Who was the greatest of the "Four Kings"?

[p4p1]

It's the same old crap with some of these post. (Though fortunately, some people are being reasonable).

Duran was "partying" for five months and that's why Leonard beat him. Please.
Somehow Hagler got robbed against Leonard. Please.
Leonard actually fought "closed door fights" during all that time he was off before the Hagler fight. That's like saying that if Michael Joran was off for almost 5 years but played pick up games it would be not be considered a big deal for him coming back.

Love how beating 8 Top 10 contenders before winning the title doesn't count. If Duran or Hagler, or Hearns or just about anyone else had done it, it would be considered a big deal.

What are you going on about? Who said Hagler got robbed? I've seen many posters call it one way or another but close. "Closed door fights?" WTF man!

The story is that he had 3 or 4 of them before the Hagler fight against some top fighters. Realistically just scored full fight sparring with no headgear etc. Shakes the ring rust out most likely.

https://www.espn.com/sports/boxing/news ... id=3200938

[Onetimeonly]

It's the same old crap with some of these post. (Though fortunately, some people are being reasonable).

Duran was "partying" for five months and that's why Leonard beat him. Please.
Somehow Hagler got robbed against Leonard. Please.
Leonard actually fought "closed door fights" during all that time he was off before the Hagler fight. That's like saying that if Michael Joran was off for almost 5 years but played pick up games it would be not be considered a big deal for him coming back.

Love how beating 8 Top 10 contenders before winning the title doesn't count. If Duran or Hagler, or Hearns or just about anyone else had done it, it would be considered a big deal.

What are you going on about? Who said Hagler got robbed? I've seen many posters call it one way or another but close. "Closed door fights?" WTF man!

The story is that he had 3 or 4 of them before the Hagler fight against some top fighters. Realistically just scored full fight sparring with no headgear etc. Shakes the ring rust out most likely.

https://www.espn.com/sports/boxing/news ... id=3200938

Quincy Taylor dropped him.

[p4p1]

It's the same old crap with some of these post. (Though fortunately, some people are being reasonable).

Duran was "partying" for five months and that's why Leonard beat him. Please.
Somehow Hagler got robbed against Leonard. Please.

Nobody on this thread has said that but Leonard himself has said it was a major reason for the quick turnaround. If you don't think Duran was at a disadvantage because of that then you need to reevaluate.
https://www.dazn.com/en-AU/news/boxing/ ... mxu9v82qpa

Leonard actually fought "closed door fights" during all that time he was off before the Hagler fight. That's like saying that if Michael Joran was off for almost 5 years but played pick up games it would be not be considered a big deal for him coming back.

If those pickup games were with and against top nba players, refereed by proper officials as the Leonard 'fights' have been reported to be then sure.

Love how beating 8 Top 10 contenders before winning the title doesn't count. If Duran or Hagler, or Hearns or just about anyone else had done it, it would be considered a big deal.

Duran didn't have time to beat 8 top 10 guys given his age and how recent the switch to LW was. He did beat a shitload of top 10 contenders during his time as champion though.

Hagler had wins over these guys whom I'm pretty sure were top 10 guys.
Norberto Rufino Cabrera
Seales x 2
Munro x 2
Briscoe
Watts
Colbert
Finnigan x 2
Garaldo

Hart may have been top 10 but I'm not sure. There is 8 guys there, some of them he fought and beat twice with Munroe being the only one who legitimately beat him. Hagler was rings #1 rated MW from 77 until he became champion.

Ray's huge advantage is the money he and his team could offer top contenders would likely be more than the champion could have, Hagler and Hearns didn't have that advantage. Hagler especially had trouble getting fights against top contenders after a while.

[Ambling Alp II]

1. don't care that Duran supposedly gained 40 pounds, That's is on him. Doesn't matter what Leonard says. You can say that Leonard lost the first time because his pet Sparky died. Duran was fighting Leonard for the title. Don't want to hear the crybaby excuses. I was at my best because I ate too much is about as lame as it gets. It is a dog ate my homework excuse. Nobody would buy this excuse in any other situation.

2. Michael Jordan did play many pick up games against NBA players during his almost 2-year absence from playing official NBA games. It's better than nothing but not nearly the same. He was still obviously rusty when he first came after being off almost two years. In fact, he never was the player that he had once been. Nobody is saying that Leonard never put on a pair of boxing gloves during that time. At most you can call Leonard's "behind closed door" fight exhibitions. That is not the same thing at all as a real fight that counts. They mean less than an NBA exhibition game.

3. As for Duran's and Hagler pre-title fights against contenders:
Duran had 28 fights as a pro over about four years before fighting Buchanan. Plenty of time to fight several fights at various weight classes against contenders. Bantam weight, featherweight, lightweights contender, whatever. Someone. He fought almost no one of any consequence. I count two guys.

You are way off with Hagler. I have looked this up and pointed it out before.
Guess what? Seales, Watts, Monroe, Finnegan, Geraldo, Finnegan, and Cabrera were not ranked when Hagler beat them.
(Watts and Monroe were ranked when Hagler lost to them.)
btw- Leonard beat Geraldo too. Doesn't count for Leonard either.


Colbert, Brisco, and Hamaini were ranked. Hagler had 3 wins over ranked contender before winning the title. Leonard had 8.

[p4p1]

1. don't care that Duran supposedly gained 40 pounds, That's is on him. Doesn't matter what Leonard says. You can say that Leonard lost the first time because his pet Sparky died. Duran was fighting Leonard for the title. Don't want to hear the crybaby excuses. I was at my best because I ate too much is about as lame as it gets. It is a dog ate my homework excuse. Nobody would buy this excuse in any other situation.

2. Michael Jordan did play many pick up games against NBA players during his almost 2-year absence from playing official NBA games. It's better than nothing but not nearly the same. He was still obviously rusty when he first came after being off almost two years. In fact, he never was the player that he had once been. Nobody is saying that Leonard never put on a pair of boxing gloves during that time. At most you can call Leonard's "behind closed door" fight exhibitions. That is not the same thing at all as a real fight that counts. They mean less than an NBA exhibition game.

3. As for Duran's and Hagler pre-title fights against contenders:
Duran had 28 fights as a pro over about four years before fighting Buchanan. Plenty of time to fight several fights at various weight classes against contenders. Bantam weight, featherweight, lightweights contender, whatever. Someone. He fought almost no one of any consequence. I count two guys.

You are way off with Hagler. I have looked this up and pointed it out before.
Guess what? Seales, Watts, Monroe, Finnegan, Geraldo, Finnegan, and Cabrera were not ranked when Hagler beat them.
(Watts and Monroe were ranked when Hagler lost to them.)
btw- Leonard beat Geraldo too. Doesn't count for Leonard either.


Colbert, Brisco, and Hamaini were ranked. Hagler had 3 wins over ranked contender before winning the title. Leonard had 8.

How do you find who was ranked etc at the time they fought Hagler or Leonard? I know Ring's annual ratings are easy enough to find but that can't tell the full picture.

[Crease]

For me, it is Marvin... But he was my favourite...
Completely locked down the Middleweight division...
A beast of a man...

[Ambling Alp II]

1. don't care that Duran supposedly gained 40 pounds, That's is on him. Doesn't matter what Leonard says. You can say that Leonard lost the first time because his pet Sparky died. Duran was fighting Leonard for the title. Don't want to hear the crybaby excuses. I was at my best because I ate too much is about as lame as it gets. It is a dog ate my homework excuse. Nobody would buy this excuse in any other situation.

2. Michael Jordan did play many pick up games against NBA players during his almost 2-year absence from playing official NBA games. It's better than nothing but not nearly the same. He was still obviously rusty when he first came after being off almost two years. In fact, he never was the player that he had once been. Nobody is saying that Leonard never put on a pair of boxing gloves during that time. At most you can call Leonard's "behind closed door" fight exhibitions. That is not the same thing at all as a real fight that counts. They mean less than an NBA exhibition game.

3. As for Duran's and Hagler pre-title fights against contenders:
Duran had 28 fights as a pro over about four years before fighting Buchanan. Plenty of time to fight several fights at various weight classes against contenders. Bantam weight, featherweight, lightweights contender, whatever. Someone. He fought almost no one of any consequence. I count two guys.

You are way off with Hagler. I have looked this up and pointed it out before.
Guess what? Seales, Watts, Monroe, Finnegan, Geraldo, Finnegan, and Cabrera were not ranked when Hagler beat them.
(Watts and Monroe were ranked when Hagler lost to them.)
btw- Leonard beat Geraldo too. Doesn't count for Leonard either.


Colbert, Brisco, and Hamaini were ranked. Hagler had 3 wins over ranked contender before winning the title. Leonard had 8.

How do you find who was ranked etc at the time they fought Hagler or Leonard? I know Ring's annual ratings are easy enough to find but that can't tell the full picture.

Do you happen to have the Boxing Register: International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book?
It notes if the opponent was in the Top 10 at the time of the fight.

If you don't (or have old back copies of Ring Magazine) the best thing you can do is as you say check Boxrec's Annual Ring Ratings and it will pretty close. The thing to remember is that you need to check the year before the fight took place. So for example, if you want to see if Sugar Ray was ranked going into the Hagler fight in 1974, check the 1973 ratings. Not always right, but will probably be right 90% of the time. The most likely reason it would be incorrect is if the opponent was ranked the previous year, but lost earlier in the current year before their fight and fell out of the ratings.

[hhaehre]

What are you going on about? Who said Hagler got robbed? I've seen many posters call it one way or another but close. "Closed door fights?" WTF man!

The story is that he had 3 or 4 of them before the Hagler fight against some top fighters. Realistically just scored full fight sparring with no headgear etc. Shakes the ring rust out most likely.

https://www.espn.com/sports/boxing/news ... id=3200938

Quincy Taylor dropped him.

Leonard said he had planned to fight Hagler toe to toe, but getting dropped by Taylor made him change his game plan.

[Seamus]

The excuses for why Leonard avenged Montreal, only came after the fight. Some were insane, Leonard's people slipped Duran a strong laxative, and as soon as it kicked in Ray decided it was safe to start showboating. I actually heard several people say that. Excuses for why he beat Hagler only came after the fight. Only pre fight comments I heard were "Hagler will destroy Leonard". Even after the 1st fight with Hearns I heard some. Tommy would have won if he wasn't weight drained.

[p4p1]

1. don't care that Duran supposedly gained 40 pounds, That's is on him. Doesn't matter what Leonard says. You can say that Leonard lost the first time because his pet Sparky died. Duran was fighting Leonard for the title. Don't want to hear the crybaby excuses. I was at my best because I ate too much is about as lame as it gets. It is a dog ate my homework excuse. Nobody would buy this excuse in any other situation.

2. Michael Jordan did play many pick up games against NBA players during his almost 2-year absence from playing official NBA games. It's better than nothing but not nearly the same. He was still obviously rusty when he first came after being off almost two years. In fact, he never was the player that he had once been. Nobody is saying that Leonard never put on a pair of boxing gloves during that time. At most you can call Leonard's "behind closed door" fight exhibitions. That is not the same thing at all as a real fight that counts. They mean less than an NBA exhibition game.

3. As for Duran's and Hagler pre-title fights against contenders:
Duran had 28 fights as a pro over about four years before fighting Buchanan. Plenty of time to fight several fights at various weight classes against contenders. Bantam weight, featherweight, lightweights contender, whatever. Someone. He fought almost no one of any consequence. I count two guys.

You are way off with Hagler. I have looked this up and pointed it out before.
Guess what? Seales, Watts, Monroe, Finnegan, Geraldo, Finnegan, and Cabrera were not ranked when Hagler beat them.
(Watts and Monroe were ranked when Hagler lost to them.)
btw- Leonard beat Geraldo too. Doesn't count for Leonard either.


Colbert, Brisco, and Hamaini were ranked. Hagler had 3 wins over ranked contender before winning the title. Leonard had 8.

How do you find who was ranked etc at the time they fought Hagler or Leonard? I know Ring's annual ratings are easy enough to find but that can't tell the full picture.

Do you happen to have the Boxing Register: International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book?
It notes if the opponent was in the Top 10 at the time of the fight.

If you don't (or have old back copies of Ring Magazine) the best thing you can do is as you say check Boxrec's Annual Ring Ratings and it will pretty close. The thing to remember is that you need to check the year before the fight took place. So for example, if you want to see if Sugar Ray was ranked going into the Hagler fight in 1974, check the 1973 ratings. Not always right, but will probably be right 90% of the time. The most likely reason it would be incorrect is if the opponent was ranked the previous year, but lost earlier in the current year before their fight and fell out of the ratings.

Ni I've never heard of it.
The reason I was sure some of those guys were ranked was because of the book I'm currently reading on Hagler does seem to imply a few of those guys were ranked. I'm surprised Finnegan wasn't ranked at either time they fought.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not sure what book you are referring to, but often biographies give the best possible view of the person that is being writing about.
As for Finnegan, by the time he fought Hagler he had already lost to Minter twice (including his previous fight) and had not beat anyone decent in three years.

[Ambling Alp II]

The excuses for why Leonard avenged Montreal, only came after the fight. Some were insane, Leonard's people slipped Duran a strong laxative, and as soon as it kicked in Ray decided it was safe to start showboating. I actually heard several people say that. Excuses for why he beat Hagler only came after the fight. Only pre fight comments I heard were "Hagler will destroy Leonard". Even after the 1st fight with Hearns I heard some. Tommy would have won if he wasn't weight drained.

Yep. Let's not forget that Benitez didn't start training until right before the fight. How lucky could one person be that his opponent constantly falls apart only when he fights Leonard? It just goes on and on. Logic tells us that Leonard was clearly the best. So people resort to the crybaby excuses that nobody would take seriously if almost anyone else was involved.

[oogiebe]

The excuses for why Leonard avenged Montreal, only came after the fight. Some were insane, Leonard's people slipped Duran a strong laxative, and as soon as it kicked in Ray decided it was safe to start showboating. I actually heard several people say that. Excuses for why he beat Hagler only came after the fight. Only pre fight comments I heard were "Hagler will destroy Leonard". Even after the 1st fight with Hearns I heard some. Tommy would have won if he wasn't weight drained.

Yep. Let's not forget that Benitez didn't start training until right before the fight. How lucky could one person be that his opponent constantly falls apart only when he fights Leonard? It just goes on and on. Logic tells us that Leonard was clearly the best. So people resort to the crybaby excuses that nobody would take seriously if almost anyone else was involved.

You're making a complelling case, said no one ever.

[elmersalsa]

The excuses for why Leonard avenged Montreal, only came after the fight. Some were insane, Leonard's people slipped Duran a strong laxative, and as soon as it kicked in Ray decided it was safe to start showboating. I actually heard several people say that. Excuses for why he beat Hagler only came after the fight. Only pre fight comments I heard were "Hagler will destroy Leonard". Even after the 1st fight with Hearns I heard some. Tommy would have won if he wasn't weight drained.

Yep. Let's not forget that Benitez didn't start training until right before the fight. How lucky could one person be that his opponent constantly falls apart only when he fights Leonard? It just goes on and on. Logic tells us that Leonard was clearly the best. So people resort to the crybaby excuses that nobody would take seriously if almost anyone else was involved.

There was no excuses when Duran whupped him in Montreal, right? With both at their very best. Who was clearly better?

[Ambling Alp II]

No excuse for Leonard when Duran beat Leonard in the first fight.
No excuse for Duran when Leonard beat Duran in the 2nd fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

The excuses for why Leonard avenged Montreal, only came after the fight. Some were insane, Leonard's people slipped Duran a strong laxative, and as soon as it kicked in Ray decided it was safe to start showboating. I actually heard several people say that. Excuses for why he beat Hagler only came after the fight. Only pre fight comments I heard were "Hagler will destroy Leonard". Even after the 1st fight with Hearns I heard some. Tommy would have won if he wasn't weight drained.

Yep. Let's not forget that Benitez didn't start training until right before the fight. How lucky could one person be that his opponent constantly falls apart only when he fights Leonard? It just goes on and on. Logic tells us that Leonard was clearly the best. So people resort to the crybaby excuses that nobody would take seriously if almost anyone else was involved.

You're making a complelling case, said no one ever.

My case for Leonard is based on the things that are normally used. Head to head. Common opponents. Quality of wins. To a lesser extent the competitiveness of the fights. Losses/poor performances against inferior opponents. Don't factor in crybaby excuses.

Leonard has it over Duran plain and simple. It is about as compelling as you can get.

[oogiebe]

Yep. Let's not forget that Benitez didn't start training until right before the fight. How lucky could one person be that his opponent constantly falls apart only when he fights Leonard? It just goes on and on. Logic tells us that Leonard was clearly the best. So people resort to the crybaby excuses that nobody would take seriously if almost anyone else was involved.

You're making a complelling case, said no one ever.

My case for Leonard is based on the things that are normally used. Head to head. Common opponents. Quality of wins. To a lesser extent the competitiveness of the fights. Losses/poor performances against inferior opponents. Don't factor in crybaby excuses.

Leonard has it over Duran plain and simple. It is about as compelling as you can get.

To you it's compelling. To me it's not. Based on head to head, sure SRL gets the nod. BUT...had they all fought each other in their primes, I would pick Marvin.

[elmersalsa]

No excuse for Leonard when Duran beat Leonard in the first fight.
No excuse for Duran when Leonard beat Duran in the 2nd fight.

You and the other guys made the excuse that Sugar Ray did not fight his fight. Don't you remember that?

My satisfaction is when BOTH WERE AT THEIR VERY BEST, a one shot deal, Duran whupped him. There is no if or but about it.

Sugar Ray never beat Duran at his very best. That's what a lot of Sugar Ray fans, and even the same Leonard are mad about.

[Ambling Alp II]

No excuse for Leonard when Duran beat Leonard in the first fight.
No excuse for Duran when Leonard beat Duran in the 2nd fight.

You and the other guys made the excuse that Sugar Ray did not fight his fight. Don't you remember that?

My satisfaction is when BOTH WERE AT THEIR VERY BEST, a one shot deal, Duran whupped him. There is no if or but about it.

Sugar Ray never beat Duran at his very best. That's what a lot of Sugar Ray fans, and even the same Leonard are mad about.

It's not excuse. It is a criticism of Leonard.
Duran was not at this very best? I agree in their second fight it was not the best fight that Duran ever fought.
The first fight was not the best fight that Leonard ever fought. You could just as easily say that Duran never beat Leonard at Leonard's very best.

The fact is that they went 1-1 in their first two fights. No excuses for either guy.

[Ambling Alp II]

You're making a complelling case, said no one ever.

My case for Leonard is based on the things that are normally used. Head to head. Common opponents. Quality of wins. To a lesser extent the competitiveness of the fights. Losses/poor performances against inferior opponents. Don't factor in crybaby excuses.

Leonard has it over Duran plain and simple. It is about as compelling as you can get.

To you it's compelling. To me it's not. Based on head to head, sure SRL gets the nod. BUT...had they all fought each other in their primes, I would pick Marvin.

I'm sure you would have picked Hagler. And I'm just as sure that you picked Hagler before they actually did fight.

You are basing it on a hypothetical fight that never happened. Leonard had not moved up to middleweight during his prime. I could say hypothetically would have if he had not missed those years would have gradually moved up in weight, and beat Hagler in 1984 or so.

Leonard had been off almost 5 years when they fought. Lenard was not used to fighting at middleweight. Which is why so many people thought that Hagler would win easily going into the fight. Everybody knew going in that Hagler had huge advantages. Yet Leonard still won.

You are going by what ifs and hypotheticals.
I am going by what actually happened.
Leonard won the head to head. Leonard beat better overall p4p competition than Hagler. Leonard had less losses and subpar performances against inferior opponents.
Even if you throw out their head to head fight, Leonard had a better career than Hagler.

[elmersalsa]

No excuse for Leonard when Duran beat Leonard in the first fight.
No excuse for Duran when Leonard beat Duran in the 2nd fight.

You and the other guys made the excuse that Sugar Ray did not fight his fight. Don't you remember that?

My satisfaction is when BOTH WERE AT THEIR VERY BEST, a one shot deal, Duran whupped him. There is no if or but about it.

Sugar Ray never beat Duran at his very best. That's what a lot of Sugar Ray fans, and even the same Leonard are mad about.

It's not excuse. It is a criticism of Leonard.
Duran was not at this very best? I agree in their second fight it was not the best fight that Duran ever fought.
The first fight was not the best fight that Leonard ever fought. You could just as easily say that Duran never beat Leonard at Leonard's very best.

The fact is that they went 1-1 in their first two fights. No excuses for either guy.

Anybody that believes that Sugar Ray was not at his very best in Montreal must be crazy, wicked, blind or biased. The way he fought, and the terrific pace for 15 rounds, with all that clutching and grabbing most in partly done by Sugar Ray in the biggest night outside the heavyweight division was surreal.

Duran whupped Leonard at Leonard's very best. He did everything to win and gave all he had. Duran was just better that night.

[p4p1]

Alp, why does Leonard losing to Hearns and Duran not factor into your h2h choice?
Hearns went 1-1 with Leonard. KO'd Duran and lost to Hagler. But are you sure if they're both at their best Leonard beats Hearns?
Each guy fought the three other, only 1 of them lost once.

[oogiebe]

My case for Leonard is based on the things that are normally used. Head to head. Common opponents. Quality of wins. To a lesser extent the competitiveness of the fights. Losses/poor performances against inferior opponents. Don't factor in crybaby excuses.

Leonard has it over Duran plain and simple. It is about as compelling as you can get.

To you it's compelling. To me it's not. Based on head to head, sure SRL gets the nod. BUT...had they all fought each other in their primes, I would pick Marvin.

I'm sure you would have picked Hagler. And I'm just as sure that you picked Hagler before they actually did fight.

You are basing it on a hypothetical fight that never happened. Leonard had not moved up to middleweight during his prime. I could say hypothetically would have if he had not missed those years would have gradually moved up in weight, and beat Hagler in 1984 or so.

Leonard had been off almost 5 years when they fought. Lenard was not used to fighting at middleweight. Which is why so many people thought that Hagler would win easily going into the fight. Everybody knew going in that Hagler had huge advantages. Yet Leonard still won.

You are going by what ifs and hypotheticals.
I am going by what actually happened.
Leonard won the head to head. Leonard beat better overall p4p competition than Hagler. Leonard had less losses and subpar performances against inferior opponents.
Even if you throw out their head to head fight, Leonard had a better career than Hagler.

Sounding a bit arrogant Alp.

[Ambling Alp II]

Alp, why does Leonard losing to Hearns and Duran not factor into your h2h choice?
Hearns went 1-1 with Leonard. KO'd Duran and lost to Hagler. But are you sure if they're both at their best Leonard beats Hearns?
Each guy fought the three other, only 1 of them lost once.

First , he he did not lose to Hearns. It was a draw.
But yes, the loss to Duran and the draw with Hearns does factor in. You have to weigh wins against the losses and the draws.
Duran and Hearns of course lost to Leonard. Hagler lost to Leonard as well. It all counts. You do have to factor in stages of career; which is why I don't count the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight.

Yes Hagler only lost once to one of the others. However, he only won 2, while Leonard won three. Plus, you have to factor in that Duran was past it by the time he fought Hagler and still gave him a tough fight. I don't really give Hagler a ton of credit for that win. That doesn't compare to Leonard beating Duran back in 1980.

And of course we have to look at fights outside of their fights against each other. Hearns and Leonard each beat Benitez. Neither Hagler or Duran has a win that is close to that.

And Duran lost to DeJesus nd Benitez, Hearns lost to Barkley 2x, Hagler had losses and subpar performances as well.
That has to count against them.
Leonard's other losses were when he was clearly past it. ((Duran had a ton of losses that don't count as well. )
The bottom line is that Leonard had better wins and less relevant losses/subpar performances than the rest of three. It is pretty clear.

[Ambling Alp II]

To you it's compelling. To me it's not. Based on head to head, sure SRL gets the nod. BUT...had they all fought each other in their primes, I would pick Marvin.

I'm sure you would have picked Hagler. And I'm just as sure that you picked Hagler before they actually did fight.

You are basing it on a hypothetical fight that never happened. Leonard had not moved up to middleweight during his prime. I could say hypothetically would have if he had not missed those years would have gradually moved up in weight, and beat Hagler in 1984 or so.

Leonard had been off almost 5 years when they fought. Lenard was not used to fighting at middleweight. Which is why so many people thought that Hagler would win easily going into the fight. Everybody knew going in that Hagler had huge advantages. Yet Leonard still won.

You are going by what ifs and hypotheticals.
I am going by what actually happened.
Leonard won the head to head. Leonard beat better overall p4p competition than Hagler. Leonard had less losses and subpar performances against inferior opponents.
Even if you throw out their head to head fight, Leonard had a better career than Hagler.

Sounding a bit arrogant Alp.

Don't see how that is arrogant. I certainly didn't mean to be.