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.

In addition, Duran was in rude form, having just demolished Cuevas and Davey Moore (who he almost killed in a masterclass).

Rowley wrote: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.

But surely better than Trinidad, Oscar and Napoles?

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.  It's a shame that they all died of congenital heart failure.  

Well better that than conheart genital failure.

Rowley, you are on the wrong forum if you don't want to speak from a position of ignorance.

I have an article from a respected journalist in outer Mongolia that say's Rowley is ignorant...

So he is...and Milky is only sore because he is taking a quiet beating on here..

With his girlfriend away, I think its izzi that's taking a quiet beating.

Is there a problem with his rubber doll ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I have an article from a respected journalist in outer Mongolia that say's Rowley is ignorant...

So he is...and Milky is only sore because he is taking a quiet beating on here..

You don't believe in standing on the shoulders of giants?  

I'm a massive fan of Duran, the best there's been since Ali but a middleweight he was not. That he was able to beat Barkley is astonishing but as you would say it was a fight between two contenders as was Moore. Trinidad over Duran at 147lbs plus every day.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm a massive fan of Duran, the best there's been since Ali but a middleweight he was not. That he was able to beat Barkley is astonishing but as you would say it was a fight between two contenders as was Moore. Trinidad over Duran at 147lbs plus every day.

Which misses my point completely. Standard.

It doesn't miss your point, it just logically disagrees with it. Duran is not a force at middleweight, it doesn't need explanation it's there on film and on his record.

Duran lost to Robbie Sims pretty comfortably before Barkley....On the Triple hitter..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It doesn't miss your point, it just logically disagrees with it. Duran is not a force at middleweight, it doesn't need explanation it's there on film and on his record.

Yet he beat Iran Barkley and pushed Hagler to within a point or two (over 15 rounds). If Duran wasn't a force then you can definitely discount De la Hoya, Trinidad and Napoles and so Hopkins and Monzon are in the same boat.

You're going to be hard pushed convincing me that Duran was anything other than decent above Welterweight, he had his moments but Hearns and Benitez both beat him easily while the losses to Laing and Sims can't be ignored.

Lets not bring Monzon into this because he's not in the same boat at all, Napoles is rarely suggested to be one of his better opponents but he was the undisputed Welterweight champion at the time.

It's easy in hindsight to dismiss the Trinidad win but I don't think it would be quite fair to do so, Hopkins was a heavy betting underdog going in against an unbeaten fighting considered at the time to be a wrecking machine. Not really how the Duran fight was thought of for Hagler now was it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're going to be hard pushed convincing me that Duran was anything other than decent above Welterweight, he had his moments but Hearns and Benitez both beat him easily while the losses to Laing and Sims can't be ignored.

Lets not bring Monzon into this because he's not in the same boat at all, Napoles is rarely suggested to be one of his better opponents but he was the undisputed Welterweight champion at the time.

It's easy in hindsight to dismiss the Trinidad win but I don't think it would be quite fair to do so, Hopkins was a heavy betting underdog going in against an unbeaten fighting considered at the time to be a wrecking machine. Not really how the Duran fight was thought of for Hagler now was it.

I'm not looking to convince anyone to the contrary. Duran was a lightweight whose record was patchy to say the least after he outfought Leonard and sealed his legacy. If ever a fighter could be described as being "satisfied" after the biggest win of their career, then it was Duran.

Once in a while, though, he stopped fighting for a payday and the old Duran resurfaced, the legendary fighter who rightly rates among the best of the best. It happened against Cuevas. It happened against Moore and Hagler and Barkley and the fact remains; he has a better record at middleweight than Trinidad, Oscar and Napoles -- you can't question that.

I haven't sought to dismiss the Trinidad win either. That was one of the more exemplary performances of the last 20 years (alongside Mayweather's awesome performance against Corrales).

I'm trying to keep things on the level here, though; if you're knocking Hagler for Duran, Hearns and Leonard then lets get it right -- all of them were tougher challenges than the lower weight fighters Hopkins and Monzon knocked off (Napoles was a great welterweight who belongs above Hearns and Duran all time (at 147) but, unlike the trio mentioned, had no form whatsoever at 160). That's indisputable (but I know you'll have a go anyway -- you'd argue black was white).

Hopkins only became the true middleweight boss after scalping Trinidad. His defence record after that is really average (is it any better than Sergio Martinez's for example?) and the back-to-back Taylor defeats really hurt him (forget his age -- he clearly wasn't past his best as he went on to perform at top level for years). There's no way on God's green earth that Hagler or Monzon would have lost to Jermain Taylor. Never.

There's also no way on gods green earth that Hopkins loses to that version of Leonard or scrapes past Duran.

Subsequent form or not the Trinidad win is better than the Duran one if for no other reason than the brilliant performance.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There's also no way on gods green earth that Hopkins loses to that version of Leonard or scrapes past Duran.

Subsequent form or not the Trinidad win is better than the Duran one if for no other reason than the brilliant performance.

I disagree entirely. Leonard and Duran -- two of the best to ever do it -- put in two of the wiliest performances of the modern era. Duran was sublime against Hagler; Trinidad clueless and one dimensional.

Hagler let Duran perform adequately, I wouldn't call it a sublime performance. The difference is that Hopkins didn't let Trinidad do anything but that's me out, I'm sick of the petty holier than thou insults.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hagler let Duran perform adequately, I wouldn't call it a sublime performance. The difference is that Hopkins didn't let Trinidad do anything but that's me out, I'm sick of the petty holier than thou insults.

  

The Leonard that beat Hagler would outpoint Hopkins handily. Much slicker and faster. If Taylor could do it then Leonard does it with plenty to spare. I doubt Duran beats Hopkins as he would be headbutted and punched in the goolies until he exploded with rage and got DQ'd.

He was 40 when he got outpointed off Taylor..

11 years after he won the title...

Good example..

Trinidad has little to no chance to beat Duran at welter or at Middle - Far too easy to hit, draw onto the right hand all night, bruised battered and ref saves him around round 9

Personally watching a tall powerful Hearns absolutely decimate Duran at 154.......

Bit of a call to suggest Trinidad has no chance..

You make some fair comments on the like for like comparisons haz, but just a comment on 'form' at the weight.

You can only have it if you fight there, napoles didnt. As welter champ, the only fight worth taking was monzon which he did. The fact that duran won some fights at middle doesn't make him a better middle than napoles. You could argue napoles lost less at middle than duran! Ultimately you're judging one on what he did and one on what he might have done. Its not an exact science to judge who would and who wouldn't have handled the weight, but you'd think napoles had every bit of a chance to be as competitive at middle as duran. Pointless exercise really.

Whichever, Napoles wasn't far away from being humbled by Stracey, so its fair to say monzon got a smaller man who was probably past his prime. He should have beaten him comfortably and did. Duran and Leonard are better fighters than napoles, but I still think its a fair point to say Hagler should have beaten them fairly comfortably and didn't.

Hearns was an exceptional fighter with exceptional power - trinidad was a good fighter with exceptional power - in his left hand but if unable to land ran out of ideas. No comparison.

Duran hardly seemed elusive against Hearns did he ??............

He couldn't avoid the jab for a start..........and got mashed the first time Hearns threw the right .......

The first 5 ft 7 inch guy I've ever seen that tried to box a 6 footer with a great jab from the outside !!...

Pitiful is a pretty good description...

Against the taller Laing he had the same problems to a lesser extent........

Maybe you're right Shah........But to write Trinidad off completely is maybe a bit much..Mate...

Think..You are over selling Duran's potency above 140 and under selling Trinidad...

But it's all about opinions.......

Tito is a pressure fighter - can't really box with anyone at the highest level whereas Hearns was a fantastic boxer. Trinidad doesn't hit hard enough to knock out Duran, and he left what skills he had at 147 and became almost exclusively a power puncher. He doesn't fight tall nor at range and Duran will lead him on a merry chase while splattering him with right hand after right hand.

milkyboy wrote:You make some fair comments on the like for like comparisons haz, but just a comment on 'form' at the weight.

You can only have it if you fight there, napoles didnt. As  welter champ, the only fight worth taking was monzon which he did. The fact that duran won some fights at middle doesn't make him a better middle than napoles. You could argue napoles lost less at middle than duran! Ultimately you're judging one on what he did and one on what he might have done. Its not an exact science to judge who would and who wouldn't have handled the weight, but you'd think napoles had every bit of a chance to be as competitive at middle as duran. Pointless exercise really.

Whichever, Napoles wasn't far away from being humbled by Stracey, so its fair to say monzon got a smaller man who was probably past his prime. He should have beaten him comfortably and did. Duran and Leonard are better fighters than napoles, but I still think its a fair point to say Hagler should have beaten them fairly comfortably and didn't.

Fair point on Napoles but Duran and Leonard also happened to turn in astounding performances. I think Duran's in particular is being undersold, though. He didn't just match Hagler's boxing, he was hurting Hagler with the right. Who else hurt Hagler? The Duran that fought Hagler and Barkley would have given any middleweight of any era problems in my opinion.

He scraped past Barkley, he fights like that against even a very good middleweight and he loses. It was a good performance in the context of being older, smaller, less powerful and years past his best, outside of that it wasn't a great performance.

It's the same for the Moore fight really, it's a good win in the context of age and weight. If we're honest Moore and Barkley aren't barometers of a guys worth at a weight but losing to Laing and Sims is.

You probably need to update your rankings slightly:

20. Jones jnr
21= Monzon
21= Wilde
22. Chavez
23= Walker
23= Burley
23= Hearns
26. Holyfield

Think it should read 20,T21,T21, 23, T24,T24,T24, 27.,,

Having said that, still not sure how/ why Hollyfield would be considered a top 30 P4Per? Defeated by Lewis (twice, despite the controversial draw) and losses to Riddick Bowe during his peak years suggests he shouldn't really belong there. Possibly a top 50 candidate, however.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He scraped past Barkley, he fights like that against even a very good middleweight and he loses. It was a good performance in the context of being older, smaller, less powerful and years past his best, outside of that it wasn't a great performance.

It's the same for the Moore fight really, it's a good win in the context of age and weight. If we're honest Moore and Barkley aren't barometers of a guys worth at a weight but losing to Laing and Sims is.

You're just being contrary for the sake of trying to look clever and failing miserably. This is why I end up having to correct you constantly and why you feel I'm condescending as I don't end my post with "mate" or "pal".

What you've written there is ridiculous and - despite your use of the term - lacks context. His performances in those fights were outstanding exhibitions of skill. To insinuate he scraped past an average fighter is doing Barkley a disservice. Barkley fought a near perfect fight (he was in the best form of his career having bombed out Olajide and Hearns) and still came up short in a ferocious battle. While Barkley may have lost to Sims it should be pointed out that it was his 9th pro fight: he was thrown to the wolves in that one. Barkley pushed Michael Nunn to the wire in his next fight after Duran which illustrates just what level he was fighting at.

The Barkley win ranks as one of the best performances I've seen in my lifetime.Duran had no business at all winning the fight. There are just some nights where everything is stacked against you and you can't win.

Superb gameplan, too. Counter right over the jab, all night, swell the eye, right hands some more. So simple. So difficult. Imagine if Mayweather had done this , the forum would be in meltdown.

Cheers Rodders

You're right he had no right winning that fight..

KO scored it 116-113 Barkley and I agree Barkley won by at least two..

I've seen your scoring Truss , giving Oscar the nod over Mosley first time , you're hardly impartial.

Cheers Rodders

 

Rodney wrote:The Barkley win ranks as one of the best performances I've seen in my lifetime.Duran had no business at all winning the fight. There are just some nights where everything is stacked against you and you can't win.

Superb gameplan, too. Counter right over the jab, all night, swell the eye, right hands some more. So simple. So difficult. Imagine if Mayweather had done this , the forum would be in meltdown.

Cheers Rodders

I've seen your p4p list....

very objective

Cheers Trussers

I unfortunately cannot bend the bounds of reality like you do Haz but I commend your effort. You have to yet to correct me on anything but if you want to think you are then carry on it's pathetic.

Duran produced one great last hurrah but Barkley isn't up to much, you can look at his record all you want but the prove is in the footage. No Middleweight worth anything should be losing to an old, fat lightweight who hasn't had a meaningful win in years.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I unfortunately cannot bend the bounds of reality like you do Haz but I commend your effort. You have to yet to correct me on anything but if you want to think you are then carry on it's pathetic.

Duran produced one great last hurrah but Barkley isn't up to much, you can look at his record all you want but the prove is in the footage. No Middleweight worth anything should be losing to an old, fat lightweight who hasn't had a meaningful win in years.

I don't bend reality -- go back and watch the fight, read the reports, it's all there if you look closely enough.

Duran had meaningful wins over Cuevas and Moore -- he had his mojo back before he faced Hagler. It's all quite true but I understand you don't want to concede the point and so will bandy around more ill-informed assertions.

The Barkley fight for Duran was probably his second best win after Leonard. Unbelievable heart, unbelievable fight. The combo he dropped Barkley with was pure class. You could see Duran was up for that fight. He was in shape. He was hardly fat. Ridiculous comment. No understanding of the significance of the fight or performance.

It's almost as if I've blasphemed for having the temerity to point out that big bad Iran Barkley wasn't much cop. At no point have I said anything than it being a great performance from Duran considering he held no physical advantage. I maintain that any good middleweight should not be losing an ageing lightweight with no meaningful win for years.

Cuevas and Moore happened 6 years prior to the Barkley fight in which time he'd been humbled by Sims and humiliated by Hearns.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's almost as if I've blasphemed for having the temerity to point out that big bad Iran Barkley wasn't much cop. At no point have I said anything than it being a great performance from Duran considering he held no physical advantage. I maintain that any good middleweight should not be losing an ageing lightweight with no meaningful win for years.

Cuevas and Moore happened 6 years prior to the Barkley fight in which time he'd been humbled by Sims and humiliated by Hearns.

I was referring to the Hagler fight, which came right after them.

Barkley was a good, tough fighter in excellent form.

I agree on your last point but this wasn't any ordinary lightweight. This was Duran.

He was living of his past reputation, he was not the fighter he was and personally think Hagler respected him a bit too much because of it.

I had the misfortune of watching Sims v Barkley and Amparo v Barkley.......

Whilst It was a commendable effort by Duran.......Barkley was never a top middleweight...

A real overachiever...

Great war with Olajide though......

Had big plans for Olajide........Shame he didn't make it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I had the misfortune of watching Sims v Barkley and Amparo v Barkley.......

Whilst It was a commendable effort by Duran.......Barkley was never a top middleweight...

A real overachiever...

Great war with Olajide though......

Had big plans for Olajide........Shame he didn't make it..

I can remember watching Hearns vs Olajide on my black and white portable as a kid. Great telly that -- lasted a lot longer than these flat screens!

Crap fight wasn't it ??

Olajide was there to survive and Hearns apparently had been pulling his punches in training so as not to hurt anybody...and they reckon It affected him "letting go" In this fight....

Stunk the place out...

Like I said I had big plans for "Boxing's Michael Jackson" But unfortunately Tate trashed him !!

Excellent performance from Tate...Said he was going to jump on him and then did the opposite !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Crap fight wasn't it ??

Olajide was there to survive and Hearns apparently had been pulling his punches in training so as not to hurt anybody...and they reckon It affected him "letting go" In this fight....

Stunk the place out...

Like I said I had big plans for "Boxing's Michael Jackson" But unfortunately Tate trashed him !!

Excellent performance from Tate...Said he was going to jump on him and then did the opposite !!

I don't remember much other than Hearns flattened him late on. Wasn't he a male model called "The Silk"?

It was points.............He was from Liverpool originally and based himself in New York..

Hence the rivalry with Barkley....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It was points.............He was from Liverpool originally and based himself in New York..

Hence the rivalry with Barkley....

Hearns dropped him, though, didn't he?

I think so..

I would have Lewis in there instead of Holyfield and Hagler should be be mentioned.Duran a bit too high for my liking.