best defensive boxer of all time

[Hawkins]

I didn't think you were knocking Benitez. I just thought we have different preferences on mental pictures of him. You'd rather think first of his losses, I'd rather think first of who he was at his best.

I do the same for Ali and other greats. I acknowledge Ali's last fights but they are not going to be my first mental pictures if Ali's name is mentioned.

So, you'd rather recall the Moore fight alongside what I mentioned as my first mental picture (the Hope KO). That's your choice.

You totally misunderstood what I meant by that. I meant that sometimes its hard to remember the triumphs without also remembering the defeats. Not that I define, Benitez by the crushing losses to Moore and Hilton, rather it reminds me how much better he could have been had his head been totally in the game.

You speak of reactions to defeat as motivation for some and an excuse for others. A quick look at Benitez's record will show us that following his first loss (to no less than Leonard by 15th round TKO), he raced through three fighters with a cumulative record of 121-11. Then, he took a shot at his third world title in three weight classes and faced Hope. That's not exactly a fighter looking for an excuse.

He successfully defended the title he won from Hope twice and beat a Roberto Duran in the process. That was the Duran who beat Davey Moore and Pipino Cuevas a year later, and went the distance before losing to Hagler four years later. I can't see that such a series of events warrants a negative take on how badly Benitez took the loss to Leonard.

Benitez lost his title to Hearns. It was by MD. And it was the Hearns who less than two years later KO'd Duran and then 7 years later held Leonard to a draw in Vegas.

Benitez may have had his personal demons that got in the way of his accomplishing more than he did. But what he actually accomplished-- both in losing and winning against the great ones--makes him deserve a better mental picture in my mind than his defeat to Davey Moore.

I wasn't lumping Benitez into that per say, rather I was painting a broader picture of the sport as a whole. Too many times fighters sink even further after a loss instead of using it as a motivator. I didn't mean for it to pertain to Benitez.

Benitez is an all-time great for a reason, I would never say otherwise. I was just using our conversation as an effort to make a wider generalization.

[grayfist]

You totally misunderstood what I meant by that. I meant that sometimes its hard to remember the triumphs without also remembering the defeats. Not that I define, Benitez by the crushing losses to Moore and Hilton, rather it reminds me how much better he could have been had his head been totally in the game.



I wasn't lumping Benitez into that per say, rather I was painting a broader picture of the sport as a whole. Too many times fighters sink even further after a loss instead of using it as a motivator. I didn't mean for it to pertain to Benitez.

Benitez is an all-time great for a reason, I would never say otherwise. I was just using our conversation as an effort to make a wider generalization.

Your statements gave the wrong impression, at least, to me.

I manage to remember the great Benitez (winning and losing against the great ones) and cursorily nod at what you refer to as his "crushing defeats" because of my awareness that those defeats came near the end of his storied career. Call me selective...

Yes, the "could have been". I mentioned in an earlier post that the Hall of Fame is full of stories of "what could have beens." I said, the great ones did not have only to deal with their foes in the arena, they had their demons, and people- places-and-events that affect their careers and personal lives. Some careers were severely affected by circumstances way beyond the fighters' control. World War II, for example.

Anyhow, I still wonder why you decided to paint a broader picture of how badly fighters take losses when the conversation was about Benitez and by no means can Benitez's name provoke the painting with such broad strokes. Different strokes for diffeent folks, I guess.

[Hawkins]

Your statements gave the wrong impression, at least, to me.

I manage to remember the great Benitez (winning and losing against the great ones) and cursorily nod at what you refer to as his "crushing defeats" because of my awareness that those defeats came near the end of his storied career. Call me selective...

Yes, the "could have been". I mentioned in an earlier post that the Hall of Fame is full of stories of "what could have beens." I said, the great ones did not have only to deal with their foes in the arena, they had their demons, and people- places-and-events that affect their careers and personal lives. Some careers were severely affected by circumstances way beyond the fighters' control. World War II, for example.

Anyhow, I still wonder why you decided to paint a broader picture of how badly fighters take losses when the conversation was about Benitez and by no means can Benitez's name provoke the painting with such broad strokes. Different strokes for diffeent folks, I guess.

Well you'll have to forgive me for taking the conversation into a sideways slant. Wasn't mean to obscure the origin of the debate. I'm in the middle of a storm of In-Law family so I'm rather distracted. Anyhow...

My original intent was meant to mean that Benitez could have achieved much more than he did. Does that mean his accomplishments mean any less? No. However I still think his career had yet to reach a true ceiling when it was derailed. Furthermore, had he not been distracted by his various vices (whatever they may have been) his career wouldn't have ended like it did. He wasn't even 30 years old when Matthew Hilton drove the proverbial last nail in the coffin of his career, so it should be argued that he had a few years left had he did things differently.

Like I said earlier, it's hard for me to picture his greatest triumphs without also seeing those terrible defeats. Why? Because there was so much more he could have accomplished but his career came to screeching halt because of his choices outside of the boxing ring.

[grayfist]

Well you'll have to forgive me for taking the conversation into a sideways slant. Wasn't mean to obscure the origin of the debate. I'm in the middle of a storm of In-Law family so I'm rather distracted. Anyhow...

My original intent was meant to mean that Benitez could have achieved much more than he did. Does that mean his accomplishments mean any less? No. However I still think his career had yet to reach a true ceiling when it was derailed. Furthermore, had he not been distracted by his various vices (whatever they may have been) his career wouldn't have ended like it did. He wasn't even 30 years old when Matthew Hilton drove the proverbial last nail in the coffin of his career, so it should be argued that he had a few years left had he did things differently.

Like I said earlier, it's hard for me to picture his greatest triumphs without also seeing those terrible defeats. Why? Because there was so much more he could have accomplished but his career came to screeching halt because of his choices outside of the boxing ring.

Mother In-law issues? Oh, well... we fellas have to go through those...

But I've forgotten about mine. My wife's mom passed away 20 or so years ago.

Benitez debuted in 73. By the time he faced Hilton he had already spent 13 years fighting 55 fights (lost 4) facing such heavy-hitters as Hearns, Duran,Palomino...an offensive, unrelenting offensive machine and durable foe (his defeats were mostly because of cuts he suffered) named Mustaffa Hamsho...gruelling bouts with Bruce Curry (2x), Antonio Cervantes, Pete Ranzany...

He also had several 15-round world championship fights that went the full route or close to the full distance (Ref Padilla stopped his fight against Leonard with mere seconds remaining till the final bell, for example.)

In addition, he was not one known to have taken good care of himself...
When Benitez faced Hilton, he was an old 28 or 29 year old very tired veteran.

Many fighters hit their peak at that age. Benitez started hitting his at 17 when he became the youngest fighter ever to win a world crown-- a feat not yet matched-- forget about it having been ecclipsed.

As for, "what he could have achieved," I think my all my posts are clear statements that I am of the opinion shared by a vast majority of fight fans of all ages. What I cannot comprehend is why the "what could have been" should diminish the "what came to be" in the early to middle part of his career. If anything, it should add luster to his name.

Neither could I understand why defeats when he was already on the backslope of his career should tarnish the accomplishments when he was at his prime or near-prime. To me those accomplishments shine by and of themselves. Those were not easy. He was heroic even in his losses to fellow greats.

[Hawkins]

Mother In-law issues? Oh, well... we fellas have to go through those...

But I've forgotten about mine. My wife's mom passed away 20 or so years ago.

Benitez debuted in 73. By the time he faced Hilton he had already spent 13 years fighting 55 fights (lost 4) facing such heavy-hitters as Hearns, Duran,Palomino...an offensive, unrelenting offensive machine and durable foe (his defeats were mostly because of cuts he suffered) named Mustaffa Hamsho...gruelling bouts with Bruce Curry (2x), Antonio Cervantes, Pete Ranzany...

He also had several 15-round world championship fights that went the full route or close to the full distance (Ref Padilla stopped his fight against Leonard with mere seconds remaining till the final bell, for example.)

In addition, he was not one known to have taken good care of himself...
When Benitez faced Hilton, he was an old 28 or 29 year old very tired veteran.

Many fighters hit their peak at that age. Benitez started hitting his at 17 when he became the youngest fighter ever to win a world crown-- a feat not yet matched-- forget about it having been ecclipsed.

As for, "what he could have achieved," I think my all my posts are clear statements that I am of the opinion shared by a vast majority of fight fans of all ages. What I cannot comprehend is why the "what could have been" should diminish the "what came to be" in the early to middle part of his career. If anything, it should add luster to his name.

Neither could I understand why defeats when he was already on the backslope of his career should tarnish the accomplishments when he was at his prime or near-prime. To me those accomplishments shine by and of themselves. Those were not easy. He was heroic even in his losses to fellow greats.

Again, I think you totally misinterpret the point I was making. In no way was it meant as a detriment to El Radar nor was meant to degrade his accomplishments.

The only point I was trying, but obviously failed, to make was that as great as he was he could have been greater had he maintained his external focus. We all know the rumors that swirled around as early as the Hearns the fight and all the things that were whispered afterward.

Anyway, I can't help but think had his problems not been as prevalent as they were his career would have reached even great heights. It's not an insult toward what he did acheive rather the reality of what could have been.

[grayfist]

Again, I think you totally misinterpret the point I was making. In no way was it meant as a detriment to El Radar nor was meant to degrade his accomplishments.

The only point I was trying, but obviously failed, to make was that as great as he was he could have been greater had he maintained his external focus. We all know the rumors that swirled around as early as the Hearns the fight and all the things that were whispered afterward.

Anyway, I can't help but think had his problems not been as prevalent as they were his career would have reached even great heights. It's not an insult toward what he did acheive rather the reality of what could have been.

I think you've made your point. I think it is I who did not.

You said you cannot think of Benitez's accomplishments without thinking of his defeats. That was clear in your earlier posts and it continues to be clear in the more recent ones. I could not have missed that.

That is the statement I addressed. I said, I cannot comprehend why if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, one should focus sufficiently on his later defeats... enough to call them "devastating" and to remember them-- at the very least-- alongside his victories. It is my belief that if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, then, one should take that as an added luster to his name and not one that is a reminder of his "devastating" losses.

If one believes that had Benitez taken care of himself he could have done more, why delve on Hilton and not talk about the fellas he could have faced and beaten? It's a "what could have been" proposition, after all.

Okay. So Hilton serves to underscore how Benitez wasted his talents. But, should that point be belabored? I guess it's common enough knowledge.

Anyhow, I said very early in this exchange of ideas, that I do not begrudge your tendency to stack up Benitez's accomplishments against his losses. I clearly stated that "it's your choice." I also said, we have "different preferences" in remembering Benitez.

I am now left wondering why you insist that I don't get what you mean when it all it seems is that you do not get what I have clearly said.

Oh...the mother in law issues.... okay.

[Hawkins]

I think you've made your point. I think it is I who did not.

You said you cannot think of Benitez's accomplishments without thinking of his defeats. That was clear in your earlier posts and it continues to be clear in the more recent ones. I could not have missed that.

That is the statement I addressed. I said, I cannot comprehend why if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, one should focus sufficiently on his later defeats... enough to call them "devastating" and to remember them-- at the very least-- alongside his victories. It is my belief that if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, then, one should take that as an added luster to his name and not one that is a reminder of his "devastating" losses.

I understand your viewpoint my friend however you think I focus on his defeats and that simply is not the case. I think when one thinks of athletes who achieved much at an early age and burned out very young often bring forth the question of what else could have been.

I was a great fan of his, and it wasn't until later, when I put everything together that I wondered that how much greater might he have been? He could have very easily attained the status of someone such as Ray Robinson because he was that talented.

As for being devestating losses, they were. Matthew Hilton was a good fighter but to see someone of Radar's caliber fall at his feet is an undeserving end.

If one believes that had Benitez taken care of himself he could have done more, why delve on Hilton and not talk about the fellas he could have faced and beaten? It's a "what could have been" proposition, after all.

Okay. So Hilton serves to underscore how Benitez wasted his talents. But, should that point be belabored? I guess it's common enough knowledge.

Anyhow, I said very early in this exchange of ideas, that I do not begrudge your tendency to stack up Benitez's accomplishments against his losses. I clearly stated that "it's your choice." I also said, we have "different preferences" in remembering Benitez.

I am now left wondering why you insist that I don't get what you mean when it all it seems is that you do not get what I have clearly said.

Oh...the mother in law issues.... okay.

But see that is where we are conflicting. I don't think he wasted his talent, after all he achieved a great deal, but that doesn't stop the underlying theme that alot more was indeed within his grasp.

Just imagine, if there were no problems like he had rumored to have had, and he had defeated Leonard and Hearns. His name would be lifted into the pantheon of fighters such as Ali and Robinson. That doesn't distract from anything he did do but it is realistic in imagining.

[grayfist]

I understand your viewpoint my friend however you think I focus on his defeats and that simply is not the case. I think when one thinks of athletes who achieved much at an early age and burned very young often bring forth the question of what else could have been.

I was a great fan of his, and it wasn't until later, when I put everything together that I wondered that how much greater might he have been? He could have very easily attained the status of someone such as Ray Robinson because he was that talented.

As for being devestating losses, they were. Matthew Hilton was a good fighter but to see someone of Radar's caliber fall at his feet is an deserving end.



But see that is where we are conflicting. I don't think he wasted his talent, after all he achieved a great deal, but that doesn't stop the underlying theme that alot more was indeed within his grasp.

Just imagine, if their were no problems like he had rumored to have had, and he had defeated Leonard and Hearns. His name would be lifted into the pantheon of fighters such as Ali and Robinson. That doesn't distract from anything he did do but it is realistic in imagining.

I do not think that you are in conflict with me alone. It can be that you are in conflict with yourself.

You said you do not think he wasted his talent, and yet in the very next breath you mentioned rumors of his problems. And this is not the only occassion you illustrated that he wasted his talents. Check your previous posts.

Anyway, just to be clear as to where you're coming from: what was it, then, that made him fail to achieve the things that you said were in his grasp? Lack of talent? If so, why talk about the problems when he did not have what it took anyway?

If you think, he had an attitude problem which made him less committed to his sport, then did he not squander (or "waste") his talent?

If, the rumor you refer to is that he had a drug habit, wasn't that wasting his talent?

You said you do not focus on his defeats. But you took three posts to underscore them. Why? That even after I already said you can have your choice and that we have different preferences in remembering Benitez. Why? That even after I provided details that there is more reason to remember Benitez more fondly than through his defeats in the hands of Moore and Hilton. Why?

We agree on several things and we have been around the block many times on that. We say Benitez is among those often mentioned during "what could have been" discussions. Both of us say "amen" to that.

But you come back several times saying you remember Benitez as a great one and then say YOU CANNOT REMEMBER him WITHOUT REMEMBERING his "devastating defeats!" So, okay, I told you, it's your choice. I repeated that in TWO POSTS. I just added the comment that if you think Benitez that great why keep on harping about not being able to remember him without recalling his defeats? Fairness? Okay. But why didn't you say so? Instead, you just kept on repeating the same thing.

I asked why talk about Hilton and not the "what could have beens"? Because...?

On second thought, I think, now, that I do not get what you mean. That cannot be a surprise to me now because you don't seem to either.

[Hawkins]

So, by me saying I think he could have been greater than he was it implies wasted talent? I don't see it that way. Cannot someone still be considered great but have unreached potential?

I don't think that by pointing out the fact I think he could achieved more is implying he wasted his talent. When I think of wasted talent I think of someone like Lee Oma or Ricardo Williams. Someone who had the talent, yet squandered it completely.

Benitez is not an example of wasted talent. He was a great fighter. World champion who attained a deserved place in the history of the sport. When I say he was indeed great on one hand but on the other hand he could have been greater still, you take it as me saying he wasted his talent and thats no the case.

I think you can spotlight someones greatness ,while asserting further greatness could have been attained, without putting into the catergory of wasted talent.

[grayfist]

So, by me saying I think he could have been greater than he was it implies wasted talent? I don't see it that way. Cannot someone still be considered great but have unreached potential?

I don't think that by pointing out the fact I think he could achieved more is implying he wasted his talent. When I think of wasted talent I think of someone like Lee Oma or Ricardo Williams. Someone who had the talent, yet squandered it completely.

Benitez is not an example of wasted talent. He was a great fighter. World champion who attained a deserved place in the history of the sport. When I say he was indeed great on one hand but on the other hand he could have been greater still, you take it as me saying he wasted his talent and thats no the case.

I think you can spotlight someones greatness ,while asserting further greatness could have been attained, without putting into the catergory of wasted talent.

No. Your tendency to take slants and sidesteps are showing up again. You will recall having owned up to having done that in this and other threads.

I did not say that it was implicit in your statement that Benitez was a wasted talent because he did not achieve what he was capable of-- although some people may take it that way. If one is a capable of achieving something and does not go out to achieve it, then the talent is wasted. That's clear. It is still clear even if Benitez got to where he was in spite of having done what he did outside the ring. At the very least, he wasted SOME of the talents. A waste no less.

But it is not what this response is all about. It is about my having asked you a series of questions and quoted your post then made the relevant passages in your post bold letters, to which you failed to specifically respond.

In previous posts you variously referred to problems of his as "prevalent", and referred to his bad "choices outside the ring". These are a few of the many that should be added to the "rumored problems" you referred to in the post that I quoted in my reply immediately preceeding this one. So I asked you, what were those problems?

Were those drugs? Attitude? If these were, did these not constitute a "wasting of talent"?

You did not address these questions and instead chose not to quote my post in your reply. Why? You've been quoting my posts all throughout this thread until then. Why stop? It is not as if you are not better than me in using the quote button. Your previous posts that contain multiple quotes are evidence of your skill. While I struggle to get around this site, techno-idiot that I am.

Be that as it may, I think it is best for purposes of clarity of our respective positions that you be responsive and not slant or sidestep the very points of contention that you yourself serve up.

Or, you can again refer to your issues with your mother in law.