Rating the Hall of Famers

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 07 Sep 2007, 10:57

No, not a heavyweight.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 07 Sep 2007, 12:08

BoxBuzz wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Buzz- I don't want to get bogged down by the word fame in the International Boxing Hall of Fame. For the purpose of this thread we are going strictly by how good a fighter's career was, regardless of their fame.
Yep we are on the same page....I just have to make my obligatory remark on this subject before I participate.

On first glance Loche and Cervantes should move up a notch. Whitaker maybe up a notch along with Fitzsimmons and Dempsey. Non Pareil up a notch. Joe Jeanette up a notch.

Overall I like your thinking Alp....... I think Martin's list makes some sense especially if you eliminate the bottom catagory.

Buzz, are there some guys that you think should get moved down a level ?

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 07 Sep 2007, 17:48

Seamus wrote:No, not a heavyweight.

They aren't

Terry Allen
Johnny Buff
Kid Chocolate
Peter Kane
Tommy Ryan
Pancho Villa
Joe Walcott (Welterweight)
Freddie Welsh

Seamus, may be one of them?

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 07 Sep 2007, 17:51

It's Tommy Ryan. In my opinion the greatest fighter of the 19th Century.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 07 Sep 2007, 17:52

Martin

What are you doing posting ? You should be celebrating Argentina's World Cup victory over France.

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 07 Sep 2007, 18:14

Seamus wrote:Martin

What are you doing posting ? You should be celebrating Argentina's World Cup victory over France.

Yes, Seamus!

I saw that good news now!

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 07 Sep 2007, 18:17

Seamus wrote:It's Tommy Ryan. In my opinion the greatest fighter of the 19th Century.

Seamus,

of course, you're right; I remember Tommy Ryan was one of the greatest of all time in all weights, and Nat Fleischer put him (after the #1 Stanley Ketchell) as the #2 Middleweight in history

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 07 Sep 2007, 19:19

Seamus wrote:Forgot to mention the International Boxing Hall Of Fame at Canastota has ZERO credibility. The IBHOF inducted Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson and Jersey Joe Walcott ahead of Pascual Perez, Eder Jofre, Panama Al Brown, Pancho Villa and Jimmy Barry to name just a few. After that, why the hell not induct Jerry Quarry, Chuck Wepner, Renaldo Snipes and Bert Gilroy.

hahahahaa, apparently Bert is already in the fake one.

'Nuf said!

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 Sep 2007, 09:11

Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:
Seamus wrote:No, not a heavyweight.

They aren't

Terry Allen
Johnny Buff
Kid Chocolate
Peter Kane
Tommy Ryan
Pancho Villa
Joe Walcott (Welterweight)
Freddie Welsh

Seamus, may be one of them?

Martin & Seamus- Kid Chocolate,Tommy Ryan, Pancho Villa, Joe Walcott, and Freddie Welsh are in the International Boxing Hall of Fame. I accidentally omitted them on my original post. I have since added them. I rated all of them as Level "C" Hall of Famers.

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 11 Sep 2007, 13:56

<<<"Martin & Seamus- Kid Chocolate,Tommy Ryan, Pancho Villa, Joe Walcott, and Freddie Welsh are in the International Boxing Hall of Fame. I accidentally omitted them on my original post. I have since added them. I rated all of them as Level 'C' Hall of Famers">>>

Ambling Alp,
Thanks you very much!
I think, as not the HOF were World Champions (as Billy Graham), in to vote this great South American LH:

Jose Carattoli, Argentinian

Angel Rodriguez, Uruguayan

Mauro Mina, Peruvian

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Sep 2007, 10:19

I know that some people think we are talking way too much about heavyweights so I thought this thread would be interesting because most of the fighters in the Hall of Fame aren't heavyweights. We are talking about 200 fighters in a span of over 100 years! I thought this would spark some good debates. I hope people keep their opinions coming about who should be rated at which level.

Anyway, I just thought I would comment on some of the opinions about moving people up or down:

Barry McGuigan should be moved down from Level D to Level E? You could argue that. I just thought that he did at least have a few nice wins and you could at least make a case for him being the Hall of Fame. The fighters that I did list as Level E don't really have any case at all.

Sonny Liston -Rated too high? (I had as a B) Possibly. He could be a C. He was a close call. He was the best heavyweight in the world for about 5 years in a decent era before Ali came along. That has to count for something. I don't think he was as good as most of the other "B"s, but he seemed better than the "Cs".

Jimmy Wilde and Eder Jofre should be moved up from B to A? I have to admit, I am not a big fans of the really small weight classes. They usually don't have much depth. Obviously Wilde and Jofre were great fighters. But is there competition as good as the fighters that in Level A? Who is the best fighter that Jimmy Wilde ever beat? I don't mean to slam these guys, but I just don't consider them as the same level as Robinson, Ali, Pep etc.

Gene Tunney should get moved up from B to A? A borderline call. I almost did rate him as an A.

Emile Griffith should get moved up from B to A? I can't see this. He had a lot of big wins, but lost too often and also won a lot of close wins.

Pernell Whitaker moved from B to A? I just don't see it. Great fighter, but not a legend.

Tommy Loughran, Tommy Gibbons,George Dixon, Abe Attell, Ike Willams, Azumah Neslon, should be moved from C to B. You could argue for Williams, Loughran,Dixon and Attell, but I don't think they are quite as good as the Level B fighters. As for Gibbons, no way. He is a middle of the road Level C. It would be a stretch to rate Nelson at Level B.

Jeff Fenech should be moved up from D to C? I don't see this at all. He get a draw with Nelson and could have gotten the decision, but what else is there? He lost the rematch, was stopped by Calvin Grove, doesn't really have an impressive list of fighters that he beat, and had a short career. I almost put him at Level E.

Nicolino Locche, Antonio Cervantes, Nonpariel Jack Dempsey, and Joe Jeannette should get moved up from C to B?
I think you could make an arguement for Locche and Dempsey; both had careers that are a little hard to evaluate. I don't think you can make much of case for Cervantes. I don't see him as being better than the majority of Hall of Famers.
I rated Jeannette as Level C because I thought he was at about the same level as Corbett,Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Patterson,Norton and his rivals Wills and McVey. Level B has guys like Foreman,Marciano,Frazier, and Liston. I don't think Jeannette was as good as those guys.

Jeff Chandler should be moved down C to D? That may be a good call. I may have overrated him.

Gene Fullmer should be moved down from Level C to D? No way. Fullmer is a legitimate Level C. He beat a lot of very good fighters and some great ones.

Terry Norris should be moved down from C to D? I could see that.

Sam McVey should be moved down from C to D? I think McVey is a pretty solid Level C. He was about as even with Jeannette as two fighters can be.

Floyd Patterson should be moved from down from Level C to Level D? Patterson did have some meltdowns, but overall I think he did enough in his career to be a C. Other Level C's like Corbett,Schmeling, Sharkey,Baer, Walcott etc all have their negatives as well.

Again it would be great to see some more opinions on who should be rated at what level and why.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Sep 2007, 11:03

Just reply to the ones I disagree with.

Griffith - I don't see why a close win should stand against someone. Some fighters destroy opponents, others don't but still win. It's the same in all sports. I don't think Griffith should be rated down for this.

I also think that he campaigned at higher weights against all the top fighters of the day. I think he's an A level fighter for sure.

Fenech - Fenech was dominant against Nelson in the first fight. His 'win' should have been more controversial than many other 'draws' and bad calls. It certainly was a more convincing performance than Hearns-Leonard II. And when some of the Ali close calls are being called on other threads, I think Fenech did better against Nelson than Norton did in his 2nd and 3rd fights with Ali.

Callejas (who looked outstanding in his demoloition of Stecca), Coffee, Villasana, Martinez, McCrory, Zaragoza and Samart were all very good, world class fighters. Richardson was very good too if a little too light.

By the time Fenech lost to Grove his hands were shot and his career had taken its toll. It might have been short but Fenech was fighting world class fighters by his 12th fight. he ahd also moved up the weights and was taking on people naturally bigger than himself. I think you've been amazingly harsh on him.

As a kid in the 1980s what made me like Fenech was that he seemed to fight the top fighters in his division more often than not.

Alp, your support for Fullmer knows no bounds. He was game and tough but not in the same class as Tiger, Cerdan, La Motta, Mccallum, Flowers, Ryan or Zale. All of those guys could arguably make a 160 top 10. Fullmer is not a candidate.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Sep 2007, 16:18

Griffith fought great competition and deserves credit for that. However, he had 4 close fights with Rodriquez, and was fortunate to get the decision in 3 of them. He lost 2 out of 3 to Benevenuti. He beat Tiger twice, but he was fortunate to get the decision in the first one.
All of these guys were great fighters, but if we are going have them as Level C Hall of Famers, I don't see how Griffith should be a A.

Griffith of course had several noteworthy wins, but he also lost to Paret, Denny Moyer,Don Fullmer, and was knocked out by Ruben Carter. That is just too much for him to be ranked as A. Look at the guys who are in Level A. They didn't have near this many setbacks close to their prime.

As for moving Fenech from Level D to C, well I just don't see it. I'll concede the draw should have been win in the first Nelson fight. He also got beat badly in the rematch. I'm not impressed by the wins over the other guys that you mentioned. This certainly doesn't measure up to the guys that are list at Level C. It's much closer to the guys in Level D.

I don't see how you don't think Fullmer is a Level C or is candidate for being one of the Top 10 middleweightrs of all-time. He isn't even the same class as Tiger,Cerdan,Lamotta,McCallum,Flowers,Ryan or Zale?

Fullmer stopped Basilio twice,beat Robinson (who was obviously past his best but still great),Pender,and Spider Webb twice. Not to mention several other wins against very good opponents.

Take Zale for example. Fullmer beat more top 10 opponents (14 to Zales' 6), lost less fights, and fought in a stronger era than Zale. How can you justify ranking Zale higher, let alone saying that Fullmer isn't in even his class?

LaMotta also had a lot of great wins, but he lost a lot more often than Fullmer.
Cerdan didn't lose much, but he didn't have as many big wins as Fullmer.

Tiger beat Fullmer twice at the end of Fullmer's career, but Fullmer did get a draw with Tiger, and was competitive with him in another fight. Fullmer had more wins against ranked opponents and a lot fewer losses. Clearly he was in Zales',LaMotta's,Cerdan's and Tiger's league.

McCallum? He was 4-1-1 at middleweight and two of his wins could have gone the other way. He has no wins athis weight class that even approach Fullmers best wins. Fullmer isn't even in his league?

Fullmer did have a few losses and some close calls against good but not great competition. This is why I don't have him as a level B. However, if you look at his career as whole he fought scored a lot of great wins and didn't have that many losses in a great era for his weight class. If you consider this and watch him on film, I don't see how he can't be considered one of the top 10 middleweights of all time and be a Level C Hall of Famer. His career was much better than the fighters listed in Level D (Including Jeff Fenech)

I don't get it. What is the arguement against him?

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 12 Sep 2007, 16:56

Sorry Ambling Alp but I have a problem with two fighters Sonny Liston ranked class B and Carlos Ortiz class C.

Ortiz has wins over Elorde, Loi, Laguna, and Ramos all HOF’s
Draw against Loch in Argentina
Lost in his prime only to fellow HOF Loi, and Teo Cruz and another loss past his prime to Buchanan.

How many HOF’s did Liston beat? And has two not even close losses to Ali.

Certainly Ortiz record is way more impressive. I would elevate Ortiz to class B and liston lowered to class C. Liston look very impressive against good but limited competition. Of course, this is just my opinion.

theone · Post by **theone** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:33

Pernell Whitaker moved from B to A? I just don't see it. Great fighter, but not a legend.

One of the very few times i disagree with you Alp. Although he wasn't as popular as some legends, his accomplishments are as impressive as most of them.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Sep 2007, 07:09

Griffith

His losses were to other great fighters or to world class fighters who started their careers at higher weights. He avenged all of them to some extent or another. I think its a dangerous move to harshly mark fighters down because they lost a fight to another great fighter (especially those naturally bigger opponents) in a series. Is it not better to fight the best and lose the odd one than to not fight the best and protect your record?

If Roy Jones had fought a 3 fight series with Toney and Hopkins, fought Benn, McClellan, Eubank, DM that would be an extra 8 fights against world class opposition. Had he lost 2 or 3 of them would that make his standing higher or lower? IMO it has to make it higher otherwise you're rewarding fighters for not fighting.

Leonard's win against Hagler is considered lucky by many. That's just one fight against a top middleweight. Griffith fought many more than that and close calls or not those fights should enhance his reputation and not diminish it. Again, had Leonard rematched Hearns twice at 154, fought McCallum 3 times and rematched Hagler that would be 6 more fights with elite fighters. If he lost a couple then surely that would not have harmed his standing in any way.

Fenech

If you don't fancy his opponents then there's not much I can do about it BUT by the time he lost to Nelson, Jeff was 4 divisions up from where he won his first title. If we accept that Jeff was 1-1 with Nelson then he's split a series with a level C fighter. There's nobody out there that he missed.

Fullmer

The Zale example was a bad one for me. I haven't seen much of him and was really going on what I've read and the testaments of other greats who talk about him.

La Motta fought a much better Robinson than Fullmer did and he did much better against him than Fullmer. He also beat Cerdan.

Flowers has wins over Greb and draws with Rosenbloom. He's considered an underrated great.

Dick Tiger won championships in 2 weight divisions.

Maybe it's me. I'd be interested in what others think. In Fullmer I see a very strong willed, very durable fighter who took his talent to the absolute limit, and hats off to him for that, but I can't imagine him in my MW top 20. Maybe I should have a go at one and see where he ends up.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 13 Sep 2007, 10:37

To start with, I think we may have a different philosophy about weight classes that may be one major reason that we disagree about Griffith and Fenech.

If a fight starts at one weight class and moves up in weight class, I usually don't give him slack if he loses at the higher weight class. If you used to weigh 118 and are now weighing 122 and are against another guy that is 122, it counts.
There are exceptions to this: If it's the fighters very first fight at the higher weight class he may deserve the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't gotten used to the weight. Also unusual circumstances such as Mickey Walker's losses when fighting heavyweights that were far bigger than him shouldn't be held against him. (Unless you are just rating Walker as a heavyweight)

However, I think it's silly just because a fighter starts off at say 118 like Fenech, he shouldn't be held responsible for losses at a higher weight. Fighters move up in weight rountinely in the smaller weight classes. A guy who weighs 118 at the age of 19 probably isn't going to stay that weight for his entire career. He will naturally grow bigger.

Fenech's loss to Nelson counts. The fights that I mentioned concerning Griffith count. He had been fighting Jr Middleweights and Middleweights for years when he lost Moyer, Don Fullmer and Ruben Carter, and Benvenuti.

I do give Emile Griffith alot of credit for fighting extremely tough competition throughout his career. However, a true legend s of the sport win a higher % of the time than he did, even against that tough competition.

I agree that overall Roy Jones didn't have many tough fights in his career and I certainly wouldn't rate him a Level A fighter either. I might not even rate him a Level B.

Some people say that Leonard's win over Hagler was lucky; and those people are wrong. Leonard was coming off a long layoff and beat an an all-time great. Leonard did miss some crucial years of his prime and would have had even more great fights. however, we can only judge him by what did happen. He had 5 fights against great fighters: (Duran twice,Hearns,Benitez, and Hagler). He went 4-1. If Griffith would have won close to 4 out of every 5 of fights he fought against great fighters (and lost a little less often agiant good fighters) than I would list him as a Level A fighter as well.

As for Fenech's competition, there actually were a few guys that he didn't fight that would have helped his case. Tony Lopez, John John Molina, and Brian Mitchell would have been more respectable wins than the guys that you mentioned. I'm not saying that Fenech flat out ducked them but the fact is that he didn't fight them.
Give Fenech the win over Nelson. That just isn't enough. There are many fighters who had one big win in their careers that aren't even in the Hall of Fame.

I really don't agree with your comparison comparing how LaMotta did against Robinson with how Fullmer did against Robinson.

First, Fullmer did do better. He was 2-1-1 against Robinson while LaMotta was only 1-5.

True, Robinson was of course much older when Fullmer fought him than when LaMotta fought him.
However, it's worth pointing out that when LaMotta fought Robinson, Robinson wasn't a middleweight for 5 of their 6 fights. And LaMotta still could only go 1-4, even though LaMotta himself was a middleweight. The one time that LaMotta did beat Robinson, he weighed 160 and Robinson was only 144. When Fullmer fought Robinson, they were both middleweights.

I can't imagine not having Fullmer in a list of Top 20 list of middleweights. After the first 5, (Monzon,Hagler,Greb,Robinson,Walker) there is a group of middleweights that are pretty close. Fullmer is one of them.

Fullmer was more than a durable, strong willed fighter. He beat many very good fighters, and did well against some great ones. Look at his record against the other Hall of Famers. Besides Robinson, he beat Basilio twice. He had a draw and close loss to Tiger. He had a draw against Giardello. He is certainly a legitimate Hall of Famer. Level C is where he belongs.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 13 Sep 2007, 10:41

theone wrote:
Pernell Whitaker moved from B to A? I just don't see it. Great fighter, but not a legend.
One of the very few times i disagree with you Alp. Although he wasn't as popular as some legends, his accomplishments are as impressive as most of them.

Well, I guess great minds don't always think alike.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 13 Sep 2007, 10:50

Borinken25 wrote:Sorry Ambling Alp but I have a problem with two fighters Sonny Liston ranked class B and Carlos Ortiz class C.

Ortiz has wins over Elorde, Loi, Laguna, and Ramos all HOF’s
Draw against Loch in Argentina
Lost in his prime only to fellow HOF Loi, and Teo Cruz and another loss past his prime to Buchanan.

How many HOF’s did Liston beat? And has two not even close losses to Ali.

Certainly Ortiz record is way more impressive. I would elevate Ortiz to class B and liston lowered to class C. Liston look very impressive against good but limited competition. Of course, this is just my opinion.

You made a pretty good arguement. I was really on the fence of where to put Liston. I am now thinking that he should be a Level C.

Ortiz and a handful of others rated as Level C certainly could be rated at Level B. This one of the reasons that I did these ratings; I wanted to see what arguements people would make for people that I was unsure about.
You made a good one for Ortiz.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Sep 2007, 10:51

Ambling Alp wrote:To start with, I think we may have a different philosophy about weight classes that may be one major reason that we disagree about Griffith and Fenech.

If a fight starts at one weight class and moves up in weight class, I usually don't give him slack if he loses at the higher weight class. If you used to weigh 118 and are now weighing 122 and are against another guy that is 122, it counts.
There are exceptions to this: If it's the fighters very first fight at the higher weight class he may deserve the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't gotten used to the weight. Also unusual circumstances such as Mickey Walker's losses when fighting heavyweights that were far bigger than him shouldn't be held against him. (Unless you are just rating Walker as a heavyweight)

However, I think it's silly just because a fighter starts off at say 118 like Fenech, he shouldn't be held responsible for losses at a higher weight. Fighters move up in weight rountinely in the smaller weight classes. A guy who weighs 118 at the age of 19 probably isn't going to stay that weight for his entire career. He will naturally grow bigger.

The losses do count, but they smaller man is handicapped. Moving up puts you at a disadvantage. Very few fighters can consistently take on naturally bigger men. The losses count but it has to be less damning to lose to a man naturally bigger than a man naturally smaller (everything else being equal).

If we were rating who was the best Middleweight I wouldn't use this criteria but we're talking about all boxers.

Spinks getting blown away by Tyson should be held against him as a heavyweight but would have little impact upon my thoughts of him as a boxer in this debate.

Any guy who wins even an alphga title at 19 has achieved quite a feat and deserves some plaudits.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Sep 2007, 11:28

Ambling Alp wrote:
Some people say that Leonard's win over Hagler was lucky; and those people are wrong. Leonard was coming off a long layoff and beat an an all-time great. Leonard did miss some crucial years of his prime and would have had even more great fights. however, we can only judge him by what did happen. He had 5 fights against great fighters: (Duran twice,Hearns,Benitez, and Hagler). He went 4-1. If Griffith would have won close to 4 out of every 5 of fights he fought against great fighters (and lost a little less often agiant good fighters) than I would list him as a Level A fighter as well.

I meant lucky in the sense that some think Hagler won in the same way you think that some of Griffiths' wins were lucky.

What I don't like about this application of a win ratio is that you're penalising Griffiths for having more fights against great fighters. You're giving a fighter who had long spells out of the ring the benefit of the doubt. So, once again, you're articifially boosting someone because they didn't fight.

Don't get me wrong, a ratio has to be taken into accout but I think you're applying it too severely.

Griffiths' wins over fighters I consider great or thereabouts give him 11 wins. That's very impressive and worthy of class A. I give Leonard 5 and of these 5 only 1 was against a man who was naturally bigger than him and 3 of them against guys who first won titles at lower weights. This is not a criticism of Leonard. It just shows how successful Griffiths was.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 13 Sep 2007, 13:05

I just don't buy the "naturally bigger man" excuse. Most of the time it's just that; an excuse. Fighters move up in weight in the weight classes all of the time. It's the rule, not the exception. Very few fighters begin their career at a low weight class and stay there for their entire career.

Think about it. Lets say you watched a promising 19 year old kid make his pro debut today at 118. Do you really expect him to be at 118 for the rest of his career?I would expect him to be fighting at least at 126 by the end of his career. Would be suprised at all if he got up to 135.

When he moves up to 122 when he is 23 or 24 does that now mean that none of his subsequent losses count for the rest of career? I think that is silly and just don't buy that.

Fighters move up in weight classes and win titles and have success all of the time. I could give you dozens of examples. They can do this because they have added a few pounds and are now able to compete at a higher weight class. It's been proven time after time that it's not extremely difficult to do. It's natural. Most people naturally gain weight as they go through their 20's. Physically, most boxers are at their peak in their mid-late 20's, not at 19 or 20.

Therefore, it shouldn't be an excuse when he does lose at a higher weight classes. (Except with rare exceptions.)
Really, there shouldn't even be several of the weight classes. When a guy goes up from 118 to 122, we are talking about 4 pounds.
If you move up in weight class, it's usually because that is now the weight that is natural for you. A guy shouldn't get a free pass for every loss that he has that is above the weight that he started his career at. That is just silly.

It's a little different when you start talking about a lightheavyweight moving up to heavyweight. That's a much bigger step than someone going from 118 to 122 to 126 to 130 over the course of several years. In the case of Spinks, he went from fighting guys that weighed 175 to guys that were weighing 220. That's a huge difference, and much harder to do. And history shows that. In 1985, Spinks was the first lightheavyweight to go onto win the heavyweight title. Several great lightheavyweight champions tried and failed.

I do hold Spinks' loss to Tyson, against a little bit, because his performance was so bad. (I hold it more against him when rating him strictly as a heavyweight) However, the rest of his career was so great that he has to be considered a truly great fighter.

However, many fighters won multiple titles in lower weights (even when there weren't 3 or 4 "title" to win at a weight class.) Since Fenech's retirement, many more have done this.

I'm not saying that anyone can do this; but you don't have to be a great fighter to this in the lower weight classes.

I don't mean to rip Fenech. However, when comparing him to truly great fighters, you have take a very hard look at what he did, and didn't do.

As for Griffith, I didn't mean to give the impression that a fighter has to win 4 out of 5 fights against great competition to be labled an "A". I just mentioned that Leonard was able to do that.
I don't see 11 fights that Griffith won that were against "great fighters".
I would only consider 6 of them to be against "great fighters". (Which of course is still impressive.) I would count the 3 wins against Rodriquez,2 against Tiger, and 1 against Benvenuti. 4 of those wins easily could have been scored the other way. I do give Griffith a lot of credit for giving Monzon a close fight at the age of 35.
However, he did lose to Don Fullmer,Denny Moyer,Benny Paret, and Ruben Carter when Griffith was close his prime. Can you imagine Leonard or any of the other Level A fighters losing that often to these kind of of non-great fighters; more importantly they didn't.
Griffith was very evenly matched with level C Hall of Famers like Rodriquez, Benevenuti and Tiger. I think it's fair to rate him as a Level "B".

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 13 Sep 2007, 14:53

A guy like Kid Gavilan should be in Level A...Also Alexis Arguello should be in level A

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 13 Sep 2007, 14:55

Ezzard wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
Some people say that Leonard's win over Hagler was lucky; and those people are wrong. Leonard was coming off a long layoff and beat an an all-time great. Leonard did miss some crucial years of his prime and would have had even more great fights. however, we can only judge him by what did happen. He had 5 fights against great fighters: (Duran twice,Hearns,Benitez, and Hagler). He went 4-1. If Griffith would have won close to 4 out of every 5 of fights he fought against great fighters (and lost a little less often agiant good fighters) than I would list him as a Level A fighter as well.

I meant lucky in the sense that some think Hagler won in the same way you think that some of Griffiths' wins were lucky.

What I don't like about this application of a win ratio is that you're penalising Griffiths for having more fights against great fighters. You're giving a fighter who had long spells out of the ring the benefit of the doubt. So, once again, you're articifially boosting someone because they didn't fight.

Don't get me wrong, a ratio has to be taken into accout but I think you're applying it too severely.

Griffiths' wins over fighters I consider great or thereabouts give him 11 wins. That's very impressive and worthy of class A. I give Leonard 5 and of these 5 only 1 was against a man who was naturally bigger than him and 3 of them against guys who first won titles at lower weights. This is not a criticism of Leonard. It just shows how successful Griffiths was.

Well said my friend. Emile Griffith should be in level A also

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:43

Ambling Alp wrote:I just don't buy the "naturally bigger man" excuse. Most of the time it's just that; an excuse. Fighters move up in weight in the weight classes all of the time. It's the rule, not the exception. Very few fighters begin their career at a low weight class and stay there for their entire career.

Think about it. Lets say you watched a promising 19 year old kid make his pro debut today at 118. Do you really expect him to be at 118 for the rest of his career?I would expect him to be fighting at least at 126 by the end of his career. Would be suprised at all if he got up to 135.

When he moves up to 122 when he is 23 or 24 does that now mean that none of his subsequent losses count for the rest of career? I think that is silly and just don't buy that.

Fighters move up in weight classes and win titles and have success all of the time. I could give you dozens of examples. They can do this because they have added a few pounds and are now able to compete at a higher weight class. It's been proven time after time that it's not extremely difficult to do. It's natural. Most people naturally gain weight as they go through their 20's. Physically, most boxers are at their peak in their mid-late 20's, not at 19 or 20.

I don't consider it an excuse. I believe it to be less damning to lose to someone naturally bigger than yourself and I believe it to be less of an accomplishment to beat someone smaller than yourself. I think these are adjustment factors rather than hard fast rules.

A 19 year old kid moving up is different they are still developing. Everyone is different but in most cases many people reach a sort of level in their mid-20s. Spinks moved up for the challenge and the money. In most cases in which a top fighter moves up to fight another top fighter the bigger man usually wins (and all things being equal does win). You can find contradictory examples but the weight (pardon the pun) of evidence is with the bigger man.

This is not just me saying this but most professionals will tell you the same thing.

I think it is extremely relevant and a factor that must be looked at and considered carefully.