BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Funny how being a NABF champion is a big deal for Lampkin for (who beat a fighter with a losing record for that title) but it doesn't for Finch whom Leonard beat.
You need to prop up Lampkin so it makes like Duran beating him means a lot.
It's almost like you are biased.

As for Armstrong, you made no counter to my statement. You pretty much just repeated yourself.

Leonard is okay and right at #5.

You are just repeating yourself.
Leonard is #2 and I have said why and have countered your arguments. You have not countered mine.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Funny how being a NABF champion is a big deal for Lampkin for (who beat a fighter with a losing record for that title) but it doesn't for Finch whom Leonard beat.
You need to prop up Lampkin so it makes like Duran beating him means a lot.
It's almost like you are biased.

As for Armstrong, you made no counter to my statement. You pretty much just repeated yourself.

Leonard is okay and right at #5.

You are just repeating yourself.
Leonard is #2 and I have said why and have countered your arguments. You have not countered mine.

And what is your argument? Why Leonard is not #1 if you're so adamant about being #2?

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Leonard is okay and right at #5.

You are just repeating yourself.
Leonard is #2 and I have said why and have countered your arguments. You have not countered mine.

And what is your argument? Why Leonard is not #1 if you're so adamant about being #2?

What's my argument? Seriously, are you frikkin kidding me? I have mentioned it several times.
Trying reading what other people wrote and think about it.

Here it is once again in a nutshell:

Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, and Hearns. Outside of Robinson, nobody else has their top wins as good. That is better than Armstrong, Gavilan, and Griffith or anyone else.

Leonard only had one loss and that was to Duran. Armstrong, Gavilan, and Griffith all lost more often and to worse fighters.

You can do your BS spin, and bring up irrelevant factors, but at the end of the day it comes down to this:

Who beat better opponents? Leonard. Doesn't matter if the 15th best guy that Griffith beat was better than the 15th best guy that Leonard beat. Leonard beat more that were the cream of the crop.
Who has least losses? Leonard.
Whose losses were to the best opponents? Leonard
It's pretty cut and dry. Leonard has a rock solid case as being #2. There is no gray area.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
You are just repeating yourself.
Leonard is #2 and I have said why and have countered your arguments. You have not countered mine.

And what is your argument? Why Leonard is not #1 if you're so adamant about being #2?

What's my argument? Seriously, are you frikkin kidding me? I have mentioned it several times.
Trying reading what other people wrote and think about it.

Here it is once again in a nutshell:

Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, and Hearns. Outside of Robinson, nobody else has their top wins as good. That is better than Armstrong, Gavilan, and Griffith or anyone else.

Leonard only had one loss and that was to Duran. Armstrong, Gavilan, and Griffith all lost more often and to worse fighters.

You can do your BS spin, and bring up irrelevant factors, but at the end of the day it comes down to this:

Who beat better opponents? Leonard. Doesn't matter if the 15th best guy that Griffith beat was better than the 15th best guy that Leonard beat. Leonard beat more that were the cream of the crop.
Who has least losses? Leonard.
Whose losses were to the best opponents? Leonard
It's pretty cut and dry. Leonard has a rock solid case as being #2. There is no gray area.

And you're repeating again the same old bullcrap

You asked me to state my case. I stated it.

you are just wasting life time.

man wrote:you are just wasting life time.

I guess, Alp and I are wasting our lifetimes

elmersalsa wrote:

man wrote:you are just wasting life time.

I guess, Alp and I are wasting our lifetimes

or you are masochists, in which case i
congratulate you to your public orgy.

man wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

man wrote:you are just wasting life time.

I guess, Alp and I are wasting our lifetimes

or you are masochists, in which case i
congratulate you to your public orgy.

Is it only me? or Alp?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
You are just repeating yourself.
Leonard is #2 and I have said why and have countered your arguments. You have not countered mine.

And what is your argument? Why Leonard is not #1 if you're so adamant about being #2?

What's my argument? Seriously, are you frikkin kidding me? I have mentioned it several times.
Trying reading what other people wrote and think about it.

Here it is once again in a nutshell:

Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, and Hearns. Outside of Robinson, nobody else has their top wins as good. That is better than Armstrong, Gavilan, and Griffith or anyone else.

Leonard only had one loss and that was to Duran. Armstrong, Gavilan, and Griffith all lost more often and to worse fighters.

You can do your BS spin, and bring up irrelevant factors, but at the end of the day it comes down to this:

Who beat better opponents? Leonard. Doesn't matter if the 15th best guy that Griffith beat was better than the 15th best guy that Leonard beat. Leonard beat more that were the cream of the crop.
Who has least losses? Leonard.
Whose losses were to the best opponents? Leonard
It's pretty cut and dry. Leonard has a rock solid case as being #2. There is no gray area.

The original Sugar Ray didn't had a trifecta like Leonard had. Then, why Leonard is not #1?... v It's that simple. Robinson had more fights, more longevity, longer championship reign, most undefeated streaks. He didn't lose his title to a lightweight to begin with. He beat a washed up great Henry Armstrong, Fritzie Zivic, a lightweight Sammy Angott at welterweight, and Kid Gavilan twice in which the first one many people thought at the time that Gavilan won. According to your logic, Leonard should be better because he beat Benitez, Duran and Hearns when in reality, Hearns WAS THE ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT LEONARD BEAT. And in for some reason, Leonard is not better than Robinson at welterweight?

Someone help me, please.

It's NOT ONLY about who you beat. Greatness come in degrees. There are other aspects of the spectrum.

How about longevity?
How about reign at the top?
How about title defenses?
How about dominance in the division?
How about winning streaks?
How about how many quality and quantity of fights?

Emile Griffith and Kid Gavilan fought in the TOUGHEST ERA OF THE WELTERWEIGHT DIVISION BAR NONE. Did they came out on top? Yes!

It is ridiculous for someone judge Gavilan and Griffith and say that they lost to INFERIOR FIGHTERS. Those guys had to fight sometimes two weeks notice or twice a month. Of course you gotta lose some fights. Those guys were year in and year out fighting all the time, sometimes 10 times a year or more. And they gotta be INFERIOR to someone that beat 3 great ones?
I don't get it.

I thought that you fight what is in front of you and that's it. Gavilan and Griffith did that and surpassed the expectations.

Gavilan beat 2 top 50 great fighters in my view. Against one by Leonard? Because Hearns and Benitez ain't no top 50 p4p.
Gavilan beat Carmen Basilio and Ike Williams. Two fighters that were better than Hearns and Benitez, meanwhile Leonard beat Duran. That's two against one.
Gavilan and Griffith won more fights. Still not enough. Beat more QUANTITY AND QUALITY opponents than Leonard and still not enough. They even beat MORE TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

STILL NOT ENOUGH? REALLY?

LEONARD IS OKAY AT #5. I keep repeating this. So what? U do the same thing? Ain't you?

Emile Griffith is THE FIRST AND ONLY WORLD WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION TO WIN THE CROWN 3 TIMES!....REMARKABLE!

Considering the era that he was fighting. In a time that the top ten contenders were top notch, and fighting often to keep themselves in the rankings, Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith were EXCEPTIONAL!

It cannot be much better than that, folks.

I just check the records of the greats Emile Griffith and Kid Gavilan. I mean, how can those two could get up and be motivated IN THE TOUGHEST ERA OF WELTERWEIGHT DIVISION is beyond mine comprehension.

In their prime years at welterweight, Gavilan and Griffith averaged 12.2 and 7.0 fights per year! Those are a lots of fights!
Gavilan, from 1948 to 1953, a period of 5 years or 6 seasons, fought:
1948: 13 fights
1949: 10 fights
1950: 15 fights!....Are you serious?
1951: 12 fights
1952: 9 fights
1953: 10 fights

And Griffith, from 1959 to 1965, he fought:
1959: 9 fights
1960: 9 fights
1961: 6 fights
1962: 7 fights
1963: 6 fights
1964: 6 fights
1965: 6 fights.

Not to mention that those two were jumping up and down to middleweight and back, and had to fight different tough opponents. Sometimes back to back to back. That's amazing and hard to do, especially in that era. Put the greats Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns or Floyd Mayweather, Jr., in that era, and they lose some fights as much as those guys did. They were not fighting BUMS like Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany or Floyd Mayweather, Sr. They were fighting top notch competition whose boxing quality could not be match.

elmersalsa wrote:Is it only me? or Alp?

you seem to feed each other.

Kid Gavilan was pretty close to Ray Robinson at welterweight, except he didn't hit as hard as Sugar Ray.. Otherwise, I think that they were not that far apart, and I consider Robinson the best ever. Gavilan was never stopped in 143 fights.

The great Floyd Mayweather, Jr was 12-0 at welterweight. Impressive!

Mickey Walker tops, went up to
Heavyweight and drew with Sharkey!

Griffith was definitely Santa's favorite, especially at MSG.

Honorary mentions at 147lbs:
Cocoa Kid
Jackie Fields
Pipino Cuevas
Carlos Palomino
Mysterious Billy Smith
Billy Graham

elmersalsa wrote:Emile Griffith is THE FIRST AND ONLY WORLD WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION TO WIN THE CROWN 3 TIMES!....REMARKABLE!

Considering the era that he was fighting. In a time that the top ten contenders were top notch, and fighting often to keep themselves in the rankings, Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith were EXCEPTIONAL!

It cannot be much better than that, folks.

You said Mysterious Billy smith was a three time champion, what happened to that?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Emile Griffith is THE FIRST AND ONLY WORLD WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION TO WIN THE CROWN 3 TIMES!....REMARKABLE!

Considering the era that he was fighting. In a time that the top ten contenders were top notch, and fighting often to keep themselves in the rankings, Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith were EXCEPTIONAL!

It cannot be much better than that, folks.

You said Mysterious Billy smith was a three time champion, what happened to that?

I forgot about that. See, I knew Mysterious Billy Smith was something special. So was Billy Graham. We get so caught up in the all time greats that the other boxers get a back seat

I have reconsider and altered the welter rankings a little bit.

I swapped the greats Charley Burley and Thomas Hearns. Burley should be top ten welterweight in my view at #10. I switched Tommy to position #14 and took off the great Holman Williams of the list at #24 and put Mysterious Billy Smith on that spot.

So here we go on my small modification:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Charley Burley (formerly ranked #14 in my view)
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Thomas Hearns (formerly ranked @ #10 in original list)
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Mysterious Billy Smith (New Entry. Justice is served? Maybe yes)
25. Roberto Duran

King Carlos wrote:Griffith was definitely Santa's favorite, especially at MSG.

It is an inconvenient truth to the Griffith fans here. They like to ignore the umpteen close decisions that he got in his favor.

Just like the great Muhammad Ali in the 70s, Emile Griffith got gifts, but, in many cases he won outright. But, we cannot ignore the body of work of this unbelievable great boxer. Very Underrated

Griffith got 10 Split decisions in his favor in his career. Another 9 Majority Decisions went his way.

Emile Griffith was a winner, like any other great champion