Dougie's Mailbag: Pryor vs the best at LWW

First topic message reminder :

Doug Fischer from RingTV gave his picks when asked about Aaron Pryor vs the best at 140. Which do you think would have made for the best fight?:

FLOYD FANBOYS

Hey Dougie,

I hope all is well.

Good response to the Floyd Fanboy on Monday. It makes me laugh how far Mayweather’s groupies will go to accuse other boxers of the very things they’ll deny Mayweather did.

I’m sure you’ve seen or heard about the video on fighthype, where he’s said he never had to use his A or B game… yeah, ok Floyd. You struggled to beat DeLaHoya, Castillo and Maidana because you weren’t trying. This actually lead to me arguing with a friend about how he would have done with the guys he avoided in 2007/ 2008, namely Cotto, Margarito and Paul Williams. I think Cotto would have been a hard fight but Floyd could win. Williams is an even harder fight. But Margarito? The guy who threw 100 punches a round and ate bombs from Cotto and Cintron and Clottey and Williams for breakfast? against a smaller, less hard punching Mayweather that was getting out worked, bullied and repeatedly pinned against the ropes by an old, part time dela hoya? I can’t see how Mayweather could have beaten him in 2007-2008. Specifically after he got beaten by Williams and realised his next loss could end him as a top tier welterweight, and pre leaving a part of himself in the ring vs Cotto.

What do you think?

Another funny thing; we’ve now got Floyd and Ward fanboys saying Brook exposed GGG and it shows why Floyd/ Ward would beat him, ignoring many different factors:

Brook is bigger than Floyd, hits harder, maybe has a better chin, and took the fight to GGG. The only thing offensively Floyd has on Brook (at this point) is hand speed. Other than that it’s a complete different fight. In that GGG would probably show Floyd even less respect than he showed brook and will go after him non stop.

The same way Ward is bigger than Brook and GGG, GGG would (probably) respect Ward’s power and strength more and not be so careless defensively, and not throw as many punches that could lead to him being countered or punching himself out. Ward would also fight a lot more cautiously than Brook did.

Anyways, keep up the good work!

Aaron Pryor Mythical match ups, all @ 140:

Pryor vs Chavez

Pryor vs Duran

Pryor vs Meldrick Taylor

Pryor vs Tszyu

Pryor vs Whitaker

Pryor vs Pacquaio

Pryor vs Mayweather

Pryor vs Mosley

Pryor vs De La Hoya

Also, how would he have done at 147 vs Hearns and Leonard?

Have a good weekend.

(PS – I’m a black fight fan, before anyone in the “demographic” gives me stick for being racist in going against the grain with Floyd

Your skin color won’t stop the members of the “dummy-graphic” from calling you a racist and a sellout and a hater. Welcome to my world.

Regarding Mayweather’s latest FightHype interview, no I haven’t seen it. I haven’t read or watched a Mayweather article in its entirety since he shared his screwy views on racism in boxing late last year. I’ve got better, more constructive things to do with my time (like clip my toenails).

Here’s the bottom line on Mayweather and his diehard fan boys: they’re dips__ts. It’s a complete waste of time debating or arguing with them. (By the way, I agree that Mayweather at his best at welterweight could have beaten the prime 147-pound version of Cotto, although it would have been a very tough fight; and I agree that Williams and Margarito were just too big, too rough and way too busy for him to outpoint.)

I also agree with the differences you pointed out in the styles of Brook, Mayweather and Ward. Such observations are completely wasted on Floyd-huggers and “the Mental Ward.”

Finally, if Mayweather’s and Ward’s devout followers believe GGG was “exposed” by Brook they should encourage their heroes to get in the ring with the unified middleweight champ. Easy money, right? LOL. And if Mayweather is truly retired, then he should have no problem putting his super middleweight titleholder Badou Jack in with GGG. If “little bitty” Brook supposedly gave Golovkin fits, a solid super middleweight should have his way with GGG. Right?

As for Ward, I don’t think Golovkin is the fighter he need concern himself with right now. I have no idea why he continues to indulge goof-ball interviewers that continue to bring up GGG when he’s got the fight of his career coming up on Nov. 19. I know why his diehard fans are obsessed with GGG. (I wonder if they do?)

Your Aaron Pryor mythical matchups (all at 140):

Pryor vs Chavez – Pryor by close, maybe maj./split decision (great fight)

Pryor vs Duran – Duran by close decision, maybe late TKO (great fight)

Pryor vs Meldrick Taylor – Pryor by late TKO

Pryor vs Tszyu – Pryor by late TKO

Pryor vs Whitaker – Pryor by close, maybe controversial decision

Pryor vs Pacquaio – Pryor by close, maybe split decision (great fight)

Pryor vs Mayweather – Pryor by competitive but clear decision

Pryor vs Mosley – Pryor by close, maybe split decision (great fight)

Pryor vs De La Hoya – De La Hoya by close but clear decision

Also, how would he have done at 147 vs Hearns and Leonard? Hearns avenges his amateur loss with a mid-round KO; SRL stops The Hawk late.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Ok what greats (the same natural weight) did Hagler beat??

Who did he miss at 160? Who didn't he fight at middleweight? Who did he wait out?

That is ridiculous. His best wins are small guys, one of them over the hill.

Marquez was small, but Floyd outclassed him. Didn't see Duran outclassed by Hagler.

He beat a really solid group of middleweight (from before his championship win, to the end). He fought top contenders, one after another, back when that meant fighting your way to the top of the rankings (in the main).

Duran proved he could be effective up there, though (as erratic as he was post-Leonard). And he was one of the greatest fighters of all time, who pulled out a great performance.

Marquez was simply not effective. Only after hiring Memo Heredia and taking on one of the most startling physical metamorphises in boxing history, was he able to be competitive above lightweight.

Did Floyd not beat solid competition for the majority of his career too?

Did he not also end up undefeated??

How many belts or weights did Hagler win titles??

Did Floyd ever lose to someone naturally much smaller and coming back from a long lay off??

AdamT wrote:Did Floyd not beat solid competition for the majority of his career too?

Did he not also end up undefeated??

How many belts or weights did Hagler win titles??

Did Floyd ever lose to someone naturally much smaller and coming back from a long lay off??

On the above criteria, Calzaghe would rate higher than Hagler, and so you'd have to imagine there's more to it than undefeated records and belts?

Aye but Floyd also fought solid competition, as you said about Hagler.

You said Hagler beat everyone. Well Floyd beat loads in 5 different weight classes.

Hagler was great, Floyd was greater! In 20 or years, Floyd will leave Hagler in the dust, when it comes to these lists.

Mayweather easily ranks above Hagler, it's not even worth having the same argument again to then have the names Watt, Monroe, Hart and Seales thrown at you when they have no real bearing on a fighters greatness.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Mayweather easily ranks above Hagler, it's not even worth having the same argument again to then have the names Watt, Monroe, Hart and Seales thrown at you when they have no real bearing on a fighters greatness.

I guess, but he is only fishing. He can't really rate Hagler higher, can he?

AdamT wrote:Aye but Floyd also fought solid competition, as you said about Hagler.

You said Hagler beat everyone. Well Floyd beat loads in 5 different weight classes.

Hagler was great, Floyd was greater! In 20 or years, Floyd will leave Hagler in the dust, when it comes to these lists.

I firmly don't believe that's the case (and it certainly isn't the case now - and Floyd is retired).

History will remember the fact he shied away from his true test of greatness, when he showed no interest in facing Pacquiao. When Hagler was faced with a similar moment (against Hearns, when both were at the top of the sport) he ran to it (and scored a great win over a fearsome opponent). That's what makes a fighter great - not keeping a zero against chuff like Berto, Guerrero and Ortiz. He always leveraged fights his way - be it by weight, age, catch-weights of TUE's. I maintain that Oscar would have beaten every opponent Floyd did had he faced the same versions.

66 fights against all-comers and guys Floyd wouldn't have gone near. 3 defeats and 2 draws. He could dispute all five of those (and avenged 4 of them emphatically).

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Aye but Floyd also fought solid competition, as you said about Hagler.

You said Hagler beat everyone. Well Floyd beat loads in 5 different weight classes.

Hagler was great, Floyd was greater! In 20 or years, Floyd will leave Hagler in the dust, when it comes to these lists.

I firmly don't believe that's the case (and it certainly isn't the case now - and Floyd is retired).

History will remember the fact he shied away from his true test of greatness, when he showed no interest in facing Pacquiao. When Hagler was faced with a similar moment (against Hearns, when both were at the top of the sport) he ran to it (and scored a great win over a fearsome opponent). That's what makes a fighter great - not keeping a zero against chuff like Berto, Guerrero and Ortiz. He always leveraged fights his way - be it by weight, age, catch-weights of TUE's. I maintain that Oscar would have beaten every opponent Floyd did had he faced the same versions.

66 fights against all-comers and guys Floyd wouldn't have gone near. 3 defeats and 2 draws. He could dispute all five of those (and avenged 4 of them emphatically).

I really hope you didn't put too much time with this Haz. That is rubbish and you know it.

Floyd seeked fights with Naz, Mosley and Oscar etc, when he was coming up. They didn't want to know. Who did he really avoid?? Pacquaio is as much to blame as Floyd.

Paul Williams is maybe one, I will give you that. I won't give you Margarito because he is a cheating c.nt!!

Also Floyd could of hung about and fought 66 chumps at lw, or lww. He challenged himself and chased the money fights.

Hagler was too intimated to go up and try 175. His tough chin might of got cracked up there.

It's obvious why you're a GGG fan. He also has made a name of fighting a string of nobodies and is too scared to move up.

Pryor-Chavez

I'll take Pryor by close decision here. Needless to say it's going to be an absolute war. I'd favour Pryor's outright power over Julio's at 140 and think it was less essential for Pryor to control the inside and up close exchanges than for Chavez. As I see Pryor edging most of them in any case, I think he edges a tight one.

Pryor-Duran

Duran for me, via decision. Roberto is Chavez but with that extra ten percent or so quality in all areas, and was perhaps ever so slightly better suited to 140 as well, albeit Chavez was still a monster there in his own right. Duran just too slippery and savvy even in a brawl for Pryor to dictate the tempo as he'd like, and that's not even mentioning Duran's awesome attacking arsenal. Great fight, I'm sure, but this time Pryor comes up a little short.

Pryor-Taylor

Like (I suspect) most others, I think Pryor wins this one via late stoppage. Meldrick's quicksilver attacks and own very nasty streak (he loved a good low blow!) see Pryor having trouble, but as he was against Chavez, Glenwood Brown, Norris, Espana etc., Meldrick's just too brave for his own good. He'd need this to be a twelve-rounder rather than a fifteen, but even then I think Pryor finds a way.

Pryor-Tszyu

Don't have to think too much about this one; Pryor wins and wins inside-schedule. Tszyu was a curious case who actually seemed to shine when faced with movers and more technical guys. His best showings were against the likes of Gonzalez (total beat down), Hurtado, Judah and Mitchell. When guys like Phillips and Hatton decided to slug it out and go toe-to-toe with him, he was a little overwhelmed. Neither of those guys have anything like the power, intensity and all-round game of Pryor. I think 'The Hawk' dominates and puts Tszyu away inside eight or nine rounds.

Pryor-Whitaker

Whitaker just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Mayweather

Mayweather just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Pacquiao

Tough one. Pacquiao at his best was able to hurt bigger guys to the extent where they either went in to survival mode (Cotto) or simply stopped throwing when they came forward (Margarito); but the former doesn't have Pryor's indomitable will or chin, and the latter doesn't have his attacking variety or speed. I think both guys get hurt and staggered a couple of times in this one, but feel that Pryor would eventually come through, putting Pacquiao down and keeping him there in the championship rounds.

Pryor-Mosley

Wow. Mosley was phenomenally fast, powerful and industrious at 135, and still pretty handy when jumping straight up to 147. Suffice to say he'd be a horrible package for any 140 pounder to have dealt with. However, can't quite shake the feeling that Mosley existed as a Lightweight at a time when there really wasn't anyone to properly test him at the weight, and some of his assignments at the higher weight - particularly the first Forrest and Winky fights - make me question his mental strength and ability to turn things around when the going got tough, even if his chin was always magnificent. I think Pryor's a bit too much and wins this, but with Shane still standing at the end.

Pryor-De La Hoya

Tricky with Oscar, as he was probably a better fighter at 135 / 140 then he was at 147 / 154, but the vast majority of his best opponents came at the higher weights. I think De La Hoya's speed and engine (a real problem later in his career) were a lot more reliable at 140 and I think he'd win the lion's share of the early and mid rounds, but I just get the feeling he'd be a little too cautious of Pryor's power as the fight wore on and would end up conceding late rounds through caution as much as anything else. I'll go with Pryor by incredibly close and probably controversial decision in a fight that fizzles out a bit after, say, round nine.

88Chris05 wrote:Pryor-Chavez

I'll take Pryor by close decision here. Needless to say it's going to be an absolute war. I'd favour Pryor's outright power over Julio's at 140 and think it was less essential for Pryor to control the inside and up close exchanges than for Chavez. As I see Pryor edging most of them in any case, I think he edges a tight one.

Pryor-Duran

Duran for me, via decision. Roberto is Chavez but with that extra ten percent or so quality in all areas, and was perhaps ever so slightly better suited to 140 as well, albeit Chavez was still a monster there in his own right. Duran just too slippery and savvy even in a brawl for Pryor to dictate the tempo as he'd like, and that's not even mentioning Duran's awesome attacking arsenal. Great fight, I'm sure, but this time Pryor comes up a little short.

Pryor-Taylor

Like (I suspect) most others, I think Pryor wins this one via late stoppage. Meldrick's quicksilver attacks and own very nasty streak (he loved a good low blow!) see Pryor having trouble, but as he was against Chavez, Glenwood Brown, Norris, Espana etc., Meldrick's just too brave for his own good. He'd need this to be a twelve-rounder rather than a fifteen, but even then I think Pryor finds a way.

Pryor-Tszyu

Don't have to think too much about this one; Pryor wins and wins inside-schedule. Tszyu was a curious case who actually seemed to shine when faced with movers and more technical guys. His best showings were against the likes of Gonzalez (total beat down), Hurtado, Judah and Mitchell. When guys like Phillips and Hatton decided to slug it out and go toe-to-toe with him, he was a little overwhelmed. Neither of those guys have anything like the power, intensity and all-round game of Pryor. I think 'The Hawk' dominates and puts Tszyu away inside eight or nine rounds.

Pryor-Whitaker

Whitaker just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Mayweather

Mayweather just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Pacquiao

Tough one. Pacquiao at his best was able to hurt bigger guys to the extent where they either went in to survival mode (Cotto) or simply stopped throwing when they came forward (Margarito); but the former doesn't have Pryor's indomitable will or chin, and the latter doesn't have his attacking variety or speed. I think both guys get hurt and staggered a couple of times in this one, but feel that Pryor would eventually come through, putting Pacquiao down and keeping him there in the championship rounds.

Pryor-Mosley

Wow. Mosley was phenomenally fast, powerful and industrious at 135, and still pretty handy when jumping straight up to 147. Suffice to say he'd be a horrible package for any 140 pounder to have dealt with. However, can't quite shake the feeling that Mosley existed as a Lightweight at a time when there really wasn't anyone to properly test him at the weight, and some of his assignments at the higher weight - particularly the first Forrest and Winky fights - make me question his mental strength and ability to turn things around when the going got tough, even if his chin was always magnificent. I think Pryor's a bit too much and wins this, but with Shane still standing at the end.

Pryor-De La Hoya

Tricky with Oscar, as he was probably a better fighter at 135 / 140 then he was at 147 / 154, but the vast majority of his best opponents came at the higher weights. I think De La Hoya's speed and engine (a real problem later in his career) were a lot more reliable at 140 and I think he'd win the lion's share of the early and mid rounds, but I just get the feeling he'd be a little too cautious of Pryor's power as the fight wore on and would end up conceding late rounds through caution as much as anything else. I'll go with Pryor by incredibly close and probably controversial decision in a fight that fizzles out a bit after, say, round nine.

I like reading balanced views. Good post Chris! Enjoyed reading this.

For me Duran is the best in the whole list at 140.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Aye but Floyd also fought solid competition, as you said about Hagler.

You said Hagler beat everyone. Well Floyd beat loads in 5 different weight classes.

Hagler was great, Floyd was greater! In 20 or years, Floyd will leave Hagler in the dust, when it comes to these lists.

I firmly don't believe that's the case (and it certainly isn't the case now - and Floyd is retired).

History will remember the fact he shied away from his true test of greatness, when he showed no interest in facing Pacquiao. When Hagler was faced with a similar moment (against Hearns, when both were at the top of the sport) he ran to it (and scored a great win over a fearsome opponent). That's what makes a fighter great - not keeping a zero against chuff like Berto, Guerrero and Ortiz. He always leveraged fights his way - be it by weight, age, catch-weights of TUE's. I maintain that Oscar would have beaten every opponent Floyd did had he faced the same versions.

66 fights against all-comers and guys Floyd wouldn't have gone near. 3 defeats and 2 draws. He could dispute all five of those (and avenged 4 of them emphatically).

Of the 5, he could and did dispute all bar 1 of them. Don't think there was much dispute with the Monroe loss, just an excuse... And avenged emphatically.

I'm not knocking him. Truly great fighter, fought everyone including some tough fighters on the way up. His championship reign was littered with mediocre opponents, excepting the big names moving up. But that's just a case of their being a bit of a dearth of talent at that time. A bunch of really talented middles  surfaced around the time he retired... Real shame he wasn't born 5-10 years later, we could have had some real crackers. To be fair that's nit-picking we did get Leonard and hearns.. I'm discluding Duran as the fight was almost impossibly dull (considering the fighters involved).

88Chris05 wrote:Pryor-Chavez

I'll take Pryor by close decision here. Needless to say it's going to be an absolute war. I'd favour Pryor's outright power over Julio's at 140 and think it was less essential for Pryor to control the inside and up close exchanges than for Chavez. As I see Pryor edging most of them in any case, I think he edges a tight one.

Pryor-Duran

Duran for me, via decision. Roberto is Chavez but with that extra ten percent or so quality in all areas, and was perhaps ever so slightly better suited to 140 as well, albeit Chavez was still a monster there in his own right. Duran just too slippery and savvy even in a brawl for Pryor to dictate the tempo as he'd like, and that's not even mentioning Duran's awesome attacking arsenal. Great fight, I'm sure, but this time Pryor comes up a little short.

Pryor-Taylor

Like (I suspect) most others, I think Pryor wins this one via late stoppage. Meldrick's quicksilver attacks and own very nasty streak (he loved a good low blow!) see Pryor having trouble, but as he was against Chavez, Glenwood Brown, Norris, Espana etc., Meldrick's just too brave for his own good. He'd need this to be a twelve-rounder rather than a fifteen, but even then I think Pryor finds a way.

Pryor-Tszyu

Don't have to think too much about this one; Pryor wins and wins inside-schedule. Tszyu was a curious case who actually seemed to shine when faced with movers and more technical guys. His best showings were against the likes of Gonzalez (total beat down), Hurtado, Judah and Mitchell. When guys like Phillips and Hatton decided to slug it out and go toe-to-toe with him, he was a little overwhelmed. Neither of those guys have anything like the power, intensity and all-round game of Pryor. I think 'The Hawk' dominates and puts Tszyu away inside eight or nine rounds.

Pryor-Whitaker

Whitaker just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Mayweather

Mayweather just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Pacquiao

Tough one. Pacquiao at his best was able to hurt bigger guys to the extent where they either went in to survival mode (Cotto) or simply stopped throwing when they came forward (Margarito); but the former doesn't have Pryor's indomitable will or chin, and the latter doesn't have his attacking variety or speed. I think both guys get hurt and staggered a couple of times in this one, but feel that Pryor would eventually come through, putting Pacquiao down and keeping him there in the championship rounds.

Pryor-Mosley

Wow. Mosley was phenomenally fast, powerful and industrious at 135, and still pretty handy when jumping straight up to 147. Suffice to say he'd be a horrible package for any 140 pounder to have dealt with. However, can't quite shake the feeling that Mosley existed as a Lightweight at a time when there really wasn't anyone to properly test him at the weight, and some of his assignments at the higher weight - particularly the first Forrest and Winky fights - make me question his mental strength and ability to turn things around when the going got tough, even if his chin was always magnificent. I think Pryor's a bit too much and wins this, but with Shane still standing at the end.

Pryor-De La Hoya

Tricky with Oscar, as he was probably a better fighter at 135 / 140 then he was at 147 / 154, but the vast majority of his best opponents came at the higher weights. I think De La Hoya's speed and engine (a real problem later in his career) were a lot more reliable at 140 and I think he'd win the lion's share of the early and mid rounds, but I just get the feeling he'd be a little too cautious of Pryor's power as the fight wore on and would end up conceding late rounds through caution as much as anything else. I'll go with Pryor by incredibly close and probably controversial decision in a fight that fizzles out a bit after, say, round nine.

Chris, I know no-one likes to ever say the words 'I agree with milky', but on this occasion it would have saved you a bit of time, and you could have focussed on manny as your exception!

AdamT wrote:Also Floyd could of hung about and fought 66 chumps at lw, or lww. He challenged himself and chased the money fights.

Hagler was too intimated to go up and try 175. His tough chin might of got cracked up there.

It's obvious why you're a GGG fan. He also has made a name of fighting a string of nobodies and is too scared to move up.

I think this is the type of post Fischer referred to in his reply!

Give me a champion who cleans out a division and champions it with merit over a guy who hand picks opponents and holds all the aces (and flat out refuses to accept the most meaningful fight of his career).

This is why TMT won't accept my application

Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Aye but Floyd also fought solid competition, as you said about Hagler.

You said Hagler beat everyone. Well Floyd beat loads in 5 different weight classes.

Hagler was great, Floyd was greater! In 20 or years, Floyd will leave Hagler in the dust, when it comes to these lists.

I firmly don't believe that's the case (and it certainly isn't the case now - and Floyd is retired).

History will remember the fact he shied away from his true test of greatness, when he showed no interest in facing Pacquiao. When Hagler was faced with a similar moment (against Hearns, when both were at the top of the sport) he ran to it (and scored a great win over a fearsome opponent). That's what makes a fighter great - not keeping a zero against chuff like Berto, Guerrero and Ortiz. He always leveraged fights his way - be it by weight, age, catch-weights of TUE's. I maintain that Oscar would have beaten every opponent Floyd did had he faced the same versions.

66 fights against all-comers and guys Floyd wouldn't have gone near. 3 defeats and 2 draws. He could dispute all five of those (and avenged 4 of them emphatically).

Of the 5, he could and did dispute all bar 1 of them. Don't think there was much dispute with the Monroe loss, just an excuse... And avenged emphatically.

I'm not knocking him. Truly great fighter, fought everyone including some tough fighters on the way up. His championship reign was littered with mediocre opponents, excepting the big names moving up. But that's just a case of their being a bit of a dearth of talent at that time. A bunch of really talented middles  surfaced around the time he retired... Real shame he wasn't born 5-10 years later, we could have had some real crackers. To be fair that's nit-picking we did get Leonard and hearns.. I'm discluding Duran as the fight was almost impossibly dull (considering the fighters involved).

I think his championship opposition is underrated a tad (especially on here). It's certainly no worse than any other middleweight champ's from history (including Monzon's).

How would Hagler do with McCallum and Toney? Not sure I would make him favourite.

Jones would beat him easily.

88Chris05 wrote:Pryor-Chavez

I'll take Pryor by close decision here. Needless to say it's going to be an absolute war. I'd favour Pryor's outright power over Julio's at 140 and think it was less essential for Pryor to control the inside and up close exchanges than for Chavez. As I see Pryor edging most of them in any case, I think he edges a tight one.

Pryor-Duran

Duran for me, via decision. Roberto is Chavez but with that extra ten percent or so quality in all areas, and was perhaps ever so slightly better suited to 140 as well, albeit Chavez was still a monster there in his own right. Duran just too slippery and savvy even in a brawl for Pryor to dictate the tempo as he'd like, and that's not even mentioning Duran's awesome attacking arsenal. Great fight, I'm sure, but this time Pryor comes up a little short.

Pryor-Taylor

Like (I suspect) most others, I think Pryor wins this one via late stoppage. Meldrick's quicksilver attacks and own very nasty streak (he loved a good low blow!) see Pryor having trouble, but as he was against Chavez, Glenwood Brown, Norris, Espana etc., Meldrick's just too brave for his own good. He'd need this to be a twelve-rounder rather than a fifteen, but even then I think Pryor finds a way.

Pryor-Tszyu

Don't have to think too much about this one; Pryor wins and wins inside-schedule. Tszyu was a curious case who actually seemed to shine when faced with movers and more technical guys. His best showings were against the likes of Gonzalez (total beat down), Hurtado, Judah and Mitchell. When guys like Phillips and Hatton decided to slug it out and go toe-to-toe with him, he was a little overwhelmed. Neither of those guys have anything like the power, intensity and all-round game of Pryor. I think 'The Hawk' dominates and puts Tszyu away inside eight or nine rounds.

Pryor-Whitaker

Whitaker just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Mayweather

Mayweather just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Pacquiao

Tough one. Pacquiao at his best was able to hurt bigger guys to the extent where they either went in to survival mode (Cotto) or simply stopped throwing when they came forward (Margarito); but the former doesn't have Pryor's indomitable will or chin, and the latter doesn't have his attacking variety or speed. I think both guys get hurt and staggered a couple of times in this one, but feel that Pryor would eventually come through, putting Pacquiao down and keeping him there in the championship rounds.

Pryor-Mosley

Wow. Mosley was phenomenally fast, powerful and industrious at 135, and still pretty handy when jumping straight up to 147. Suffice to say he'd be a horrible package for any 140 pounder to have dealt with. However, can't quite shake the feeling that Mosley existed as a Lightweight at a time when there really wasn't anyone to properly test him at the weight, and some of his assignments at the higher weight - particularly the first Forrest and Winky fights - make me question his mental strength and ability to turn things around when the going got tough, even if his chin was always magnificent. I think Pryor's a bit too much and wins this, but with Shane still standing at the end.

Pryor-De La Hoya

Tricky with Oscar, as he was probably a better fighter at 135 / 140 then he was at 147 / 154, but the vast majority of his best opponents came at the higher weights. I think De La Hoya's speed and engine (a real problem later in his career) were a lot more reliable at 140 and I think he'd win the lion's share of the early and mid rounds, but I just get the feeling he'd be a little too cautious of Pryor's power as the fight wore on and would end up conceding late rounds through caution as much as anything else. I'll go with Pryor by incredibly close and probably controversial decision in a fight that fizzles out a bit after, say, round nine.

Harsh on Tszyu. Phillips was a huge upset (Tszyu obviously underestimated "Cool" Vince and paid the price) and he was just tipping over the hill when Hatton got him.

I think Pryor could edge him on workrate but wouldn't get him out of there.

AdamT wrote:How would Hagler do with McCallum and Toney? Not sure I would make him favourite.

Jones would beat him easily.

Depends when they're weighing in. Think he'd outpoint McCallum but the other two played by different rules.

Toney would probably keel over if he had to make 160 on the day of the fight.

That's not the first time I've been told I'm being harsh on Tszyu, Haz, so there might well be something in it.

But I think my basic point still stands. Tszyu was able to build up momentum and hit his groove when the other guy tried to keep it long, which wasn't the case against Phillips or Hatton. He may well have underestimated Phillips and been a little long in the tooth and rickety against Hatton, but the style with which both guys beat him is worth noting, I feel.

Tszyu, like a Jeff Fenech, seems to be one of those guys who really straddles the divide between 'very, very good' and 'great' depending on your criteria, but I can never shake the feeling that he got a little lucky that Mosley didn't make a pit stop at Light-Welter at the turn of the century. Mosley loved fighting in 'seek and destroy' mode back then and I could see him giving Tszyu a right good hiding based on styles and Shane's own gifts, which were mightily impressive back then. I just think against a really elite level Light-Welter such as Pryor, Kostya would have been proven to be just a very, very good fighter rather than a great one.

Re hagler's reign. Every champion has there share of easy defences, but caveman lee?, obelmeijas and hamsho twice? Scypion. These aren't guys to strike fear into any middleweight. Sibson and roldan were decent fighters, but the names were all smaller guys fighting above their best weights. For all the justification of duran and hearns exploits at middle, no sane person would claim it was their best weights... Nor Leonard nor even mugabi.

It's not Marv's fault, but the above hardly indicates a talent laden middle division if the best middles he fought in 7 years were sibson and roldan.

88Chris05 wrote:Pryor-Chavez

I'll take Pryor by close decision here. Needless to say it's going to be an absolute war. I'd favour Pryor's outright power over Julio's at 140 and think it was less essential for Pryor to control the inside and up close exchanges than for Chavez. As I see Pryor edging most of them in any case, I think he edges a tight one.

Pryor-Duran

Duran for me, via decision. Roberto is Chavez but with that extra ten percent or so quality in all areas, and was perhaps ever so slightly better suited to 140 as well, albeit Chavez was still a monster there in his own right. Duran just too slippery and savvy even in a brawl for Pryor to dictate the tempo as he'd like, and that's not even mentioning Duran's awesome attacking arsenal. Great fight, I'm sure, but this time Pryor comes up a little short.

Pryor-Taylor

Like (I suspect) most others, I think Pryor wins this one via late stoppage. Meldrick's quicksilver attacks and own very nasty streak (he loved a good low blow!) see Pryor having trouble, but as he was against Chavez, Glenwood Brown, Norris, Espana etc., Meldrick's just too brave for his own good. He'd need this to be a twelve-rounder rather than a fifteen, but even then I think Pryor finds a way.

Pryor-Tszyu

Don't have to think too much about this one; Pryor wins and wins inside-schedule. Tszyu was a curious case who actually seemed to shine when faced with movers and more technical guys. His best showings were against the likes of Gonzalez (total beat down), Hurtado, Judah and Mitchell. When guys like Phillips and Hatton decided to slug it out and go toe-to-toe with him, he was a little overwhelmed. Neither of those guys have anything like the power, intensity and all-round game of Pryor. I think 'The Hawk' dominates and puts Tszyu away inside eight or nine rounds.

Pryor-Whitaker

Whitaker just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Mayweather

Mayweather just a little too elusive, accurate and clever for Pryor, and takes a decision - but only just.

Pryor-Pacquiao

Tough one. Pacquiao at his best was able to hurt bigger guys to the extent where they either went in to survival mode (Cotto) or simply stopped throwing when they came forward (Margarito); but the former doesn't have Pryor's indomitable will or chin, and the latter doesn't have his attacking variety or speed. I think both guys get hurt and staggered a couple of times in this one, but feel that Pryor would eventually come through, putting Pacquiao down and keeping him there in the championship rounds.

Pryor-Mosley

Wow. Mosley was phenomenally fast, powerful and industrious at 135, and still pretty handy when jumping straight up to 147. Suffice to say he'd be a horrible package for any 140 pounder to have dealt with. However, can't quite shake the feeling that Mosley existed as a Lightweight at a time when there really wasn't anyone to properly test him at the weight, and some of his assignments at the higher weight - particularly the first Forrest and Winky fights - make me question his mental strength and ability to turn things around when the going got tough, even if his chin was always magnificent. I think Pryor's a bit too much and wins this, but with Shane still standing at the end.

Pryor-De La Hoya

Tricky with Oscar, as he was probably a better fighter at 135 / 140 then he was at 147 / 154, but the vast majority of his best opponents came at the higher weights. I think De La Hoya's speed and engine (a real problem later in his career) were a lot more reliable at 140 and I think he'd win the lion's share of the early and mid rounds, but I just get the feeling he'd be a little too cautious of Pryor's power as the fight wore on and would end up conceding late rounds through caution as much as anything else. I'll go with Pryor by incredibly close and probably controversial decision in a fight that fizzles out a bit after, say, round nine.

I think he struggles with Taylor's speed and fast hands........Like Chavez......

Think Chavez was better defensively than Pryor......I think Pryor may get beat up......

For me Taylor outclassed Chavez.....If he'd just spoiled the 12th he wins a shutout.......If and ands though..

Don't see Pryor winning this.......However.....Prediction wise like Milky I'm headed on the same lines..

Hagler is 30/40 on my list...............Manny and May are 10/20....

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss unremarkable championship reigns, dethroning one of the worst lineal champs in history, bogus claims and dodgy catch weights. We could discuss whether winning a lineal championship and doing nothing with it (ala Cotto at middleweight) is better than carving out one of the greatest reigns at any weight. But I'm not sure you Floyd fans would admit it even if I spelled it all out for you.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss unremarkable championship reigns, dethroning one of the worst lineal champs in history, bogus claims and dodgy catch weights. We could discuss whether winning a lineal championship and doing nothing with it (ala Cotto at middleweight) is better than carving out one of the greatest reigns at any weight. But I'm not sure you Floyd fans would admit it even if I spelled it all out for you.

Or we could discuss why everyone else on here has Hagler lower...... Apart from you......

milkyboy wrote:Re hagler's reign. Every champion has there share of easy defences, but caveman lee?, obelmeijas and hamsho twice? Scypion. These aren't guys to strike fear into any middleweight. Sibson and roldan were decent fighters, but the names were all smaller guys fighting above their best weights. For all the justification of duran and hearns exploits at middle, no sane person would claim it was their best weights... Nor Leonard nor even mugabi.

It's not Marv's fault, but the above hardly indicates a talent laden middle division if the best middles he fought in 7 years were sibson and roldan.

He didn't pick those guys, though. Hamsho legitimately fought his way back into a mandatory slot. If you're taking on and beating your top contenders regularly, you're going to run dry after a while (especially when you leave the top guys in the state Hagler did).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss unremarkable championship reigns, dethroning one of the worst lineal champs in history, bogus claims and dodgy catch weights. We could discuss whether winning a lineal championship and doing nothing with it (ala Cotto at middleweight) is better than carving out one of the greatest reigns at any weight. But I'm not sure you Floyd fans would admit it even if I spelled it all out for you.

Or we could discuss why everyone else on here has Hagler lower...... Apart from you......

Well I'm still not convinced TMT aren't one bloke with three log ins - so there's that!

That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss unremarkable championship reigns, dethroning one of the worst lineal champs in history, bogus claims and dodgy catch weights. We could discuss whether winning a lineal championship and doing nothing with it (ala Cotto at middleweight) is better than carving out one of the greatest reigns at any weight. But I'm not sure you Floyd fans would admit it even if I spelled it all out for you.

Or we could discuss why everyone else on here has Hagler lower...... Apart from you......

Well I'm still not convinced TMT aren't one bloke with three log ins - so there's that!

You're pathetic.....No one can debate you..

Like a 10 year old boy....

milkyboy wrote:That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

You know he isn't dealing with the full stack....

Take my advice and leave it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss unremarkable championship reigns, dethroning one of the worst lineal champs in history, bogus claims and dodgy catch weights. We could discuss whether winning a lineal championship and doing nothing with it (ala Cotto at middleweight) is better than carving out one of the greatest reigns at any weight. But I'm not sure you Floyd fans would admit it even if I spelled it all out for you.

Or we could discuss why everyone else on here has Hagler lower...... Apart from you......

Well I'm still not convinced TMT aren't one bloke with three log ins - so there's that!

You're pathetic.....No one can debate you..

Like a 10 year old boy....

You're the only one hurling insults.

Ok, let's flip it. Why is the consensus opinion in all of the official lists - be it Ring, Boxing News, some of the better sites, that Hagler rates higher?

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Give me a four weight (five time) lineal world champion over a one weight lineal world champion, strange how you change your tune on that when it doesn't suit you.

We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss unremarkable championship reigns, dethroning one of the worst lineal champs in history, bogus claims and dodgy catch weights. We could discuss whether winning a lineal championship and doing nothing with it (ala Cotto at middleweight) is better than carving out one of the greatest reigns at any weight. But I'm not sure you Floyd fans would admit it even if I spelled it all out for you.

Or we could discuss why everyone else on here has Hagler lower...... Apart from you......

Well I'm still not convinced TMT aren't one bloke with three log ins - so there's that!

You're pathetic.....No one can debate you..

Like a 10 year old boy....

You're the only one hurling insults.

Ok, let's flip it. Why is the consensus opinion in all of the official lists - be it Ring, Boxing News, some of the better sites, that Hagler rates higher?

Not interested......

milkyboy wrote:That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

Hamsho may have been limited but he was infinitely tougher than the likes of Ortiz, Berto etc.

Hagler had to fight these guys - that was my point. Always harder to fight tough men you'd rather not than a style of fighter you rather quite like to.

I think Kosta would be Pryor's easiest fight.....Personally think Hatton would have beaten Kosta in his prime.....

Pryor was twice the swarmer Hatton was....

Kosta was made for Pryor.........In my humble opine..

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

Hamsho may have been limited but he was infinitely tougher than the likes of Ortiz, Berto etc.

Hagler had to fight these guys - that was my point. Always harder to fight tough men you'd rather not than a style of fighter you rather quite like to.

Don't think Marv wanted to face them because he was a bit embarrassed not because they were tough. Your point about mayweather's selectivity is a fair one. I'm not interested in debates about mayweather v hagler... I'm just debating the quality of the actual middleweights hagler fought as champion.

So which three posters do you think are a little mayweather fan club/all the same person?

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

Hamsho may have been limited but he was infinitely tougher than the likes of Ortiz, Berto etc.

Hagler had to fight these guys - that was my point. Always harder to fight tough men you'd rather not than a style of fighter you rather quite like to.

Don't think Marv wanted to face them because he was a bit embarrassed not because they were tough. Your point about mayweather's selectivity is a fair one. I'm not interested in debates about mayweather v hagler... I'm just debating the quality of the actual middleweights hagler fought as champion.

So which three posters do you think are a little mayweather fan club/all the same person?

Truss/HH and Adam Truss. You throw a Floyd worm out on any thread and they'll all come for a nibble.

I would comfortable pick Pryor over Chavez and Tszyu, and comfortably pick Whittaker and Mayweather over Pryor, but rest are pick 'em fights for me. Much as I can see the brilliance in Pryor, and the historians amongst you can correct me if i'm wrong , but his record lacks a bit in dept in terms of quality of opposition compared to the rest of the fighters on that list, and I wonder if we get ever so slightly rose tinted about him? Beyond Cervantes and Arguello who else are the standout names on his record?

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

Hamsho may have been limited but he was infinitely tougher than the likes of Ortiz, Berto etc.

Hagler had to fight these guys - that was my point. Always harder to fight tough men you'd rather not than a style of fighter you rather quite like to.

Don't think Marv wanted to face them because he was a bit embarrassed not because they were tough. Your point about mayweather's selectivity is a fair one. I'm not interested in debates about mayweather v hagler... I'm just debating the quality of the actual middleweights hagler fought as champion.

So which three posters do you think are a little mayweather fan club/all the same person?

I think the quality of Hagler's championship opposition compares favourably to Monzon's and is lot better than the opposition Hopkins faced (we're talking Trinidad to Taylor for him - so there's less of it).

All three had their biggest fights against fighters moving up in weight (which baffles me when posters throw that one at Hagler but not Monzon and Hopkins). I just feel Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Mugabi shade Griffith, Napoles etc. and were a class above Trinidad and Oscar (as much as Tito is my boy).

Check out the records of the guys Hagler beat when he fought them: Hearns was something like 40-1. Antuofermo had in the region of 45 wins from 49. Hamsho battered Czyz and Benitez after Hagler. That Obel guy - 30-0 and then 38-1. Duran, 77-4, Mugabi 25-0. Roldan and Sibson had around 50 wins apiece. And these were fighting records in the main - not the PBC-style padded nonsense we see today.

I can see the argument for Monzon but its extremely close. Those two have two of the greatest championship reigns at any weight in history and so it always bugs me to see people picking holes in one of them (I know that isn't what you're saying - I meant TMT).

horizontalhero wrote:I would comfortable pick Pryor over Chavez and Tszyu, and comfortably pick Whittaker and Mayweather over Pryor, but rest are pick 'em fights for me. Much as I can see the brilliance in Pryor,  and the historians amongst you can correct me if  i'm wrong , but his record lacks a bit in dept in terms of quality of opposition compared to the rest of the fighters on that list, and I wonder if we get ever so slightly rose tinted about him? Beyond Cervantes and Arguello who else are the standout names on his record?

I think you're spot on. His record lacks depth but he's one of those guys who - at his very best - matches up well in these types of debates. Calzaghe is the same (good chin, quick, workrate, tough).

There aren't any HH, and you've summed the situation up well. The White powder robbed us from a lengthier career, though you have to wonder how long a career that kind of fighting style could realistically sustain.

Me and Hammer same person?

I do feel sorry for you.

Hammer can't stand me lol. Though the chap does know his stuff and I do agree with him often.

Truss is too Alpha for me

Also Haz it's the wee Hagler and GGG worm that catches the fish.

I have slagged Floyd off at times. I just find your total disgust of him amusing?

Did he not send you a tmt hat after you paid or something?

Deep down you know he is one of the best ever and it pi55es you off, because some coffin dodger d1ckheads don't want to rate him were he belongs, so you have to follow suit.

Leonard, Toney, Hopkins etc rate him as an atg. I will take their word before bumbling old idiots, that's never boxed a day in their lives.

hazharrison wrote:
All three had their biggest fights against fighters moving up in weight (which baffles me when posters throw that one at Hagler but not Monzon and Hopkins). I just feel Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Mugabi shade Griffith, Napoles etc. and were a class above Trinidad and Oscar (as much as Tito is my boy).

Check out the records of the guys Hagler beat when he fought them: Hearns was something like 40-1. Antuofermo had in the region of 45 wins from 49. Hamsho battered Czyz and Benitez after Hagler. That Obel guy - 30-0 and then 38-1. Duran, 77-4, Mugabi 25-0. Roldan and Sibson had around 50 wins apiece. And these were fighting records in the main - not the PBC-style padded nonsense we see today.

I can see the argument for Monzon but its extremely close. Those two have two of the greatest championship reigns at any weight in history and so it always bugs me to see people picking holes in one of them (I know that isn't what you're saying - I meant TMT).

I'm not quite sure where to start with that.

Hagler lost to Leonard yet you still include him in with Hearns and Duran trying to suggest it's better opposition than Monzon's when it simply isn't, you repeat the same lies ad nauseam when it comes to this topic. Griffith was a former two time fully legitimate lineal (one for you) Middleweight world champion something neither Hearns or Duran were. Benvenuti was simply better than Minter, Monzon's biggest fights weren't actually against smaller men they both came against Rodrigo Valdes someone who's a better middleweight than anybody on Hagler's record but you tend to ignore him. Beating your top rival at the end of your reign as opposed to losing to him is a world of difference.

The second paragraph is just numbers copied from Boxrec that in isolation mean absolutely nothing; if we look at Obelmejias and you assertion these were proper fighting records and not padded ones, do highlight a single win of note out of those 38 by the time of the rematch. It's just another dig at the current crop who's padded records are a fair bit better than those of the 80's crop.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:That was kind of my point haz... Guys like Hamsho being able to get back to mandatory. Not that hamsho was dreadful, just an unremarkable face first brawler.

And I don't nor have blamed hagler. He beat what was available and in front of him at his weight. It just wasn't that great. And by the way, it's a fair criticism to make of other champions too. Hagler was a great champion, no doubt about that.

Hamsho may have been limited but he was infinitely tougher than the likes of Ortiz, Berto etc.

Hagler had to fight these guys - that was my point. Always harder to fight tough men you'd rather not than a style of fighter you rather quite like to.

Don't think Marv wanted to face them because he was a bit embarrassed not because they were tough. Your point about mayweather's selectivity is a fair one. I'm not interested in debates about mayweather v hagler... I'm just debating the quality of the actual middleweights hagler fought as champion.

So which three posters do you think are a little mayweather fan club/all the same person?

I think the quality of Hagler's championship opposition compares favourably to Monzon's and is lot better than the opposition Hopkins faced (we're talking Trinidad to Taylor for him - so there's less of it).

All three had their biggest fights against fighters moving up in weight (which baffles me when posters throw that one at Hagler but not Monzon and Hopkins). I just feel Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Mugabi shade Griffith, Napoles etc. and were a class above Trinidad and Oscar (as much as Tito is my boy).

Check out the records of the guys Hagler beat when he fought them: Hearns was something like 40-1. Antuofermo had in the region of 45 wins from 49. Hamsho battered Czyz and Benitez after Hagler. That Obel guy - 30-0 and then 38-1. Duran, 77-4, Mugabi 25-0. Roldan and Sibson had around 50 wins apiece. And these were fighting records in the main - not the PBC-style padded nonsense we see today.

I can see the argument for Monzon but its extremely close. Those two have two of the greatest championship reigns at any weight in history and so it always bugs me to see people picking holes in one of them (I know that isn't what you're saying - I meant TMT).

Fair enough. I take your point about Hopkins, I think monzon's reign has some mediocrity on it, but it's topped and tailed with benvenuti and Valdes, with bouttier and briscoe amongst others inbetween... which as genuine middles go, tops anything on marv's reign... If we're omitting Griffith and Napoles as Guys moving up.

I also take your point on the records of marv's guys, but I was brought up in this era.. I watched hamsho get a gift against minter, I know how obelmeijas was laughed out of town as an opponent having fought no-one... Etc. I also know Micky duff had fed mugabi a bunch of stiffs to build up his beast. Mugabi though did give a great account of himself actually in an underrated fight with Marv.

I say this in balance... I also recall what a dominant and excellent champion he was too. He fluffed his lines against Duran in a strangely subdued performance and probably let his ego get the better of him in the early rounds against Leonard, though I think he'd also just lost a step and couldn't quite exert the pressure he needed to... And this against a Leonard who was blowing out of his arse by round 6. Maybe, just maybe, the really good technicians could neutralise him a bit, But you had to be an atg to do it.

But he was brilliant in dismantling sibson, destroyed tough guys hamsho and roldan. Hearns may have been above his best weight but was still a hell of a fighter. Marv was an exceptional  fighter.

AdamT wrote:Also Haz it's the wee Hagler and GGG worm that catches the fish.

I have slagged Floyd off at times. I just find your total disgust of him amusing?

Did he not send you a tmt hat after you paid or something?

Deep down you know he is one of the best ever and it pi55es you off, because some coffin dodger d1ckheads don't want to rate him were he belongs, so you have to follow suit.

Leonard, Toney, Hopkins etc rate him as an atg. I will take their word before bumbling old idiots, that's never boxed a day in their lives.

I don't "know" he's one of the best ever, nor do I think it. And there are plenty of people out there just like me!

Often, we're at odds when discussing a fighter's worth. So are we talking about how good Floyd looked (considering we never got to see him prove it against Pacquiao) or how well his record stacks up against the true ATGs?

If it's the former, then I'm not that interested in that argument. Each to their own. As a fighter, he wasn't any more special that a Pryor, or a Whitaker, or a Mosley.

If it's the latter, then someone needs to make a compelling case that his record was better than I believe it to be (in order to convince me). The likes of Ortiz, Guerrero and Berto were beyond average. Baldomir, Judah, Mitchell, Maidana. I mean, they're all on a similar level - they all lose to the better fighters.

I know we've done this to death but these are the best fighters he faced:

1. Pacquiao. Waited him out for years after they should have met. Eventual fight meant little - both past their best (before we get into TUEs etc.). That is the biggest stain on his record for me.
2. De la Hoya. Old, part-time fighter. Pacquiao showed exactly what was left of Oscar.
3. Mosley. Over the hill. No longer on the BALCO good stuff. Pacquiao dealt with him just as easily.
4. Marquez. Totally ineffective at that weight, at that point (and Floyd still pulled a swifty by refusing to weigh in at the agreed limit).
5. Cotto. Still a decent fighter but above his best weight and on the wrong end of some physically diminishing beatings from Margarito and Pacquiao.

Great names to sell PPVs, but none of them were at their best.

All Floyd had to do, to clearly surpass Pernell Whitaker and Roy Jones as the best of the post-Leonard/Hagler era was fight Pacquiao back in 2011 (and beat him). Failing that, he could have stuck around at 147 after Baldomir and carved out an ATG championship reign against Williams, Cotto, Mosley and Margarito (instead of crying - literally - that he was too small before waiting them all out and coming back to face Hatton). As it stands, you could make a very good argument that Pacquiao's resume pips Floyd's.

And the fact that Mayweather guided his own career in this direction matters, too. I can sympathise with a Burley, a Hagler or a Golovkin, fighters who are avoided for bing too good. But for a fighter to have full control over who they fight, at what weight and on what terms to do it the way he did...

I mean I have little time for Oscar (who had similar autonomy) but when his defining fight presented itself (in Trinidad) he at least took it on.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:
All three had their biggest fights against fighters moving up in weight (which baffles me when posters throw that one at Hagler but not Monzon and Hopkins). I just feel Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Mugabi shade Griffith, Napoles etc. and were a class above Trinidad and Oscar (as much as Tito is my boy).

Check out the records of the guys Hagler beat when he fought them: Hearns was something like 40-1. Antuofermo had in the region of 45 wins from 49. Hamsho battered Czyz and Benitez after Hagler. That Obel guy - 30-0 and then 38-1. Duran, 77-4, Mugabi 25-0. Roldan and Sibson had around 50 wins apiece. And these were fighting records in the main - not the PBC-style padded nonsense we see today.

I can see the argument for Monzon but its extremely close. Those two have two of the greatest championship reigns at any weight in history and so it always bugs me to see people picking holes in one of them (I know that isn't what you're saying - I meant TMT).

I'm not quite sure where to start with that.

Hagler lost to Leonard yet you still include him in with Hearns and Duran trying to suggest it's better opposition than Monzon's when it simply isn't, you repeat the same lies ad nauseam when it comes to this topic. Griffith was a former two time fully legitimate lineal (one for you) Middleweight world champion something neither Hearns or Duran were. Benvenuti was simply better than Minter, Monzon's biggest fights weren't actually against smaller men they both came against Rodrigo Valdes someone who's a better middleweight than anybody on Hagler's record but you tend to ignore him. Beating your top rival at the end of your reign as opposed to losing to him is a world of difference.

The second paragraph is just numbers copied from Boxrec that in isolation mean absolutely nothing; if we look at Obelmejias and you assertion these were proper fighting records and not padded ones, do highlight a single win of note out of those 38 by the time of the rematch. It's just another dig at the current crop who's padded records are a fair bit better than those of the 80's crop.

1. The difference between Griffith and Hearns/Duran is the fighters they went up against in championship fights. Had Griffith faced Monzon rather than Tiger and Benvenuti (in the same way Hearns and Duran faced Hagler rather than a Minter or Antuofermo), doubtless he wouldn't have taken the crown. Which isn't to diminish his achievement - just trying to level the playing field on that one.
2. Yes, Benvenuti was a better fighter than Minter, but at that point? Nino was very obviously on the slide (check out his record heading into that one - and I don't man just on Box Rec) and I'd contend the 1980 version of Minter would have beaten him.  
3. Valdes may have been his toughest opponent but his biggest fights came against Griffith, Napoles and Benvenuti.
4. Indeed, those are numbers from Box Rec (I was making a point about fighters' records funnily enough). And the point made about decent records applied to Roldan and Sibson rather than Obel.

As I say, it's very close, but I jus favour Hagler's opposition. Hearns, for example, was absolutely flying heading into the Hagler fight.
5. I'm not sure who you're referring to as "the current crop" but the likes of Berto

1. You can use that argument for pretty much anyone, Griffith was the lineal champion something you bang on about when it suits you but make excuses for when it doesn't, he was a better fighter above 147lbs than Duran anyway.

2. Benvenuti past his best was still a better opponent than Minter, he was woefully inconsistent but put in one hell of a shift in their first fight, he simply succumbed to a superior boxer and fighter.

3. So in short because Valdes doesn't fit into your agenda you change the goalposts so you don't have to compare him in any comparisons. He had both a rock solid chin and destructive power despite appearing to have a fairly average KO%, he totaled the iron chinned Briscoe in their second fight. Does the size of a fight having any actual bearing because if it does then Hagler lost his biggest one against a smaller semi retired Leonard.

4. I'll give you Sibson, I tend to rate him higher than Minter as things go.

Haz you really are e. If you have put that much effort into discredit Floyd, yet worship a one dimensional fighter that fights bums (GGG), more power to you.

Good day!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:1. You can use that argument for pretty much anyone, Griffith was the lineal champion something you bang on about when it suits you but make excuses for when it doesn't, he was a better fighter above 147lbs than Duran anyway.

2. Benvenuti past his best was still a better opponent than Minter, he was woefully inconsistent but put in one hell of a shift in their first fight, he simply succumbed to a superior boxer and fighter.

3. So in short because Valdes doesn't fit into your agenda you change the goalposts so you don't have to compare him in any comparisons. He had both a rock solid chin and destructive power despite appearing to have a fairly average KO%, he totaled the iron chinned Briscoe in their second fight. Does the size of a fight having any actual bearing because if it does then Hagler lost his biggest one against a smaller semi retired Leonard.

4. I'll give you  Sibson, I tend to rate him higher than Minter as things go.

1. And I contend that Hearns and Duran could have been had they fought Alan Minter or Vito Antuofermo. I'm not sure how that equates to "making excuses" for Griffith being a genuine middleweight king (that doesn't even make sense does it)?

2. I don't believe that to be the case (not at that stage). He went 1-0-1 with journeyman Doyle Baird (and was awful in the first fight by all accounts) and went 1-1 with club fighter Tom Bethea. He was beaten by ancient Dick Tiger, floored by Don Fullmer etc. Minter would have beaten that Benvenuti (the version Hagler fought). Pretty confident on that one.

3. Agenda? Benvenuti, Napoles and Griffiths were his glamour fights were they not? In the same way that Hearns, Duran and Leonard were Hagler's? You seem to have missed the point?

AdamT wrote:Haz you really are e. If you have put that much effort into discredit Floyd, yet worship a one dimensional fighter that fights bums (GGG), more power to you.

Good day!

Worship Golovkin? Not guilty there. Unless by worship you mean enjoy watching him fight?

I don't see a one dimensional fighter, either. Unless by one dimensional you mean Joe Louis one dimensional?

1. Hearns most probably but he didn't whereas Duran it's unlikely, brilliant as was up until Montreal thereafter he was decidedly average with the odd moment of genius sprinkled here and there.

2. I'll use your Duran logic for the Hagler, ignore form going in to the fight and say that the specific night he fought Monzon he was superb.

3. I've not missed the point at all Haz, you seem to mistake being a big name with being a big fight when it's not, simply put Valdes is the most significant fight either of them had and unlike Hagler in his he won. It doesn't fit your agenda so you try and ignore those fights, whenever you do your silly comparisons he's never included and instead you focus on his other opposition.