Who are the most underrated fighters of all time?

First topic message reminder :

Ayup chaps, everyone enjoying Lent?

Anyway, inspired by Trussman's 'Who is the most overrated fighter in history?' thread (it's James J. Corbett, by the way!), I thought I'd see if anyone is interested in looking at the other side of the coin and see who we think the most underrated fighter(s) to have graced the sport are. I'll get the ball rolling with a few candidates of my own - let me know what you think of the names I've picked, if you agree or disagree, and let me know who you think deserves consideration here, and in what context you feel they're underrated.

First up for me, Tommy Ryan. I remember when Jimmy Stuart coined the term 'the pound for pound great that nobody remembers' to describe Ryan, and he was right. Ryan was a two-weight world champion in the days when there were only five weight classes (Light-Heavyweight, Lightweight and Flyweight didn't come in to existence until after Ryan's days as world champion) and, to this day, not a great deal of fighters have done the proper, legitimate Welterweight / Middleweight double like Ryan did. He was beaten only three times in 105 professional contests; two of them were to Charles 'Kid' McCoy, one hell of a fighter in his own right, and the other was on a disqualification. He served as Welterweight champion for five years between 1891 and 1896, seeing off the likes of 'Mysterious' Billy Smith and the great 'Nonpareil' Jack Dempsey, before increasing weight (the Welter limit stood at 142 lb at the time) forced him up to Middle. There, he took the title in 1898, made five successful defences and then hung up his gloves while still champion, after which there was no universally accepted king of the Middleweights until Stanley Ketchel. And yet, outside of the obsessives, the lad hardly gets a mention.

Next, Ronald 'Winky' Wright. Perhaps more 'underappreciated' than underrated, if that makes any sense, but either way a fighter who never quite got his just dues. A road warrior of the highest order, I believe he was ripped off against Vargas (not helped by giving away the twelfth round, but still!), unlucky not to take the Middleweight title from Taylor and roundly avoided by a few big names from the late nineties to around 2005 / 2006. Either way, a fine technician with a superb defence who had some great attacking fighters - Vargas, Mosley, Trinidad etc - looking pretty toothless. In particular, his masterclass against Trinidad showed Winky at his very best.

Wesley Ramey. When fighters as great as Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Henry Armstrong and Lou Ambers are all, either reportedly or visibly, reluctant to defend their world Lightweight / Light-Welterweight titles against someone, you know that someone is a special fighter. Canzoneri, a bonafide pound for pound great in his own right, did square off against Ramey in a non-title bout in 1933; but once he'd been on the wrong end of a wide decision, he flat out refused to risk his 135 lb belt against the same man, even reportedly turning down a guarantee of $25,000 - a huge amount for a title fight outside of the Heavyweight division in the Depression years - to do so. Lou Ambers, another Lightweight legend, showed no interest in taking Ramey on in his time as champion. When Ambers did lose his crown, it was to the hard-punching Lew Jenkins - a man who Ramey had already beaten twice. Despite having virtually no knockout power of his own, Ramey also managed to defeat world champions of the calibre of Johnny Jadick, Benny Bass, Leo Rodack and Battling Shaw, and was described by historian Laurence Fielding as "one of the great scientific boxers of the thirties, a Corbett (!) or Tunney of the Lightweights." A great fighter sadly forgotten and overlooked.

Terry Norris, anyone? When Norris retired in 1997, only two men (Joe Louis and Julio Cesar Chavez) had ever boxed more world title fights, a pretty remarkable feat considering that Norris was still only thirty when the curtain came down on his career. Three separate times he battled back from a shocking setback or adversity to establish (or re-establish) himself as one of the world's best fighters; after suffering a sickening second-round stoppage against Julian Jackson for Jackson's WBA 154 lb belt in Norris' first world title outing, after being surprisingly flattened by Simon Brown in what was expected to be a routine thirteenth defence of his WBC Light-Middleweight title in 1993, and after a pair of almost identical disqualification losses to Luis Santana a couple of years later. Between all of that, however, there were some fantastic performances thanks to his sublime speed, great reflexes and dazzling punch power, with the two standouts being his thorough outclassing of future WBA Middleweight champion Jorge Fernando Castro and his revenge win over Brown in 1994. If the first Brown fight showed the erratic Norris' vulnerabilities, the return highlighted what a wonderful talent he was and, by rights, he should really have been a superstar. Instead, despite his huge talent and many years at the top of the 154 lb weight class, he's often seen as a mere afterthought when we think back to the 1990s.

And finally, Gene Fullmer. Unfairly overshadowed in many respects by Carmen Basilio and Jake La Motta when Middleweight boxing of the fifties and early sixties is remembered, but Fullmer, the son of Utah Mormons, beat Basilio twice and certainly deserves to command a higher rank as a Middleweight than Carmen, and is quite simply a far greater fighter than La Motta in all capacities and from whichever angle you choose to view them from. More or less split a four-fight series with an older but still great Robinson down the middle (consensus is that their drawn fight should have been ruled in Ray's favour) and there are very few 'safe' defences on Gene's ledger once he got his hands on the 160 lb title. Before that, his only real loss of any signiciance was to Eduardo Lausse - but let's not forget that Lausse was, perhaps, the best 'career' Middleweight to have never won the divisional crown. A top ten Middleweight of all time, in my humble opinion.

So come on then, lads. Who else should be included here? If they're underrated in your eyes, then give them their moment in the sun now. Cheers, everyone.

Carl Thompson for me- beat Eubank twice, Roccagianni in Germany, unbelievable come from behind wins against Rothman and Haye which highlighted the grossly premature stoppage defeat to Nelson. Rarely in a dull fight (other than his last one), and never avoided anyone.

Interesting shout on Thompson, there. I was lucky enough to see him in action live a couple of times when I was still a schoolboy and I always had the time of my life watching him. Not sure if he's particularly underrated or more just 'underappreciated', as I suggested might be the case for someone like Winky in my original post. I think that the stoppage against Nelson was very soft, but at the same time I feel positive that Nelson was going to stop Carl eventually anyway. Thompson's wins over Eubank were epic in their own right, but this was a blown up Super-Middle who'd been out in the wilderness for two or three years beforehand. I'd say that Thompson's just about rated on the money by most, but either way it's nice to see him get a mention on here all the same.

Perhaps not underrated as you say Chris, but criminally underappreciated in regards to the entertainment factor of his fights.I would go as far to say that he is the closest we have had to a 'Rocky' style fighter in my lifetime. For some reason he never seemed to get the media exposure his fights deserved, particularly when compared with someone like Enzo Mac.

In regards to the Nelson fight, i appreciate he was down on the cards and Nelson was in control but the same could easily have been said in the Rothman and Haye fights and we know how they turned out. I also think it was poor of Nelson to not give him a rematch

Ive always wondered why Tunney doesnt get more of a mention. No one seems to champion him much, not sure why. Ive only read a tiny amount on him but was impressed (undefeated at HW, beat Greb for fun, Dempsey twice...) did he fall foul of being in between weights? No longevity? Did his style stink up the place? Or does he actually get as much praise as he deserves?

I am going to go out on a limb and garner some comments.

Sugar Ray Leonard and Oscar De LaHoya? I know people like their fighters earthy etc and he was a college kid but I still think Leonard is one of the most complete boxers of my time. He had everything.

ODH well, I am a convert so, like all converts, I am a bit zealous. I remember him coming onto the scene as the golden boy and wanting him to lose because he had it all. I thought he was just a pretty boy and he would get distracted with modelling contracts etc. But, I was proved wrong. He fought the best there was. Didn't always win all of them but his losses were to the best and some of them were close/robberies.

Agreed...Happy ..

TheMackemMawler wrote:Not sure how a HOF'er who's nearly always number 1 in any light heavyweight list can be underrated.

I suppose its in the context of things really. I tend to draw a distinction between fighters being underrated and those that have simply been forgotten, obscure or unknown.

What I find with Charles is that his record alone should command a top ten place in my view yet he is pretty consistently overlooked and seldom celebrated even amongst hardcore boxing scribes and publications. A few examples of his ranking are Ring Magazine (13th), ESPN (27th), Boxing News (26th), IBRO (12th). Its not altogether awful, although I think having him outside the top 20 is very bemusing. But the general feeling I get with Charles is he does happen to be one of those rare examples of a fighter who is highly rated but still very often underrated.

Are those light heavyweight rankings or P4P ATG rankings?

Anyone who goes 5-0 against Moore and Burley must be inside the top 5, he's one of my untouchable 8.

His record is a who who's of the middleweight and light heavyweight divisions of the time and at the time of losing the heavyweight title he boasted a quite staggering 67-5-1 record.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Are those light heavyweight rankings or P4P ATG rankings?

All time p4p. If they were light heavy only then this thread would would have a definate answer!!

Happytravelling wrote:I am going to go out on a limb and garner some comments.

Sugar Ray Leonard and Oscar De LaHoya? I know people like their fighters earthy etc and he was a college kid but I still think Leonard is one of the most complete boxers of my time. He had everything.

Surprised to see Leonard mentioned on a thread about underrated fighters, I think he more than gets his due. If anything for me, he's a little overrated. Great fighter and had some big wins but I always raise my eyebrows when I see him ranked as an all time top 10 or an all time top 5 as I've seen people do.

A guy called Happy posted this on the underrated thread.....

"ODH well, I am a convert so, like all converts, I am a bit zealous. I remember him coming onto the scene as the golden boy and wanting him to lose because he had it all. I thought he was just a pretty boy and he would get distracted with modelling contracts etc. But, I was proved wrong. He fought the best there was. Didn't always win all of them but his losses were to the best and some of them were close/robberies".

I have a few questions...

1) For business reasons, is ODH the eponymous nominal figurehead of Golden Boy?

2) Is it really owned by someone else? (shareholders is the obvious answer, and it would go some way in explaining shoddy fights and consequential quick cash)

3) If Oscar, being a "fight all comers" boxer, is actually one of the most powerful people in Golden Boy, then does it not follow that he'd want his fighters to live up to their own reputations the hard way; like he did .....and fight the best?

4) Is he less concerned with Ego (and how he compares to the current crop) and more concerned with money and protecting prospects for as long as possible?

As a P4P ATG then I'd agree, by some, he's probably underrated.

I'd normally be inclined to say he's underrated due to the casual fan not have the foggiest about boxing history but if ESPN and Boxing News are giving him those kinds of ratings............ then that's obviously not the answer?

The IBRO have him ranked second behind Moore at 175lbs, quite how he can behind someone he beat 3 times I do not know.

TheMackemMawler wrote:As a P4P ATG then I'd agree, by some, he's probably underrated.

I'd normally be inclined to say he's underrated due to the casual fan not have the foggiest about boxing history but if ESPN and Boxing News are giving him those kinds of ratings............ then that's obviously not the answer?

Yeah this is largely why I feel he is underrated. I can understand him not featuring with lists made by people with only passing interest in boxing. But in my experience he seems to be quite undervalued and underappreciated even amongst boxing historians or boxing enthusiasts.

There isnt a great deal or written material on him from what I can find, which alone probably says something about him being underappreciated. But from what I have read about him from those that witnessed his era he didnt seem to be held in the esteem you might expect from his record. Hes often described as a fighter with huge talents but inconsisntent, tempremental, lacking self confidence or the neccessary kind of fire one expects in a boxer. Its strange because his record doesnt support this, except maybe in his later years as a heavyweight. It makes me think that perhaps a large proportion of his best years went largely unnoticed because for a good number of years he could hardly have been anymore consistent against a pretty top notch level of opposition.

Duke Mckenzie - Britain's second???....... three weight world champion and never gets a look in......

Opposition wasn't great but still a respectable achievement!!

Pernell Whitaker.

Just an amazing fighter who had only three dubious marks on his record when in his prime.

To beat some of the fighters he did, most of the time never really even getting hit.

For me he is one of the best ever.

Also as mentioned by others, Sonny Liston. Widely regarded as just a name when people discuss Ali which is pretty sad.

Outside of the real followers of the game Greb is over the passing of time becoming unknown which is sad for one of the greatest that ever put on a pair of Gloves. I also think Henry Armstrong although greatly respected is still not regarded as highly as his accomplishments deserve.
Sandy Saddler would be top of my underrated list though, 162 fights only 16 losses, one of the best punchers of all time, only stopped once (2nd pro fight), he beat many world champions including the great Pep 3 times. Proper fighter who is but a footnote in history nowadays.

I think Whitaker probably falls in to the same kind of category as Tunney and McCallum; definitely underrated and underappreciated in their time, but as the years go by these days I think more and more people understand what Whitaker was about and how special a talent he was, just as they've now generally come to appreciate what Gene and Mike brought to the sport as well.

With Whitaker, it was really just a case of his style and personality. He was so good defensively that he could completely shut down genuinely great attacking fighters like Nelson, Chavez and De la Hoya and, as such, fights which should have been exciting on paper tended to be pretty unremarkable. And then, of course, there was the problem that, unlike someone like Ray Leonard, Evander or Roy, Pea just had a bit too much of a 'guy from the streets' persona to really connect or take of with the general public.

Definitely underrated in his time (how many times did he climb the ring post in celebration after another top class display against a world level opponent only to be greeted by a load of jeers?) and maybe a few are still ignorant of his greatness, but I'd say that he's just about getting the recognition he deserves these days.

With this kind of discussions I tend to forget about the general public as an opinion because if they are not big boxing fans then they wont really know anything about fighters from decades ago. When I think of underrated or overrated I mainly take context within boxing circles itself.

Fighters like Greb are pretty much unknown to non boxing fans but from my experience he always features extremely high on more boxing related lists so when he does get rated I think its ok. The rest of the time he just isn’t known.

Whitaker most certainly seems underappreciated, but again when I see various lists made he wouldn’t strike me immediately as a guy who in underrated.

I think whitaker is forgettable rather than underrated. Spent a little too much time showboating and a lot less time utilizing the space and countering opportunities he made. I reckon if he took those opportunities to counter he would be much more memorable and would have won those fights.

I sort of agree. He had undeniable talent but he did exactly set the world on fire during his fights....makes you wonder whether mayweather will be remembered in a similar way?

except with more KO's

Floyd is a Whittaker with personality. Had he been humble (boring) his talent alone would not earn him the $$$$$ he gets now and the publicity. Lets face it, he is a boring fighter as was Pernell.

I find boxers with a contrived personality boring.

For me, it's easier to warm to someone who's genuine, like Price. I'd much rather listen to what HE has to say... than the BS that comes out of Flloyd or Broner's mouths.

Better still; it's more interesting when someones multifaceted and unexpected with it.

TheMackemMawler wrote:I find boxers with a contrived personality boring.

For me, it's easier to warm to someone who's genuine, like Price. I'd much rather listen to what HE has to say... than the BS that comes out of Flloyd or Broner's mouths.

Better still; it's more interesting when someones multifaceted and unexpected with it.

People may warm to Price but as soon as he fights, its forgotten. He is forgotten also.

ShahenshahG wrote:I think whitaker is forgettable rather than underrated. Spent a little too much time showboating and a lot less time utilizing the space and countering opportunities he made. I reckon if he took those opportunities to counter he would be much more memorable and would have won those fights.

In fairness though most would agree that he did win those fights even with the showboating.

I'm not so sure he's forgotten Az. He often gets a mention on here, certainly as much as any other active boxer.

He got a fair bit of attention when he was KO'ing domestic bums. His chin got alot attention from you. He got loads attention when he KTFO and he'll get a fair bit of attention when he makes his comeback.

Plus, we're talking about him now, ipso facto, he's not forgotten.

TheMackemMawler wrote:I'm not so sure he's forgotten Az. He often gets a mention on here, certainly as much as any other active boxer.

He got a fair bit of attention when he was KO'ing domestic bums. His chin got alot attention from you. He got loads attention when he KTFO and he'll get a fair bit of attention when he makes his comeback.

Plus, we're talking about him now, ipso facto, he's not forgotten.

He gets mentioned because of the loud mouth rival of his and that he was a British hope. Fair play though. Brits should cheer their boxing hopes. Plus the dire state of the division itself.

Sorry to revive this thread after so long, but just something I wanted to touch on.

Mackem mentioned Ray Leonard earlier as a possible candidate here. It might seem an outrageous suggestion at first, but the more I think about it, the more I can kind of see where he's coming from. Leonard gets plenty of praise from most quarters but I'm still not convinced he's always evaluated properly in others.

It's not so much where people rate him, I guess, but more the reasons that people find to NOT rate him which irks me slightly. Only forty fights, catchweight title bout, went to the well one too many times etc. It also bugs me that, in some cases, people don't want to give him full credit for some of his wins, particularly Duran II and Hagler. The way some talk you'd think that these wins are somehow tainted.

As IJK used to say on the old BBC board, it seems almost 'fashionable' to leave Leonard out of the all-time great discussions largely for the same reasons that people used to offer overly harsh appraisals of De la Hoya. But for me there's no way that there have been ten more complete or gifted all-round fighters, no way that there have been ten or more fighters with a better list of elite career wins and I'm also struggling to think of too many people who have won fully-recognised, consensus championships in two of the original eight weight divisions against fighters as great as Benitez and Hagler.

So in a sense, when I see him left out of all-time top tens, I do feel to a certain degree that he is underrated, although perhaps 'underappreciated' is a better term.

I've said it before, but it's arguable that the only man who can claim to have been the more complete package was the original Sugar Ray himself. In Leonard, you've got a guy who could stand toe to toe and win a slug fest (Kalule), who could give you a technical boxing lesson with his slick outside skills (Benitez, Duran II), who could, much like Ali before him, pull off the seemingly impossible (Hagler) and who also could battle back from adversity to grab victory from the jaws of defeat (Hearns I, Lalonde). Nearly all of this against top class opposition and much of it against genuinely great opposition.

I won't quite go as far as Az and put Leonard at the very, very top of the pile but I do find it harder and harder to justify leaving him out of a top ten, personally.

His 40 fights equals almost 200 fights given the number of fights guys have now. They do more sparring and training that before where fighting weekly for wages was the norm and those fights were nothing more than glorified sparring sessions.

For me there hasn't been a more complete fighter than SRL. I'd pick him to beat SRR at any weight they decide to fight at. The only advantage SRR has over him is probably one punch power. Wins over Hearns, Benitez and Duran tops what most other ATGs have done. Those guys were at the peak of their powers when SRL beat them. No faded greats here. As for Hagler, well I had Marvin ahead, but the effort SRL put into the fight deserves credit whatever the result.

Nailed on numero uno for me.

Hated the git also.

I think he gets too much credit for his wins personally, by no means the best set of wins, not by a long way.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I think he gets too much credit for his wins personally, by no means the best set of wins, not by a long way.

Not arguing that they're THE best set of wins, Ghosty (though Az might be!) but if they're not then how many could you realistically put ahead of them? Not many - precious few in fact. In what respects do you think he gets too much credit for them, anyhow?

How many boxers beat 4 nailed on top 50 ATG whilst all were at their peaks?

You rate Benitez far too high, nailed on top 50 not a chance, ill go into more depth on it tomorrow Chris.

Fair enough. Beat probably the best pure boxer the WW division has ever seen and probably a top 3 ATG MW. Plus a P4P Top 10 ATG in Duran. I've seen Benny ranked inside the top 50/60 ATG.

I doubt many if any other boxer has achieved that. To be honest I wish I wasn't singing his praises, but credit where it's due.

Was there a 606v2 ATG p4p list made before my time?

If so, does anyone have a link please.

You can find it in the Human Windmill Vault section at the top of the main boxing board, Mackem. Done about eighteen months back or so, and Ray Leonard was voted in at twelve, which is slightly low for me with the way I'm feeling these days.

The usual prehistoric boxers were ranked highly with the exception of Duran, SRL and Ali in the mix. I believe Ali was something like 6 with Duran 5. SRR on top of the pile.

The oldies get far too much credit for winning glorified sparring sessions and fighting for weekly wages.

azania wrote:How many boxers beat 4 nailed on top 50 ATG whilst all were at their peaks?

Which 4 nailed on top 50 ATG fighters did Leonard beat while they were all at their peaks?

Was Hearns at his peak at 22? I doubt it, but I won't quibble too much as it was still an excellent win. But there's no way I can accept Hagler was at his peak if he's one of the four that you're talking about.

Fancy bumping into you on this one Atila!

I've said it before, but as some might have noticed, I'm not averse to a bit of repetition. Srl is probably the only great boxer who trashes his own legacy. He's more concerned with people thinking he's clever than he is with us thinking he's a great fighter. Some kind of intellectual inferiority complex going on. He gives everyone ammunition for the 'sneaky' way he signed Duran up quickly for the rematch, and how he waited for hagler to show signs of decline, played with his mind, ring size, gloves, showy 30 second bursts at the end of the round. blah blah. We get it ray, you sought an edge, and played to the judges. Like nobody else ever did the same. The great salesman, undersells himself.

Hagler was past his best when Leonard got him, but so was Srl after layoff and Charlie fest. Under the circumstances it was still a good win, and the hagler apologists weren't writing Marv off as past it before the fight. Far from it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Leonard's prime was all too brief to sit too high in p4p atg lists, but he's right up there on a who beats who basis. The quality in the first 7 title fights will never be matched, if for no other reason than others won't have the opportunity to fight such other all time greats.

I don't take any notice of his belt-chasing-golden-oldie-tour after hagler. He wasnt really able to do an Ali and reinvent himself after his legs were gone. So again, the longevity box doesnt get ticked for him. Had he retired after hagler how would we rate him?

On Benitez, its easy to underestimate (given how his fall from grace was) how good a win that was against a guy who's star was shining bright... And who was held in much higher esteem at the time than he is now.

Like Milkyboy, I also tend to think that Leonard himself basically contributes in giving people reasons to scrutinise his career. He was a clever bugger for sure but him talking about it so much means that some myths have built up around his wins.

Like the so-called 'underhand tactics' he used to humiliate Duran with in New Orleans. Duran gets far too much of a pass and Leonard, I think, gets far too little credit for that win. A myth has grown that Leonard did nothing other than clown, run and taunt Duran and that Roberto robbed himself of the chance of another victory by blowing his top when still in contention.

The truth is that Leonard completely outboxed Duran and, dare I say it, was giving him a little bit of a lesson. Duran won the third round. He maybe did enough hustling to earn a share of the sixth. That aside, it was all Leonard who totally outjabbed, outfought (there were some inside exchanges and Leonard more than held his own), outthought and more or less outclassed Duran. He went crazy with his showboating in the seventh, yes, but don't let that cover up the fact that he was also scoring for fun in that round, and beforehand had twice buzzed Duran with those brilliant short right hands coming off the ropes.

As much as I love Duran, I'm not going to buy in to the old cry me a river stories about him piling on weight beforehand and feeling drained come fight night, being forced to fight in November when he wanted to wait until the new year, getting angry that Leonard was (shock horror) fighting sensibly and using his speed and movement etc. There's truth there, of course, but that doesn't mean that Leonard's win should be marked down.

Leonard whooped Duran in New Orleans, and that too readily gets forgotten or conveniently ignored.

I'd have no problems calling Benitez a great fighter in the proper sense of the word. He was certainly still a great fighter in 1979 in any case, and an undefeated one as well. Seriously, would you expect an Olympic gold medal winner, having their first ever world title fight, to be pitted against someone as good as Wilfred in today's game? And Leonard beat Benitez pretty convincingly, too.

SRL getting more scrutiny than others again it seems. Name me another boxer with that type of names on their ledger. Are they scrutinised in the same manner? His only rival SRR gets so many passes its like watching Barcelona. The names on SRL's record is better than those of SRR.

And as a fighter there is none better. SRR gets another pass because he was like a BMW in an era of Model T.

88Chris05 wrote:Like Milkyboy, I also tend to think that Leonard himself basically contributes in giving people reasons to scrutinise his career. He was a clever bugger for sure but him talking about it so much means that some myths have built up around his wins.

Like the so-called 'underhand tactics' he used to humiliate Duran with in New Orleans. Duran gets far too much of a pass and Leonard, I think, gets far too little credit for that win. A myth has grown that Leonard did nothing other than clown, run and taunt Duran and that Roberto robbed himself of the chance of another victory by blowing his top when still in contention.

The truth is that Leonard completely outboxed Duran and, dare I say it, was giving him a little bit of a lesson. Duran won the third round. He maybe did enough hustling to earn a share of the sixth. That aside, it was all Leonard who totally outjabbed, outfought (there were some inside exchanges and Leonard more than held his own), outthought and more or less outclassed Duran. He went crazy with his showboating in the seventh, yes, but don't let that cover up the fact that he was also scoring for fun in that round, and beforehand had twice buzzed Duran with those brilliant short right hands coming off the ropes.

As much as I love Duran, I'm not going to buy in to the old cry me a river stories about him piling on weight beforehand and feeling drained come fight night, being forced to fight in November when he wanted to wait until the new year, getting angry that Leonard was (shock horror) fighting sensibly and using his speed and movement etc. There's truth there, of course, but that doesn't mean that Leonard's win should be marked down.

Leonard whooped Duran in New Orleans, and that too readily gets forgotten or conveniently ignored.

I'd have no problems calling Benitez a great fighter in the proper sense of the word. He was certainly still a great fighter in 1979 in any case, and an undefeated one as well. Seriously, would you expect an Olympic gold medal winner, having their first ever world title fight, to be pitted against someone as good as Wilfred in today's game? And Leonard beat Benitez pretty convincingly, too.

I agree with this, but there is no doubt that Duran was living pretty fast and loose after their first fight. The story about when he decided to take the fight is hilarious. I believe it was a pair of strippers that convinced him.

Oh I agree, mate. Duran's lifestyle was somewhat less than monastic between Leonard I and Leonard II. But so was it between many of his other bouts, too. At the end of the day, if Duran wasn't properly prepared, then it's his problem and I'm not going to ignore the fact that Leonard, now using the game plan which suited his skills and style, comfortably had the upper hand second time out, just as I'm not going to diminish Jones scoring very probably the greatest win of the nineties against Toney just because 'Lights Out' piled on the timber in the months before.

I tend to think that, aside from very special circumstances (basically a fighter being shot), you more or less have to leave your excuses behind once you're in that ring. Duran was coming in off the back of his greatest ever victory and was still only in his late twenties, so no real excuses.

Can't resist that little toney comment can you chrissy... I'm not making an excuse.... Buuut

Just highlighting how wonderfully even-handed and unmistakably fair I am in all of my appraisals, Milky, and me mentioning that even I (Toney's biggest v2 cheerleader now that Bob has disappeared) don't exonerate the ol' salad dodger for getting his backside handed to him by Roy seemed like the best way to convince people of that!

You put the moderate into moderator chris

azania wrote:SRL getting more scrutiny than others again it seems. Name me another boxer with that type of names on their ledger. Are they scrutinised in the same manner? His only rival SRR gets so many passes its like watching Barcelona. The names on SRL's record is better than those of SRR.

And as a fighter there is none better. SRR gets another pass because he was like a BMW in an era of Model T.

What do you mean when you say 'his only rival SRR?". Henry Armstrong is another one that I'd rank above Leoanard too.

Maybe Armstrong didn't look as stylish as Robinson and Leonard, but for me he's not far behind Robinson in the record department (if he's behind at all) but he's ahead of Leonard.

My thoughts exactly, Atila. I know I'm arguing Leonard's case here, but be reasonable, Az.