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

1. Louis is top 10 because he fought everybody and nobody...........and had longevity...

Mayweather fought better fighters and had greater longevity..........

..and I'm losing the debate..

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Louis fought everybody and was a great innovator. The greatest puncher/ combo puncher of all time. He had great skill, fought regularly until the war. he couldn't have done more.

Mayweather could have been up there with all the great slicksters like the Ray's, Ali etc but he won't be whether we like it or not.

What did he innovate?

There is plenty of published and video information at hand, maybe you could read it.

Check out his combos for an introduction.

Be reasonable Truss

As good as Mayweathers performance against Marquez was we do have to factor in the weight issue, regardless of weight he was always going to win but I don't think Marquez is a good a welterweight as Schmeling is a heavyweight. Louis was down on the cards against Conn but ultimately won while Mayweather should by rights have lost the first Castillo fight.

Also Louis losing to Charles and Marciano as much relevance as Leonard losing to Norris and Camacho has, they just weren't the fighters they used to be.

Mayweather is comfortably ahead of Louis for my money but don't over exaggerate things so much.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Louis fought everybody and was a great innovator. The greatest puncher/ combo puncher of all time. He had great skill, fought regularly until the war. he couldn't have done more.

Mayweather could have been up there with all the great slicksters like the Ray's, Ali etc but he won't be whether we like it or not.

What did he innovate?

Bum of the Month ??

Ha. Too true.

Tell him that not me....Ghosty..

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Louis fought everybody and was a great innovator. The greatest puncher/ combo puncher of all time. He had great skill, fought regularly until the war. he couldn't have done more.

Mayweather could have been up there with all the great slicksters like the Ray's, Ali etc but he won't be whether we like it or not.

What did he innovate?

There is plenty of published and video information at hand, maybe you could read it.

Check out his combos for an introduction.

He innovated combination punches?

Innovated a way to get decked off Two ton Tony???

If Marquez can outbox Manny..........Then why shouldn't Floyd get plaudits at welter.....

After all Conn was 168 pounds when he soundly outboxed Louis......who If we are honest only beat him because Conn took liberties against him..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Louis is top 10 because he fought everybody and nobody...........and had longevity...

Mayweather fought better fighters and had greater longevity..........

..and I'm losing the debate..

Mayweather didn't face fighters that were any better. His big wins include Gatti, Hatton and an over the hill Oscar.

I can do this all night by the way. After 10,000 posts on ESB I'm WUM proof.

Anybody seen Forrest Gump..............

Who did Louis beat better than a Ricardo Mayorga slapping Oscar?? Prey do tell!!

Gatti one of his best wins..

SO strongback, Louis innovated combination punches? Is that so?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Marquez can outbox Manny..........Then why shouldn't Floyd get plaudits at welter.....

After all Conn was 168 pounds when he soundly outboxed Louis......who If we are honest only beat him because Conn took liberties against him..

Not true at all Truss, Louis was well in the fight and didn't need the knockout just to win the last 3 rounds which based on rounds 11 and 12 he was well on his way to do doing.

Mayweather gets credit for beating Marquez but you're overplaying how significant a win it is.

He spent enough time on the deck against Schmelling to innovate many things I should have thought!

Conn rocked him in the 13th which meant Louis would have needed a Kayo to win ...had he played it safe!!

You seem to have a tendancy to rate Mayweather primarily on his welterweight career Strongback. He was has some excellent wins below 140lb. I dont think quality of opposition is an area Louis would have a strong argument over Mayweather.

Don't forget he rates Louis over Ali..............Forgetting that Ali beat better Heavies over a longer period..............

I want to know about this innovation thingy Louis started off.

Hope If he comes back...He can formulate a better argument!!

manos de piedra wrote:You seem to have a tendancy to rate Mayweather primarily on his welterweight career Strongback. He was has some excellent wins below 140lb. I dont think quality of opposition is an area Louis would have a strong argument over Mayweather.

I posted this earlier in the thread Manos:

Re: Floyd, JCC and Duran
 by Strongback Today at 11:20 am

Genaro Hernández
Diego Corrales
Carlos Hernández
José Luis Castillo
Philip N'dou
Oscar De La Hoya
Ricky Hatton
Juan Manual Marquez
Shane Mosley
Miguel Cotto


From my reading these are the names on which Mayweathers greatness will be judged. There are a couple of other names but of lower distinction.


After Castillo the cherry picking starts.

azania wrote:I want to know about this innovation thingy Louis started off.

You wouldn't understand if I explained it.

Read a couple of books sonny. Then we can have a chat.

Every boxing institution gets it wrong. They are all marching out of step except Trussy.

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:I want to know about this innovation thingy Louis started off.

You wouldn't understand if I explained it.

Read a couple of books sonny. Then we can have a chat.

Try me.

Yeah but all your emphasis appear to be put on his welterweight time with little mention of his acheivements below that. I notice people do it alot with Pacquiao also. Surely he should be judged on his entire career.

What makes you say Louis opposition was as good as Mayweathers?

Louis opposition isn't as good as Mayweathers but on the whole no heavyweight has a particularly strong record it's the nature of only having one division to pick your opposition from. As a heavyweight you get next to no credit for beating a smaller man which isn't true of the lower divisions.

The problem with Mayweather that despite having a strong resume it could have been stronger which is also true of Hopkins, Jones and Pacquiao, for whatever reason and whether it's their fault or not there are fights they could have taken.

Hernandez
Corrales
Castillo
Hatton
Judah
De La Hoya
Mosley
Marquez
Cotto

The above is a strong list especially when backed up with good fighters like Chavez, Ortiz, N'Dou, C. Hernandez, Manfredo amongst others but would it not have looked much better with younger versions of Cotto and Mosley, Casamayor, Tzuyu, Pacquiao, Margarito and possibly Williams or Wright.

As he's not yet retired a lot can still happen, Guerrero will be a very good win whilst Alvarez/Trout will be a very good win also, all depends how much he's willing to risk in the next 30 months.

I dont know so much about the old timers, so a genuine question, but how many people here hold SRR not fighting Burley against him? Were there reasonable circumstances to explain why? Didnt he avoid someone else in the murderers row?

This is worth a read if you're looking for information on Robinson (note his amateur career numbers - amazing):

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one
http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-two

joeyjojo618 wrote:I dont know so much about the old timers, so a genuine question, but how many people here hold SRR not fighting Burley against him? Were there reasonable circumstances to explain why? Didnt he avoid someone else in the murderers row?

There was a debate on Robinson and the bmr a year or so back... It had become a bit of a fashion to suggest he'd avoided the bmr fighters. When the timelines were looked at, most were fighting at higher weights than robbo and were coming to the tail end if their careers when robbo came to prominence. Burley is the one question mark. The fight could have legitimately happened and nearly did around 1945/6 (ray apparently upped his contract demands). Its one of those, does a young black fighter, making a name for himself and engineering a title shot risk it against someone like burley?

There are rumours he offered a 3 fight series to burley if burley chucked the first. Once ray was champion, burley was fighting as a middle... I'm sure he could still have made 147, so in theory a fight could have happened then. Burley says robbo did avoid him, but doesn't blame him under the circumstances... Saying, i believe, that there was never the money in it.

Re other members of the bmr, at a stretch he could potentially have fought holman williams and the cocoa kid, though you coukdnt make a case for avoidance. There is a story, dont know the truth, that in his early days he opted not to fight his tba opponent when it turned out to be cocoa kid, not the road sweeper he was expecting.

Do I hold the above against him when looking at his career. Not really, though in hindsight we'd livd to know how burley and robbo would have fared.

hazharrison wrote:This is worth a read if you're looking for information on Robinson (note his amateur career numbers - amazing):

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one
http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-two

Great read although I've read it before. Great fighter also. No doubt. Leonard is better though.

hazharrison wrote:This is worth a read if you're looking for information on Robinson (note his amateur career numbers - amazing):

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one
http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-two

Thanks haz and Milky, I will have a read.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:This is worth a read if you're looking for information on Robinson (note his amateur career numbers - amazing):

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one
http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-two

Great read although I've read it before. Great fighter also. No doubt. Leonard is better though.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:This is worth a read if you're looking for information on Robinson (note his amateur career numbers - amazing):

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one
http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-two

Great read although I've read it before. Great fighter also. No doubt. Leonard is better though.

Ignore him. I have him in the same bracket as Ralphy.

Depends what Az means by 'better', I suppose. If the argument is that Leonard's career outranks Robinson's and that he achieved more than Robinson, then I'd disagree with him. If he's talking about purely who, when at their best, was the 'better' Welterweight in pure boxing terms, then he might have a case. There's nothing to suggest that, in a one-off Welterweight fight between the pair, Robinson would be any better than an incredibly marginal favourite over Leonard, if indeed he was the favourite at all.

A similar case with Hearns, in some respects. On the basis of how little of his career he spent at 147 and the fact that he was never the undisputed top dog there thanks to Leonard, you can't really rank him as one of the greatest Welterweights ever if you're going purely on career achievements and record at the weight. However, if you're looking at it from a 'who beats who?' point of view, then Tommy is one of the three gold standard bearers at 147 in my opinion, along with the two Sugar Rays.

Results and the total career package will always outdo that, however, so Robinson is rightly regarded as a greater pound for pounder than Leonard - if you don't get the results and don't have that longevity at the highest level then you can't get the credit, really. But in terms of who was the better pure boxer of the pair when they were in full flow, or who would win had they been able to box, I think it's foolish and short-sighted to act as if Robinson is on some kind of different level to Leonard.

JCC can't get a look in on this thread..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:JCC can't get a look in on this thread..

Not sure he'd have got so much as a look in against any of Duran (a bit more likely, in fairness), Mayweather, Leonard or Robinson either, Truss!

Without Robinson there would be Leonard. He was the idol of both Leonard and Ali and they both copied the great man. Push Robinson on a couple of decades with better training and nutrition and I think any debate that he could lose weakens significantly.

His body attack and durability would make Duran interesting....

Duran was a better Man's Rosario in many ways..

"There would be no Leonard without Robbo!!"...........Ali copied Robbo's rope a dope did he??

88Chris05 wrote:Depends what Az means by 'better', I suppose. If the argument is that Leonard's career outranks Robinson's and that he achieved more than Robinson, then I'd disagree with him. If he's talking about purely who, when at their best, was the 'better' Welterweight in pure boxing terms, then he might have a case. There's nothing to suggest that, in a one-off Welterweight fight between the pair, Robinson would be any better than an incredibly marginal favourite over Leonard, if indeed he was the favourite at all.

A similar case with Hearns, in some respects. On the basis of how little of his career he spent at 147 and the fact that he was never the undisputed top dog there thanks to Leonard, you can't really rank him as one of the greatest Welterweights ever if you're going purely on career achievements and record at the weight. However, if you're looking at it from a 'who beats who?' point of view, then Tommy is one of the three gold standard bearers at 147 in my opinion, along with the two Sugar Rays.

Results and the total career package will always outdo that, however, so Robinson is rightly regarded as a greater pound for pounder than Leonard - if you don't get the results and don't have that longevity at the highest level then you can't get the credit, really. But in terms of who was the better pure boxer of the pair when they were in full flow, or who would win had they been able to box, I think it's foolish and short-sighted to act as if Robinson is on some kind of different level to Leonard.

How do you know how Robinson boxed as a welterweight -- there isn't any tape of him fighting there? Most of us have seen him as a middleweight only. Imagine if we only had tape of Leonard post welterweight? Robinson was the better fighter and had the better record.

Hearns does rank as one of the greatest welterweights in history by the way. He's generally seen as top five.

Prime Ali. The guy who danced around the ring like a middleweight.

A quote from Ali

"That man was beautiful. Timing, speed, reflexes, rhythm, his body, everything was beautiful. And to me, still, I would say pound for pound...I'd say I'm the greatest heavyweight of all time, but pound for pound, I still say Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest of all time."

Muhammad Ali on Sugar Ray Robinson [[7]]

He probably wanted to emulate him.............But he had his own style and who's to say wouldn't have made it without him....

I idolise Frank Zane but I don't train like him..

I agree that, from a styles point of view, Chavez doesn't have to sweat over facing Duran as much as he would if he were facing either of the Sugar Rays or Mayweather. Chavez struggled against blinding speed and hated having to really go looking for his man, neither of which are going to be a problem fighting Duran at 135.

I think Julio's problem here is that he's facing a similar fighter, but one who just seems to be that little bit better than him in basically every area. A shade bigger naturally, slightly better on the inside, just as tough and durable if not more so, better jab (if it's ever needed in this match up!) and comparable punching power. I think it'd be a fantastic fight but I'm very confident that Duran either stops Chavez late on, or wins it by two or three points on the cards.

Who knows Chris would have loved to see Duran-Chavez or Chazez-Sanchez at 130!!

I'm saying SRL would beat Robbo. Why is it sinful to suggest that?

Still trying to figure out what Louis innovated strongy.

You've every right to suggest Leonard beats SRR.........Turpin had a style he struggled with....so who is to say!!

Lot's of people beat or surpass their idols in sport..........

All this talk of Duran, he is not even the best lightweight ever!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He probably wanted to emulate him.............But he had his own style and who's to say wouldn't have made it without him....

I idolise Frank Zane but I don't train like him..

It's well established there is a direct line through SRR to Ali to SRL to Floyd today. Floyd could have been right up there if he tested himself more.

Strongback wrote:Without Robinson there would be Leonard. He was the idol of both Leonard and Ali and they both copied the great man. Push Robinson on a couple of decades with better training and nutrition and I think any debate that he could lose weakens significantly.

Robbo is SRL's dad? Or perhaps you're saying he wouldn't have taken up boxing. Perhaps he would have been a brawler.

hazharrison wrote:How do you know how Robinson boxed as a welterweight -- there isn't any tape of him fighting there? Most of us have seen him as a middleweight only. Imagine if we only had tape of Leonard post welterweight? Robinson was the better fighter and had the better record.

Hearns does rank as one of the greatest welterweights in history by the way. He's generally seen as top five.

It's pretty rare that a fighter totally changes their style for the remainder of their career once they step up in weight. Robinson was basically smack bang right in the middle of his prime when he moved up to 160 in 1951 (he was Ring Magazine's 'Fighter of the Year' that year) so I doubt he'd have gone about his business much differently at Welterweight. We're talking about who influenced who here; well Robinson always said that the style he tried to emulate was that of Kid Chocolate. The Middleweight version of Robinson who fought and beat Turpin, Graziano and Olson before his first retirement still bore plenty of similarities in style to the 'Cuban Bon-Bon' so I don't think the move up to Middleweight changed his methods too much.

Leonard was appreciably past his best when he went up to Middleweight, on the other hand. Terribly inactive and had been living the high life in his time away from the ring.

Moreover, if you look at what kind of styles Robinson (very rarely, admittedly!) struggled with as a Welterweight (so aggressive inside fighters who kept trying to walk him down), he also didn't like fighting them at the higher weights. The lighter version of Robinson went through hell with LaMotta more than once and struggled badly twice against Henry Brimm - Robinson even went so far as to say that Brimm was terribly unlucky not to get the win in their drawn fight.

Robinson was one of those fighters that did just about everything well and a fair few things brilliantly, don't get me wrong - but so was Leonard.

Just leave it now..............you can't see through your hate for the guy...

Like with David Haye...

He is up there...with the best...,.end of.

azania wrote:I'm saying SRL would beat Robbo. Why is it sinful to suggest that?

Still trying to figure out what Louis innovated strongy.

He perfected the use of combinations throwing the most accurate punches ever recorded to this day. He did things like throw triple left hooks with devastating effect.

Google it.

So no one else did that? It's fairly common today.

I would like to see Mayweather in 40s 50s, see how he would survive wearing the small gloves, he wouldn't have the luxury of those grant pillow he uses as part of his defence, his hands would've been shattered.

Cheers Rodders