Ezzard Charles or Ray Leonard?

[donkim]

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

Completely avoiding the post.

What was Hagler doing by 1986?

Avoiding his mandatory challengers.


Interesting that you respond here,but you completely blank the post concerning Duran.

I don't get your point here sorry

You made this post

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.

Duran fought as a middleweight against Leonard the third time,the same weight class that he had fought and "won" a world title against Iran barkley at.




Do you understand that?

[Method Checker]

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

I'm not talking about ABC championships. I consider them titleholders rather than champions, since any good fighter can get one these days.

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...

I never said all of his opponents were overrated. Burley is an exceptional case.

Take others for example such as L. Marshall, Bivins, R. Layne, Baksi, Valentino, etc. HOFers and top contenders who only became such from beating each other over and over again. Don't get me wrong, they're good fighters, but not championship material.

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.

Each fighter's prime is different and Leonard's was short, but it wasn't from 1979-1981. I would say it was from 1978-1982.

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

He performed good enough to knock Leonard down. The very same Leonard who took punches from the likes of Hearns and Hagler and just laughed in their faces.

[wmute]

Completely avoiding the post.

What post would I be avoiding exactly? This is thread about Leonard and Charles. Are you putting down Duran? Wether I agree or disagree, you are diminishing Leonard's accomplishments. In other words you are making my point. thank you.

Avoiding his mandatory challengers.

Hagler was chasing Leonard and was fighting once a year. You can call it avoiding challengers if you want.

Interesting that you respond here,but you completely blank the post concerning Duran.

What am I blanking? You can trash all you want about Duran. This is a thread about Charles and Leonard. Again, why would I bother saying anything about Duran here and now if I disagreed. By putting him down, you are making a point that Charles is deservedly ranked higher than Leonard.

Duran fought as a middleweight against Leonard the third time,the same weight class that he had fought and "won" a world title against Iran barkley at.


Do you understand that?

So let me get this straight, Duran beats Barkley at 160, Leonard fights him at 160, and it counts as a good win at 168? Is this what you are trying to say? It sounds quite stupid. We were talking resumes at 168. Duran never beat anyone relevant at 168. How does Barkley all of a sudden matter at 168, since the fight took place at 160?

[TheGreatA]

Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins weren't championship material? Why did they beat so many champions then?

[wmute]

I'm not talking about ABC championships. I consider them titleholders rather than champions, since any good fighter can get one these days.

Fine. Leonard has not fought the lineal champ of a division after Hagler.

I never said all of his opponents were overrated. Burley is an exceptional case.


Take others for example such as L. Marshall, Bivins, R. Layne, Baksi, Valentino, etc. HOFers and top contenders who only became such from beating each other over and over again. Don't get me wrong, they're good fighters, but not championship material.

You should move Bivins away from the list of non championship material. He beat a few world champions plus Burley if i am not mistaken. Possibly Marshall too, but I would not be as sure of this as I am of Bivins.

Each fighter's prime is different and Leonard's was short, but it wasn't from 1979-1981. I would say it was from 1978-1982.

I agree, and fighters with shorter primes are deservedly ranked lower than those who manages to stay at the top for a longer time.

He performed good enough to knock Leonard down. The very same Leonard who took punches from the likes of Hearns and Hagler and just laughed in their faces.

Being weight drained does not usually affect your power, or the ability to land a few punches in the early rounds. It does however has an effect on stamina and ability to take punches as the fight goes on. You have seen the fight, so you know where I am going.

[TheGreatA]

Lloyd Marshall beat the following men:

Ezzard Charles (although beaten 2 out of 3)
Charley Burley
Holman Williams
Jake LaMotta
Joey Maxim
Freddie Mills
Ken Overlin
Lou Brouillard
Teddy Yarosz
Jack Chase
Shorty Hogue

and is inducted into the IBHOF.

37 year old Marshall in action vs former heavyweight title challenger Tommy Farr:

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=34811

[Method Checker]

Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins weren't championship material? Why did they beat so many champions then?

Top contenders beat future and past champions all the time. Does that mean they should automatically be a champion?

[wmute]

Top contenders beat future and past champions all the time. Does that mean they should automatically be a champion?

When they never get a shot from the same men they beat...

[donkim]

What post would I be avoiding exactly? This is thread about Leonard and Charles. Are you putting down Duran? Wether I agree or disagree, you are diminishing Leonard's accomplishments. In other words you are making my point. thank you.

Yes it is about Leonard and Charles,and then you changed the subject and listed a number of fighters who Leonard apparently "avoided" and it's pretty well known by now that you rate Duran and Hagler very highly,and I thought it was quite funny that you would list these fighters that Leonard avoided in which one was legitimately avoided by Duran.

Hagler was chasing Leonard and was fighting once a year. You can call it avoiding challengers if you want.

Yes,I will call it avoiding challengers.Hagler had plenty of time to defend against Herol Graham and he didn't because he knew the risk involved and happily vacated his title to do so.

What am I blanking? You can trash all you want about Duran. This is a thread about Charles and Leonard. Again, why would I bother saying anything about Duran here and now if I disagreed. By putting him down, you are making a point that Charles is deservedly ranked higher than Leonard.

In case you've been misreading my posts,I never even brought up Leonard and Charles,I responded to one particular post of yours in which you claimed Leonard was "avoiding" the fighters listed.

So let me get this straight, Duran beats Barkley at 160, Leonard fights him at 160, and it counts as a good win at 168? Is this what you are trying to say? It sounds quite stupid. We were talking resumes at 168. Duran never beat anyone relevant at 168. How does Barkley all of a sudden matter at 168, since the fight took place at 160?

I never brought up resume's at 168.

You claimed that Duran "had not beat anyone worth noting at the weight" in regards to the super middleweight division,the fight never even took place at 168

[Method Checker]

You should move Bivins away from the list of non championship material. He beat a few world champions plus Burley if i am not mistaken. Possibly Marshall too, but I would not be as sure of this as I am of Bivins.

Like I said. Future and past champions get beat by top contenders all the time. It happens. That doesn't automatically mean they would've been a champion.

I agree, and fighters with shorter primes are deservedly ranked lower than those who manages to stay at the top for a longer time.

Do you even know what a prime is? A prime the absolute peak of a fighter's career where he can perform at his best. Ali's was from 1964 to 1967. Does that mean he should be ranked lower than Leonard? No. Because you can still be good after your prime.

Being weight drained does not usually affect your power, or the ability to land a few punches in the early rounds. It does however has an effect on stamina and ability to take punches as the fight goes on. You have seen the fight, so you know where I am going.

I saw the tide shifting and Leonard adapting. Fighter's get tired as they go into the later rounds.

You're clearly just taking it out of line now and until you get some sense of respect, I'm not going to continue debating with you. Bye now.