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

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

I know! Pernell really needs to get his props here....

88Chris05 wrote:

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

I know! Pernell really needs to get his props here....

I was talking about Gans Chris!

Really? I thought you'd be trumpeting Benny for this one, Jeff.

Duran, Pernell and Benny; I have serious trouble splitting the three of them, both at Lightweight and pound for pound. Basically interchangeable, for me.

Gans just short of those three at 135 for my money - please don't hate me for saying that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: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.

The direct line from SRR to Ali to SRL to Mayweather has been discussed and written about many times. Mayweather could have been right up there if he challenged himself more. He's missed that boat and you can read that all over the net if you could be bothered. His place in history is being rightly debated.

As for Zane I'm pretty sure from memory he did the high volume training all the guys in the 70's did popularised by Arnie. Mentzer came in the late 70's and early eighties with different ideas but right through the 80's most people used the workouts based on Arnie's book the Education of a Bodybuilder which sold millions of copies around the world. These were described as the Weider Principles.


They might be interviewing Breland on the radio show next week. You should sit in on it. Couldn't be a guy in the boxing world you'd like to interview more.

Benny Leonard for his skill and style but also because he had that knack of finding a way to win. The most relaxed cerebral fighter I have seen footage of.

Mayweather has fought 3 times in 3 years, not one of those was what was seen as his biggest challenge and threat which he refused to take even with the ridiculous amount of money he'd have earned which is pretty unforgivable to me, doesn't deserve a top 20 p4p.

Cheers Rodders

88Chris05 wrote:Really? I thought you'd be trumpeting Benny for this one, Jeff.

Duran, Pernell and Benny; I have serious trouble splitting the three of them, both at Lightweight and pound for pound. Basically interchangeable, for me.

Gans just short of those three at 135 for my money - please don't hate me for saying that.

Just a joke Chris. I do indeed have Benny top of the pile. After that I genuinely struggle to split them You have made many a fine argument for Pernell, could genuinely find a reason to have him Duran and Gans in any order depending on how the wind is blowing on that day.

88Chris05 wrote:

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.

Pretty sure his style would have been the same but by all accounts we never got to see him at his absolute best (and by God that must have been something). George Best is the same in football -- think most of his best stuff wasn't recorded.

Here's some footage of Ray at welter in 1946 when he's 25 years old.

Not great film but the style, speed and punch variation is clearly evident.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMs0Z1leFMU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Love to see the twenty guys Rodders has ahead of him...

When you get some time let us know kid..

Here's 25 -- courtesy of Bert Sugar:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross
21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard

Boxing News:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Ray Leonard
6. Roberto Duran
7. Harry Greb
8. Jimmy Wilde
9. Willie Pep
10. Archie Moore
11. Benny Leonard
12. Jack Johnson
13. Carlos Monzon
14. Marvin Hagler
15. Sam Langford
16. Stanley Ketchel
17. Tony Canzoneri
18. Sandy Saddler
19. Gene Tunney
20. Jack Dempsey
21. Rocky Marciano
22. Joe Gans
23. Julio Cesar Chavez
23. Pernell Whitaker
25. Larry Holmes

ESPN:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan

Historian Matt McGrain is currently compiling an excellent top 100 listing here:

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_six_50_41.html

He's still to complete the top 10 but he has Mayweather at 47:

In the introduction to Part Three I wrote that “should conservatism in boxing become the norm, much of the oxygen that allows greatness to burn is sucked from the room.” Is it reasonable to level at these two men, who hold eighteen different straps including seven lineal championships at a total of thirteen different divisions between them, accusations of conservatism in matchmaking? No. I cannot say that. Fans whinge endlessly about Floyd Mayweather “cherry picking” his opponents whilst the other camp gnashes their teeth about Manny Pacquiao “weight-draining” his opponents in a series of catchweight bouts, but these men have both fought some of the very best fighters of their era.

But they haven’t fought each other.

I am not interested in the reasons why. Was Pacquiao’s ducking blood tests the reason or did Mayweather’s determination to duck Pacquiao just render that a handy excuse? We will never know for sure and I don’t care. My job is to analyze the legacy of the two men and rank them in relation to others. Their failure to meet is of interest, however, because if they had fought a pair it would have changed the rankings of both men more than any other series imaginable. Say Pacquiao had beaten Mayweather twice—he then becomes the unfettered #1 for this era with a domination of a fellow and primed all-time great under his belt and is thereby catapulted up this list whilst Mayweather drops to the lower reaches. As it stands, they are ranked almost together, as they were through much of the past decade, with Mayweather slightly higher, just as he was for much of that time. Both were ranked on the pound-for-pound list between 2003 and 2013, with Mayweather ranked higher for most of six of these years and Pacquiao ranking higher for most of four, despite Mayweather’s yearlong “retirement.”

If that seems an arbitrary way to judge them, it needn’t. It is obviously desperately close between them and they themselves had the chance to separate one from the other in terms of skill and legacy but declined—the fans are the big losers and for boxing it is the most embarrassing low blow since the abolishment of the color line. Mayweather’s slight advantage in longevity on the P4P list plus a sneaking suspicion on my part that he was better by a hair is, tragically, all I have to separate them.

There was enough oxygen in beating a series of top men and one another’s leftovers but not enough to see them fulfill that dramatic potential, and with that fight now rendered all but meaningless by Pacquiao’s destruction at the hands of Juan Manuel Marquez, only extreme longevity or a surprising leap to middleweight on the part of Floyd Mayweather will see these two modern giants trouble the top twenty in the way their fans would wish.

hazharrison wrote:the fans are the big losers and for boxing it is the most embarrassing low blow since the abolishment of the color line.

Badly worded choice of phrase there, surely the absolishment of the colour line was one of the high spots in the sports history. That said I agree with his general point on the extent their failure to fight hurts their legacy and ranking.

I agree with McGrain's view, which is pretty cold analysis.

He's a mod at ESB so has sat through the Flamos and Pactards doing this to death for years.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:the fans are the big losers and for boxing it is the most embarrassing low blow since the abolishment of the color line.

Badly worded choice of phrase there, surely the absolishment of the colour line was one of the high spots in the sports history. That said I agree with his general point on the extent their failure to fight hurts their legacy and ranking.

Yeah he's dropped a bollock there -- got it back to front.

He clearly rates the old-timers. Here's his 20-11:

20. Whitaker
19. McFarland
18. McGovern
17. Dixon
16. Leonard (Ray)
15. Moore
14. Ross
13. Pep
12. Walker
11. Leonard (Benny).

Bit miffed he has Frazier at 92 but Hearns at 44 makes up for it. Top ten should be interesting.

Paccy McFarland is very highly rated on ESB. So is Lennox Lewis in the ATG HW discussions in the Brit Section, I think many have him 2 or 3.

Some idiosyncrasies can find a footing in all forums. The major one I see on V2 is that Louis in not a Top 10 ATG P4P fighter.

Not wholly unsurprising as there has been a hell of a lot of anti-Louis drip torture style propaganda put out by one or two posters here and on the old board over the best part of a decade.

Strongback wrote:Paccy McFarland is very highly rated on ESB.

Third best never to win a title according to those in the know.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:Paccy McFarland is very highly rated on ESB.

Third best never to win a title according to those in the know.

After Burley and Skelton?

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:Paccy McFarland is very highly rated on ESB.

Third best never to win a title according to those in the know.

No doubt special and one of the fighting Irish but Top 20 ATG or higher by some is pushing it for me. They have an affection for him which I do to but where is the justification for such a high rating.

On another note I've a feeling Sam is going to do very well in this list.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:Paccy McFarland is very highly rated on ESB.

Third best never to win a title according to those in the know.

After Burley and Skelton?

My list Tina, behind Ryan Rhodes and Bruce Woodcock

Lennox Lewis is overrated. MGrain calls him "the most dominant heavyweight since Joe Louis" here, which is incorrect. That has to be Mike Tyson -- they didn't use to talk about whether he'd win -- just what round he'd win in.

hazharrison wrote:Lennox Lewis is overrated.

Now there is a can of worms on here, good luck Haz!

Oh not again..................Oscar....Hopkins....Floyd....

For what it is worth Haz, I actually agree re Lewis (and Oscar) but once bitten twice shy so you're on your own I'm afraid.

hazharrison wrote:Lennox Lewis is overrated. MGrain calls him "the most dominant heavyweight since Joe Louis" here, which is incorrect. That has to be Mike Tyson -- they didn't use to talk about whether he'd win -- just what round he'd win in.

I'm going to have to go against the 'McGrain' here and say that that's nonsense.

Hopefully no-one will pick up on my previous comment.....

If you're going to start flirting haz, I'll start a Marciano thread and leave az and ghosty to fight it out for the next month, in retaliation.

milkyboy wrote:If you're going to start flirting haz, I'll start a Marciano thread and leave az and ghosty to fight it out for the next month, in retaliation.

If I believed that was all it took to keep them pair in one place I would have done it months ago.

Fair point rowley, I have under estimated their mutual ability to display belligerence on multiple fronts. A talent, if not a gift.

How about I start this one:

"Lennox Lewis Couldn't Carry Rocky Marciano's Jockstrap. And By The Way, There Are Fighters In Black & White That Rate Higher Than Oscar, Hopkins and Floyd."

"Fighters in the old days didn't know how to block a jab, they thought it was tougher to block every punch with their face"

Az

I'll let you know the dates of my next holiday haz, if you could hold fire on the release date for that little teaser.

Strongback wrote:"Fighters in the old days didn't know how to block a jab, they thought it was tougher to block every punch with their face"

Az

My personal favourite Azania quote came when he informed us that all of David Price's victims so far "couldn't slip on a banana skin, never mind slip a jab."

Even though he was right, you've got to love his way with words!

azania wrote:In between those great wins came dreadful defeats against average fighters. OK, he was past his best but losing to Laing is unforgiveable.

Floyd has been on top for 14 years and never looked like losing. An amazing talent and totally under appreciated by us today. For me a nailed on top 10 and higher than Duran.

Also no bias here as Duran is my second favourite fighter after Ali. Its just that Floyd is on another level to him in every department. I don't buy the argument that he beat a higher level of opponent. OK SRL. But that has to be countered with his shocking losses which often gets ignored or glossed over with excuses. Loved the guy's style and attitude, but lets get real.

Depends whether you are comparing records or ability. I have no doubt Durans poor performances were down to motivation and lifestyle rather than ability and whereas Duran took anyone on, Floyd is very careful about who he fights, what weight he will fight them at, and at what stage of their careers they are before he will fight them. If Wall Street managed risk as well as Floyd, Lehmans would still be a thriving business. Floyd is good, very good, but his record is a little stage managed.

If I had to watch a fight it would be Duran everytime. Most people watch Floyd in the hope that this time he will get a new hole ripped. It sell seats but historically great fighters are very often held in affection, I don't see that happening to Floyd. He is a bit of a really

hazharrison wrote:Here's 25 -- courtesy of Bert Sugar:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross
21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard

Holy s*#T! Joe Louis is ranked in the top 10 and Ray Leonard is ranked at a lowly 25? Don't let Truss see this he'll have a heart attack!!

I'll treat the list with the contempt it deserves..

I wouldn't even know where to begin with that list but Cerdan at 23 above Charles and Leonard is quite laughable.

It is laughable....Louis number 4...Ketchel above Charles and Leonard!!

dragonbreath wrote:

azania wrote:In between those great wins came dreadful defeats against average fighters. OK, he was past his best but losing to Laing is unforgiveable.

Floyd has been on top for 14 years and never looked like losing. An amazing talent and totally under appreciated by us today. For me a nailed on top 10 and higher than Duran.

Also no bias here as Duran is my second favourite fighter after Ali. Its just that Floyd is on another level to him in every department. I don't buy the argument that he beat a higher level of opponent. OK SRL. But that has to be countered with his shocking losses which often gets ignored or glossed over with excuses. Loved the guy's style and attitude, but lets get real.

Depends whether you are comparing records or ability. I have no doubt Durans poor performances were down to motivation and lifestyle rather than ability and whereas Duran took anyone on, Floyd is very careful about who he fights, what weight he will fight them at, and at what stage of their careers they are before he will fight them. If Wall Street managed risk as well as Floyd, Lehmans would still be a thriving business. Floyd is good, very good, but his record is a little stage managed.

If I had to watch a fight it would be Duran everytime. Most people watch Floyd in the hope that this time he will get a new hole ripped. It sell seats but historically great fighters are very often held in affection, I don't see that happening to Floyd. He is a bit of a really

To be honest it would appear that Az has taken to recycling anything Truss has said on the matter, there seems to be a lot of negativity towards Duran even among those who are meant to know there stuff. There is absolutely no objectivity used with regards to him, his size and age is never considered when his losses are brought up.

I'm plenty objective..........If you don't give Floyd kudos for winning titles from 130-154....

Why should Duran get any...

This is what I mean, who isn't giving Floyd credit for doing that, you seem to think it's a slight on him that some rate Duran higher.

Let me tell you something............DelaHoya vs Chavez is very much like Hearns-Duran..A great fighter struggling with a bigger man's jab and power........

Mayweather had to deal with those disadvantages but he found a way!!

As all great fighters do...........

Floyd gave up 1" in reach while both fighters started in the same division, nor was De La Hoya anywhere near as devastating or talented as Hearns.

Must try harder.

De la Hoya was taller and naturally bigger Ghosty............

Fought Hoppo at a higher weight...

Don't be cheeky...

Nor was he anywhere near his best against Mayweather

The version that Mayweather faced was probably a 7/10 while Hearns was a 10/10, in no way comparable.

How do you know Hearns was 10/10..He didn't need to get out of first gear...

DelaHoya was coming off a ko6 against Mayorga.............

Good on De La Hoya he'd beaten the human punching bad Mayorga.

Having to overcome the problems that De La Hoya poses is in no way comparable to overcoming Hearns.