BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 14:45

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 12:36

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 11:21 Oh, so I got to be biased?

It's not a competition. Duran's your favourite boxer ever and here you find yourself in a disagreement where pretty much everyone else doesn't share your opinion. That should tell you something.

Stanley Ketchel is my favourite fighter ever. I rate him in the top 3 middleweights ever. I know I'm biased, because unless Nat Fleischer rises from the dead, I'm the only person who thinks that. I admit, I'm biased.

Are you too old and stubborn to admit your own bias?

First, not everybody disagreed with me. That is a lie. Only you and two more people disagree with me. Three people doesn't make THE MAJORITY.

IF I AM BIASED, why don't you ask Ambling Alp the same question?

I am not a biased fan of the great Roberto Duran. He had his flaws like any human being. For example, he wasn't a good sportsman like Sugar Ray Leonard. He never gave credit to the opposition when he lost.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:14

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 14:45

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 12:36
It's not a competition. Duran's your favourite boxer ever and here you find yourself in a disagreement where pretty much everyone else doesn't share your opinion. That should tell you something.

Stanley Ketchel is my favourite fighter ever. I rate him in the top 3 middleweights ever. I know I'm biased, because unless Nat Fleischer rises from the dead, I'm the only person who thinks that. I admit, I'm biased.

Are you too old and stubborn to admit your own bias?

First, not everybody disagreed with me. That is a lie. Only you and two more people disagree with me. Three people doesn't make THE MAJORITY.

IF I AM BIASED, why don't you ask Ambling Alp the same question?

I am not a biased fan of the great Roberto Duran. He had his flaws like any human being. For example, he wasn't a good sportsman like Sugar Ray Leonard. He never gave credit to the opposition when he lost.

Make your mind up sweetheart.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:00 They don't have to ask me. I was a fan of Sugar Ray Leonard.
Could not stand Roberto Duran.
I am honest. Name a fighter and I will tell you if I liked, can't stand him or somewhere in between. I am honest. You are not.

You are a phony. You pretend that you are a fan of Leonard because you think people will think you are being fair to him. You can rip a guy constantly and yet think people will think you are a fan of him. Well, a normal person would not think they could do that.
Nobody is buying it. You hate Leonard and worship Durán. but Leonard embarrassed your hero and you can't deal with it.

Some of the guys that Ilike are better than some of the guys that I don't like. Sometimes they are not.
In this case, I think Leonard is better than Durn and have said why. Notice that I didn't say that Evander Holyfield or Michael Spinks were better. I like them as well.

You are also being stupid about the "primitive skills" thing. You bring it up with Joe Louis but ignore it with your old favorites, (Gans, Armstrong etc.)
If a guy really had primitive skills, he would have complied a great career. It's that simple. Yet somehow, some way you don't get it.
And a guy who fought a long time ago may or may not have "primitive skills" A more modern fighter may or may not either. Depends on the fighter, not on his date of birth.

And you wonder why people think you are crazy.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:47 Size is the only thing that matters. No smaller man can ever defeat any bigger man.

Except for when they do.

"Two Ton" Tony Galento is a fat tub of sh*t. No fat man could ever be a formidable fighter.

Except for when they are.

Boxing is not a sport that deals in absolutes elmer. There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules. Because Boxing is a sport that brings out the exceptional among us.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:47 Size is the only thing that matters. No smaller man can ever defeat any bigger man.

Except for when they do.

"Two Ton" Tony Galento is a fat tub of sh*t. No fat man could ever be a formidable fighter.

Except for when they are.

Boxing is not a sport that deals in absolutes elmer. There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules. Because Boxing is a sport that brings out the exceptional among us.

And the point is, Deontay Wilder would have never been dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento. That's the reality. Not fiction.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:53

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:47 Size is the only thing that matters. No smaller man can ever defeat any bigger man.

Except for when they do.

"Two Ton" Tony Galento is a fat tub of sh*t. No fat man could ever be a formidable fighter.

Except for when they are.

Boxing is not a sport that deals in absolutes elmer. There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules. Because Boxing is a sport that brings out the exceptional among us.

And the point is, Deontay Wilder would have never been dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento. That's the reality. Not fiction.

Anthony Joshua was knocked out by Andy Ruiz was he not? Andy Ruiz is fatter and more out of shape than Tony Galento ever was.

You can be a fat guy, and still be a formidable fighter. It's not common, but it's not impossible.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 01:00

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:53

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:50

And the point is, Deontay Wilder would have never been dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento. That's the reality. Not fiction.

Anthony Joshua was knocked out by Andy Ruiz was he not? Andy Ruiz is fatter and more out of shape than Tony Galento ever was.

You can be a fat guy, and still be a formidable fighter. It's not common, but it's not impossible.

Andy Ruiz weighed in 268 pounds! Double of Tony Galento. And he is 6'2". He is 7" inches taller than Galento. It's logical that he stopped Anthony Joshua.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:13

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:14

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 14:45

First, not everybody disagreed with me. That is a lie. Only you and two more people disagree with me. Three people doesn't make THE MAJORITY.

IF I AM BIASED, why don't you ask Ambling Alp the same question?

I am not a biased fan of the great Roberto Duran. He had his flaws like any human being. For example, he wasn't a good sportsman like Sugar Ray Leonard. He never gave credit to the opposition when he lost.

Make your mind up sweetheart.

I am not biased. I call it like I see it. The other guy, Ambling Alp, is. Sugar Ray Leonard can't lose, can't be underrated. And cannot be called overrated either.

If there's a mythical matchup, his ass can't lose to anybody. Many guys in this forum, like Alp, have him as invincible. I don't do that with Roberto. Even though he is my favorite boxer.

But, Leonard in this forum? Is invincible no matter who you match him in a mythical match. Even if you match him with King Kong, Leonard is the winner.

Not me. I have explained and said many examples in which why Duran will lose in a mythical matchup. I always maintained my belief that in the range of 126-147lbs, is difficult to beat him. Outside of that range, from 154lbs and up, he loses according to what fighter he is fighting. And it showed in his career. If he fought a slick boxer above 154lbs, (like Leonard, Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Thomas Hearns or Terry Norris, he must likely lose because the weight for Duran was not favorable.


But, Sugar Ray cannot lose in this forum at any weight class. Now that's BIASED. Put him with Roy Jones Jr in a mythical matchup at middleweight, and Alp and his followers say that Leonard will win.

You got the point now of who's biased?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 02:49

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:13

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:14

Make your mind up sweetheart.

I am not biased. I call it like I see it. The other guy, Ambling Alp, is. Sugar Ray Leonard can't lose, can't be underrated. And cannot be called overrated either.

If there's a mythical matchup, his ass can't lose to anybody. Many guys in this forum, like Alp, have him as invincible. I don't do that with Roberto. Even though he is my favorite boxer.

But, Leonard in this forum? Is invincible no matter who you match him in a mythical match. Even if you match him with King Kong, Leonard is the winner.

Not me. I have explained and said many examples in which why Duran will lose in a mythical matchup. I always maintained my belief that in the range of 126-147lbs, is difficult to beat him. Outside of that range, from 154lbs and up, he loses according to what fighter he is fighting. And it showed in his career. If he fought a slick boxer above 154lbs, (like Leonard, Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Thomas Hearns or Terry Norris, he must likely lose because the weight for Duran was not favorable.


But, Sugar Ray cannot lose in this forum at any weight class. Now that's BIASED. Put him with Roy Jones Jr in a mythical matchup at middleweight, and Alp and his followers say that Leonard will win.

You got the point now of who's biased?

You.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:30

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:00 They don't have to ask me. I was a fan of Sugar Ray Leonard.
Could not stand Roberto Duran.
I am honest. Name a fighter and I will tell you if I liked, can't stand him or somewhere in between. I am honest. You are not.

You are a phony. You pretend that you are a fan of Leonard because you think people will think you are being fair to him. You can rip a guy constantly and yet think people will think you are a fan of him. Well, a normal person would not think they could do that.
Nobody is buying it. You hate Leonard and worship Durán. but Leonard embarrassed your hero and you can't deal with it.

Some of the guys that Ilike are better than some of the guys that I don't like. Sometimes they are not.
In this case, I think Leonard is better than Durn and have said why. Notice that I didn't say that Evander Holyfield or Michael Spinks were better. I like them as well.

You are also being stupid about the "primitive skills" thing. You bring it up with Joe Louis but ignore it with your old favorites, (Gans, Armstrong etc.)
If a guy really had primitive skills, he would have complied a great career. It's that simple. Yet somehow, some way you don't get it.
And a guy who fought a long time ago may or may not have "primitive skills" A more modern fighter may or may not either. Depends on the fighter, not on his date of birth.

And you wonder why people think you are crazy.

Your hate for Roberto Duran is understandable. Duran kicked Sugar Ray Leonard's azz! He whupped him in Montreal. Anyone else that says that the fight was close, or that Leonard won that fight is full of baloney, want to discredit Duran for fighting his ass off, or they just simply wicked.

You cannot accept the fact that Roberto kicked his ass. And that when the rematch came, you cannot accept that Leonard didn't beat Duran, but Duran had an off night and wasn't himself. All that No Mas narrative is laughable now. Their American hero, never beat the Panamanian at his very best. That's why many people called that win DUBIOUS. Duran was sold by his own manager for $8 million.

You're so stupid, that you can't comprehend the difference in weight classes and that a big man like Anthony Joshua, or Tyson Fury could never lose to a guy like Joe Louis. Saying that Louis had primitive skills? Just look at the tapes. He is outdated. He was good for HIS TIME. NOT IN TODAY'S TIME. In today's time, he barely makes the top ten heavyweight class.

Why? Because guys at heavyweight today are bigger, stronger, taller, are better conditioned according to science, have better nutrition and training methods. Something that your stupid ass can't comprehend. The guy Louis had primitive skills, was too small for today's heavyweights and didn't had the chin to take good shot. Look how many guys put him on the canvas.

Now imagine Tyson Fury or Deontay Wilder or Anthony Joshua or the Klitschko brothers would do to him? They would crush him.

Stop believing in the guys of the past. Especially at heavyweight. One big shot by these monsters and Louis is not getting up.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 13:39

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 02:49

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:13

I am not biased. I call it like I see it. The other guy, Ambling Alp, is. Sugar Ray Leonard can't lose, can't be underrated. And cannot be called overrated either.

If there's a mythical matchup, his ass can't lose to anybody. Many guys in this forum, like Alp, have him as invincible. I don't do that with Roberto. Even though he is my favorite boxer.

But, Leonard in this forum? Is invincible no matter who you match him in a mythical match. Even if you match him with King Kong, Leonard is the winner.

Not me. I have explained and said many examples in which why Duran will lose in a mythical matchup. I always maintained my belief that in the range of 126-147lbs, is difficult to beat him. Outside of that range, from 154lbs and up, he loses according to what fighter he is fighting. And it showed in his career. If he fought a slick boxer above 154lbs, (like Leonard, Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Thomas Hearns or Terry Norris, he must likely lose because the weight for Duran was not favorable.


But, Sugar Ray cannot lose in this forum at any weight class. Now that's BIASED. Put him with Roy Jones Jr in a mythical matchup at middleweight, and Alp and his followers say that Leonard will win.

You got the point now of who's biased?

You.

And why not Ambling Alp? He is biased to Sugar Ray Leonard. Not me. I call it like I see it.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 14:26

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 May 2025, 00:30

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:00 They don't have to ask me. I was a fan of Sugar Ray Leonard.
Could not stand Roberto Duran.
I am honest. Name a fighter and I will tell you if I liked, can't stand him or somewhere in between. I am honest. You are not.

You are a phony. You pretend that you are a fan of Leonard because you think people will think you are being fair to him. You can rip a guy constantly and yet think people will think you are a fan of him. Well, a normal person would not think they could do that.
Nobody is buying it. You hate Leonard and worship Durán. but Leonard embarrassed your hero and you can't deal with it.

Some of the guys that Ilike are better than some of the guys that I don't like. Sometimes they are not.
In this case, I think Leonard is better than Durn and have said why. Notice that I didn't say that Evander Holyfield or Michael Spinks were better. I like them as well.

You are also being stupid about the "primitive skills" thing. You bring it up with Joe Louis but ignore it with your old favorites, (Gans, Armstrong etc.)
If a guy really had primitive skills, he would have complied a great career. It's that simple. Yet somehow, some way you don't get it.
And a guy who fought a long time ago may or may not have "primitive skills" A more modern fighter may or may not either. Depends on the fighter, not on his date of birth.

And you wonder why people think you are crazy.

Your hate for Roberto Duran is understandable. Duran kicked Sugar Ray Leonard's azz! He whupped him in Montreal. Anyone else that says that the fight was close, or that Leonard won that fight is full of baloney, want to discredit Duran for fighting his ass off, or they just simply wicked.

You cannot accept the fact that Roberto kicked his ass. And that when the rematch came, you cannot accept that Leonard didn't beat Duran, but Duran had an off night and wasn't himself. All that No Mas narrative is laughable now. Their American hero, never beat the Panamanian at his very best. That's why many people called that win DUBIOUS. Duran was sold by his own manager for $8 million.

You're so stupid, that you can't comprehend the difference in weight classes and that a big man like Anthony Joshua, or Tyson Fury could never lose to a guy like Joe Louis. Saying that Louis had primitive skills? Just look at the tapes. He is outdated. He was good for HIS TIME. NOT IN TODAY'S TIME. In today's time, he barely makes the top ten heavyweight class.

Why? Because guys at heavyweight today are bigger, stronger, taller, are better conditioned according to science, have better nutrition and training methods. Something that your stupid ass can't comprehend. The guy Louis had primitive skills, was too small for today's heavyweights and didn't had the chin to take good shot. Look how many guys put him on the canvas.

Now imagine Tyson Fury or Deontay Wilder or Anthony Joshua or the Klitschko brothers would do to him? They would crush him.

Stop believing in the guys of the past. Especially at heavyweight. One big shot by these monsters and Louis is not getting up.

I am not biased because I don't make crybaby excuses for the fighters that I like. I don't make crybaby excuses for Leonard. You make crybaby excuses for Duran.
You make crybaby excuse for other guys that you like. You love Pedroza. So somehow he would n not have lost to Mcguigan outside of London. Wow.
You are the most biased person on here.

I don't like Duran because he a dirty fighter, a crybaby who has excuses for his losses, and someone who would not give credit to his opponents. Just an all-around jerk. You like him. Fine.
Yes Duran did win the first fight against Leonard. He deserves a lot of credit for that and I have said so many times. He did not kick his ass" You liked to say that. But you yourself only gave Duran the verdict by 3 points. That is a close fight. That is not an ass kicking. Anyone who isn't stupid would not say that they had a guy win by just points but it was an ass kicking.

Leonard won the rematch. He didn't just win. Duran quit. Leonard did not quit in the first fight.

Fury? You realize that Fury is not that hard of a puncher. right? Just because a guy weighs a lot does not make him a big puncher. Louis hit much harder than Fury.
Vitaly Kltischko was not that hard of a puncher either. And he did nothing particularly well.
Wladimir was a big puncher. He had much more boxing skill than his brother. He also had a glass jaw. He also had poor stamina.
How much have you actually seen of the Wilder, Klitschkos, Fury etc? they all have serious weaknesses.
Primo Carnera was physically stronger than all of these guys.

Jaywheel wrote: ↑27 May 2025, 10:21 No talk of SRL gold medal? It cements the great Pascual Perez's pro legacy according to elmo. Has to mean something. Remind us again how well Duran did against Laing in 82? Before fighting Hearns and Hagler. I hated SRL, hoped for Hagler to take his head off, at some point you can't deny greatness.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Jun 2025, 14:50

Jaywheel wrote: ↑27 May 2025, 10:21 No talk of SRL gold medal? It cements the great Pascual Perez's pro legacy according to elmo. Has to mean something. Remind us again how well Duran did against Laing in 82? Before fighting Hearns and Hagler. I hated SRL, hoped for Hagler to take his head off, at some point you can't deny greatness.

I personally don't count a Gold Medal when ranking a fighter. I just go by their pro career. But yes, if you are going to count it for one fighter, you have to count it for everyone who got one.

Same thing with excuses. We are supposed to count the Laing fight or any of Duran's losses (except for the Dejesus one.)
Duran was 103-16. We are supposed to pretend that 15 of Duran's 16 losses don't really count. Apparently, we are supposed to pretend that in all 103 of his wins, the other guy was at his best.

Ultimately, when rating fighters, we need to use the same criteria for a fighter for guys that we like, don't like and anywhere in between. Nobody is perfect, but most of us make some attempt.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑07 Jun 2025, 15:48

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Jun 2025, 14:50

Jaywheel wrote: ↑27 May 2025, 10:21 No talk of SRL gold medal? It cements the great Pascual Perez's pro legacy according to elmo. Has to mean something. Remind us again how well Duran did against Laing in 82? Before fighting Hearns and Hagler. I hated SRL, hoped for Hagler to take his head off, at some point you can't deny greatness.

I personally don't count a Gold Medal when ranking a fighter. I just go by their pro career. But yes, if you are going to count it for one fighter, you have to count it for everyone who got one.

Same thing with excuses. We are supposed to count the Laing fight or any of Duran's losses (except for the Dejesus one.)
Duran was 103-16. We are supposed to pretend that 15 of Duran's 16 losses don't really count. Apparently, we are supposed to pretend that in all 103 of his wins, the other guy was at his best.

Ultimately, when rating fighters, we need to use the same criteria for a fighter for guys that we like, don't like and anywhere in between. Nobody is perfect, but most of us make some attempt.

Sugar Ray Leonard is fine at #18. Others like Bert Randolph Sugar got him ranked at #45. Which is fairer? Mines or Sugars.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025, 15:13 Notice that he didn't respond to comments yet again. As for Bert Sugar, he never liked Leonard and it showed. Charles is way too high at #9 for heavyweights as well. He was kind of a funny guy who knew a lot buy would just have the off the wall opinions occasionally.

When I do ratings, I weight the pluses against the minuses. A big win counts for a lot. Quality trumps quantity. You can always find easy opponents to beat. There are tons of guys with pretty win loss records against weak competition. Doesn't mean anything.
Obviously, the more quality wins the better.
For a modern example, Usyk has won only 23 fights. Wilder has won 43. However, of the two, Usyk had better quality wins. Everyone thinks Usyk is better.

Bad losses should count against someone. A loss to a great fighter doesn't hurt as much as a loss to mediocre one.

We have factor in the stages of a fighter's career as well of his opponents. Obviously, a loss when a guy is 40 is not the same as when he was 29. But we have to stay away from the crybaby excuses used for our favorites. (like elmer constantly does) i.e. saying 5 months isn't enough to train. Or make a big deal about your guy moving up in weight and ignoring others doing it. Being consistent is important.

To a lesser extent, we have to consider how competitive the fights were.
In a nutshell that is how fighters should be rated. Weigh the good against bad. Know what truly is good.

i think most of us do a form of all this. But obviously not all of us.

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑10 Jun 2025, 00:02 He beat duran
And hearns
And benetiz
And hagler

Hes the best of that era

Expug wrote: ↑10 Jun 2025, 11:22 I have Monzon and Ali as the best of the 70s. Between the two of them, they beat among others, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Young, Patterson, Benvenutti, Napoles, Valdez, Griffith, Briscoe, It’s Ali, Monzon, Duran

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Jun 2025, 13:32

Expug wrote: ↑10 Jun 2025, 11:22 I have Monzon and Ali as the best of the 70s. Between the two of them, they beat among others, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Young, Patterson, Benvenutti, Napoles, Valdez, Griffith, Briscoe, It’s Ali, Monzon, Duran

If I'm not mistaken didn't Ring Magazine split the Fighter of the Year honors between Ali and Monzon at one point during the 70's?