Roberto Duran's legacy?

[Onetimeonly]

My point was that there is no real excuse for the Benitez loss. He didn't have that much wear and tear. He was still just 31. He was not rusty, since he had been fighting regularly. He lost Benitez should get credit and the loss to Benitez should be considered when rating Duran.

I wouldn't make an excuse for it, just don't see how he would get penalized for it past rankings at 154.

[elmersalsa]

I don't think Leonard or Ali have anything close to an ironclad case for top 10. Leonard has some wins over highly regarded guys but there are other guys with big advantages in depth and longevity which are also important.

Exactly!

One has to look at all facets and factors. One cannot rank someone in the top ten just because he beat this guy or that guy. Putting Sugar Ray Leonard in the top ten pound per pound all time is LAUGHABLE. Yes, he beat 4 great fighters. But, at what weight class he beat them? He beat them the majority at HIS WEIGHT CLASS Did he gave rematches? NO. Was his career as long as the other great ones in the top ten? NO. What was his performances AFTER PRIME? MEDIOCRE!

Because when you're at your prime, it's all great and gravy. How did Leonard did after prime? NOT THAT GOOD. Was his prime long enough? NO. He only had maybe 3 or 4 years of serious prime, meanwhile other fighters got about at least 6 years of real prime.

DId he had enough fights? He only had 40. Meanwhile, other guys like Archie Moore, Carlos Monzon, Bob Fitzsimmons, Roberto Duran, and even Muhammad Ali got way more fights than Leonard. How can a guy with just 40 fights be better than those guys mentioned? SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!!!!

[elmersalsa]

To me, Duran is the greatest Lightweight Champion of all-time. What he did after moving up, made him one of my top 10 FAVORITE fighters of all-time. Pound for pound? In my top 15-20.

In what position do you rank Duran all time pound per pound?

As I said, 15-20. Maybe higher.

I ONLY SEE 3 or maybe 4 guys better than Duran... That's it!
Henry Armstrong
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sam Langford

And Harry Greb could make a case against him. And still, I would edge The Hands of Stone.

Everybody else comes behind him.

[oogiebe]

I don't think Leonard or Ali have anything close to an ironclad case for top 10. Leonard has some wins over highly regarded guys but there are other guys with big advantages in depth and longevity which are also important.

Exactly!

One has to look at all facets and factors. One cannot rank someone in the top ten just because he beat this guy or that guy. Putting Sugar Ray Leonard in the top ten pound per pound all time is LAUGHABLE. Yes, he beat 4 great fighters. But, at what weight class he beat them? He beat them the majority at HIS WEIGHT CLASS Did he gave rematches? NO. Was his career as long as the other great ones in the top ten? NO. What was his performances AFTER PRIME? MEDIOCRE!

Because when you're at your prime, it's all great and gravy. How did Leonard did after prime? NOT THAT GOOD. Was his prime long enough? NO. He only had maybe 3 or 4 years of serious prime, meanwhile other fighters got about at least 6 years of real prime.

DId he had enough fights? He only had 40. Meanwhile, other guys like Archie Moore, Carlos Monzon, Bob Fitzsimmons, Roberto Duran, and even Muhammad Ali got way more fights than Leonard. How can a guy with just 40 fights be better than those guys mentioned? SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!!!!

It can't be explained because you are correct. Ali, on the other hand, was the most gifted fighter I've ever seen and his big wins were BIGGER than most fighters, especially considering what was happening before during and after those fights. Liston was indestructible and most news guys had Liston in 1,2 or three rounds. People were actually concerned about Ali getting seriously hurt. Same with Foreman. Who else lost 3 1/2 years of absolute prime and came back to be such a rock star? Forget about winning the championship three times, that was a bit of crap, but he comes back and at 32 KO's another indestructible force in Foreman. At the time, again the people in the know thought Ali would get killed. So for comparison sake, one could never underestimate the great Ali. Ali beating Liston and Foreman would today be like Bryant Jennings KO'ing Wilder and Joshua. That's how far fetched it seemed in 1964 and 1974, and what a surprise it would be. I'm certainly not implying that Jennings is anything other than a gatekeeper, but that's how crazy it sounded then.

[elmersalsa]

I don't think Leonard or Ali have anything close to an ironclad case for top 10. Leonard has some wins over highly regarded guys but there are other guys with big advantages in depth and longevity which are also important.

Exactly!

One has to look at all facets and factors. One cannot rank someone in the top ten just because he beat this guy or that guy. Putting Sugar Ray Leonard in the top ten pound per pound all time is LAUGHABLE. Yes, he beat 4 great fighters. But, at what weight class he beat them? He beat them the majority at HIS WEIGHT CLASS Did he gave rematches? NO. Was his career as long as the other great ones in the top ten? NO. What was his performances AFTER PRIME? MEDIOCRE!

Because when you're at your prime, it's all great and gravy. How did Leonard did after prime? NOT THAT GOOD. Was his prime long enough? NO. He only had maybe 3 or 4 years of serious prime, meanwhile other fighters got about at least 6 years of real prime.

DId he had enough fights? He only had 40. Meanwhile, other guys like Archie Moore, Carlos Monzon, Bob Fitzsimmons, Roberto Duran, and even Muhammad Ali got way more fights than Leonard. How can a guy with just 40 fights be better than those guys mentioned? SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!!!!

It can't be explained because you are correct. Ali, on the other hand, was the most gifted fighter I've ever seen and his big wins were BIGGER than most fighters, especially considering what was happening before during and after those fights. Liston was indestructible and most news guys had Liston in 1,2 or three rounds. People were actually concerned about Ali getting seriously hurt. Same with Foreman. Who else lost 3 1/2 years of absolute prime and came back to be such a rock star? Forget about winning the championship three times, that was a bit of crap, but he comes back and at 32 KO's another indestructible force in Foreman. At the time, again the people in the know thought Ali would get killed. So for comparison sake, one could never underestimate the great Ali. Ali beating Liston and Foreman would today be like Bryant Jennings KO'ing Wilder and Joshua. That's how far fetched it seemed in 1964 and 1974, and what a surprise it would be. I'm certainly not implying that Jennings is anything other than a gatekeeper, but that's how crazy it sounded then.

The great Muhammad Ali is a top 10 all time pound per pound great. No doubt about it in my mind. The guy fought the MAJORITY of his opponents of his time, and whupped almost everyone. Some of them twice. You can argue that he lost 3 times to Ken Norton in 3 close great fights. Or argue that he at least won the second fight. Those fights happened AFTER PRIME. What got him in the top 10 and as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time was his MONUMENTAL WIN against the great George Foreman. That gotta be one of boxing's greatest individual wins. No matter how we look at it. Although, he had 61 bouts, the majority of his bouts were QUALITY FIGHTS AND QUALITY WINS. And he had the longevity despite a three-year exile. He was without a doubt and probably clearly the best pound per pound fighter of his time in the 1960s. His historical impact inside the ring is not debatable. From 1 to 10, He gets a 10 in historical significance.

But, to put Sugar Ray Leonard in the top 10 pound per pound all time great boxers???

C'mon, I love Sugar Ray, but, I believe that there are more fighters that are not top 10 material that are more deserving:
Archie Moore
Tony Canzoneri
Benny Leonard
Carlos Monzon
Jack Johnson
Bob Fitzsimmons
Joe Gans

See the picture, Ambling Alp?

[oogiebe]

Exactly!

One has to look at all facets and factors. One cannot rank someone in the top ten just because he beat this guy or that guy. Putting Sugar Ray Leonard in the top ten pound per pound all time is LAUGHABLE. Yes, he beat 4 great fighters. But, at what weight class he beat them? He beat them the majority at HIS WEIGHT CLASS Did he gave rematches? NO. Was his career as long as the other great ones in the top ten? NO. What was his performances AFTER PRIME? MEDIOCRE!

Because when you're at your prime, it's all great and gravy. How did Leonard did after prime? NOT THAT GOOD. Was his prime long enough? NO. He only had maybe 3 or 4 years of serious prime, meanwhile other fighters got about at least 6 years of real prime.

DId he had enough fights? He only had 40. Meanwhile, other guys like Archie Moore, Carlos Monzon, Bob Fitzsimmons, Roberto Duran, and even Muhammad Ali got way more fights than Leonard. How can a guy with just 40 fights be better than those guys mentioned? SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!!!!

It can't be explained because you are correct. Ali, on the other hand, was the most gifted fighter I've ever seen and his big wins were BIGGER than most fighters, especially considering what was happening before during and after those fights. Liston was indestructible and most news guys had Liston in 1,2 or three rounds. People were actually concerned about Ali getting seriously hurt. Same with Foreman. Who else lost 3 1/2 years of absolute prime and came back to be such a rock star? Forget about winning the championship three times, that was a bit of crap, but he comes back and at 32 KO's another indestructible force in Foreman. At the time, again the people in the know thought Ali would get killed. So for comparison sake, one could never underestimate the great Ali. Ali beating Liston and Foreman would today be like Bryant Jennings KO'ing Wilder and Joshua. That's how far fetched it seemed in 1964 and 1974, and what a surprise it would be. I'm certainly not implying that Jennings is anything other than a gatekeeper, but that's how crazy it sounded then.

The great Muhammad Ali is a top 10 all time pound per pound great. No doubt about it in my mind. The guy fought the MAJORITY of his opponents of his time, and whupped almost everyone. Some of them twice. You can argue that he lost 3 times to Ken Norton in 3 close great fights. Or argue that he at least won the second fight. Those fights happened AFTER PRIME. What got him in the top 10 and as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time was his MONUMENTAL WIN against the great George Foreman. That gotta be one of boxing's greatest individual wins. No matter how we look at it. Although, he had 61 bouts, the majority of his bouts were QUALITY FIGHTS AND QUALITY WINS. And he had the longevity despite a three-year exile. He was without a doubt and probably clearly the best pound per pound fighter of his time in the 1960s. His historical impact inside the ring is not debatable. From 1 to 10, He gets a 10 in historical significance.

But, to put Sugar Ray Leonard in the top 10 pound per pound all time great boxers???

C'mon, I love Sugar Ray, but, I believe that there are more fighters that are not top 10 material that are more deserving:
Archie Moore
Tony Canzoneri
Benny Leonard
Carlos Monzon
Jack Johnson
Bob Fitzsimmons
Joe Gans

See the picture, Ambling Alp?

I don't have SRR in top 10 P4P. He's far down. Great accomplishments, but two belts came off of Donnie Long, FFS!

[elmersalsa]

It can't be explained because you are correct. Ali, on the other hand, was the most gifted fighter I've ever seen and his big wins were BIGGER than most fighters, especially considering what was happening before during and after those fights. Liston was indestructible and most news guys had Liston in 1,2 or three rounds. People were actually concerned about Ali getting seriously hurt. Same with Foreman. Who else lost 3 1/2 years of absolute prime and came back to be such a rock star? Forget about winning the championship three times, that was a bit of crap, but he comes back and at 32 KO's another indestructible force in Foreman. At the time, again the people in the know thought Ali would get killed. So for comparison sake, one could never underestimate the great Ali. Ali beating Liston and Foreman would today be like Bryant Jennings KO'ing Wilder and Joshua. That's how far fetched it seemed in 1964 and 1974, and what a surprise it would be. I'm certainly not implying that Jennings is anything other than a gatekeeper, but that's how crazy it sounded then.

The great Muhammad Ali is a top 10 all time pound per pound great. No doubt about it in my mind. The guy fought the MAJORITY of his opponents of his time, and whupped almost everyone. Some of them twice. You can argue that he lost 3 times to Ken Norton in 3 close great fights. Or argue that he at least won the second fight. Those fights happened AFTER PRIME. What got him in the top 10 and as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time was his MONUMENTAL WIN against the great George Foreman. That gotta be one of boxing's greatest individual wins. No matter how we look at it. Although, he had 61 bouts, the majority of his bouts were QUALITY FIGHTS AND QUALITY WINS. And he had the longevity despite a three-year exile. He was without a doubt and probably clearly the best pound per pound fighter of his time in the 1960s. His historical impact inside the ring is not debatable. From 1 to 10, He gets a 10 in historical significance.

But, to put Sugar Ray Leonard in the top 10 pound per pound all time great boxers???

C'mon, I love Sugar Ray, but, I believe that there are more fighters that are not top 10 material that are more deserving:
Archie Moore
Tony Canzoneri
Benny Leonard
Carlos Monzon
Jack Johnson
Bob Fitzsimmons
Joe Gans

See the picture, Ambling Alp?

I don't have SRR in top 10 P4P. He's far down. Great accomplishments, but two belts came off of Donnie Long, FFS!

Yes! The pretty boy Donnie Lalonde? Two crowns in one night for Sugar Ray. Great accomplishment, right? What a bogus feat! See! That's what I am talking about. Some people would grab that win and say it was a great victory. While all kinds of stipulations came at that bout:

Thumbless gloves.
Lalonde has to drop 7 pounds for the catch weight fight.
And many other BOGUS THINGS.

[oogiebe]

The great Muhammad Ali is a top 10 all time pound per pound great. No doubt about it in my mind. The guy fought the MAJORITY of his opponents of his time, and whupped almost everyone. Some of them twice. You can argue that he lost 3 times to Ken Norton in 3 close great fights. Or argue that he at least won the second fight. Those fights happened AFTER PRIME. What got him in the top 10 and as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time was his MONUMENTAL WIN against the great George Foreman. That gotta be one of boxing's greatest individual wins. No matter how we look at it. Although, he had 61 bouts, the majority of his bouts were QUALITY FIGHTS AND QUALITY WINS. And he had the longevity despite a three-year exile. He was without a doubt and probably clearly the best pound per pound fighter of his time in the 1960s. His historical impact inside the ring is not debatable. From 1 to 10, He gets a 10 in historical significance.

But, to put Sugar Ray Leonard in the top 10 pound per pound all time great boxers???

C'mon, I love Sugar Ray, but, I believe that there are more fighters that are not top 10 material that are more deserving:
Archie Moore
Tony Canzoneri
Benny Leonard
Carlos Monzon
Jack Johnson
Bob Fitzsimmons
Joe Gans

See the picture, Ambling Alp?

I don't have SRR in top 10 P4P. He's far down. Great accomplishments, but two belts came off of Donnie Long, FFS!

Yes! The pretty boy Donnie Lalonde? Two crowns in one night for Sugar Ray. Great accomplishment, right? What a bogus feat! See! That's what I am talking about. Some people would grab that win and say it was a great victory. While all kinds of stipulations came at that bout:

Thumbless gloves.
Lalonde has to drop 7 pounds for the catch weight fight.
And many other BOGUS THINGS.

Donnie Lalonde. Right! That was ridiculous.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't make a big deal about the Lalonde fight. Obviously is gimmick to promote the fight. That has nothing to do with rating him.

He beat 4 guys who I have in my Top 50. How many fighters have four win over opponents in the top 50? The answer is less than 10.
Bob Fitzsimmons for example has zero.
Johnson ? one.
Roberto Duran? One.
Carlos Monzon? two.

The only thing Leonard doesn't have is more wins over stiffs. He could have done the Duran/Chavez thing and fought a couple of tomato cans each year who had absolutely no chance of beating him. He didn't pad his record like that.

Beating top level competition is a true measure of greatness. Leonard did that. Beating stiffs doesn't prove anything.

[Nile4000]

No game plan he could have had. Tommy was absolute peak.

Read somewhere that Roberto always seemed to be intimidated by Tommy.

He looked it in the ring, and I LOOOVE Duran.

Probably the lone exception, though I doubt he would want to face Frank Fletcher or Mustafa Hamsho.

[oogiebe]

I don't make a big deal about the Lalonde fight. Obviously is gimmick to promote the fight. That has nothing to do with rating him.

He beat 4 guys who I have in my Top 50. How many fighters have four win over opponents in the top 50? The answer is less than 10.
Bob Fitzsimmons for example has zero.
Johnson ? one.
Roberto Duran? One.
Carlos Monzon? two.

The only thing Leonard doesn't have is more wins over stiffs. He could have done the Duran/Chavez thing and fought a couple of tomato cans each year who had absolutely no chance of beating him. He didn't pad his record like that.

Beating top level competition is a true measure of greatness. Leonard did that. Beating stiffs doesn't prove anything.

Question. If a fighter only beats one top 50 ATG, but has 5-8 victories over fighters in the top 51-100, how do you qualify that vs Leonard, who has those, as you count, four top 50 wins.

[Ambling Alp II]

f you have 8 in the 50s you make some kind of argument, however, I would go with beating 4 in the top 50. But 50-100 is a broad range. Beating someone you consider to be #100 in the world is impressive but nothing like beating someone like Duran, Hagler or Hearns.

[oogiebe]

f you have 8 in the 50s you make some kind of argument, however, I would go with beating 4 in the top 50. But 50-100 is a broad range. Beating someone you consider to be #100 in the world is impressive but nothing like beating someone like Duran, Hagler or Hearns.

Hagler had tough fight after tough fight defending his title. Most weren't top 100 ATG's but considerable challengers nonetheless. Mugabi was a monster when he stepped into the ring with Hagler and got tamed...no one will dispute Bennie Briscoe's greatness/toughness although certainly not top 100 ATG...or Mintor maybe? The list goes on. Same with Monzon; Rodrigo Valdez; Tony Licata; Munoz; Napoles; Benvenuti; etc. Leonard doesn't have those sorts of wins on his resume really. He opted for crap or diamonds. So four (I say three) diamonds in a mound of crap. Sorry.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't see much case if any for putting Benitez in the top 50, I think that's an extremely difficult case to make based on accomplishments.

Since Benitez we have had
Julio Cesar Chavez
Pernell Whittaker
Azumah Nelson
Mike McCallum
Roy Jones jr.
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Ricardo Lopez
Evander Holyfield
Manny Pacquiao
Juan Manuel Marquez
Floyd Mayweather

all those guys would have helped push Benitez farther from the top 50.

[Cojimar 1946]

Who are the two for Monzon? Griffith maybe but I can't see that Napoles is a good win given he was totally unproven at middleweight.

[oogiebe]

Who are the two for Monzon? Griffith maybe but I can't see that Napoles is a good win given he was totally unproven at middleweight.

I look at overall tough opponents, as well as ATG's the likes of Rodrigo Valdez; Benvenutti; Jean Claude Bouttier; Bennie Briscoe; Tony Mundine; Even guys like Tom Bogs; Denny Moyer; a large body of tough tough guys.

[oogiebe]

Who are the two for Monzon? Griffith maybe but I can't see that Napoles is a good win given he was totally unproven at middleweight.

I look at overall tough opponents, as well as ATG's the likes of Rodrigo Valdez; Benvenutti; Jean Claude Bouttier; Bennie Briscoe; Tony Mundine; Even guys like Tom Bogs; Denny Moyer; a large body of tough tough guys.

Also look at HOW he beat them. Really, do your diligence. Look at those fighters lifetime records and who they fought.

[elmersalsa]

I don't see much case if any for putting Benitez in the top 50, I think that's an extremely difficult case to make based on accomplishments.

Since Benitez we have had
Julio Cesar Chavez
Pernell Whittaker
Azumah Nelson
Mike McCallum
Roy Jones jr.
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Ricardo Lopez
Evander Holyfield
Manny Pacquiao
Juan Manuel Marquez
Floyd Mayweather

all those guys would have helped push Benitez farther from the top 50.

Exactly! From that list only, I can name at least 8 fighters that were better than Wilfred Benitez. Benitez was a great fighter, but not top 50 material.

Plus, if you add the other great boxers before 1965, Benitez would be pushed way farther. I got Benitez ranked at #72. Definitely not a top 50 great.

[elmersalsa]

We get so caught up on who you beat. It got some weight, but it's not the defining answer to the equation. Other factors involve. You cannot fight everybody. Not everyone is an all time great. But, some fighters were very, very good that if you beat them, someone has to put that into consideration.

And how about longevity, accomplishments, awards, performances after prime, division dominance, total of fights, how long the fighter has been competitive and in the rankings. For example, greats like Charley Burley and Holman Williams were on top of the Welterweight and middleweight rankings for more than ten years. Unfortunately, they never got a title shot. Do we rate Wilfred Benitez over Burley because he was a triple crown champion, but Burley never had a title shot?

Let's see:
Who beat better opponents? Burley
Who had more fights? Burley
Who was better after prime? Burley
Who was on top of the rankings for more years, title in hand or not? Burley
Who had more longevity? Benitez fought for 17 years. Burley, 14. But I give the edge to Burley because he was the busier fighter of the two. Benitez was fighting just 2 or 3 fights a year after he lost to the great Tommy Hearns. Burley was still fighting lots of fights after his prime years.

[Jacopodb]

My point was that there is no real excuse for the Benitez loss. He didn't have that much wear and tear. He was still just 31. He was not rusty, since he had been fighting regularly. He lost Benitez should get credit and the loss to Benitez should be considered when rating Duran.

Duran's work-ethics may not have always been up to the standards, and his flamboyantly aggressive style has gained him a lot of fans and hypers nevertheless, as with Tyson or Dempsey ("baddest", "meanest", etc.). Also, his testosteronic attitudes are not the usual all-timer behaviour (Robinson, Floyd Jr., Joe Louis, etc.).
Duran is very peculiar.
Anyway, he had all the makings: he was the lightest of the fab-4, and had to suffer losses; proved he was human, not underachieving.

He lost to taller, formerly-little heavier, all-timer in his prime, Wilfred Benitez, at superwelterweight, no less: do you need to blame it all on Duran..?

Duran's record is still amazing: his win over (taller and naturally heavier) Leonard, his fights at way-above-lightweight (due to his gourmet appetite or more, not a severe problem as long as he fought like that), against some of the most dangerous "outsiders" (in an all-time-p4p-great list) ever, his awesome winning-streaks, and fighting-fashion, put him on a higher rank than all of the fab-4, and in my personal p4p-top-10-ever list.

Oh, speaking of fab-4: did you see how Duran beat down Paul McCartney..? That's why people started saying "Paul is dead".

[Ambling Alp II]

f you have 8 in the 50s you make some kind of argument, however, I would go with beating 4 in the top 50. But 50-100 is a broad range. Beating someone you consider to be #100 in the world is impressive but nothing like beating someone like Duran, Hagler or Hearns.

Hagler had tough fight after tough fight defending his title. Most weren't top 100 ATG's but considerable challengers nonetheless. Mugabi was a monster when he stepped into the ring with Hagler and got tamed...no one will dispute Bennie Briscoe's greatness/toughness although certainly not top 100 ATG...or Mintor maybe? The list goes on. Same with Monzon; Rodrigo Valdez; Tony Licata; Munoz; Napoles; Benvenuti; etc. Leonard doesn't have those sorts of wins on his resume really. He opted for crap or diamonds. So four (I say three) diamonds in a mound of crap. Sorry.

That's nonsense. Leonard beat plenty of good fighters. Ranzany, Shields, Muniz, and Price were all good fighters. He beat them before even fighting for a title. Davy Boy Green was a good fighter. Donny Lalonde was a good fighter. Ayub Kalue was a very good fighter.
He has many less tomato cans on his resume than Monzon or Duran or Hagler.

Brisco was past his best and Hagler didn't look good in the fight.
Alan Minter was nowhere near a top 100 fighter. He happened to be around when Vito Antuofermo was around. A very weak champion; no better than several of the guys who never won a title.

Hagler list of title defenses is not all that impressive. Won the title against a weak champion. His best opponents were smaller guys moving up who weren't that impressive at middleweight. Hamsho were decent, but nothing that you expect a decent champion to lose to.

[oogiebe]

f you have 8 in the 50s you make some kind of argument, however, I would go with beating 4 in the top 50. But 50-100 is a broad range. Beating someone you consider to be #100 in the world is impressive but nothing like beating someone like Duran, Hagler or Hearns.

Hagler had tough fight after tough fight defending his title. Most weren't top 100 ATG's but considerable challengers nonetheless. Mugabi was a monster when he stepped into the ring with Hagler and got tamed...no one will dispute Bennie Briscoe's greatness/toughness although certainly not top 100 ATG...or Mintor maybe? The list goes on. Same with Monzon; Rodrigo Valdez; Tony Licata; Munoz; Napoles; Benvenuti; etc. Leonard doesn't have those sorts of wins on his resume really. He opted for crap or diamonds. So four (I say three) diamonds in a mound of crap. Sorry.

That's nonsense. Leonard beat plenty of good fighters. Ranzany, Shields, Muniz, and Price were all good fighters. He beat them before even fighting for a title. Davy Boy Green was a good fighter. Donny Lalonde was a good fighter. Ayub Kalue was a very good fighter.
He has many less tomato cans on his resume than Monzon or Duran or Hagler.

Brisco was past his best and Hagler didn't look good in the fight.
Alan Minter was nowhere near a top 100 fighter. He happened to be around when Vito Antuofermo was around. A very weak champion; no better than several of the guys who never won a title.

Hagler list of title defenses is not all that impressive. Won the title against a weak champion. His best opponents were smaller guys moving up who weren't that impressive at middleweight. Hamsho were decent, but nothing that you expect a decent champion to lose to.

I disagree but respect your viewpoint. It's a difficult thing to compare fighters and will always spur debate, except for those who are so full of hubris, who don't or refuse to consider another's view. Thanks!

[Ambling Alp II]

I like a good debate; one of the reasons I come on here. I don't think you had really considered the quality of Leonard's opponents. He went out of his way to fight good competition throughout his career.

[oogiebe]

I like a good debate; one of the reasons I come on here. I don't think you had really considered the quality of Leonard's opponents. He went out of his way to fight good competition throughout his career.

I just don't agree 100%. I have to admit, I'm biased on SRL (great fighter for sure), but I don't think to the point of being unreasonable. I look at opponents when rating fighters more for what they did AFTER they fight. I believe it gives a more accurate representation of their level when fought. Of course past is also considered. How an opponent fared after being beaten is a good indicator as far as I'm concerned. So for instance, look at Price on SRL's record.

[Ambling Alp II]

I usually put more emphasis on what an an opponent has done before they fought. (of course there are exceptions. Maybe the opponent is in his first big fight and has many other big fights after this.)) I think that is usually more telling. Sometimes a guy's career falls apart after their fight and his losses were not indicative of the fighter that he was going into the fight.

ie Fighter A beat Fighter B in a big showdown. For whatever reason, Fighter B loses his motivation ,and later loses fights after that to lesser guys. Or he simply got old. Or he starts showing wear and tear, possibly partially due to his fight against Fighter A. Or all of the above.

I can give many, many examples of this happening. This should not take anything away from Fighter A's big win. It usually isn't. The opponent's recent fights leading up to to their fight is the most telling.