ATG's List by McGoorty - A Hall of Fame

[Scott9945]

I thought I did have Benitez there but if I didn't I probably made a big mistake, I am not sure who the youngest champ in history was, I know Les Darcy was 19 when he won a version of the middleweight title, how old was Wilfred when he won a belt ?

Benitez was 17 when he beat Cervantes for the junior welterweight title.

[joseph5620]

I do not even remotely agree with your opinion that Benitez was top 3 in defence of all time or did I read you wrong there ?.... My top 3 greatest defensive fighters of all time are in no particular order as I cannot separate guys of that level.............. Benny leonard, Young Griffo and Willie Pep..... and Archie Moore but not quite at the level of those three.

Listing Benitez in the top three is no more preposterous than Young Griffo. If anything, Benitez has a stronger case.

[McGoorty]

Listing Benitez in the top three is no more preposterous than Young Griffo. If anything, Benitez has a stronger case.

How do you come by that ?...... in countless fights hardly a glove was ever laid on Griffo, I am not putting Benitez down but hell, 167 fights before his first defeat and everything ever written about him ?... the likes of Gans, Dixon, Lavigne and Thompson and other great names on his resume couldn't get to him yet it is recorded that Griffo could almost hit those guys at will mark him as without peer.

[McGoorty]

Listing Benitez in the top three is no more preposterous than Young Griffo. If anything, Benitez has a stronger case.

And we can't put Benitez in against Griffo in a fight can we, even if they fought in the same era, Griffo was a featherweight and when fat was a lightweight, Benitez is too big for Griffo for any result to be taken seriously. Boxing is about time and place when comparing fighters, all that matters is how good they were in their own time and their record and resume.

[NChristo]

And we can't put Benitez in against Griffo in a fight can we, even if they fought in the same era, Griffo was a featherweight and when fat was a lightweight, Benitez is too big for Griffo for any result to be taken seriously. Boxing is about time and place when comparing fighters, all that matters is how good they were in their own time and their record and resume.

And when we're talking about specific traits of certain boxers, footage is a huge part of comparing them which is why Benitez has a much stronger case for being a better defensive boxer then Griffo, newspaper articles and interviews can only tell us so much and even if they did say that he was that good of a defensive boxer if news articles were written in the same manner today they could easily write about Benitez in the same way. Newspaper decisions only tell us so much about a fight and can vary widely between newspapers, better too keep boxers from that era in their own category or give them an honorable mention over saying they was for definite better then boxers we have footage of.

[billeau2]

Listing Benitez in the top three is no more preposterous than Young Griffo. If anything, Benitez has a stronger case.

This is why I hate lists. Benitez was a very good technical fighter and when he was on he was fantastic. He came from an East Harlem boxing family, much like Camacho. One thing to also note is that when he fought Leonard he was at his worse....in one of those psychological self destructive moves, feeling perhaps a bit intimidated by leonard, he decided to make sure that Leonard would not beat him at his best...meaning that the night before the fight and for most of the lead up to the fight, benitez could be found in some of the many Latin clubs in New York, binging on cocaine, booze and extremely sexy Puerto Rican women. This was common knowledge in the hood.

I used to go to some of those clubs with a childhood friend who was Puerto Rican. You had women, some of whom were in their sixties! that were curvy, could dance all night and were a pleasure for a young preteen lad experiencing puberty to look at! Lets not even talk about the women in their twenties!

[joseph5620]

]And when we're talking about specific traits of certain boxers, footage is a huge part of comparing boxers which is why Benitez has a much stronger case for being a better defensive boxer over Griffo, newspaper articles and interviews can only tell us so much and even if they did say that he was that good of a defensive boxer if news articles were written in the same manner today they would easily write about Benitez in the same way.[/B] Newspaper decisions only tell us so much about a fight and can vary widely between newspapers, better too keep boxers from that era in their own category or give them an honorable mention over saying they was for definite better then boxers we have footage of.

Exactly and thank you for saving me the time.

[joseph5620]

How do you come by that ?...... in countless fights hardly a glove was ever laid on Griffo, I am not putting Benitez down but hell, 167 fights before his first defeat and everything ever written about him ?... the likes of Gans, Dixon, Lavigne and Thompson and other great names on his resume couldn't get to him yet it is recorded that Griffo could almost hit those guys at will mark him as without peer.

I've obviously never seen any of those and neither have you so I can only go by what I've read.


I do know I read that Griffo was stopped and dropped by Gans so how was he "barely touched?"


"Mark him without peer" is your opinion that I don't share. His last fight was in the early 1900's and there have been other great defensive fighters since who I can actually watch on video. To say none of them match Griffo without ever seeing him or his opponent's fight would be ridiculous.

[McGoorty]

And when we're talking about specific traits of certain boxers, footage is a huge part of comparing them which is why Benitez has a much stronger case for being a better defensive boxer then Griffo, newspaper articles and interviews can only tell us so much and even if they did say that he was that good of a defensive boxer if news articles were written in the same manner today they could easily write about Benitez in the same way. Newspaper decisions only tell us so much about a fight and can vary widely between newspapers, better too keep boxers from that era in their own category or give them an honorable mention over saying they was for definite better then boxers we have footage of.

well Griffo was clearly the best or purest boxer of his time, all his contemporaries thought so and thats what really matters

[McGoorty]

I've obviously never seen any of those and neither have you so I can only go by what I've read.


I do know I read that Griffo was stopped and dropped by Gans so how was he "barely touched?"


"Mark him without peer" is your opinion that I don't share. His last fight was in the early 1900's and there have been other great defensive fighters since who I can actually watch on video. To say none of them match Griffo without ever seeing him or his opponent's fight would be ridiculous.

I am saying that many said he was without peer among those who saw him and for some reason Benny Leonard said Griffo was the finest boxer ever and many have said that about Benny himself and for good reason I might add. Yes Gans did win the THIRD fight but by then Griffo had become fat and had been a hopeless alcoholic and so far past his prime only pride and need of cash got him into the ring against Gans, but i have read reports of an earlier fight where Gans was totally outclassed and could not hit Griffo yet Griffo hit him all night long and Gans was much bigger than Griffo. All I can add to this is that I am not making any of this up... I never do, I honestly tell it how I see it........ yes, film would be helpful and there was film of him, in fact the very first ever boxing film of an outdoor exhibition in history but I cannot find it on youtube, it does exist in an Australian library somewhere but I think the film to decayed to actually watch now, a damn shame, he sure must have been an incredible fighter.......