BoxRec

keithmoonhangover wrote:Qawi beat Saad TWICE. He ran Spinks close. He is rated higher by BoxRec.

Legacy is about who you beat, not how many you beat.

Johnson, Lopez & Conteh would have all beaten the Saad Muhammad that Qawi beat. Don't buy into Alp's hyperbole, Saad was a shell of himself. By the second fight he had nothing left. At that point any serviceable Light Heavy would have beat him up.

I agree with Dempsey that I would favor Qawi over Saad prime vs prime. But to suggest that fight occurred is lunacy.

Boxrec rankings are a laughingstock.They have Bob Satterfield, among others, rated ahead of Jeffries.

His legacy is beating the hell out of a past his best Saad Muhammad. Doing that twice doesn't mean more than what Matt accomplished up to that point. Don't you get that poking holes in Saad's resume pokes holes in those wins for Dwight?

His legacy was strong enough to be the HOF fighter that Qawi beat and nobody complains about his induction. That should tell you something about the guys he beat. I think Qawi could compete with any fighter at 75. But resume wise he isn't any different than your buddy Riddick Bowe. Except Bowe's 2 big wins came against a much better fighter.

So if you're championing Dwight, you need to start doing the same for Riddick from a resume standpoint. He beat Holyfield TWICE and yet you rate him below both Klitschko's. How does that happen?

BarryWashington wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Qawi beat Saad TWICE. He ran Spinks close. He is rated higher by BoxRec.

Legacy is about who you beat, not how many you beat.

youre really clutchin at straws here arent ya? like i clearly stated earlier saad muhammad has the much better resume at lhw than qawi does. saad muhammad was already fading three fights earlier to think qawi beat a fully prime saad muhammad is blasphemous.

roy jones jr is rated 7th all time at lhw by boxrec. i guess we'll just praise the all-mighty boxrec system.

please just accept youre wrong and move on ive been wrong in the past too it takes a man to realize when hes wrong so show that you can be one and lets keep this thread moving along.

I'm wrong plent mate and I'm also man enough to admit it. On this occasion I am not wrong. I am just stating an opinion. Qawi in my opinion did more at light heavy. He beat Saad when he was WORLD CHAMPION, he couldn't have been that far past his prime, coz no one else had beaten him. If he was that badly tarnished, then he would have lost his title before Dwight got to him.

Saad didn't beat a single fighter in the IBHOF, hell, Qawi was the only fighter he fought that was in or headed for the IBHOF.

Qawi beat Saad (IBHOF) twice and ran Spinks (IBHOF) close. Following that, he won a world title at crusier and ran Holyfield (future IBHOF) close.

I think he rates above Saad at Light Heavy on quallity of opponenets. I think he far out rates him pound for piund because of his performances after light heavy.

Quality of opponents? You do realize that Qawi counts as one of them.

Qawi
Lopez
Marvin Johnson
Mustafa Muhammad
Conteh
Kates
Parlov
Camel

Rate them where you wish. But Saad definitely faced a higher quality of opposition. Spinks was the best that either of them faced. But that isn't enough to outdue this entire list.

I'm not even that bothered by Qawi over Saad. But the other way around certainly isn't laughable or biased. My issue was Dwight in the top 10, he doesn't belong near it and neither does Saad.

What about the Vitali or Wlad over Bowe question? They haven't beaten any HOFers. What makes that different?

Ambling Alp wrote:The Saad was over the hill is one of those myths that doesn't seem to go away. Saad was 27 years old when they fought the first time. Yes he had several tough fights, but when you are that age you shake that off.You don't get to use the past his prime excuse when you are 27.

Wow, you've really done your knowledge and objectivity a disservice with this post. That's putting it mildly.

snoopbee wrote:WHERE THE HELL ARE KID NORFORK AND EDDIE BOOKER THEY BOTH BELONG NEAR THE TOP

Booker was a career Middleweight. He does tend to get quite underrated there, though, especially in comparison with the rest of the Murderer's Row.

BarryWashington wrote:saads best wins:

m. johnson ('77)
r. kates ('78)
y. lopez ('78)
m. johnson ('79)
j. conteh ('79)
j. conteh ('80)
y. lopez ('80)
l. mwale ('80)
j. martin ('81)

dwights best wins at lhw:

j. scott ('81)
m. saad muhammad ('81)
j. martin ('82)
m. saad muhammad ('82)

wow what a close comparison of resumes at lhw this is . . .

end of discussion regarding saad muhammad and muhammad qawi at lhw

I think Eddie Davis was better than Jerry martin.

BarryWashington wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:saads best wins:

m. johnson ('77)
r. kates ('78)
y. lopez ('78)
m. johnson ('79)
j. conteh ('79)
j. conteh ('80)
y. lopez ('80)
l. mwale ('80)
j. martin ('81)

dwights best wins at lhw:

j. scott ('81)
m. saad muhammad ('81)
j. martin ('82)
m. saad muhammad ('82)

wow what a close comparison of resumes at lhw this is . . .

end of discussion regarding saad muhammad and muhammad qawi at lhw

I think Eddie Davis was better than Jerry martin.

i guess we'll have to disagree on that one. regardless even if i took out martin and replace it with e. davis (for dwight) or include that also as a best win it still wouldnt compare to saads resume.

No argument here, but that was a win worth listing. I've never heard of Jerry martin being regarded so highly until I wondered into an argument with Alp.

Parlov & Camel were solid wins for Saad early in his career.

Ambling Alp wrote:The Saad was over the hill is one of those myths that doesn't seem to go away. Saad was 27 years old when they fought the first time. Yes he had several tough fights, but when you are that age you shake that off.You don't get to use the past his prime excuse when you are 27. He was still only 28 in their rematch.

Both times Qawi won easily. That is n't the end all be all but it means a lot.
Jerry Martin was a relevant common opponent. Any unbiased observer that saw their fight would say that Martin was winning. Qawi easily defeated Martin.
Yes Saad did have a nice title run and that has to count for something. However, look at how many close calls he had against fighters far inferior that Qawi. Bob Foster had a much longer title run and apparently some of the same people who are so impressed with Saad's title reign don't even think Foster is in the top 10.

What is the worst you can say about Qawi? That he lost to Spinks? Qawi was competitive against Spinks, one of the very best lightheavyweights of all time. If anything that loss showed that Qawi was a great fighter.

Several tough fights is the under-statement of the century. His two fights with Marvin Johnson alone should've ended his career right then and there.

Guys love MSM for the same reasons they loved Gatti and Corrales. Several times they got the piss beat out of them and came back to win. That's extremely appealing to some folks, but it sure don't raise there stock in a serious pfp debate. I'd take Qawi to beat MSM 10 times out of 10. Better Defense, Better Chin, Better Body Puncher, Better Stamina, Better Agression.

Seamus wrote:Guys love MSM for the same reasons they loved Gatti and Corrales. Several times they got the piss beat out of them and came back to win. That's extremely appealing to some folks, but it sure don't raise there stock in a serious pfp debate. I'd take Qawi to beat MSM 10 times out of 10. Better Defense, Better Chin, Better Body Puncher, Better Stamina, Better Agression.

He didn't have a better resume.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Seamus wrote:Guys love MSM for the same reasons they loved Gatti and Corrales. Several times they got the piss beat out of them and came back to win. That's extremely appealing to some folks, but it sure don't raise there stock in a serious pfp debate. I'd take Qawi to beat MSM 10 times out of 10. Better Defense, Better Chin, Better Body Puncher, Better Stamina, Better Agression.

He didn't have a better resume.

He also has a better resume than Gatti or Corrales. I don't rank Saad as one of the "all-time great" light heavyweights but the guy was a very good fighter with good skills, excellent power, and INSANE recuperative ability.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Seamus wrote:Guys love MSM for the same reasons they loved Gatti and Corrales. Several times they got the piss beat out of them and came back to win. That's extremely appealing to some folks, but it sure don't raise there stock in a serious pfp debate. I'd take Qawi to beat MSM 10 times out of 10. Better Defense, Better Chin, Better Body Puncher, Better Stamina, Better Agression.

He didn't have a better resume.

He also has a better resume than Gatti or Corrales. I don't rank Saad as one of the "all-time great" light heavyweights but the guy was a very good fighter with good skills, excellent power, and INSANE recuperative ability.

No doubt, he is a level above both of those guys. Gatti couldn't fight at an elite level. I also wouldn't be so quick to give Qawi the edge in stamina.

Light Heavy is a ridiculously loaded division. Not being in the top 30 leaves plenty of room for a fighter to be great.

Seamus wrote:Guys love MSM for the same reasons they loved Gatti and Corrales. Several times they got the piss beat out of them and came back to win. That's extremely appealing to some folks, but it sure don't raise there stock in a serious pfp debate.

Unfortunately that does seem to be the case with most. Noone takes into account the fact that he was an excellent boxer-puncher, at least early on. He just had the heart of a warrior a la Gatti. Far superior as a fighter overall, though.

MSM's defense was poor to terrible, and he didn't apply constant pressure to an opponent from the opening bell the way Qawi did. For that reason I maintain, Qawi had better stamina.

Seamus wrote:MSM's defense was poor to terrible, and he didn't apply constant pressure to an opponent from the opening bell the way Qawi did. For that reason I maintain, Qawi had better stamina.

You can maintain it all you want. Saad never lost a fight because he ran out of gas. Terrible defense means getting hit more often. If anything, that is a plus for his stamina that he was still charging hard late in fights.

It's difficult to label something like that an advantage when the other guy has a history of late fight heroics. Pretty irrelevant however you cut it. Neither of them had even the slightest of issues with stamina.

I've seen many fighters considered top class or even elite that had a worse defense than Saad, just to make clear. I think that's another thing that gets overblown, at least during the early part of his career/reign (although it was admittedly not a very long one).

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote:No recriminations...

Alp posted his top 10 exactly 5 years to the day...

Alp, do you still adhere to that list or do you see things differently now?

Sorry, Ezz, I didn't see your post until now. Here is what I had said 5 years ago:

This is a very tough division to rate. I believe that there are 6 guys guys that you could make a case for being # 1: Spinks, Charles, Tunney, Moore, Langford, and Foster.

This is how I rate them:
1. Spinks
2. Charles
3. Tunney
4. Moore
5. Langford
6. Foster
7. Johnson
8. Jones
9. Greb
10. Qawi

I didn't used to rate Greb so highly at lightheavy, but I started to realize how successful he was at this weight.


There are several guys that you could make a case for being in the top 10: Loughran, Conn, Lewis, Fitzsimmons, Rosenbloom,Mustapha Muhammed etc.

There are so many guys that are so close. For example, the difference between the #lightheavy, and the # 30 lightheavy is significantly less than the #10 and # 30 in the heavyweight division.

I still feel pretty much the same. Who I had from #1-#6 is very close. Still think the exact order can be changed. I think they are a notch above everyone else.
I would take jones out of the Top 10. He was always a hard guy for me to rate becasue he competition at 175 was so bad for so long. (By the time he fought Tarver and Johnson he was past his best.) However he was so talented and won most of his fights so easily he has to be considered. Top 10 though is a little too high for him.

I would still keep Johnson, Greb and Qawi in the Top 10.
I would probably replace him with Loughran; though you could make an argument for some other guys. Still feel that the #30 lightheavyweight is closer to the #10 than just about any other weight class.

My take is that Spinks is an elite boxer at 175 but perhaps doesn't quite have the depth to be #1. He's one of those who should be in the debate for #1 but probably doesn't have the length of resume or longevity in the division to be ranker over Ezzard, Archie and Sam.

According to reports Loughran was closer to beating Tunney than Qawi was to beating Spinks. I think Loughran and Gibbons rank higher than Jones and Qawi by quite some margin.

My point about Saad being only 27 is this: when you are that young you can take a lot of pounding. It is totally different than a fighter who is say 34 and had taken that much pounding. The amount of pounding that he had taken before he fought Qawi is less than many, many fighters who were much older and who continued to be great.
The reasoning that Saad must have been washed up becasue he never was a major force after fighting Qawi doesn't hold water. So by not doing well, you are rating him higher than if he had done well after fighting Qawi.
It certainly isn't an embarrassment to have close fights with Lopez and others. However, if you are saying he is better than Qawi, then he should have beaten them much easier.

You also have to look at the negatives. What is the worst results that Qawi had at 175? Losing to Spinks in a competitive fight? There is not much.

The head to head is huge. It's not like they were competitive fights. Qawi dominated him both times.

Yes Saad was fun to watch; I liked him, who didn't? However you have to be nuetral when rating fighters.

To me it ultimatley goes down to this:

Qawi did enough to prove that he would have beaten anyone Saad ever beat. The fights with Saad, Martin, Scott and Spinks shows he wuould have beaten anyone Saas ever beat.

Seriously, who did Saad ever beat that Qawi would lost to? Lopez, Conteh, Johnson. No way.

Ambling Alp wrote:My point about Saad being only 27 is this: when you are that young you can take a lot of pounding. It is totally different than a fighter who is say 34 and had taken that much pounding. The amount of pounding that he had taken before he fought Qawi is less than many, many fighters who were much older and who continued to be great.
The reasoning that Saad must have been washed up becasue he never was a major force after fighting Qawi doesn't hold water. So by not doing well, you are rating him higher than if he had done well after fighting Qawi.
It certainly isn't an embarrassment to have close fights with Lopez and others. However, if you are saying he is better than Qawi, then he should have beaten them much easier.

You also have to look at the negatives. What is the worst results that Qawi had at 175? Losing to Spinks in a competitive fight? There is not much.

The head to head is huge. It's not like they were competitive fights. Qawi dominated him both times.

Yes Saad was fun to watch; I liked him, who didn't? However you have to be nuetral when rating fighters.

To me it ultimatley goes down to this:

Qawi did enough to prove that he would have beaten anyone Saad ever beat. The fights with Saad, Martin, Scott and Spinks shows he wuould have beaten anyone Saas ever beat.

Seriously, who did Saad ever beat that Qawi would lost to? Lopez, Conteh, Johnson. No way.

In bold is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Nobody rates fighters in a more biased fashion than you do.

How was Wilfred benitez when he was 27? In his prime? He didn't even have wars. Saad never winning another significant fight is meaningless how? He entered the ring in his prime and listlessly laid on the ropes because Qawi was so phenomenal Matt couldn't even muster the courage to throw punches? C'mon, you're like talking to a rock.

As for the rest of this. I'd favor Qawi over all of Saad's opponents and over Saad himself. Unlike you, I'm wrong from time to time so I like to rate fighters on what they did as opposed to what I think would have happened. And Saad faced and beat better opposition than Qawi. I would take Saad over any of Bob Foster's foes. Does that make him better than Bob?You're the one dragging this into a big Saad vs Qawi argument. My main point is your rating of Qawi at #10. Write me a novel on why his resume is better than Tommy Loughran's. Hell, how it's even in the same stratosphere. I'd love to read it.

I don't rate Qawi in my top ten, but he does rate higher than MSM. My reasons are as follows.

1. Qawi beat Saad twice (Saad wouldn't have been (allegadly) damaged goods if he had been a better boxer)
2. Qawi fought a genuine Top Ten All Time Light Heavy (Spinks) and ran him pretty close.
3. Qawi won a world title at two different weights.
4. Qawi gave Holyfield all he could handle.
5. Prime against prime he still whoops Saad.

Cruiserweight results have nothing to do with this thread. And we have been civil with each other so I'm going to just say what is in the quotations of point 1 is preposterous.

Any chance of an answer on why this is different than the Klitschko's over Bowe? Or are you conceding that your 2 HOFer argument from earlier had no merit?

I agree that what Qawi did at cruiser should have no bearing on rating him at 17. However, he has made some good common sense points on this thread. I use the same criteria with two fighters regardless if I like them or not. (I do like Saad, nuetral about Qawi.)

1. Head to head-Qawi has a huge advantage. Won easily, and did he did it twice.
2. Common opponents- Qawi did much better against Martin. Since that is their only common opponent, it's not a huge edge for Qawi.
3. Big wins/Good performances in defeat-Saad has the advantage here. Though it's closer than many think. Giving Spinks a close fight is more impressive than barely .
4. Negatives-Qawi has the edge. Saad lost a few before winnning the title. Qawi only lost one and that was a 6 round decision in his 3rd fight.
5. Film-More of a judgement call; I would say that Qawi looked better on average. To me he often seemed like a force of nature overwhelming his opponetns. Saad tended to be see-saw battles which he usually managed to pull out. (If you see a lot of film of both fighterrs,film tends to back up the other criteria.)

Qawi was clearly better.

I do hold it against Benitez that he let his career fall apart earlier than it should have. This was due to personal issues. Physically, he should have been fine. He should have been an elite fighter for longer than he was. Had he been, he would deserve to be rated higher.
As I have said before there have been many, many fighters who had taken the punishment that saad had taken in his career before the Qawi fights. Yet they continued to be fight at or near the same level into their 30's. At 27, you can overcome a lot.
Never heard a word about saad being past his prime before fighting Qawi. That myth started after the fight. Saad was good enough to win several thrilling fights against good opponents who were a notch or two below him. Against Qawi, he finally ran into someone better than himself. It's really that simple.


As for Loughran, I already said that I have no problem with him being rated higher than Qawi. Qawi should be rated somewhere between Spinks and saad. Spinks should not be any lower than #6. I think Harold Johnson is a solid #7 and after that many guys that are close. You also have guys like Conn,John Henry Lewis, Maxsie Rosenbloom, Bob Fitzsimmons that you could argue for the top 10 as well.

Saad is probably in the #15-20 range. He was a great fighter.

You can't even spell neutral, much less be it. Relax, that's a joke.

Not a bad post besides the rock headed assertion that Saad was in his prime when he lost to Qawi. Was he still in his prime when he got drubbed by Willie Edwards? Andrew maynard? When did the "myth" turn to reality?

I wouldn't have Saad in the top 20. I know you said Loughran could be in the top 10. But where is the reasoning that Qawi is even in his vicinity? I don't see it, not even close.

Georges Carpantier,Tommy Gibbons(Went 15 with Jack Dempsey), Doug Jones(Went 15 with Ali),and that Kid guy with the tremendous record (cant remember his name,i'm very tired) that Marciano ko'd in 2 rounds.
They were all Very Good LightHeavyWeights,that i havent seen mentioned in this thread.

Harry Matthews