Best Two Fighters In The Ring...........EVER!

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:36 pm

There was an article here the other day discussing great trilogies. I can only really claim to have seen the Holy/Bowe trilogy which rocked everyone's world. Chris mentioned the Willie Pep /Sandy Saddler bouts... they fought four times. Willie Pep's name was heard by myself for the first time when Naseem Hamed fought Kevin Kelley.The line fed to the US media was that Hamed was the new Willie Pep. This did him much more harm than good however,as he was mocked by the same media. "He aint no Willie Pep" was the line form one seasoned sage, as he was knocked over four times on the way to his win.

Pep could bang well for a featherweight, was nicknamed "Willo-the-wisp", and famously once won one a round against Jackie Graves without throwing a punch, but instead won the result by " moving around, feinting,picking off punches,and making him miss."
Saddler, by fighting him four times,brought the 126 pound division back to the greatness it had once enjoyed.In the first of the fights Saddler knocked the supposedly unbeatable Pep flat on the floor,which wasn't too far away, given his short frame.In the return bout,Pep, possessing much nervous courage,gave Saddler a run for his money whilst also teaching him a few things from the textbook about
winning at any cost.In fact, Pep attributed his win to those black arts , by saying after the fight
"I hit him with with my best shots.Nothing .I caught him with my combinations..nothing.But when I stepped on his toes, he said "ouch!",so I stepped on those toes all night".
However Saddler could teach him a thing or two about being protected at all times-the last two fights, in stark contrast to the first two zingers,he stopped the fearless Pep in eight and nine rounds respectively...and not respectfully.

Seems to me that when the best two fighters meet, the result is not always gonna be a classsic..something I've always suspected may occur if/when the Flyd/Manny fight happens.
In my opinion the Lewis/Holy fights were not classics by any means, but interesting all the same watching the two great strategists go.

My question is this. Which two fighters(who actually fought) do you consider the best match-up ever,ever,EVER? Even if the result was disappointing?
Naturally, I think there is a strong claim for Pep/Saddler....So,thoughts?

by hazharrison Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:39 pm

Ray Leonard vs Tommy Hearns

by Rowley Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:39 pm

Andy for me Ali Frazier 1 takes some beating, both guys unbeaten with equally valid/invalid claims to be heavyweight champion of the world. The fact the fight was a classic as well has to help it's cause

by FootballOasis&Hatton Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:42 pm

Ali v Frazier or Hagler vs Leonard

Probably the latter for me

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:42 pm

I think the best two fighters for me that ever fought were..

Hearns v Leonard......I think had Hearns not buckled he'd be top 10 atg now and for me is just outside anyway and Leonard is top 5 for me now...Probably at 4...

With Hearnsy in at about 12 that makes 16 and as I have Pep and saddler down the bottom end of the top 10/12 then I guess I rate Leonard-Hearns higher..

Closely followed by Leonard Duran in 3rd..

I gues this shows that you get alot of fun from two real stars fighting..

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:43 pm

Greb v Tunney.

Two nailed on ATGs with a complete contrast in styles, with the added bonus that at least a couple of them lived up to their billing, if the newspaper reports are anything to go by.

Terrible shame there's no surviving film.

by Rodney Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:44 pm

Greb vs Tunney, Duran v Leonard,

Cheers

Rodders

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:45 pm

I love the Hearns Leonard fight.The way Hearns smiles to himself knowingly, befoer the bell goes, rolling his shoulders as he's nice and relaxed after the rub-down(Steward was furious when he heard about that, as he didn't believe a fighter should come out relaxed).He knows there is some serious sheet abouty to go down.
Can't help feel a bit sorry for him to have to have the fight as a "L" on his record. And of course, it was in the thirteenth round..if only it had been over twelve...

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:46 pm

Funny how a fight from 1897 gets filmed and yet some classics after have no film....

Kind of shows how much more important the heavy crown was considered to all the rest....

To have done Tunney and been a middle he must have been some fighter....

Me I'd rather have seen him against Walker..

by Scottrf Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:47 pm

Other than those that have been mentioned:

Moore-Charles
Pep-Saddler
No mention from Jeff for Burley-Moore?

by **88Chris05** Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:48 pm

If we're going purely on how high a placing the two fighters in question have amongst the all time greats, then on paper Ray Robinson versus Henry Armstrong in 1942 would be my choice, as I rank the pair of them as the number one and two fighters of all time. Obviously not a great bout in itself, with Armstrong past his best by that time, but as I said given the criteria set out here it has to be up there.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:48 pm

Feel sorry for Hearns period...I think he had the most talent out of all the fab 4...He outboxed Leonard once...beat him the 2nd time and got robbed and fought the wrong fight against Marvin....

For me if he had a chin he'd have been the best boxer ever..

But there you go..

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:51 pm

Moore-Charles by far the best Light Heavyweight match up you could make

Duran vs Leonard I takes some beating for me

But other notables

Robinson and Armstrong takes some beating as far as genuine ATG names being in the same ring together

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:52 pm

Good point chris........That's the best fight on paper......I thought he was asking more about prime....

Yep Armstrong-Robbo is the top fight.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:54 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Funny how a fight from 1897 gets filmed and yet some classics after have no film....

Kind of shows how much more important the heavy crown was considered to all the rest....

To have done Tunney and been a middle he must have been some fighter....

Me I'd rather have seen him against Walker..

Greb v Walker would also do nicely, Truss, and that one WAS filmed but, sadly, the film has been lost. Also agree with you that the perceived importance of the heavy division means that some great fights in the lower divisions slipped through the net.

Terrible shame.

by Rodney Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:55 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Feel sorry for Hearns period...I think he had the most talent out of all the fab 4...He outboxed Leonard once...beat him the 2nd time and got robbed and fought the wrong fight against Marvin....

For me if he had a chin he'd have been the best boxer ever..

But there you go..

Lost every defining fight for me, regardless of tactics, chin.

Cheers

Rodders

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:58 pm

You're right he was garbage..

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:59 pm

Armstrongv Robinson, mouthwatering, and I shoulda thought of that..and the fight was not a good one!
Stats for Henry Armstrong
Total bouts 174, KO's 98,Drawn 9, Lost 18...must presume the losses were to the end of his career...

by Rodney Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:01 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're right he was garbage..

Didn't say that did I ?

Lost his big fights whichever way you wish to dress it up.

Cheers

Rodders

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:01 pm

Like Chris says he'd already been spent on Zivic and the like....

Sad thing is by having so many world titles we've missed out on so many other superfights.......

As fighters don't need to grow and learn like they once did to be succesful...

Alot of champions now only realise half of their potential..

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:12 pm

Robinson and Armstrong takes some beating as far as genuine ATG names being in the same ring together
*****************************************************
Well, if you're simply talking about names irrespective of "prime v prime" then Louis/Marciano is also another along with Moore/Ali

by Rowley Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:12 pm

Scottrf wrote:Other than those that have been mentioned:

Moore-Charles
Pep-Saddler
No mention from Jeff for Burley-Moore?

Did consider throwing Burley Charles out there Scott, but as Burley lost prefer to gloss over those.

by The Galveston Giant Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Joe Gans v Sam Langford

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:24 pm

Peter Jackson vs John L Sullivan...no wait, Sully shamelessly ducked Jackson didn't he? Pah!!!!!!!!!!

Stanley Ketchel v Jack Johnson?

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:30 pm

DAVE667 wrote:Peter Jackson vs John L Sullivan...no wait, Sully shamelessly ducked Jackson didn't he? Pah!!!!!!!!!!

Stanley Ketchel v Jack Johnson?

You could do Jackson v Corbett or Jeffries though, Dave.

by Rowley Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:31 pm

Dave would have Ketchel v Langford above Ketchel Johnson, personally on a P4P basis I have Sam a good distance above Johnson

by samevans1 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:31 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Feel sorry for Hearns period...I think he had the most talent out of all the fab 4...He outboxed Leonard once...beat him the 2nd time and got robbed and fought the wrong fight against Marvin....

For me if he had a chin he'd have been the best boxer ever..

But there you go..

I actually agree with this, Truss. He had everything except a chin and was an absolute monster at Welterweight.

by ArchBritishchris Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:33 pm

Ali vs George Foreman/ Joe Frazier, Joe Frazier vs George Foreman. Doubt such great heavyweights will coincide again. Alexis Arguello vs Ruben Olivares is another big one, Wilfredo Gomez vs Salvidor Sanchez.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:33 pm

The lightning fast punishing jab, footwork and master blaster right hand were just awesome Sam..

Nobody outboxed him......I thought Virgil Hill's record reign ending fight with Tommy was quite defining..actually.

by samevans1 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:34 pm

De La Hoya-Trinidad was the biggest disappointment for me as I was really looking forward to that one at the time.

Retrospectively, the first Jones-Hopkins fight is a very strong matchup from the modern era.

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:36 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Peter Jackson vs John L Sullivan...no wait, Sully shamelessly ducked Jackson didn't he? Pah!!!!!!!!!!

Stanley Ketchel v Jack Johnson?

You could do Jackson v Corbett or Jeffries though, Dave.

Jackson/Jeffries....now we really are talking about names rather than form.

by samevans1 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:36 pm

He perhaps lost his two highest profile fights, but to say he never won a defining fight is a bit unfair to be honest.

Beating Benitez and Hill were both superb wins and icing Duran in the second for me confirmed him as the best light-middle ever. Let's be honest; he also beat Leonard the second time. Leonard even acknowledged as much himself.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:37 pm

Whittaker and Julio is another great matchup from the modern era....

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:38 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Peter Jackson vs John L Sullivan...no wait, Sully shamelessly ducked Jackson didn't he? Pah!!!!!!!!!!

Stanley Ketchel v Jack Johnson?

You could do Jackson v Corbett or Jeffries though, Dave.

Jackson/Jeffries....now we really are talking about names rather than form.

C'mon, Dave, a man of your imagination and creative thinking can find a positive spin.

" Jackson, though way past his best, still had the courage to go in with the mighty Boilerman, James J Jeffries."

Any good ?

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:39 pm

The only fighter to intimidate Duran..........

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:45 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Peter Jackson vs John L Sullivan...no wait, Sully shamelessly ducked Jackson didn't he? Pah!!!!!!!!!!

Stanley Ketchel v Jack Johnson?

You could do Jackson v Corbett or Jeffries though, Dave.

Jackson/Jeffries....now we really are talking about names rather than form.

C'mon, Dave, a man of your imagination and creative thinking can find a positive spin.

" Jackson, though way past his best, still had the courage to go in with the mighty Boilerman, James J Jeffries."

Any good ?

"Many knew Jeffries' only chance of winning was to wait until Jackson was wracked with Tuberculosis, thus catching him on the slide."

by Rowley Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:51 pm

Jeffries vs Jackson both prime, now there is a fantasy fight to reckon with Dave. Will not upset you by giving you my prediction

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:03 pm

rowley wrote:Jeffries vs Jackson both prime, now there is a fantasy fight to reckon with Dave. Will not upset you by giving you my prediction

Come now Jeff, as we both know, Jackson couldn't punch, had no defence and as a black man, didn't like being hit in the midriff....no contest!

Of course, it still took Jeffries three rounds to dispatch the tuberculoid Jackson so then again, maybe not so clear cut

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:05 pm

tuberculoid............sounds like something out of the Terminator........

Black guys don't like being hit in the nidriff huh...

Corbett was right then they have a yellow streak after all..

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:50 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:tuberculoid............sounds like something out of the Terminator........

Black guys don't like being hit in the nidriff huh...

Corbett was right then they have a yellow streak after all..

There was an accustation levelled at black fighters stating they didn't like being punched in the stomach despite there not being a single recorded instance of a white fighter begging to be hit in the same region or laughing uproariously whilst it happened.

BTW, would this be the same Corbett who refused to give Jackson a rematch calling people "yellow"?

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:55 pm

Not meaning to make an excuse for Pep losing to Saddler but often gets forgotten that he was far from his best pre 1947 after nearly being left crippled in a plane crash, luckily escaped with just a broken back.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:55 pm

Corbett went on to better things...64 round draw wasn't it....

by Rowley Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:59 pm

61 round no contest Truss, believe both fighters were so exhausted they had basically fought to a standstill and were doing nothing. The ref told them a number of times to start doing something and they were incapable of picking up the pace so he had no choice but to call it off. It is often reported as a draw but most agree no contest is a more accurate outcome.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:02 pm

No contests were ever present in those days..God knows how many poor guys were slapping someone around and got a draw!!!!

61 rounds hey......No wonder they couldn't pick it up...

Got your money's worth on that bill!!

I'd have paid the PPV charge!!

by John Bloody Wayne Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:18 pm

The great thing about Charles v Moore is that their final fight also sounds like an absolute classic.

From boxrec: "Charles won the first two rounds, lost the next two, and then won the next three. They set a terrific pace..Midway in the eighth round, Moore caught Charles with a terrific lefthook and followed his advantage..Charles was definitely on the verge of a kayo..but, to the surprise of everyone, he snapped out of his dazed condition, landed a volley of left hooks and then a perfect right cross"

Agree about Hearns. As for as natural talent is concerned he's one of the best pure boxers ever born, with unmatched power to go with it. Plus, more important than legacy or talent: Win or lose he did it in style. I don't mind seeing my favourite fighter go down against Hagler he still gave us the best 8 minutes of boxing for which I'm eternally greatful. 1-1 v Leonard and 1-0 v Duran, Benitez and Virgil. There are enough defining fights and each one a thriller.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:31 pm

Win or lose he always did it with class and grace

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:36 pm

Corbett went onto better things...but still refused to rematch the man he couldn't best...conveniently drawing the colour line when he'd originally fought Jackson because Sullivan refused to do it...on the grounds that Jackson was black.

Corbett got a title shot that was equally if not more so deserved by Jackson and then denied him the opportunity to claim it as his own. Whilst Corbett ay have been full of praise for Jackson at the end of his career, it still doesn't excuse the "colour ban"

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:40 pm

If Jackson couldn't beat him the 1st time..What was convenient about it??

by Rowley Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:41 pm

Got to agree Dave all joking aside Jackson got the right royal shaft, he probably deserved a shot at Sullivan but as Sully was coming towards the end of his career and coming back from a life threatening illness can perhaps forgive him avoiding Jackson.

However Corbett should have given him a shot. Respect Corbett as a fighter but he does seem something of a horrible man. Made Fitz jump through any number of hoops to secure his shot and then when Fitz turned him over he cried like a girl when Fitz was not exactly rushing to give him an immediate rematch and wanted no part of Jackson when he had something to lose and it was not an opportunity to stick it to Sully.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:44 pm

I suppose the fact Fitz was called a coward for going into vaudeville for god knows how long and not defending the belt means he's free of any criticism..

Corbett fought Jackson.........At a more unacceptable time than Dempsey-Wills....

Guy was a legend who's views were accepted as the norm in those racial days..

he was no better or worse than anybody else generally speaking.

by Sponsored content