Is Muhammad Ali in Everybody's 'Top 10'

[margaret thatcher]

You ask me to give reasons why I rank Floyd higher, I give reasons, you say I didn't give reasons

[margaret thatcher]

I didn't know there was judging around here, where do you get your winner's trophy ?

[Ambling Alp II]

Never really put this together before, although had some thoughts through the years. Anyway...

1-Sugar Ray Robinson
2-Muhammad Ali
3-Joe Louis
4-Henry Armstrong
5-Harry Greb
6-Benny Leonard
7-Tony Canzanari
8-Carlos Monzon
9-Ruben Olivares
10-Floyd Mayweather.

Quick list. I'm sure I could be convinced otherwise to some extent.

Not a bad list.

Mine comes out like so, and just for the hell of it I'll add in 10 more

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Harry Greb
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Willie Pep
7. Roberto Duran
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Archie Moore
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Benny Leonard
13. Gene Tunney
14. Mickey Walker
15. Barney Ross
16. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
17. Joe Gans
18. Charley Burley
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Sandy Saddler

That is pretty close to where I have it. Ray Leonard has to be ahead of Duran; I would simply switch them. Would switch Ali and Pep. The further you go down, the closer it gets. Obviously there are several guys (Chavez, Monzon, Pac, Hearns etc.) that you make a case for instead of the guys who just made it. Overall, pretty good.

[gilgamesh]

To me Duran's career and longevity are better overall than Leonard's, but I could see switching the two of 'em around certainly, and the case for why would be obvious, but to me I give Duran the edge overall.

They both did about equally as good against Hagler in my eyes. Even though Leonard got the W, and Duran didn't. Duran only lost by 1 point in a 15 rounder, and Leonard won a decision that's still debated today in a 12 rounder. I had the Leonard-Hagler fight a Draw personally.

Obviously Leonard did way better against Benitez and Hearns though.

[Tony1244]

To me Duran's career and longevity are better overall than Leonard's, but I could see switching the two of 'em around certainly, and the case for why would be obvious, but to me I give Duran the edge overall.

They both did about equally as good against Hagler in my eyes. Even though Leonard got the W, and Duran didn't. Duran only lost by 1 point in a 15 rounder, and Leonard won a decision that's still debated today in a 12 rounder. I had the Leonard-Hagler fight a Draw personally.

Obviously Leonard did way better against Benitez and Hearns though.

I had Leonard winning by a round against Hagler. Like Holmes-Norton, the first half of the fight was all Holmes and Leonard, but both ended up being a close fight.

Haven't watched Hagler-Duran in ages, but despite the official scores, I don't remember that being a close fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard clearly won the first four rounds against Hagler. After that it was pretty close. Calling that fight a draw is pushing it.
More importantly, what seems to be lost on everyone is that Leonard has 1 fight in the previous 5 years. This was supposed to be an execution. Amazing that he was even competitive.

Duran did better than expected against Hagler. Still he faded down the stretch. There has never been any controversy with this fight. Most people had it something like 145-140. Obviously not an embarrassing loss or anything like that. Still, not as impressive as Leonard actually beating Hagler.

Leonard had literally every advantage over Duran that we commonly use when rating fighters:

Who won the head to head? Leonard.
Who was better against common opponents? Leonard.
Who beat better opponents? Leonard
Who was more consistent? Leonard. (Not that Duran was inconsistent. However he lost to Dejesus in his prime. Easily could have lost a decision to Viruet)

To support Duran, we have to move the goalposts.

[gilgamesh]

I thought Leonard won the first 5 rounds against Hagler actually.

I thought Hagler won Rounds 6 thru 11 though.

Leonard wins Round 12 creating the draw on my card.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wow. Certainly can't agree with that.
Even if Leonard would somehow only got a draw, his career is still clearly better than Duran's. I don't think people have really looked at this. Yes Duran fought for 33 years. In that time, his 2nd biggest win is against whom? Ken Buchanan? That simply doesn't stack up to what Leonard did in a much shorter period of time.

[Duran1970]

Leonard clearly won the first four rounds against Hagler. After that it was pretty close. Calling that fight a draw is pushing it.
More importantly, what seems to be lost on everyone is that Leonard has 1 fight in the previous 5 years. This was supposed to be an execution. Amazing that he was even competitive.

Duran did better than expected against Hagler. Still he faded down the stretch. There has never been any controversy with this fight. Most people had it something like 145-140. Obviously not an embarrassing loss or anything like that. Still, not as impressive as Leonard actually beating Hagler.

Leonard had literally every advantage over Duran that we commonly use when rating fighters:

Who won the head to head? Leonard.
Who was better against common opponents? Leonard.
Who beat better opponents? Leonard
Who was more consistent? Leonard. (Not that Duran was inconsistent. However he lost to Dejesus in his prime. Easily could have lost a decision to Viruet)

To support Duran, we have to move the goalposts.

Wow. Certainly can't agree with that.

[margaret thatcher]

Leonard beat Hagler legitimately, I know it hurts some people

[oogiebe]

I thought Leonard won the first 5 rounds against Hagler actually.

I thought Hagler won Rounds 6 thru 11 though.

Leonard wins Round 12 creating the draw on my card.

I had SRL winning 4 of the first 5 with one even. Agree on the rest. That put me with Hagler by one round. No robbery, but open to debate. Doesn't change the record books and takes nothing away from Ray's performance all things considered.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard clearly won the first four rounds against Hagler. After that it was pretty close. Calling that fight a draw is pushing it.
More importantly, what seems to be lost on everyone is that Leonard has 1 fight in the previous 5 years. This was supposed to be an execution. Amazing that he was even competitive.

Duran did better than expected against Hagler. Still he faded down the stretch. There has never been any controversy with this fight. Most people had it something like 145-140. Obviously not an embarrassing loss or anything like that. Still, not as impressive as Leonard actually beating Hagler.

Leonard had literally every advantage over Duran that we commonly use when rating fighters:

Who won the head to head? Leonard.
Who was better against common opponents? Leonard.
Who beat better opponents? Leonard
Who was more consistent? Leonard. (Not that Duran was inconsistent. However he lost to Dejesus in his prime. Easily could have lost a decision to Viruet)

To support Duran, we have to move the goalposts.

Wow. Certainly can't agree with that.

Me, either.

[Duran1970]

Leonard beat Hagler legitimately, I know it hurts some people

If legitimately means judge paid off by good friend Jose Sulaiman to get even with the Petronellis and Hagler and have every stipulation in your favor then ya.

[oogiebe]

Leonard beat Hagler legitimately, I know it hurts some people

If legitimately means judge paid off by good friend Jose Sulaiman to get even with the Petronellis and Hagler and have every stipulation in your favor then ya.

While I thought Marvin won, I don't suspect any payoffs.

[Duran1970]

Research it ooogs.

[margaret thatcher]

Ray deserved the decision either way

[oogiebe]

Research it ooogs.

Nah. You posted it. You provide it please. I'm too tired to look into that sort of thing.

[gilgamesh]

Research it ooogs.

Nah. You posted it. You provide it please. I'm too tired to look into that sort of thing.

This thread is full of mahfuckas trying to make points without putting the work in

[margaret thatcher]

Nah. You posted it. You provide it please. I'm too tired to look into that sort of thing.

This thread is full of mahfuckas trying to make points without putting the work in

Ya, you ducked hard bruh

[gilgamesh]

This thread is full of mahfuckas trying to make points without putting the work in

Ya, you ducked hard bruh

So weird that you don't see you're the one that avoided making your argument.

[margaret thatcher]

Ya, you ducked hard bruh

So weird that you don't see you're the one that avoided making your argument.

You asked for reasons, I gave you 3, you didn't respond with any counter argument why I'm wrong. Please learn to read better matey if you can't see it

Plus you're not even consistent. Sometimes you say I didn't make an argument, other times you just say I just didn't add much detail to the argument I made, what is it

You bring this up again today but are still doing a bad job at it

[gilgamesh]

So weird that you don't see you're the one that avoided making your argument.

You asked for reasons, I gave you 3, you didn't respond with any counter argument why I'm wrong. Please learn to read better matey if you can't see it

Plus you're not even consistent. Sometimes you say I didn't make an argument, other times you just say I just didn't add much detail to the argument I made, what is it

You bring this up again today but are still doing a bad job at it

They're one and the same. You didn't add any detail therefore you didn't make an argument. The argument is the details.

It's alright.

You're wrong anyway so I can see why you wouldn't wanna go into details and prove it.

[margaret thatcher]

I made the argument, gave 3 specific reasons after you asked for reasons (LOL), they are there to counter but you won't do it. I'm the only one here who has actually given specific reasons for Floyd vs Joe, you haven't made anything, you're the guy who wants others to do the work

[oogiebe]

Next he'll 'dare us to contradict him.'

[margaret thatcher]

Everyone is free to try it when they want to, no dares needed, Gil just wants others to put in all the work on that argument though