keithmoonhangover wrote:
They're not my judges mate.
Why bring them up?
Because I wanted to.
You're a Leonard hater mate and that's a fact.
I would say that Leonard fought the wrong fight against Duran, but that does not alter the fact that he was beat fair and square.
Leonard was 5 1/2 years past his prime against Hagler and Hagler was still good enough to beat Hearns and Mugabi. If you factor in all the handicaps Leonard had that made him a betting underdog, then his a achievement was huge.
I definitely hate leonard, and I also rate him fairly. Again with the huge achievement? LOL, I've specifically said the same thing more than once. He was an underdog, I won money on it. Duran was a bigger underdog against barkley. Does that make that win better? I don't think so
I said Duran fought a better fighter and he beat him more convincingly. That is also a fact. You had nothing constructive against it so you toss in something " because you wanted to"?
keithmoonhangover wrote:I don't hate anyone - even Irene!!! How can you hate someone you don't even know, that can't be healthy mate.
Anyhow, getting back to Ezzard's point, I don't think Duran is top ten at Welter and we agre on that.
I wouldn't enjoy sports as much if I was indifferent to everyone. Leonard is a piece of shit for a human being, that makes it even easier. Not that I would hurt him or wish him actual harm. You're making far too much of it if you think I spend my day thinking about him. My hatred is focused on Pacquiao, mayweather & Klitschko's these days. New faces on the dartboard.
keithmoonhangover wrote:I don't hate anyone - even Irene!!! How can you hate someone you don't even know, that can't be healthy mate.
Anyhow, getting back to Ezzard's point, I don't think Duran is top ten at Welter and we agre on that.
I wouldn't enjoy sports as much if I was indifferent to everyone. Leonard is a piece of shit for a human being, that makes it even easier. Not that I would hurt him or wish him actual harm. You're making far too much of it if you think I spend my day thinking about him. My hatred is focused on Pacquiao, mayweather & Klitschko's these days. New faces on the dartboard.
That's really funny, because I imagined you throwing darts at Leonard before you metioned the dart board.
I agree with keithmoon that the first Leonard-Duran fight was closer than the Leonard-Hagler fight. That being said, I don't rank Leonard as an all-time great middleweight. Hagler was still a great fighter, (and closer to his prime than Leonard) but that was only one fight. Maybe he would have been if it was not for the eye injuries, but we will never know.
Hard to say where to rank Duran as a welterweight. He had the big win against Leonard, also beat Palomino and won a few other fights at welterweight. However, he was schooled by Leonard in the rematch and quit. That has to hurt him quite a bit. It hurts him even more (when comparing him to other great welterweights) since he didn't have that many fights at welterweight. Top 10 is too high.
Also don't think Charley Burley is quite in the top 10 as either a welterweight or middleweight.
Hard to say about Langford since we don't know what is weight was for many of fights. Probably top 10 at lightheavyweight, wasn't a top 10 heavyweight and doubt he did enough at 160 to be considered a top 10 middleweight.
Jofre is certainly a top 10 bantam, borderline as far as featherweight.
George Dixon would be another one that would be arguable at bantam and featherweight.
Surprised Ezz didn't mention one of his favorites,Emile Griffith. You could make a strong case for him at 147 and 160.
Barney Ross should be considered top 10 at lightweight and welterweight.
I don't consider Duran an all-time great at welterweight, either. He did not had enough fights there.
It is hard for a fighter to dominate 2 weight classes or more. I mean the original 8 weight classes.
Of the original 8 weight classes, only a few, very few men, dominated more than one weight class:
Henry Armstrong dominated featherweight and welterweight. I do not see him a top 10 all-time lightweight.
Sugar Ray Robinson dominated welterweight and middleweight. He had much more TROUBLE at middleweight, but according to his accomplishments and activity at 160, he is one the top 3 best ever at that class, behind Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler.
I think he is clearly top 5 in both. Elmer just says something stupid even if his point is fine. I have Hagler my #1 Middle, but it isn't because he was more active than Greb. Of course I could let some slide once in a while. But it's a tough proposition.
I could see these guys in the top 10 all-time in more than one weight class (original weight classes):
Sugar Ray Robinson-welter and middleweight
Henry Armstrong-featherweight and welter
Mickey Walker-welter and middleweight
Emile Griffith-welter and middleweight
No more all-time greats than these guys dominating more than one (original) class
