The 606v2 ATG p4p list

First topic message reminder :

Did this a little while back and only just got round to sorting out the scoring, if you didn't get round to doing and would like to then just a list and I will update the main list accordingly.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7. Fitzsimmons
8. R. Leonard
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Mayweather
12. Tunney
13. Louis
14. Jofre
15. Pep
16. Gans
17. Whitaker
18= Moore
18= Ross
20. Jones jnr
21= Monzon
21= Wilde
22. Chavez
23= Walker
23= Burley
23= Hearns
26. Holyfield

Think it's quite a decent list personally, the top 5 speak for themselves really but surprised to see Tunney. From last time I did this the big movers are Jofre down 7 places to 14th and Ray Leonard up 4 to 8th, compensating for those two moving and Mayweather entering the rest of the top 12 are exactly the same as before.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Quality of opposition is all ifs and buts, you think Watts and Monroe are the second coming, could you explain why they're so special and when they were so highly regarded?

Do you want me to post a link?

I want you to explain to me yourself without passing on the opinion of somebody else, tell me what they did so well, what fights highlight such amazing skill and exactly when they were so highly ranked.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Quality of opposition is all ifs and buts, you think Watts and Monroe are the second coming, could you explain why they're so special and when they were so highly regarded?

Do you want me to post a link?

I want you to explain to me yourself without passing on the opinion of somebody else, tell me what they did so well, what fights highlight such amazing skill and exactly when they were so highly ranked.

Do you want a link?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote: 

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Taylor is not one of the best boxers Hopkins has faced but if it suits your argument then fair enough, what does a modern fighter have to do to rank above anyone from the past?

Which 160 pounder did Hopkins face at middleweight that was better than Taylor (apart from Jones)?

Trinidad, Eastman and Johnson I would all pick over Taylor. Were it not for Eastman special moments shall we say he would have been the stand out middleweight behind Hopkins. Would you also use Charles and Marciano against Louis because they're without doubt the best he ever faced but somehow I feel that you like any sane minded individual will acknowledge he was years past his best. Hopkins losing when he is past his best is a big issue but for Charles, Louis and Robinson i'm going to guess it isn't nor should it be.

EASTMAN!!

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Quality of opposition is all ifs and buts, you think Watts and Monroe are the second coming, could you explain why they're so special and when they were so highly regarded?

Do you want me to post a link?

I want you to explain to me yourself without passing on the opinion of somebody else, tell me what they did so well, what fights highlight such amazing skill and exactly when they were so highly ranked.

Do you want a link?

Simply tell me what fights showcase their skills Haz, it's not difficult.

The problem Marvin had was that he had an inferiority complex.....

He was basically thought of as a bit of a thug in the early 80's...His bald pate and menacing look and drawl perpetuating that image and he felt he wasn't given just due for his talent...(and he wasn't in fairness)..

Hence he was bitter towards the other fab 4 members who were considered better boxers If not fighters !!

So Marvin being sensitive felt he'd show Leonard and Duran his boxing skill and nearly ended up losing twice to much savvier boxers....A bit like he tried to show off his skills against Vito....

Marvin for all his talent was deeply insecure and lived in Leonard's shadow.....

Shame really because the Sibson fight was poetry in motion....Wonderful performance..

Only after Hearns was Hagler truly respected as much as he deserved to be..

Marvin was bitter to the end..

Duran in 83 to Leonard : "You fight Hagler...You'll f**k him "

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Quality of opposition is all ifs and buts, you think Watts and Monroe are the second coming, could you explain why they're so special and when they were so highly regarded?

Do you want me to post a link?

I want you to explain to me yourself without passing on the opinion of somebody else, tell me what they did so well, what fights highlight such amazing skill and exactly when they were so highly ranked.

Do you want a link?

Simply tell me what fights showcase their skills Haz, it's not difficult.

Monroe was 43-0 (37) as an amateur. He quickly galloped to a 20 fight unbeaten run (16 kayos). After a couple of setbacks, he bested the following: Don Cobbs, Jose Gonzales, Eugene "Cyclone" Hart, Stanley "Kitten" Hayward and Billy "Dynamite" Douglas before being outboxed by Watts in '74. Monroe, a fine boxer, then embarked upon another unbeaten streak culminating in a boxing masterclass (and his career best performance) over Hagler in '76.

Watts was the best boxer of the three young Philly middleweights of the 1970s (including Eugene "Cyclone" Hart and Monroe who he defeated in '74). Watts was the first to defeat Hagler in '76. He also defeated Roy Edmonds, Li'l Abner, Ralph Palladin, Willie Warren and Mario Rosa. Watts was world rated until '77 when he was knocked out by David Love (Love had also ended Monroe's time as a contender).

I know all that already but I want to know what fights to watch tonight before I go to bed?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I know all that already but I want to know what fights to watch tonight before I go to bed?

Hopkins vs Eastman. The greatest in his greatest challenge....

I know what Hopkins fights to watch but i've only seen Monroe and Watts fight Hagler, what other fights of theirs are available for me?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I know what Hopkins fights to watch but i've only seen Monroe and Watts fight Hagler, what other fights of theirs are available for me?

Eastman vs Elcock. Hopkins' greatest foe against his greatest opponent from Birmingham.

Stop bypassing the question Haz, i'm a man in need and you seem like you must have watched a lot of their fights so help me out.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Stop bypassing the question Haz, i'm a man in need and you seem like you must have watched a lot of their fights so help me out.

Eastman: The second greatest middleweight of all time.

Oh dear, Haz is having a hissy fit.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Oh dear, Haz is having a hissy fit.

*

*Laughing fit. I'll leave you to watch your boxing videos before bed. I used to do that. When I was 12. Have a great evening!!  

Oh wait have I rumbled you here, you've not actually watched them fight have you and you were so sure they would beat Hopkins or is that simply what you've read Ken Hissner say?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Oh wait have I rumbled you here, you've not actually watched them fight have you and you were so sure they would beat Hopkins or is that simply what you've read Ken Hissner say?

I've seen each of them fight thanks: Watts, Monroe, Briscoe, Hart and Hagler. Strange thing to accuse someone of - all ifs and buts of course, bit like your pseudo intellectual posts. Good luck getting to second base later! LOL!

Then why are you being so backward in offering me advice on what fights to watch?

I merely want to see why you think they're all so good and do you really need to stoop to the level of Strongback for your insults or uh oh you must be the same person.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Then why are you being so backward in offering me advice on what fights to watch?

I merely want to see why you think they're all so good and do you really need to stoop to the level of Strongback for your insults or uh oh you must be the same person.

I enjoyed your Columbo impersonation - it's fun toying with the likes of you. Desperate to be taken seriously on a forum - dear God.

You do actually have an inferiority complex don't you, constantly wanting to act as if you are above people when in it's a boxing forum, if you were that smart and knowledgeable don't think you would be on here somehow.

If it makes you happy then yes you have been toying with me all day and the visual evidence you have provided has really put me in my place.

Duran never rated Hagler and neither did Spinks..

Maybe they are the same guy ???

Bit of shoe polish..elevated shoes.....Both had good right hands !!........ermmmm  

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You do actually have an inferiority complex don't you, constantly wanting to act as if you are above people when in it's a boxing forum, if you were that smart and knowledgeable don't think you would be on here somehow.

If it makes you happy then yes you have been toying with me all day and the visual evidence you have provided has really put me in my place.

I just like making you aware that I'm smarter than you as you're an odious little creep. And you're right, the old BBC was pretty good but it's dire on here these days thanks to the likes of you and your alter ego (I only post to put the pair of you in your place).

Good luck working your way up the "respected poster" rankings you little twerp!

Bravo Haz, i'll make sure I polish your boots better in future master.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Bravo Haz, i'll make sure I polish your boots better in future master.

Just make sure you wear gloves.

The best cotton gloves a pauper such as I can afford.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The best cotton gloves a pauper such as I can afford.

As long as those aren't the ones you use when watching your Mayweather video collection.

There’s nowt wrong with giving the Philadelphia Middles their dues, Haz. Certainly a good crop of fighters and the fact that they all competed in the same era, squaring off against each other regularly, means it was definitely a tough time to try and establish yourself in at 160. As I said before, I don’t think anyone disputes that Hagler had a harder road to the title than someone like Monzon did.

That said, a sense of realism is needed here, I think.

Hagler was 7-2-1 against them (as the captain said earlier, it could / should have been 9-1) which in itself demonstrates that, against a genuinely elite fighter, the Philly boys tended to be sub-par and there is other evidence to suggest that they weren’t quite from the very top drawer. Briscoe was arguably past his peak by the time Hagler was becoming known as a real title threat, but again his series against Valdes showed his level. Even in their second fight, the best and most exciting of the bunch, I always think that Valdes had the upper hand for the most part, albeit Briscoe gave a great account of himself.

In terms of their duels with Hagler, well I won’t claim to be an expert and I certainly haven’t seen as many of those fights as the cap has, but the ones I have seen don’t particularly suggest a bunch of men who’d have put a peak Hopkins in his place. Take Hagler-Watts (I), for instance. That was a fight Hagler let slip and chucked away as much as anything else (although I still had Marvin up 96-94 at the end) and Watts’ performance on the night was workmanlike, rather than spectacular. He fought essentially as a brawler without a punch in that fight and nicked a share of the spoils by just outworking Marvin on the inside (Hopkins a better inside fighter than Marvin, just saying!) and taking advantage of Hagler’s coasting.

Monroe took a deserved decision over a still pretty young Marvin, but Hagler stopped him twice in subsequent rematches (not seen their middle fight, mind you, and if Monroe’s testimony is to be believed it was nip ‘n’ tuck right up until the late stoppage, after which Hagler won their third without too much bother) and Monroe also lost to Watts who, as I said above, didin’t seem to be on the same level in terms of all-round skill going on the fights of him I’ve seen (again I’ll stress, if someone wants to educate me further on this matter, I’m all ears).

The Philly lot had a wide mix of styles, strengths and weaknesses, so if Hopkins had to fight a total of ten times against a combination of them, particularly if he was slightly wet behind the ears for some of them, I don’t doubt that he’d drop a decision here and there, and I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility of one of them being his bogey man outright, either. But personally I’d be very confident that he’d run off a wide winning ledger against them just as Hagler did, and emerge with the best set of combined results amongst them all.

Hopkins’ record at 160 can be scrutinised, but he lost a clear enough but hardly lop-sided or dominant decision to a 24-year-old Roy in 1993, didn’t lose again until twelve years later when he was forty, and in between that his only real nightmare was against Mercardo first time out. In his peak (or near-peak) years he gave away precious little, certainly not enough for me to think that he’d concede enough to be relegated to mere gatekeeper / long-time contender in the era of Briscoe, Watts, Hart, Seales and Monroe, personally.

Do think there is something of a tendency to over rate Hagler. Not saying he is not a fine fighter and is definitely out of the top tier of middles but do think he perhaps gets a pass on some stuff, a pass that is not afforded to others. Both Leonard and Duran are legends in the truest sense of the word but one of them was a three years retired welterweight and the other was an ageing guy whose form had become seriously patchy and yet Marvin managed to lose to one and come within a whisker of doing the same to the other.

Personally I think Marv gets a bit overrated on the back of the fact he is what we all like in a fighter, blue collar, good to watch, aggressive and a guy who throughout his career had to do things the hard way, whereas Leonard and such fighters seem to be a bit more silver spoon. Also think the fact his reign came in one of the classic 8 divisions does not do him any harm. I personally think he deserves to be ranked above Hopkins at middle but do think questions as to whether he warrants the ranking and esteem he is frequently held in is legitimate.

I agree Rowley............I like Marvin.........Like all great fighters and people he had an aura around him....

Fact is the Vito draw was a shocker.......The one point win over a guy soon to be killed off Hearns was a shocker......and the loss to a guy that had fought once in five years was a shocker.....

Sibson, Hearns apart... sack all else during his reign........

Should have fought Spinks at a catchweight of 168..........Like I said Spinks weighed 171 for quite a few defences..

Shove him 5 million...and he'd gladly of wiped Hagler out.

Hopkins is far more overrated than Hagler. Both as a "technical" boxer and in terms of record.

It is the quiet before the storm , and the tension is palpable. Somewhere in a dark and distant galaxy (perhaps  Durham), an arsenal of links to expert articles is being prepared, ready to unleash hell and put truss and another two of his aliases (Chris and rowley) firmly in their place. 

I'm just staggered that I've been stripped of my "pseudo-intellectual" title. What do I have to do to get it back? Would it help if I quoted from Oscar Wilde to insult Strongy/Haz?

Your work on the fish pun thread should really guarantee you pseudo-intellectual status forevermore, Superfly.

If that fails then I'd suggest namedropping some extremely obscure bands and taking black and white photographs of an old man waiting alone at a bus stop, an abstract symbol of the wider problems society faces in the modern world.

88Chris05 wrote:Your work on the fish pun thread should really guarantee you pseudo-intellectual status forevermore, Superfly.

If that fails then I'd suggest namedropping some extremely obscure bands and taking black and white photographs of an old man waiting alone at a bus stop, an abstract symbol of the wider problems society faces in the modern world.

Or Milky going to the doctor to see about his gout.

superflyweight wrote:I'm just staggered that I've been stripped of my "pseudo-intellectual" title.  What do I have to do to get it back?  Would it help if I quoted from Oscar Wilde to insult Strongy/Haz?  

As someone once put it Super "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about"

There is much about me that provides a symbol, abstract or otherwise, of what is wrong with the modern world.

I'm not sure I've ever seen you as as pseudo intellectual though superfly. A bit pretentious maybe, probably pretend to like opera or musicals, anything with fat ladies singing. More a subo intellectual. Kerrrching.

Rowley wrote:Do think there is something of a tendency to over rate Hagler. Not saying he is not a fine fighter and is definitely out of the top tier of middles but do think he perhaps gets a pass on some stuff, a pass that is not afforded to others. Both Leonard and Duran are legends in the truest sense of the word but one of them was a three years retired welterweight and the other was an ageing guy whose form had become seriously patchy and yet Marvin managed to lose to one and come within a whisker of doing the same to the other.

Personally I think Marv gets a bit overrated on the back of the fact he is what we all like in a fighter, blue collar, good to watch, aggressive and a guy who throughout his career had to do things the hard way, whereas Leonard and such fighters seem to be a bit more silver spoon. Also think the fact his reign came in one of the classic 8 divisions does not do him any harm. I personally think he deserves to be ranked above Hopkins at middle but do think questions as to whether he warrants the ranking and esteem he is frequently held in is legitimate.

 
Duran and Leonard were far more difficult propositions than Trinidad and De la Hoya, who had very little form between them at 160 and above (Trinidad looked devastating against William Joppy, which probably says more about Joppy than anything else). Both Leonard and Duran -- top ten rated all-time great fighters -- put in inspired shifts, also. Duran showed against Barkley and Moore what he could do in the right mindset.
 
If we're going to criticise Hagler then we have to criticise Hopkins also. And aside from Tito and Oscar (and the Trinidad win was a masterclass, no question), there's not much there on Hopkins' record at 160. He is far more overrated than Hagler due to his spurious "defence record".
 
Hagler at least fought number one ranked contenders; Hopkins, due to his beligerent nature, alienated himself from mainstream promoters, resulting in a series of tepid defences against third-tier opposition such as Robert Allen.
 
And Monzon shouldn't be exempt from criticism either; Moyer and Griffith were past their peak, while Napoles had precisely one fight at middleweight (and so had less form at 160 than even De la Hoya).

milkyboy wrote:It is the quiet before the storm , and the tension is palpable. Somewhere in a dark and distant galaxy (perhaps  Durham), an arsenal of links to expert articles is being prepared, ready to unleash hell and put truss and another two of his aliases (Chris and rowley) firmly in their place. 

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell they could be his aliases (they write in full sentences).

Super is upset he may not be British much longer..

catchweight wrote:Hopkins is far more overrated than Hagler. Both as a "technical" boxer and in terms of record.

Agree fully.

Haz you appear to have responded to a point I did not make. I am happy to edit my post to say I have Hopkins above Hagler so your comment makes sense. Let me know.

The stuff Hagler gets bashed for is ridiculous if Hopkins is being used as the comparison.

Hopkins only slowly became champion over drawn out, stink riddled middleweight career. Most of his defences were just by virtue of there being so many to choose from. Hagler smashed the title from Minter and quickly became the dominant champion who beat all the other middleweight contenders for half a decade or more. Hopkins didnt become the dominant middleweight until Jones left and he eventually beat Trinidad after god knows how many borefest defences against guys like Robert Allen.

Then there is this stuff that like Haglers best win was against Hearns moving up. This wasnt in the rehydrate your ass off era where Hopkins was clearly a lot bigger than Trinidad or de la Hoya. Hearns was huge and probably weighed more than Hagler when they fought. He was filling out all the time. The size thing was irrelevant.

And Hopkins only moved to light heavyweight when he got turfed out after another two coma induces losses to Taylor and the light heavyweight division was poor. This wasnt Spinks waiting there for him. A fat ass Winky Wright or Antonio Tarver. When Jones was kicking ass at light heavyweight Hopkins was all about demanding 50/50 and wanting catchweights fights with Jones. Lip service waffle for a fight he didnt want. He didnt move up and challenge Jones and he wouldnt have moved up if Spinks was there either.

Rowley wrote:Haz you appear to have responded to a point I did not make. I am happy to edit my post to say I have Hopkins above Hagler so your comment makes sense. Let me know.

You made the point that Hagler is overrated on the basis that Duran and Leonard weren't formidable opponents didn't you?

I put that into context in comparison to Hopkins and Monzon.

Who said Hearns wasn't a good win ???

Pointing out it was his only really good win...as champion...........

Sibson was a good win nothing else..

milkyboy wrote:There is much about me that provides a symbol, abstract or otherwise, of what is wrong with the modern world.

I'm not sure I've ever seen you as as pseudo intellectual though superfly. A bit pretentious maybe, probably pretend to like opera or musicals, anything with fat ladies singing. More a subo intellectual. Kerrrching.

I have always been a fan of the Roly Polys. It's a shame that they all died of congenital heart failure.

superflyweight wrote:

milkyboy wrote:There is much about me that provides a symbol, abstract or otherwise, of what is wrong with the modern world.

I'm not sure I've ever seen you as as pseudo intellectual though superfly. A bit pretentious maybe, probably pretend to like opera or musicals, anything with fat ladies singing. More a subo intellectual. Kerrrching.

I have always been a fan of the Roly Polys.    

More of a cheesecake man..

Not sure I did make that point but to be fair I would question how formidable Duran was by that point and at that weight. Don't want to come across as someone who does not rate Hagler as I do but I frequently see him in top twenties of all time, believe Boxing News had him in there and for the life of me I struggle to see what on his record justifies such a lofty ranking.

No way Duran at 160 is a good win in 83.........

Next fight he was murdered off Hearns..

Might as well say Taylor was a good win for Norris.

Rowley wrote:Not sure I did make that point but to be fair I would question how formidable Duran was by that point and at that weight. Don't want to come across as someone who does not rate Hagler as I do but I frequently see him in top twenties of all time, believe Boxing News had him in there and for the life of me I struggle to see what on his record justifies such a lofty ranking.

 
Duran was formidable enought to extend Hagler and beat Iran Barkley -- giving up all manner of advantages. He had more wins at and above 160 lbs than the others I mentioned (Napoles etc.).
 
Where do you rate Jofre? He tends to be ranked highly on these boards, however, his record surely doesn't match up to Hagler's?
 
The only criticism I have of him is that his biggest fights came against lower weight fighters. I'm not sure where that psotions him but he's top 40 I'd say and the only guys I'd be sure would rank above him since are Whitaker and Chavez and perhaps Roy Jones.

I don't rate Jofre, don't know a lot about him and would not want to speak from a position of ignorance. Duran was formidable enough to extend Hagler and Barkley but that is the glass half full perspective, he was also formidible enough to get iced off Tommy and beat by both Benitez and Laing in and around a similar time. Sorry but for me Duran is a decent enough win but nothing more at middle.