Is SRL a Top 5 All Time Great?

[Parody]

Beat the Arguably best Middleweight of all time
Beat one of the best Welterweights of all time
Beat the best Lightweight of all time

yes, he is.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Sugar Ray Leanord

[Sweet Pete]

NINE?
OH MAN.SO YOU THINK EVERYBODY ABOVE HIM ASIDE FROM DURAN ROBINSON CAN BEAT HIM?

The guys above him rate higher P4P. They are all bigger than him for the most part, so yeah most of the guys above him could beat him. You think he beats Ali? LOL.

[ßringer]

**** no, anybody who would say otherwise must be new to the sport.

With guys like Ray Robinson, Sandy Sadler, Harry Greb, Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Pernell Whitaker, George Foreman, and many others dotting the landscape, Leonard is top 15 IMO.

[Sweet Pete]

I really have problems with people willing to rate a fighter with ZERO footage of him as #2 ATG.

Placing Ezzard Charles above Roberto Duran is also quite absurd. Id actually like to see you argue as to why Ezzard Charles deserves to be above Roberto Duran in ATG status.

I rate Greb #2 based on having easily the best resume in the history of boxing, and of many accounts of him that I have read.

Absurd to rate Charles above Duran? The only thing absurd was that statement.

Charles had one of the very best resumes of all time. EASILY better than Duran's resume.

Charles: Yarosz, Burley X2, Maxim X4, Moore X3(arguably the best set of wins in boxing history), Marshall X2, Oakland Billy Smith X2, Bivins X4, Elmer Ray, Walcott, Valentino, Joe Louis, Layne, Satterfield, etc.

Duran: Leonard, Dejesus X2, Buchanan, Moore, Barkley, Cuevas, Palomino, Bizzarro, Lampkin, Ishimatsu, Kobayashi, Marcel, etc.

Charles wins.

[shawn_]

I rate Greb #2 based on having easily the best resume in the history of boxing, and of many accounts of him that I have read.

Absurd to rate Charles above Duran? The only thing absurd was that statement.

Charles had one of the very best resumes of all time. EASILY better than Duran's resume.

Charles: Yarosz, Burley X2, Maxim X4, Moore X3(arguably the best set of wins in boxing history), Marshall X2, Oakland Billy Smith X2, Bivins X4, Elmer Ray, Walcott, Valentino, Joe Louis, Layne, Satterfield, etc.

Duran: Leonard, Dejesus X2, Buchanan, Moore, Barkley, Cuevas, Palomino, Bizzarro, Lampkin, Ishimatsu, Kobayashi, Marcel, etc.

Charles wins.

You should consult boxrec for an accurate formula for determining ratings, unless of course you want to rate fighters on their ability in which case it doesn't make a difference at all.

Duran is much much more skilled than Ezzard Charles. Im not knocking Ezzard Charles, as he was a great LHW, but comparing him to Roberto Duran in absolute skill level is absolutely absurd.

You must follow Burt Sugars philosophy, because obviously being able to thrash a fighter in a head to head match-up doesn't make you greater than them... wait, yes it does.

Burt Sugar used the same argument against Larry Holmes in claiming that Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever. Larry Holmes said Muhammad Ali would beat Joe Louis. Bert Sugars response... "That doesn't make him greater". Really then Bert, what does? Oh yes, thats right, by your criteria your name has to start with J and end with oe Louis to be the greatest.

I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. To be the best, you have to beat the best. Im sure you have heard that saying, well it holds true in determining ATG status, to be the best, you have to be able to beat everyone that is listed below you. Ezzard Charles would not beat Roberto Duran.

[robjr]

not to discredit him at all but I would not put him in all time top 5 greatest ever..

[Sweet Pete]

You should consult boxrec for an accurate formula for determining ratings, unless of course you want to rate fighters on their ability in which case it doesn't make a difference at all.

Duran is much much more skilled than Ezzard Charles. Im not knocking Ezzard Charles, as he was a great LHW, but comparing him to Roberto Duran in absolute skill level is absolutely absurd.

You must follow Burt Sugars philosophy, because obviously being able to thrash a fighter in a head to head match-up doesn't make you greater than them... wait, yes it does.

Burt Sugar used the same argument against Larry Holmes in claiming that Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever. Larry Holmes said Muhammad Ali would beat Joe Louis. Bert Sugars response... "That doesn't make him greater". Really then Bert, what does? Oh yes, thats right, by your criteria your name has to start with J and end with oe Louis to be the greatest.

I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. To be the best, you have to beat the best. Im sure you have heard that saying, well it holds true in determining ATG status, to be the best, you have to be able to beat everyone that is listed below you. Ezzard Charles would not beat Roberto Duran.

So you rate P4P strictly on how they would do if they were the same size in a head to head matchup?

In that case I've heard many say someone like Cristian Mijares is better than a lot of guys that have accomplished more. Does that make him P4P a greater fighter?

And no, you're way off base when you talk about Duran being much more skilled. WAY off base. Charles in his prime was like a bigger Ray Robinson(though not as quick at higher weights). Had everything Ray had, except the charisma. He had immense power, good speed, a good jab, and a great array of power punches. He could box from the outside or hurt you on the inside.

You could argue that Duran was more skilled, but you may have to make the same case for Duran over Robinson, being as Charles and Robinson were so similar in style. Either way, I base my rankings on resume just as much if not more than head to head. You seem to base your solely on head to head, which could lead to a lot of inconsistencies.

[shawn_]

So you rate P4P strictly on how they would do if they were the same size in a head to head matchup?

In that case I've heard many say someone like Cristian Mijares is better than a lot of guys that have accomplished more. Does that make him P4P a greater fighter?

And no, you're way off base when you talk about Duran being much more skilled. WAY off base. Charles in his prime was like a bigger Ray Robinson(though not as quick at higher weights). Had everything Ray had, except the charisma. He had immense power, good speed, a good jab, and a great array of power punches. He could box from the outside or hurt you on the inside.

You could argue that Duran was more skilled, but you may have to make the same case for Duran over Robinson, being as Charles and Robinson were so similar in style. Either way, I base my rankings on resume just as much if not more than head to head. You seem to base your solely on head to head, which could lead to a lot of inconsistencies.

Fighting is a head to head sport. The goal of fighting is to win a head to head match-up. The goal of fighting is NOT to compile the best resume. The goal of fighting is NOT to beat a fighter in resumes.

In order to greater than a fighter you have to be able to beat him strait up. Ezzard Charles could not beat Roberto Duran. I have many Charles fights in my archive. I am well versed in his style. Comparing him to Ray Robinson is a bit of a stretch, unless you are talking about body type.

It is people that rank fighters as you do that keep ATG fighters such as Nicolino Locche regulated to the obscure pages of the history books.

Locche was a man with great talent, but few opportunities. His one great achievement in 136 fights, HUMILIATING Antonio Cervantes. Locche would stack up favorably to anyone in a head to head match-up, but if you go strictly by resume, you would assume he is a joke.

[Sweet Pete]

Fighting is a head to head sport. The goal of fighting is to win a head to head match-up. The goal of fighting is NOT to compile the best resume. The goal of fighting is NOT to beat a fighter in resumes.

LOL, you're just getting silly now. Of course the point is to win, that's what a resume is, a list of names you've beaten. If you've beaten the best, odds are you're a pretty damn good head to head fighter yourself. Charles had a better boxing career as far as quality of opposition beaten than Duran. The goal of fighting is to win, which at the same time [I]is[I] compiling a good resume. You're not making sense with this.

In order to greater than a fighter you have to be able to beat him strait up. Ezzard Charles could not beat Roberto Duran. I have many Charles fights in my archive. I am well versed in his style. Comparing him to Ray Robinson is a bit of a stretch, unless you are talking about body type.

Exxard Charles could not beat Roberto Duran? Charles fought from MW to HW. Duran fought no higher than MW. Charles would brutally stop him. Head to head P4P matchups are pure speculation, and some of the worst kind if you ask me. If you made Charles smaller you'd have to increase his speed and other factos would have to change, etc. Same if you made Duran bigger, too many viariables need to change, which is why I base a fighters's greatness on what they did, rather than what they were capable of doing, as you do. I'd say my method is a bit more reliable.

It is people that rank fighters as you do that keep ATG fighters such as Nicolino Locche regulated to the obscure pages of the history books.

Locche beat Cervantes and is known as one of the slickest, most skilled defensive fighters of all time. People can make names for themselves based on how they fight as well, just not higher than someone with a Charles-like resume.

Locche was a man with great talent, but few opportunities. His one great achievement in 136 fights, HUMILIATING Antonio Cervantes. Locche would stack up favorably to anyone in a head to head match-up, but if you go strictly by resume, you would assume he is a joke.

Anyone who shuts out Cervantes is no joke. Same thing with Loi beating Ortiz twice, you can see what level someone is by who they beat. Both Charles and Duran were clearly world-class, Charles just proved it more.

I'm going to re-instate my main point though, which is what I want you to focus on when responding..

"Same if you made Duran bigger, too many viariables need to change, which is why I base a fighters's greatness on what they did, rather than what they were capable of doing, as you do."

[The Noose]

I voted yes purley based on what he could do in the ring.

Im sure there are many fighters with a better resume, but from what i know and have seen, Leonard was one of the best fighters ever.

Fighters records can be misleading. I couldnt compare Leonard to a fighter ive never seen, based on what Boxrec shows me.