Floyd, JCC and Duran

First topic message reminder :

Why are two of those guys often ranked above Floyd? Their records aren't better than Floyd's by any stretch of the imagination. OK Duran has Leonard on his ledger, but lets not forget he was pancaked by Hearns, thoroughly outboxed by Laing and lost to Benitez. Floyd has beaten everyone in front of him without looking like losing. OK he got a dubious decision against that mexican and put the record straight the very next fight.

Why people rank Chavez ahead of Floyd is beyong.

Floyd beats them both so should be ranked higher.

Thoughts

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's not an opinion I agree with but did Robinson face Burley, he did of course face Gavilan who was the consensus number two at Welterweight but it could be argued that Burley would have been his greatest challenge.

You could say that Hearns didn't face McCallum who I think gets to his chin and ends it eventually or various others who conveniently didn't face their greatest challenge.

Hearns faced Leonard -- that was his nemesis. Robinson is pretty much beyond reproach. He pulverised great fighters, more than once in most cases.

I have nothing against Floyd but why should he be talked about in the same breath as those legends when he didn't fight the wars they did? Those dudes weren't afraid to challenge themselves.

Garbage.............utter garbage...........

14 years at the top and too good to get into wars!!!

Leonard was as much Hearns nemesis as Corrales was Mayweathers and no fighter including Robinson is beyond reproach.

He's too good to be dragged into a war and while he didn't face Pacquiao it doesn't stop him being a truly great fighter, he beat the guy who beat the guy.

If we can use Pacquiao against Mayweather then we too should consider Burley and Robinson.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But it wasn't all Mayweather's fault.........

Hagler didn't give Hearns a rematch...

Leonard waited till Hearns was half dead before rematching..

I'm sorry but that is bull........................

I agree. Pacquiao should have agreed to testing without stipulation. Still, they should have found a way. Two great fighters that didn't want to find out who was the best (as they earned well in any case).

Hagler would have rematched Hearns after the Mugabi/Shuler fights, however, Leonard stole in and stole Hagler's thunder. There wasn't any hesitation on Hagler's part -- he's have stopped Tommy again (and I love Tommy Hearns).

I agree on Leonard -- but don't get the point?

Those fighters fought other great fighters to settle superiority. Mayweather has been far more selective in his match-making. My own theory is that he wants to earn well while staying healthy and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (most fighters leave the sport skint or damaged in some way) but the men ahead of him fought wars to leave their mark. For all Floyd's talent, he hasn't done that. If everything was about talent, then Broner might as well retire and be rated alongside Floyd.

Hagler didn't rematch him though did he..but we'll give him a free pass because you like him!!

Why should Boxers fight wars Haz??.........Thought the art of Boxing was to hit and not get hit!!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Leonard was as much Hearns nemesis as Corrales was Mayweathers and no fighter including Robinson is beyond reproach.

He's too good to be dragged into a war and while he didn't face Pacquiao it doesn't stop him being a truly great fighter, he beat the guy who beat the guy.

If we can use Pacquiao against Mayweather then we too should consider Burley and Robinson.

That's not correct. Pacquiao was Mayweather's great career challenge. Corrales wasn't a great fighter.

Mayweather would have been tested by Margarito, Cotto, Mosley, Pacquiao and Williams back when they were all alive and kicking at welterweight but he elected not to test himself. His priority was in becoming a PPV star, and so he faced marquee names in Hatton, Oscar and Gatti. Sad thing is, he'd have probably beaten all of the aforementioned.

Hagler = "Hearns don't deserve a rematch".....After the Mugabi fight....

However a welterweight who hadn't fought in four years did....Forgetting the fact Hearns wiped out the number 1 contender..

Hagler himself was incredibly selective with his matchmaking, had no intention of taking on the bigger men but gets a free pass because he faced Duran, Leonard and Hearns. He was happy to beat on the smaller men but didn't want to be on the receiving.

You can be ultra critical of anyone if you wish too.

You can Ghosty...........absolutely.

Hagler had already beaten Tommy he hadn't fought Leonard, that was the attraction. It was thee money fight.

I agree neither was that keen on fighting Tommy a second time but there were other reasons it didn't happen.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler didn't rematch him though did he..but we'll give him a free pass because you like him!!

Why should Boxers fight wars Haz??.........Thought the art of Boxing was to hit and not get hit!!

I like Hearns more! The point is, Hagler fought every viable challenge he could at 160 lbs. He missed no-one.

And I don't believe great fighters have to fight wars but to be an all-time great, you need to take on the best challenges available to you. Floyd hasn't done that, for all of his wonderful skills. I don't believe anyone would have beaten him -- Pacquiao included -- either. But that doesn't count. Fighters need to be judged on the work they got done, and Mayweather's record doesn't stack up with the greatest ever.

Think of the fights Leonard had with Duran, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler, those Ali had with Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Robinson had with Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer, Gavilan (with multiple wins against some) etc.

"Hearns don't deserve a rematch" Said that after the Mugabi fight.......KO magazine was hugely critical...

After all by knocking out the number 1 WBA/WBC contender and being in the fight of the decade..

What more can you do....

So stick to Audley!!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hagler himself was incredibly selective with his matchmaking, had no intention of taking on the bigger men but gets a free pass because he faced Duran, Leonard and Hearns. He was happy to beat on the smaller men but didn't want to be on the receiving.

You can be ultra critical of anyone if you wish too.

You can try, but that's poor. Hagler fought everyone he could at middleweight, he took on everyone.

He was a middleweight. He didn't need to seek out bigger men. Back then, being middleweight king meant something.

He didn't take on Tommy after being cut and dazed...

Middleweight king meant something when Robbo took on Maxim and Ketchel took on Johnson...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Hearns don't deserve a rematch" Said that after the Mugabi fight.......KO magazine was hugely critical...

After all by knocking out the number 1 WBA/WBC contender and being in the fight of the decade..

What more can you do....

So stick to Audley!!

The rematch was perfectly set up after the Mugabi fight. Arum had no idea how to sell a rematch before then, so conclusive had Hagler's victory been over Tommy. Then, after Hearns iced a legitimate middleweight in Schuler and Hagler had looked to have slipped some against "The Beast", it suddenly became viable again.

Enter Ray Leonard....

hazharrison wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hagler himself was incredibly selective with his matchmaking, had no intention of taking on the bigger men but gets a free pass because he faced Duran, Leonard and Hearns. He was happy to beat on the smaller men but didn't want to be on the receiving.

You can be ultra critical of anyone if you wish too.

You can try, but that's poor. Hagler fought everyone he could at middleweight, he took on everyone.

He was a middleweight. He didn't need to seek out bigger men. Back then, being middleweight king meant something.

Exactly he made his name beating smaller men in Mugabi, Hearns and Duran, why not trying pulling the same trick but in reverse by being the smaller man for a change. Lets be honest the rest of his reign is nothing to write home about but because you like him you let him off.

No doubt Haz thinks Hagler whups Spinks............

Shame Hagler didn't think it..as well!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No doubt Haz thinks Hagler whups Spinks............

Shame Hagler didn't think it..as well!!

I'd probably side with Spinks. Hagler didn't need him, though.

Duran, Hearns and Leonard didn't need Hagler, that didn't stop them trying though did it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hagler himself was incredibly selective with his matchmaking, had no intention of taking on the bigger men but gets a free pass because he faced Duran, Leonard and Hearns. He was happy to beat on the smaller men but didn't want to be on the receiving.

You can be ultra critical of anyone if you wish too.

You can try, but that's poor. Hagler fought everyone he could at middleweight, he took on everyone.

He was a middleweight. He didn't need to seek out bigger men. Back then, being middleweight king meant something.

Exactly he made his name beating smaller men in Mugabi, Hearns and Duran, why not trying pulling the same trick but in reverse by being the smaller man for a change. Lets be honest the rest of his reign is nothing to write home about but because you like him you let him off.

Hagler was the middleweight champion. What should he have done when he was offered huge paydays against Leonard, Hearns, Mugabi and Duran at his own weight? Turned them down?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Duran, Hearns and Leonard didn't need Hagler, that didn't stop them trying though did it.

I couldn't disagree more. Leonard himself stated that he needed Hagler as Hagler could make him great again.

I dont think a Hagler/Hearns would have struggled to sell

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think a Hagler/Hearns would have struggled to sell

That's how it was reported at the time. Jeff Ryan wrote it up in KO or Ring (Hagler & Hearns Light Up The Strip) with the byline:

"The Hagler-Hearns rematch had once been considered a hard sell. But after Hagler's demolition of John Mugabi and Hearns' blowout of James Schuler, the rematch is hot property again."

They call it the fab four but I actually think they've got the fourth one wrong, Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez were the ones going out of their way to challenge themselves which sadly Hagler didn't.

Unlike Monzon for instance he didn't have a major divisional like Valdez, now I appreciate in the grand scheme of things nobody cares about Valdez but he's a significantly better middleweight than Leonard, Duran and Mugabi.

This is where you become very one eyed in your views, Mayweather didn't challenge himself but Hagler did when infact Mayweather was moving up through the weights in order to challenge himself.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:They call it the fab four but I actually think they've got the fourth one wrong, Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez were the ones going out of their way to challenge themselves which sadly Hagler didn't.

Unlike Monzon for instance he didn't have a major divisional like Valdez, now I appreciate in the grand scheme of things nobody cares about Valdez but he's a significantly better middleweight than Leonard, Duran and Mugabi.

This is where you become very one eyed in your views, Mayweather didn't challenge himself but Hagler did when infact Mayweather was moving up through the weights in order to challenge himself.

Hagler fought every viable opponent available to him at middleweight. Remember, this modern fad of weight-hopping wasn't yet in vogue and so no-one at that point was wondering whether Hagler should fight Larry Holmes.

Mayweather may have moved up the weights but it wasn't to seek a challenge. He sought the biggest purses against box-office opponents. Going round in circles here. Regardless what Floyd fans think, he won't be ranked as highly as you'd like as he didn't do enough work.

Hagler beat Tommy and obviously didn't feel the need to prove it again. Can't see Hearns doing any better in a rematch but it would have been entertaining while it lasted.

If only Tommy had a chin he probably would have beaten them all.

And I see your point ref: Monzon. I understand why Hagler would be rated behind Monzon at middleweight.

Strongback wrote:Hagler beat Tommy and obviously didn't feel the need to prove it again. Can't see Hearns doing any better in a rematch but it would have been entertaining while it lasted.

If only Tommy had a chin he probably would have beaten them all.

And that was Arum's dilemma. While the first fight was monumental, he couldn't see how he'd convince anyone that Hearns could beat Hagler.

hazharrison wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:They call it the fab four but I actually think they've got the fourth one wrong, Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez were the ones going out of their way to challenge themselves which sadly Hagler didn't.

Unlike Monzon for instance he didn't have a major divisional like Valdez, now I appreciate in the grand scheme of things nobody cares about Valdez but he's a significantly better middleweight than Leonard, Duran and Mugabi.

This is where you become very one eyed in your views, Mayweather didn't challenge himself but Hagler did when infact Mayweather was moving up through the weights in order to challenge himself.

Hagler fought every viable opponent available to him at middleweight. Remember, this modern fad of weight-hopping wasn't yet in vogue and so no-one at that point was wondering whether Hagler should fight Larry Holmes.

Mayweather may have moved up the weights but it wasn't to seek a challenge. He sought the biggest purses against box-office opponents. Going round in circles here. Regardless what Floyd fans think, he won't be ranked as highly as you'd like as he didn't do enough work.

Weight hopping has always been in vogue, starting with Fitzsimmons through Ross, Canzoneri, Lewis, Armstrong, Robinson etc. it has and always will be there.

Every viable opponent sounds good but that consisted of smaller men and rubbish, staying at middleweight was a very low risk strategy for Hagler until he screwed up against Leonard.

BTW nobody is saying Hagler is Top 10 like they are saying Mayweather is.

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:Hagler beat Tommy and obviously didn't feel the need to prove it again. Can't see Hearns doing any better in a rematch but it would have been entertaining while it lasted.

If only Tommy had a chin he probably would have beaten them all.

And that was Arum's dilemma. While the first fight was monumental, he couldn't see how he'd convince anyone that Hearns could beat Hagler.

He wouldnt have had to. People wouldve happily watched that all over again regardless.

Hagler-Hearns was an eagerly anticipated rematch....Just stop it!

Not quite as anticipated as his rematches against Hamsho and Obelmejias.

Strongy, I brought up Hagler to highlight how your personal feelings towards a boxer can effect how you choose to rate them. If you like them you make excuses for them but if you dislike them then you become ultra critical of them.

Myself- Duran and Wlad Klitschko
Truss- Curry and Duran/Louis
Az- Leonard and Marciano
Haz- Hagler and Mayweather

We all do it to an extent but it's better to try and find some middle ground.

Hypothetically if Tommy did have a chin would he have been Top 10.

He had the opportunity to fight great men and build an atg legacy if he got the wins. Would he have beaten them?

He really was a ridiculous talent. He would have murdered Mayweather at welter.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:They call it the fab four but I actually think they've got the fourth one wrong, Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez were the ones going out of their way to challenge themselves which sadly Hagler didn't.

Unlike Monzon for instance he didn't have a major divisional like Valdez, now I appreciate in the grand scheme of things nobody cares about Valdez but he's a significantly better middleweight than Leonard, Duran and Mugabi.

This is where you become very one eyed in your views, Mayweather didn't challenge himself but Hagler did when infact Mayweather was moving up through the weights in order to challenge himself.

Hagler fought every viable opponent available to him at middleweight. Remember, this modern fad of weight-hopping wasn't yet in vogue and so no-one at that point was wondering whether Hagler should fight Larry Holmes.

Mayweather may have moved up the weights but it wasn't to seek a challenge. He sought the biggest purses against box-office opponents. Going round in circles here. Regardless what Floyd fans think, he won't be ranked as highly as you'd like as he didn't do enough work.

Weight hopping has always been in vogue, starting with Fitzsimmons through Ross, Canzoneri, Lewis, Armstrong, Robinson etc. it has and always will be there.

Every viable opponent sounds good but that consisted of smaller men and rubbish, staying at middleweight was a very low risk strategy for Hagler until he screwed up against Leonard.

I didn't say it hadn't happened prior to the 80's but this modern obsession with multiple titles at multiple weights really became popularised when weight divisions exploded and Hearns and Leonard raced each other to be the first to win five.

Interesting critique of Hagler's middleweight reign. Weird how he's rated as one of the best ever and one of the top 20-30 fighters of all time then?

manos de piedra wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:Hagler beat Tommy and obviously didn't feel the need to prove it again. Can't see Hearns doing any better in a rematch but it would have been entertaining while it lasted.

If only Tommy had a chin he probably would have beaten them all.

And that was Arum's dilemma. While the first fight was monumental, he couldn't see how he'd convince anyone that Hearns could beat Hagler.

He wouldnt have had to. People wouldve happily watched that all over again regardless.

Just quoting what was reported at the time.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not quite as anticipated as his rematches against Hamsho and Obelmejias.

Strongy, I brought up Hagler to highlight how your personal feelings towards a boxer can effect how you choose to rate them. If you like them you make excuses for them but if you dislike them then you become ultra critical of them.

Myself- Duran and Wlad Klitschko
Truss- Curry and Duran/Louis
Az- Leonard and Marciano
Haz- Hagler and Mayweather

We all do it to an extent but it's better to try and find some middle ground.

I don't dislike Floyd. And who doesn't like Hagler?

You're attempts to draw comparisons between the pair have been ill-considered though.

Lennox Lewis (alongside Joe Frazier) is my favourite heavyweight of all time. Yet I'll argue all day that he's overrated.

I think most people on here (not all!) would be accepting of your arguments hazharrison were you arguing from a different position. But arguing that Mayweather is not an all time great or worthy of a top 30 spot makes finding a compromise difficult. Its selling Mayweathers actual record, acheivement, performances and talents very short. Frankly even if he didnt actually test himself against his biggest rival, what he did outside of that is still more than good enough to earn him a place in the top 30 and an all time great. I also suspect that any of his wins over divisional rivals outside of Pacquiao would have been downplayed in these kind of arguments anyway. The likes of Margarito or Williams werent going to add anything other than depth to his record whereas its easier to downplay wins over guys like Hatton, de la Hoya or Mosley now that he beat them.

Definate arguments available to say he doesnt belong in the top 10 and maybe at a push top 20 but cant see how they can deny him all time great statues or exclude him from top 30.

I didn't argue he wasn't top 30 -- just that he's not an all-time great in the same bracket as the likes of Ali, Louis, Pep, Robinson, Armstrong and Greb.

I disagree on Margarito and Williams.

Oscar was past his best (although he did drag li'l Floyd up to 154 lbs -- and nearly got the nod, too, lest we forget). Hatton was too small (see Collazo fight) and Mosley was a clapped out old banger.

Here's some other opinions on the matter from a variety of writers:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/columnists/joe-rein/7461-tim-starks-special-to-tss-where-do-manny-and-floyd-rank-all-time

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing--rankings--retiring-undefeated-won-t-make-floyd-mayweather-an-all-time-great.html

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not quite as anticipated as his rematches against Hamsho and Obelmejias.

Strongy, I brought up Hagler to highlight how your personal feelings towards a boxer can effect how you choose to rate them. If you like them you make excuses for them but if you dislike them then you become ultra critical of them.

Myself- Duran and Wlad Klitschko
Truss- Curry and Duran/Louis
Az- Leonard and Marciano
Haz- Hagler and Mayweather

We all do it to an extent but it's better to try and find some middle ground.

I can't tolerate SRL the man but recognise how great he was. Rocky seemed a top bloke but seriously overrated.

hazharrison wrote:

I didn't say it hadn't happened prior to the 80's but this modern obsession with multiple titles at multiple weights really became popularised when weight divisions exploded and Hearns and Leonard raced each other to be the first to win five.

Interesting critique of Hagler's middleweight reign. Weird how he's rated as one of the best ever and one of the top 20-30 fighters of all time then?

It has always been popular, it's how Fitzsimmons, Langford, Armstrong, Robinson, Ross, Walker etc. made their names.

You may wish to have him in your top 30 but if that top 30 doesn't include Mayweather then it's a crock of crap that can quite easily be ignored.

This one's better:

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-floyd-mayweather-jr

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I didn't say it hadn't happened prior to the 80's but this modern obsession with multiple titles at multiple weights really became popularised when weight divisions exploded and Hearns and Leonard raced each other to be the first to win five.

Interesting critique of Hagler's middleweight reign. Weird how he's rated as one of the best ever and one of the top 20-30 fighters of all time then?

It has always been popular, it's how Fitzsimmons, Langford, Armstrong, Robinson, Ross, Walker etc. made their names.

You may wish to have him in your top 30 but if that top 30 doesn't include Mayweather then it's a crock of crap that can quite easily be ignored.

I never mentioned a top 30.

I have no problem with Mayweather being ranked as an all time great but I do think some people on here have got carried away with how high Floyd should be. He is around 30 odd in my view because he didn't have the desire to fight his way into a higher position.

Nobody is arguing about Mayweathers talent which might well be Top 10 but he didn't prove himself against the best available opposition. Floyd is risk averse.

“What’s this fight going to do for my legacy?” Floyd asked before squaring off against Ricky Hatton two-and-a-half years ago. “I got no fake answer. It’s not going to do nothing for my legacy. I’m fighting because I’m a business man. I’m like Bob Barker. ‘Come on down.’ If the price is right, let’s make it happen.”

"And more important, if Floyd wants to prove himself in the eyes of history, he’ll have to be more consistent in seeking out the best available competition.

When people talk about why Sugar Ray Robinson was great, they don’t mention his win over an aging Henry Armstrong. No one says that Muhammad Ali was great because he beat an elderly Archie Moore. Robinson and Ali proved their greatness against the toughest opponents imaginable, as did Sugar Ray Leonard by conquering Wilfredo Benitez, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, and Marvin Hagler.

Mayweather hasn’t had the inquisitors that those men had. He doesn’t seem to want them. That might be a good marketing decision, but it makes it harder to consider Floyd an all-time great.

History judges fighters by what they did in the ring; not by whether they were on Dancing with the Stars and how much money they made."

If he's around the 30 mark who are those above him?

Floyd made his terms for a fight with Pacquiao quite simple, we don't talk until you agree to random testing, the same way Leonard made demands of Hagler, the difference being Hagler accepted and Pacquiao (arum) rejected. It all comes down to personal opinion, those who like Mayweather will make Pacquiao out to be the bad guy and those who dislike him will make Mayweather out to be the bad guy.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If he's around the 30 mark who are those above him?

Ha. I'm imagining you sitting looking very, very shocked.