maybe like to take a gander at another one of their all-time ratings that were pertaining to the subject...But on that topic and seeing as you how felt the need to state that The Ring "clearly think Pernell Whitaker is better than your god Ike Williams, etc., etc.", you do know that they have put out other special ratings issues in recent years, including their "top 50 of the last 50 years" that was published in the late 1990's and features at least Ike Williams (slotted in 10th) being rated ahead of Whitaker (slotted in 21st) in that issue?

Anyways, I don't know if I asked you any questions in this post, but if I did, please keep up your normal practice of not answering them directly because this is going to be my last post to you for quite a time, as I have absolutely no immediate interest at all in having any further discussions with you on here.