ThatOne wrote:Ring Magazine has SRL @ 8 all time !
Is that right well TBE would be about 2 dozen below that
The Ring Magazine had him #10 or #9 of the best fighters of the last 80 years. I believe that is too high for him due to the fact that his career was somewhat short. If he would have never retired because of the retina and kept fighting consistently throughout the 80s decade, then, he would have been probably a top 10 guy.
If that is the case, why the great Jimmy McLarnin is not top ten? He beat more HOFs than the great Sugar Ray Leonard.
My top 20:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep
6. Harry Greb
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Joe Louis
10. Joe Gans
11. Jimmy Wilde
12. Benny Leonard
13. Bob Fitzsimmons
14. Tony Canzoneri
15. Jack Johnson
16. Sandy Saddler
17. Mickey Walker
18. Carlos Monzon
19. Archie Moore
20. Sugar Ray Leonard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
ThatOne wrote:Ring Magazine has SRL @ 8 all time !
Is that right well TBE would be about 2 dozen below that
The Ring Magazine had him #10 or #9 of the best fighters of the last 80 years. I believe that is too high for him due to the fact that his career was somewhat short. If he would have never retired because of the retina and kept fighting consistently throughout the 80s decade, then, he would have been probably a top 10 guy.
If that is the case, why the great Jimmy McLarnin is not top ten? He beat more HOFs than the great Sugar Ray Leonard.
It's not just a matter of counting how many HOFers a guy beat. Not all HOFers are even. Huge difference between beating Duran or Hagler or Hearns compared beating Fidel Labarba in his first year of fighting.
You also have to look at losses. Mclarnin already had 11 losses when he retired at the age of 28. A great fighter no doubt, but clearly not as good as Leonard.
Doesn't matter that Leonard;'s career was short; what matters is what he did in it. He beat 4 different fighters who were Top 50 all time; and only had one relevant loss. That is better than most the guys on your Top 20 list.
The only thing that is missing is 20 wins over people that no one ever heard of that he never would have lost to.
DaveyMac wrote:Saying that Willie Pep is #5 PvP and SRL is #20 is like saying Don Sutton was a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.
Maybe in some ways it's true but nobody who saw them both pitch would ever say it.
It is hard to argue against a guy that won 230 fights like the great Willie Pep, and had more longevity than the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Winning 230 fights against the very best at pro level is very impressive, don't you think?
Ambling Alp II wrote:
It's not just a matter of counting how many HOFers a guy beat. Not all HOFers are even. Huge difference between beating Duran or Hagler or Hearns compared beating Fidel Labarba in his first year of fighting.
You also have to look at losses. Mclarnin already had 11 losses when he retired at the age of 28. A great fighter no doubt, but clearly not as good as Leonard.
Doesn't matter that Leonard;'s career was short; what matters is what he did in it. He beat 4 different fighters who were Top 50 all time; and only had one relevant loss. That is better than most the guys on your Top 20 list.
The only thing that is missing is 20 wins over people that no one ever heard of that he never would have lost to.
It does not matter that the great Jimmy McLarnin lost 11 fights. The great Archie Moore lost 26. Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19. McLarnin beat the greats Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross and Pancho Villa among others in their prime....All of them top 100 fighters by any list.
Of the top 20 I have pick, tell me what fighter in particular in your view Alp, Leonard was better. I am waiting to see that.
DaveyMac wrote:Saying that Willie Pep is #5 PvP and SRL is #20 is like saying Don Sutton was a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.
Maybe in some ways it's true but nobody who saw them both pitch would ever say it.
It is hard to argue against a guy that won 230 fights like the great Willie Pep, and had more longevity than the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Winning 230 fights against the very best at pro level is very impressive, don't you think?
He didn't fight the best. He fought some of them but most of his 230 wins are against very pedestrian opponents. He's like Sutton, that's no insult, he was very good for a long time and very active, but he was never as good as SRL, just like Sutton never shone as bright as Koufax.
Ambling Alp II wrote:
It's not just a matter of counting how many HOFers a guy beat. Not all HOFers are even. Huge difference between beating Duran or Hagler or Hearns compared beating Fidel Labarba in his first year of fighting.
You also have to look at losses. Mclarnin already had 11 losses when he retired at the age of 28. A great fighter no doubt, but clearly not as good as Leonard.
Doesn't matter that Leonard;'s career was short; what matters is what he did in it. He beat 4 different fighters who were Top 50 all time; and only had one relevant loss. That is better than most the guys on your Top 20 list.
The only thing that is missing is 20 wins over people that no one ever heard of that he never would have lost to.
It does not matter that the great Jimmy McLarnin lost 11 fights. The great Archie Moore lost 26. Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19. McLarnin beat the greats Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross and Pancho Villa among others in their prime....All of them top 100 fighters by any list.
Of the top 20 I have pick, tell me what fighter in particular in your view Alp, Leonard was better. I am waiting to see that.
Yes it matters that he lost 11 fights. Why? Because he most of them were when he was close to his prime. (A few early in his career can be excused.) Most of Moore's and especially Robinson's were when he was way past his best.
Mclarnin lost to Doc Snell and Ray Miller. That has to count against him.
The win over Villa is not a huge win given that is was not Villas weight class; a nice win, but not a huge win.
He was 3-3 vs Top 50 opponents (close to their prime) and 6-6 vs Top 100. That is .500, which is really good.
Leonard was 4-1 which is .800. Leonard never lost to an non great opponent. There simply are very few fighters that went .800 against Top 50 Opponents and never had a loss to an inferior fighter. How many other fighters can you say that about? Less than 10.
Leonard was better than Wilde, Duran, Gans, B.Leonard, Fitzsimmons, Canzoneri, Johnson, Saddler, Pep, Walker, Monzon, and Louis. A few you can make a decent argument to better higher than Leonard; reasonable people can disagree. Most you can not make a reasonable argument.
Great match up but I'll go with SRL to take the decision. Mayweather isn't going to win the judges' approval by fighting defensively all night against someone with Leonard's, speed, volume, skill and flare. Furthermore, this was Ray's best weight and the division where he was prime. Mayweather began his career at Feather and didn't ascend to welter until he was already in his thirties.
Mayweather began his career at Feather and didn't ascend to welter until he was already in his thirties.[/quote]
This is what most tend to forget. When most all time greats were winding down their careers Floyd just started the Welterweight division.
Mythical match ups would be better at a lower weight for Floyd.Floyd was not a natural 147 pounder
Mayweather began his career at Feather and didn't ascend to welter until he was already in his thirties.
This is what most tend to forget. When most all time greats were winding down their careers Floyd just started the Welterweight division.
Mythical match ups would be better at a lower weight for Floyd.Floyd was not a natural 147 pounder[/quote]
Yeah I've encountered people who claim that Floyd's best division was welter, but I don't agree.
DaveyMac wrote:Saying that Willie Pep is #5 PvP and SRL is #20 is like saying Don Sutton was a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.
Maybe in some ways it's true but nobody who saw them both pitch would ever say it.
It is hard to argue against a guy that won 230 fights like the great Willie Pep, and had more longevity than the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Winning 230 fights against the very best at pro level is very impressive, don't you think?
He didn't fight the best. He fought some of them but most of his 230 wins are against very pedestrian opponents. He's like Sutton, that's no insult, he was very good for a long time and very active, but he was never as good as SRL, just like Sutton never shone as bright as Koufax.
Say what??? He did not fight the best? He beat PEDESTRIAN OPPONENTS???
Not as good as the great Sugar Ray Leonard?
Ambling Alp II wrote:
It's not just a matter of counting how many HOFers a guy beat. Not all HOFers are even. Huge difference between beating Duran or Hagler or Hearns compared beating Fidel Labarba in his first year of fighting.
You also have to look at losses. Mclarnin already had 11 losses when he retired at the age of 28. A great fighter no doubt, but clearly not as good as Leonard.
Doesn't matter that Leonard;'s career was short; what matters is what he did in it. He beat 4 different fighters who were Top 50 all time; and only had one relevant loss. That is better than most the guys on your Top 20 list.
The only thing that is missing is 20 wins over people that no one ever heard of that he never would have lost to.
It does not matter that the great Jimmy McLarnin lost 11 fights. The great Archie Moore lost 26. Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19. McLarnin beat the greats Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross and Pancho Villa among others in their prime....All of them top 100 fighters by any list.
Of the top 20 I have pick, tell me what fighter in particular in your view Alp, Leonard was better. I am waiting to see that.
Yes it matters that he lost 11 fights. Why? Because he most of them were when he was close to his prime. (A few early in his career can be excused.) Most of Moore's and especially Robinson's were when he was way past his best.
Mclarnin lost to Doc Snell and Ray Miller. That has to count against him.
The win over Villa is not a huge win given that is was not Villas weight class; a nice win, but not a huge win.
He was 3-3 vs Top 50 opponents (close to their prime) and 6-6 vs Top 100. That is .500, which is really good.
Leonard was 4-1 which is .800. Leonard never lost to an non great opponent. There simply are very few fighters that went .800 against Top 50 Opponents and never had a loss to an inferior fighter. How many other fighters can you say that about? Less than 10.
Leonard was better than Wilde, Duran, Gans, B.Leonard, Fitzsimmons, Canzoneri, Johnson, Saddler, Pep, Walker, Monzon, and Louis. A few you can make a decent argument to better higher than Leonard; reasonable people can disagree. Most you can not make a reasonable argument.
Sugar Ray Leonard was better than the great Roberto Duran??? LOL When the two of them were at their VERY BEST, DURAN WHUPPED HIM. THE FIGHT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
He was better than the greats Jimmy Wilde??? Joe Gans??? Benny Leonard??? Bob Fitzsimmons??? Tony Canzoneri??? Even the great Joe Louis???
Leonard fans are sick to the stomach
Pick one of them and compare him to Leonard and let's see if Sugar Ray was better. Pick one of them above. Show your points and arguments Please do it. I got to laugh some more.
Sorry, I am basing on what actually happened. I use the same criteria for every fighter whether I like him or not. I have mentioned this criteria to you several times on other threads.
I weigh the notable wins against the losses. When I compare great fighters, I don't give much credit for beating opponents that weren't that good. Don't really care about WBS titles, WBS title defenses, national titles etc. Who you beat is what counts; not that you won some title or defended it over someone with a pulse.
When judging a loss and/or bad performance, how close a fighter was to his prime is crucial; for wins how close to their primes a fighters opponents were at the time is crucial. Not interested in most other crybaby excuses.
To some extent, I value how competitive a win or a loss was.
Obviously film is important but is not the end all be all. (It's subjective, not available for some fighters, and limited for many others.)
Doing this, Leonard's career was superior to the fighters I named. Leonard only had one relevant loss (a 3-point loss on your own scored card which is close, not a whipping.) That counts a little against him, but all of the others had at least as many relevant losses. Most had several. Most of them don't have wins over 4 opponents in the Top 50; many have 1 or none.
Leonard had real power at welterweight when he needed it and was a fantastic boxer,almost as evasive as Floyd.I think Leonard would have won on a late stoppage.
ThatOne wrote:I know this has been debated here before but last night's fight made me think of that match up.
IMHO, Ray will be the one who moves around the ring, fighting on the outside, and pot shotting his opponent. There is nothing Mayweather can do to discourage Ray, to make him back up... Floyd is a great defensive fighter but Ray will be throwing all night, though many, many will miss, enough will land to impress the judges.
i saw the last fight closer than others, but still,
you have to give floyd a lot of credit for almost
never been hit by anybody except for shane.
ThatOne wrote:I know this has been debated here before but last night's fight made me think of that match up.
IMHO, Ray will be the one who moves around the ring, fighting on the outside, and pot shotting his opponent. There is nothing Mayweather can do to discourage Ray, to make him back up... Floyd is a great defensive fighter but Ray will be throwing all night, though many, many will miss, enough will land to impress the judges.
i saw the last fight closer than others, but still,
you have to give floyd a lot of credit for almost
never been hit by anybody except for shane.
Ambling Alp II wrote:Sorry, I am basing on what actually happened. I use the same criteria for every fighter whether I like him or not. I have mentioned this criteria to you several times on other threads.
I weigh the notable wins against the losses. When I compare great fighters, I don't give much credit for beating opponents that weren't that good. Don't really care about WBS titles, WBS title defenses, national titles etc. Who you beat is what counts; not that you won some title or defended it over someone with a pulse.
When judging a loss and/or bad performance, how close a fighter was to his prime is crucial; for wins how close to their primes a fighters opponents were at the time is crucial. Not interested in most other crybaby excuses.
To some extent, I value how competitive a win or a loss was.
Obviously film is important but is not the end all be all. (It's subjective, not available for some fighters, and limited for many others.)
Doing this, Leonard's career was superior to the fighters I named. Leonard only had one relevant loss (a 3-point loss on your own scored card which is close, not a whipping.) That counts a little against him, but all of the others had at least as many relevant losses. Most had several. Most of them don't have wins over 4 opponents in the Top 50; many have 1 or none.
You still have not picked one of the above.
The great Wilfred Benitez nor the great Thomas Hearns are top 50 material. Well, that is my view.
Make it interesting. Pick one of the above and compare him to your boy SRL.
ThatOne wrote:I know this has been debated here before but last night's fight made me think of that match up.
IMHO, Ray will be the one who moves around the ring, fighting on the outside, and pot shotting his opponent. There is nothing Mayweather can do to discourage Ray, to make him back up... Floyd is a great defensive fighter but Ray will be throwing all night, though many, many will miss, enough will land to impress the judges.
i saw the last fight closer than others, but still,
you have to give floyd a lot of credit for almost
never been hit by anybody except for shane.
it could be he could do the same with ray.
How do you see the fight going?
i think prime for prime ray has a slight edge
and would win a close and disputed decision.
he would land more than usual floyd opponents
do, but not much more. yet he would manage
to make floyd look bad and passive and that
would give him the nod.
his speed and accuracy would make it a level
playing field with floyd's defense, but his mind
and showman-talent would make the difference.
Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes it matters that he lost 11 fights. Why? Because he most of them were when he was close to his prime. (A few early in his career can be excused.) Most of Moore's and especially Robinson's were when he was way past his best.
Mclarnin lost to Doc Snell and Ray Miller. That has to count against him.
The win over Villa is not a huge win given that is was not Villas weight class; a nice win, but not a huge win.
He was 3-3 vs Top 50 opponents (close to their prime) and 6-6 vs Top 100. That is .500, which is really good.
Leonard was 4-1 which is .800. Leonard never lost to an non great opponent. There simply are very few fighters that went .800 against Top 50 Opponents and never had a loss to an inferior fighter. How many other fighters can you say that about? Less than 10.
Leonard was better than Wilde, Duran, Gans, B.Leonard, Fitzsimmons, Canzoneri, Johnson, Saddler, Pep, Walker, Monzon, and Louis. A few you can make a decent argument to better higher than Leonard; reasonable people can disagree. Most you can not make a reasonable argument.
you just turned into "most reasonable poster"
on the board for me.
Broomhall wrote:I dont see this going to a decision. Leonard by TKO-providing Mayweather didnt have ll sorts of clauses in the contract eg Leonard to be tested every week, wear 12 ounce gloves, fight with one hand and above all be over 40 years old when they meet.
I have a bit more respect for Mayweather than you...He does have some scalps; De La Hoya, Mosley, Pacquiao, and Hatton
I just don't believe he has anything to discourage Ray Leonard. Leonard certainly isn't afraid Mayweather can hurt him.
Every single one of those mayweather scalps the big three of dlh,mosley,pac, were shot aged worn out fighters when mayweather beat them. He got rocked by a geriatric Mosley imagine what a young Mosley would have done ten years earlier.Hatton wasn't a true elite level.......both Leonard and hearns stop mayweather.I don't think Ray would be "missing a lot"...he didn't miss a lot against Benitez another great defensive fighter.Pac man has not been the same since 2010
The pre-fight machinations and contract wrangling would be more exciting than the fight.
Leonard was the better welterweight, I see him winning. He had a great chin, good power, very quick hands, threw good combinations, very tall for a welter and more importantly knew how to "win" a fight.
mugabi wrote:I don't think Ray would be "missing a lot"...he didn't miss a lot against Benitez another great defensive fighter.Pac man has not been the same since 2010
Ambling Alp II wrote:Sorry, I am basing on what actually happened. I use the same criteria for every fighter whether I like him or not. I have mentioned this criteria to you several times on other threads.
I weigh the notable wins against the losses. When I compare great fighters, I don't give much credit for beating opponents that weren't that good. Don't really care about WBS titles, WBS title defenses, national titles etc. Who you beat is what counts; not that you won some title or defended it over someone with a pulse.
When judging a loss and/or bad performance, how close a fighter was to his prime is crucial; for wins how close to their primes a fighters opponents were at the time is crucial. Not interested in most other crybaby excuses.
To some extent, I value how competitive a win or a loss was.
Obviously film is important but is not the end all be all. (It's subjective, not available for some fighters, and limited for many others.)
Doing this, Leonard's career was superior to the fighters I named. Leonard only had one relevant loss (a 3-point loss on your own scored card which is close, not a whipping.) That counts a little against him, but all of the others had at least as many relevant losses. Most had several. Most of them don't have wins over 4 opponents in the Top 50; many have 1 or none.
You still have not picked one of the above.
The great Wilfred Benitez nor the great Thomas Hearns are top 50 material. Well, that is my view.
Make it interesting. Pick one of the above and compare him to your boy SRL.
Some day I would like to see your Top 50 and Top 100 lists that no one seems to be on.
I did pick 12 guys that I think Leonard was better than.
Want me to specify one? OK, how about Jack Johnson?
Where do find his wins that compare to Leonard's?
Fitzsimmons and Jeffries were way over the hill. Jeannette and especially McVey were inexperienced had not reached their best when Johnson beat them.
Langford was still a middleweight when Johnson beat him; he weighed less than 160 for their fight.
Ketchel was just a middleweight as well.
If there rankings back then, none of these guys would have been in the Heavyweight Top 10.
He officially lost the decision to Hart, though that is considered a bad decision so we can throw that out. Though you would think Johnson could have stopped Hart inside of 20 rounds.
Johnson had a 10-round No-Decision draw against someone named Billy Dunning. Imagine if Leonard had a draw with someone like that. He also drew with Hank Griffin.
So really we are left with the win over Tommy Burns and several solid wins over decent but certainly not great fighters.
Not saying that anyone could have won all the fights that Johnson did. Obviously most could not.
But it doesn't really compare to beating Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler.
First of all, let me give thanks and praises to JAH, the creator of the heavens, the seas and everything in them is.
Second, let me give my friend Ambling Alp big and NUFF RESPECT, in attemptin to boost his favorite fighter, the great Sugar Ray Leonard, into the rankings of the all time top 10 best fighters that ever fought in a boxing ring. Leonard for sure, was a great fighter. No doubt about that. He transcended the sport of what it is today. Before him, welterweights and middleweights or any weight class below the heavyweights, never made the kind of money the boxers make today. He revolutionized the sport of boxing in the lower weight classes. He is DEFINETLY one of the 20TH CENTURY GREATEST FIGHTERS. What can we say?
He beat 4 all time greats that without question, are top 100 all time greats pound per pound in history: Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, and Marvin Hagler. All of them in their respective primes. That is why he in my view, is a top 20 great p4p. But a top ten? NO WAY! That is pushing a little too much on the envelope. The FARTHEST that I could see that Leonard could be is in the 15th slot. So between the 15th and 20th slot, I THINK IS MORE THAN FAIR for Leonard to belong in the top 20 all time greats. Deservedly so.
Why he is not in the top ten:
Career too short.
Prime too short.
Not enough fights.
Then retire, and comeback. Retired and comeback. Retired and comeback and retired for good altogether.
It is NOT FAIR to put him in the same breath as the legendary Jack Johnson, who had more fights, fought 5 decades (the first one ever to do so), beat the very best of his time, and was champion longer than Leonard. He is not going to let a light heavyweight take his title, never less a middleweight. That the great Stanley Ketchel was a middleweight? Well, the people asked for the fight. And Johnson won. He did what he supposed to do. He is not like Leonard, that let himself get beat by a lightweight.
That Jim J. Jeffries was not in his prime? Well, the people demanded it. The boxing experts of the times thought that their man could win. Now that he got whupped by a black man, now, they say that he was OVER THE HILL. Damned if he does, damned if he does not. The fight was one of the most anticipated fights of the century. The first in its magnitude. Johnson won. Leonard? IN THE BIGGEST FIGHT OF HIS CAREER, IN THE MOST ANTICIPATED FIGHT OUTSIDE THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION, HE LOST to a lightweight.
Johnson was more dominant as a champion than Leonard
Johnson had more longevity
Johnson cleaned up the division, fighting the best black men that were put in front of him.
Johnson as a heavyweight, was better than Leonard as a welterweight. He is top 3 heavyweight of all time behind, the greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis.
Johnson #3 heavyweight all time in my view. Leonard? #5 at welterweight in my view.
Johnson was more historical than Leonard. He is the first black heavyweight champion.
Besides Ali, there is no other fighter more influential than Johnson.
The only BAD MARK in Johnson's career is that he never gave the black men (Joe Jeannette and Sam McVeay and others) a rematch, just like Leonard never gave rematches. But why blame him? He could make more money fighting white hopes than black men that he already went through.
Johnson, like Leonard, ROSE TO THE OCCASION. He was pressured by the white establishment. We don't know the pressure that he had before the Jeffries fight. That is pressure. He surpassed it. He overcame it. And he would have had more title defenses if the establishment was not on his back all the time.
Johnson beat 3 HOFs that are in the top 50 all time greats. Two of them are top 15 (Bob Fitzsimmons and Sam Langford). But I don't go by that. First, he was bigger than them. And second, Fitzie was not in his prime. But still, he beat everybody else that was prime.
Greatness comes in degrees. It is the year 2015, and we still talk about the great Jack Johnson after more than 100 years he was around. What an impact this guy gave for the sport of boxing.
