Bert Sugars top 100- is he too old school?

[HaglerSteelChin]

I agree nothing wrong with being old school but he seems saturated with guys from the 1930's and earlier. De La Hoya, Mayweather Jr, Morales are not top 100? Also the book has alot of editing errors, it may seem trivial but if you tell somone Duran won his 3rd weight class at 160 instead of 4 than his incorrect facts make you look stupid. Also some of his analogies seem just tastless comparing stuff with "people dying while being thrown to lions during the roman empire", "vietnam body counts", "wam bam thank you mam" not exactly in the best taste.

[Joey Giardello]

I dont understand how bert doesnt rate michael spinks in his top 100? for me the guy is a top 50 fighter no questions asked! also he rates grazino and zale but not trinidad or holman williams?

[HaglerSteelChin]

I dont understand how bert doesnt rate michael spinks in his top 100? for me the guy is a top 50 fighter no questions asked! also he rates grazino and zale but not trinidad or holman williams?

Being a journalist he has a personal relationship with many boxers. Its hard to believe that personal bias is not put there. Spinks beat Holmes who had over 20 defenses-even if it was a close decision. He went from LHW which is lower than Cruiser, he was unbeaten until the Tyson KO. He is definitely top 100. FIghting Harada beats Eder Jofre twice but Jofre makes #28 and Harada cant make top 100?

[JAB5239]

I agree nothing wrong with being old school but he seems saturated with guys from the 1930's and earlier. De La Hoya, Mayweather Jr, Morales are not top 100? Also the book has alot of editing errors, it may seem trivial but if you tell somone Duran won his 3rd weight class at 160 instead of 4 than his incorrect facts make you look stupid. Also some of his analogies seem just tastless comparing stuff with "people dying while being thrown to lions during the roman empire", "vietnam body counts", "wam bam thank you mam" not exactly in the best taste.

Don't quote me on this, but I'd imagine his criteria has a lot to do with the amount of fights a fighter had and how good his comp was. Floyd Mayweather is as talented a fighter as we've ever seen, but based on who and how often he and his competition fight he isn't even comparable to many fighters throughout history who fought much, much more and against all the top fighters. Him and others not making the top 100 is a bit of a leap for me too, But to each his own.

[StarshipTrooper]

Burt Sugar has attended more boxing shows than you could ever dream of, The guy writes books, newspaper articles and does guest appearances on TV talking about Historical Boxing yet you claim the guy is nothing but a Joke?

He's seen all those fights yet learned so little. It took Bert Sugar until the 1990s for God's sake to rate Muhammed Ali a top-5 Heavyweight. Sugar is as biased as they come: Not surprising since he's a journalist and not a historian. Sugar never lets the facts interfere with a good story which is why he perpetuates such myths as "Willie Pep won a round without throwing a single punch" long after those myths have been demonstrated to be false.

how stupid can you get.. your posts are now bordering on a level as ridiculous as Mr Boxers... its only a matter of time unto you both are known as the Laurel & Hardy` of this boxing forum

How asinine can YOU get? You've reduced yourself to an embittered internet troll along the lines of Slimeypoophead: Trolling the Boxing History section to discover which fighters get respect then trying (and failing) to discredit and malign them. Really, you're just a sad little man

Poet

[sonnyboyx2]

He's seen all those fights yet learned so little. It took Bert Sugar until the 1990s for God's sake to rate Muhammed Ali a top-5 Heavyweight. Sugar is as biased as they come: Not surprising since he's a journalist and not a historian. Sugar never lets the facts interfere with a good story which is why he perpetuates such myths as "Willie Pep won a round without throwing a single punch" long after those myths have been demonstrated to be false.



How asinine can YOU get? You've reduced yourself to an embittered internet troll along the lines of Slimeypoophead: Trolling the Boxing History section to discover which fighters get respect then trying (and failing) to discredit and malign them. Really, you're just a sad little man

Poet

No Trolling here mate.. just tit-bits from a guy who knows his boxing history..i never discredit any fighters, i tell it how i see it unlike yourself, ... on the Hagler vs Leonard thread i could have easily pointed out that Hagler turned down $12 million to fight Leonard in a 1990 rematch yet i never mentioned it simply because that would be what you call "discrediting a fighter" where as it bore no relevance to the topic of who won their fight... so you can continue your game of trying to assasinate my knowledge and character which you will never succeed in doing...

now hurry on back to your buddy "Mr Boxer" and between you both you can come up with a couple more ridiculous comments that will bring the New Year in with a good laugh for everyone...

[GJC]

on the Hagler vs Leonard thread i could have easily pointed out that Hagler turned down $12 million to fight Leonard in a 1990 rematch

Would like to see a source on that, i.e. Hagler saying he turned it down.
Even so he didn't offer an immediate rematch after the 87 fight so offering one 3 years later when Hagler had been eating Pasta in Italy for a couple of years doesn't mean much IMO.

[GJC]

I dont understand how bert doesnt rate michael spinks in his top 100? for me the guy is a top 50 fighter no questions asked! also he rates grazino and zale but not trinidad or holman williams?

That does kind of trivialise the list somewhat doesn't it?
I think like Nat Fleischer before him that Sugar gets a lot of kudos for being around a loooong time rather than for the veracity of his opinions.

[sonnyboyx2]

Would like to see a source on that, i.e. Hagler saying he turned it down.
Even so he didn't offer an immediate rematch after the 87 fight so offering one 3 years later when Hagler had been eating Pasta in Italy for a couple of years doesn't mean much IMO.

here is a source.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/class..._hagler_marvin

[GJC]

here is a source.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/class..._hagler_marvin

No mention of it in that link sonny?