Ezzard Charles or Ray Leonard?

[wmute]

Marquez and Mosley (and MAYBE Vazquez) will most likely be HOFers because of what they accomplished in their careers.

Some of the HOFers that Charles beat were just top contenders who beat other top contenders or past-prime champions in multiple series when they had to make a living by fighting every month.

Those contenders would be champions now, and considering how hard it was for certain fighters to get a shot back then (Burley...) they would most likely be lineal champs.

Disputes on negotiations shouldn't only be blamed on one fighter but both.

Considering Leonard's negotations history, it's hard to blame anyone else.

He lost to an old Walcott twice.

He fought the cream of the division he was in, that included losing to the champion. The old men Leonard was fighting happened to not be the cream of the division he was dwelling (60-68).

[Method Checker]

As I noted above, that's not a relevant run, moreover he also lost to the guy we are comparing him to.

(If Duran weighed in at 160, that is not a very good sign for his relevance at 168)

Leonard fought Duran at around the same weight of 160. That made it a fair contest, I would say. You and I both know that if Duran weighed in at 168, you would give Leonard more heat.

But if you must, take away Leonard's victory over Duran in that division and leave only Lalonde to compare with Hearns' opponents. Lalonde was better than Kinchen and Olajide.

[wmute]

Leonard fought Duran at around the same weight of 160. That made it a fair contest, I would say. You and I both know that if Duran weighed in at 168, you would give Leonard more heat.

But if you must, take away Leonard's victory over Duran in that division and leave only Lalonde to compare with Hearns' opponents. Lalonde was better than Kinchen and Olajide.

A healthy Lalonde might have been better, not one fighting more than one weight class beyond his.

[Method Checker]

Those contenders would be champions now, and considering how hard it was for certain fighters to get a shot back then (Burley...) they would most likely be lineal champs.

Just because you think they would've been doesn't automatically they would've.

He fought the cream of the division he was in, that included losing to the champion. The old men Leonard was fighting happened to not be the cream of the division he was dwelling (60-68).

Leonard was at the end of his career and he fought a reigning titleholder. Ask people who had the better career past their prime and see what answers you get.

[Method Checker]

A healthy Lalonde might have been better, not one fighting more than one weight class beyond his.

Another unproven excuse. If you can't bring good arguments to the table, don't bother debating.

[wmute]

Just because you think they would've been doesn't automatically they would've.

You just need to count major belts to agree on the champ part.

As for the lineal part... take Burley, he beats Zivic in a non title fight, and then he is never allowed to fight him for the title. Robinson pulls out because of money. Burley beat Moore when Moore had no title...

Leonard was at the end of his career and he fought a reigning titleholder. Ask people who had the better career past their prime and see what answers you get.

In their early 30s? Let's see Roy Jones, Pernell Whitaker, Roberto Duran, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney... This while sticking to fighters that came after or around Leonard's time. I will be graciouis and not dig in the vast ocean of those that came before him. Unless you want to tell me that Leonard prime is 1979-1981, in which case he should simply not be mentioned with Charles.

[wmute]

Another unproven excuse. If you can't bring good arguments to the table, don't bother debating.

Unproven? 175 champ, fighting at a catchweight of 167? Which part is not proven?

[donkim]

1) I am not turning a blind eye I am talking about oldtimers vs Leonard, not contemporary versus Leonard.

Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.

And yet you drifted off and went out of your way to discredit Leonard,to claim that he ducked the fighters listed,and yet one particular fighter(and I bet you rate him very highly) did legitimately duck one of the names listed.

2) "have to" fight is not really determined by mandatories (especially when you hold a number of belts)... That being said, While I am sure Duran wanted none of McCallum, it is hard to imagine Hagler "ducking" Graham.

It's not hard to imagine because he did.Graham was Hagler's mandatory challenger throughout most of 1986 and Hagler had plenty of time to make a defense.Hagler had no issue in giving rematches to undeserving challengers such as Obelmejias and Hamsho,two men who Hagler more than beat convincingly.

We were talking better 168 record between Hearns and Leonard, right? So I welcome your point, but it has nothing to do with who had the better run at 168.

I would not be quite sure, considering Duran had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight. It was a better win by name, not by relevance at the weight.

You may have been,but then you came out with this stupid post of which I picked up and corrected you on.

[wmute]

And yet you drifted off and went out of your way to discredit Leonard,to claim that he ducked the fighters listed,and yet one particular fighter(and I bet you rate him very highly) did legitimately duck one of the names listed.

Are you obsessed with Duran? This is a thread about Charles and Leonard.

It's not hard to imagine ecause he did.Graham was Hagler's mandatory challenger throughout most of 1986 and Hagler had plenty of time to make a defense.Hagler had no issue in giving rematches to undeserving challengers such as Obelmejias and Hamsho,two men who Hagler more than beat convincingly.

What was Hagler doing by 1986?

You may have been,but then you came out with this stupid post of which I picked up and corrected you on.

I don't get your point here sorry

[wmute]

Good night people, I will be back tomorrow or in a couple of days.