Comments Thread For: Sorry, Terence Crawford, but this is boxing?s Mt. Rushmore

[TonyRespectful]

Dempsey and Mayweather ? An absolute joke of a list .

[RuleOfTheSpear]

If you mention Duran, why not Hearns, who ko'd him. Mention Chavez, then what about Oscar, who stopped him twice. Tyson, what about Lennox, who knocked him out.

But I understand, taking it as an overview of when they were in their primes and body of work, you can see how the writer for to that list.

Duran is a great. But he will never be in my Mt Rushmore.

He is extremely glorified in his losses.
And is extremely glorified in his one best win in Leonard.

He is the best lightweight of his era for sure.
But he was never the best in any other weight class.
He lost the rematch.
He couldn't beat the best 154 pounder in Hearns.
He couldn't beat the second best 154 pounder in Benitez.
Had to settle for Moore to win a belt at 154.
Couldn't beat Hagler but was glorified for not getting knocked out. Had to settle for someone like Barkley to win a belt at 160.

Henry Armstrong has more stacked wins and was the best in multiple divisions. Armstrong beat 11 hall of famers vs Duran's 4.

Armstrong = Zivic, Wolgast, Bass, Wright, Sarron, Montanez, Jenkins, Angott, Arizmendi, Ross, Ambers
Duran = Buchanan, Palomino, Cuevas, Leonard

Couldn't drop or stop Leonard.
But that one single close decision win is glorified by boxing casuals.

That glorified Hagler loss is cringe.
When Armstrong lost to Sugar Ray Robinson (no doubt the GOAT) in an even bigger size difference.

But that's casuals for you.

[Willow The Wisp]

Tyson just did like 30m views for a exhibition and he’s nearly 60. Inoue isn’t in the same stratosphere even now.

THAT's Entertainment folks. The Cannes film festival gives out awards, people go see Jurassic Park IVXX.

Meh

[LEONIDAS26@]

Jack Dempsey DOES NOT BELONG on a Mt. Rushmore period.
He refused to fight black fighters even as a contender and as a Champion he went out of his way to avoid top contender Harry Wills.
Even Nat Fleischer the founder of Ring magazine called out Dempsey and his promoter For his blatant avoidance of Wills.
Dempsey fought only ONE black contender on his rise, a middling b level fighter who he barely got by and recieved broken ribs in the process of recieving a draw.
After that he literally made it a mission to avoid facing them. Other white fighters such as Harry Grebb fought black fighters regularly as contenders and some as Champions.
Dempsey did neither.
You can’t be THE MAN if you refuse to take on all comers irrespective of race, background and nationality. And it’s well documented.
On top of that he did not defend it with regularity.
And as soon as he finally got in the ring with a well schooled technician (unlike The embarrassing, incompetent fodder he was fed) in Gene Tunney, he was exposed as a crude street brawler with some measure of skill but definitely not top tier.
For the writer to put him up here simply because he felt some race based variety was needed is not only insulting but frankly core irresponsible.

[Oregonian]

Again, feel free to twist my words to suit your narrative. I never mentioned Joe Louis, Danny Green or Barrios. I also never mentioned 100 other great fighters. We all select the criteria that we like, that will support our views and then we argue backwards from our chosen position that we just believe blindly. I only nominated two fighers for Mt Rushmore which is Floyd and Bud and left a third spot open for Usyk if he retires undefeated (and does not fight on too long to be slayed by a young lion). I also said I don't know who else belongs there. My criteria are my own and are just as valid and just as subjective as your own criteria. There is no objectivity on this forum. It is all just opinions.

———-
These were your words
“People talk about Roberto Duran, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Julio Cesar Chavez Sr, Roy Jones Jr but I am 66 years old and I still remember all those guys losing badly to one or more fighters. I mean really bad, embarrassing losses. Once seen, it cannot be unseen.“

It appears your response here is going to accuse people of “twisting your words” when you are clearly implying EXACTLY what we are deducing.

Roy Jones was a name you used when talking about his “bad, embarrassing losses”. Roy Jones was knocked out cold by Danny Green. So would you call that a “bad, embarrassing loss” or were there other losses you were alluding to?

Tyson was KO’d by Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. Would you call those losses “bad, embarrassing losses”.

Those two names were very specific. since you did actually say that and I have quoted your own quote for you.

Also, no one is challenging your own list. We are all questioning the logic or rather, illogical reasoning about how you disqualify great fighters because they had losses.
It is truly asinine for you to denigrate Ali because he lost. Ali is hands down the greatest boxer of all time and arguably the greatest athlete ever. Anything less is sacrilege. What makes it even worse, you are suppose to champion Ali’s greatness because he was from your era.

So let me be clear, neither Tyson nor Roy are defined by their late career losses to fückïng journeymen.

[DeeMoney]

Please feel free to twist my words if that suits your narrative ... and then add stuff that I never wrote or meant. Cheers.

Sorry if that was twisting your words, thats just how I read it. If thats not what you meant then my fault for misinterpreting it. No narrative involved

[DeeMoney]

Jack Dempsey DOES NOT BELONG on a Mt. Rushmore period.
He refused to fight black fighters even as a contender and as a Champion he went out of his way to avoid top contender Harry Wills.
Even Nat Fleischer the founder of Ring magazine called out Dempsey and his promoter For his blatant avoidance of Wills.
Dempsey fought only ONE black contender on his rise, a middling b level fighter who he barely got by and recieved broken ribs in the process of recieving a draw.
After that he literally made it a mission to avoid facing them. Other white fighters such as Harry Grebb fought black fighters regularly as contenders and some as Champions.
Dempsey did neither.
You can’t be THE MAN if you refuse to take on all comers irrespective of race, background and nationality. And it’s well documented.
On top of that he did not defend it with regularity.
And as soon as he finally got in the ring with a well schooled technician (unlike The embarrassing, incompetent fodder he was fed) in Gene Tunney, he was exposed as a crude street brawler with some measure of skill but definitely not top tier.
For the writer to put him up here simply because he felt some race based variety was needed is not only insulting but frankly core irresponsible.

I think the list is equal part ability and success, as it is fame and impact. If you read how he breaks things down that seems to be important.

Also, as he has it roughly broken down by eras, and Ali and Srr were already selected, Dempsey seems to have an inside track for the pre 1940s fighter. Greb, Tunney, Langford, Leonard, and a few others were better. And Jack Johnson was more impactful in regards to his social impact. But Dempsey's fame pushes him over the top.

[TonyRespectful]

Duran is a great. But he will never be in my Mt Rushmore.

He is extremely glorified in his losses.
And is extremely glorified in his one best win in Leonard.

He is the best lightweight of his era for sure.
But he was never the best in any other weight class.
He lost the rematch.
He couldn't beat the best 154 pounder in Hearns.
He couldn't beat the second best 154 pounder in Benitez.
Had to settle for Moore to win a belt at 154.
Couldn't beat Hagler but was glorified for not getting knocked out. Had to settle for someone like Barkley to win a belt at 160.

Henry Armstrong has more stacked wins and was the best in multiple divisions. Armstrong beat 11 hall of famers vs Duran's 4.

Armstrong = Zivic, Wolgast, Bass, Wright, Sarron, Montanez, Jenkins, Angott, Arizmendi, Ross, Ambers
Duran = Buchanan, Palomino, Cuevas, Leonard

Couldn't drop or stop Leonard.
But that one single close decision win is glorified by boxing casuals.

That glorified Hagler loss is cringe.
When Armstrong lost to Sugar Ray Robinson (no doubt the GOAT) in an even bigger size difference.

But that's casuals for you.

You have seriously downplayed Duran. Hagler was also only the best in one division. So what. And Duran coming up two divisions to whup the All American Olympics hero is one of the greatest victories in boxing history. I assume you're not but you are coming across as a bit of a casual.And please remember Duran had already peaked in the 3rd DeJesus fight.After that fight he was 63 and 1.And avenged that loss twice. By knockout.

[DeeMoney]

Duran is a great. But he will never be in my Mt Rushmore.

He is extremely glorified in his losses.
And is extremely glorified in his one best win in Leonard.

He is the best lightweight of his era for sure.
But he was never the best in any other weight class.
He lost the rematch.
He couldn't beat the best 154 pounder in Hearns.
He couldn't beat the second best 154 pounder in Benitez.
Had to settle for Moore to win a belt at 154.
Couldn't beat Hagler but was glorified for not getting knocked out. Had to settle for someone like Barkley to win a belt at 160.

Henry Armstrong has more stacked wins and was the best in multiple divisions. Armstrong beat 11 hall of famers vs Duran's 4.

Armstrong = Zivic, Wolgast, Bass, Wright, Sarron, Montanez, Jenkins, Angott, Arizmendi, Ross, Ambers
Duran = Buchanan, Palomino, Cuevas, Leonard

Couldn't drop or stop Leonard.
But that one single close decision win is glorified by boxing casuals.

That glorified Hagler loss is cringe.
When Armstrong lost to Sugar Ray Robinson (no doubt the GOAT) in an even bigger size difference.

But that's casuals for you.

Duran was the best lightweight of all time, and his win against a prime SRL at welterweight is arguably the best win in boxing history. Remember he went up in weight and beat prime SRL.

Arguing that he couldnt 'Stop' Leonard seems specious as a sticking point, as Duran was older and moved up to fight SRL.

Armstrong's moving around weight is bonkers, but Duran held down a weight class for a long time, and then moved up. The fact that he couldnt beat two HOFers at 19 lbs above his best weight while in his 30s and over 80 fights into his career, isnt that big of a detraction to me.

[ijudge]

Duran was the best lightweight of all time, and his win against a prime SRL at welterweight is arguably the best win in boxing history. Remember he went up in weight and beat prime SRL.

Arguing that he couldnt 'Stop' Leonard seems specious as a sticking point, as Duran was older and moved up to fight SRL.

Armstrong's moving around weight is bonkers, but Duran held down a weight class for a long time, and then moved up. The fact that he couldnt beat two HOFers at 19 lbs above his best weight while in his 30s and over 80 fights into his career, isnt that big of a detraction to me.

I'll try to contextualize this in a way that modern era would understand
Lets say in this scenario, Pacquiao = Duran. Imagine Pacquiao losing to Dela Hoya and Cotto (hall of famers) but ended up beating Floyd Mayweather in his prime. Would that put Pacquiao above Armstrong? HELL NO
"Duran went up in weight and he was older...etc." 135 to 147 is 12 pounds difference and he had EIGHT tune ups at welterweight before SRL. He fully acclimated at welterweight. Last I check 28-29 is not old. He was in the prime of his life against SRL 1. The way you talk about Duran you treat him like he's the smallest guy around. Armstrong and Pacquiao are smaller than him (5'5 vs 5'7). Half of Pacquiao's fights were below featherweight and he debut at MINIMUMWEIGHT. Armstrong beat Sarron for the featherweight title, beat Ross for the welterweight title, and beat Ambers for the lightweight title in LESS THAN A YEAR

Duran's jump of 135 to 147 is 12 pounds
Armstrong's jump of 126 to 147 is 21 pounds
Armstrong fought no welterweight tune ups against Barney Ross for the welterweight title.
Duran is my favorite lightweight and arguably the best lightweight of all time but buy no means a Top 5 ATG.
Most boxing historians will have Greb, Langford, Robinson, Armstrong, and Ali as their Rushmore and deservedly so.