BoxRec

My point is that some people are trying to argue that beating great fighters at a weight is what determines how highly you rate at that weight. However, Hearns actual accomplishments at welterweight are not overwhelming. There are plenty of welterweights that would be heavily favored over everyone he beat at that weight.

Exactly!

Yes beating great fighters is a huge factor is determining how highly you should be rated at that weight. Of course you also have to look factors such as losses and how a fighter looked on film. You should not look at the sheer number of title defenses which is often deceiving.

Maybe Hearns' "accomplishments" at welterweight are that overwhelming for you. Of course a lot depends on what you consider to be "accomplishments." For example, his blowout win over Cuevas was more impressive than anything Napoles did. His only loss was to Leonard in a great fight. Napoles, Griffith, and Gavilan lost to vastly inferior fighters that Ray Leonard. (Of course that is my opinion.)

Yes Napoles, Grffith, and Gavilan would be favored over Cuevas. doesn't mean that they would beat him and they almost certainly would have had a lot more trouble with him than Hearns did.
Hearns would have been a favorite over any Naploes, Griffith, and Gavilan beat. And he would have beaten people like Backus and Paret easily.

Anyone who know much at all about boxing who actually watched a lot of Hearns welterweight on video can tell he was a great fighter at welterweight.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2017, 11:50 Yes beating great fighters is a huge factor is determining how highly you should be rated at that weight. Of course you also have to look factors such as losses and how a fighter looked on film. You should not look at the sheer number of title defenses which is often deceiving.

Maybe Hearns' "accomplishments" at welterweight are that overwhelming for you. Of course a lot depends on what you consider to be "accomplishments." For example, his blowout win over Cuevas was more impressive than anything Napoles did. His only loss was to Leonard in a great fight. Napoles, Griffith, and Gavilan lost to vastly inferior fighters that Ray Leonard. (Of course that is my opinion.)

Yes Napoles, Grffith, and Gavilan would be favored over Cuevas. doesn't mean that they would beat him and they almost certainly would have had a lot more trouble with him than Hearns did.
Hearns would have been a favorite over any Naploes, Griffith, and Gavilan beat. And he would have beaten people like Backus and Paret easily.

Anyone who know much at all about boxing who actually watched a lot of Hearns welterweight on video can tell he was a great fighter at welterweight.

You can tell Hearns was easy to hit by watching his fights.. Prime Napoles's brilliant wins over Curtis Cokes (who beat some ATG's) trump Hearns's win over a 3rd rate Cuevas.. You can't go strictly by KO power or George Foreman would be ranked higher than Ali.. Ali lost to hittable guys like Norton and Frazier who could bully him, but looked like ridiculous punch bags when they fought the powerful Foreman. Foreman didn't just lose to Ali, he took the count.. Count outs drop you down way lower than losing a couple decisions on bad nights.

Hearns inability to get himself ready for the Leonard fight -- and his penchant for getting drilled on the chin by massive underdogs---and not surviving, that's the main thing---because Ray Robinson was upset a couple times but not knocked out.. SRR was decked hard by several swingers but weathered the storms. If you survive episodes like Robinson getting nailed by big underdog Tommy Bell... but hauling his ass up... surviving through the round... and rallying to win a tough decision. That makes for an exciting story. If you decked Robinson he always got up.

Leonard got decked by big underdog Keven Howard, but rallied back to win... He grabbed the draw with Hearns when he was decked a couple times... Norris decked him a couple times in a bad loss---but he made it to the final bell... He was an old man vs Camacho.

When Hearns got decked he was History -- that's the difference.. That's what people tend to remember -- are you tough or weak?

Kalan wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017, 18:50

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017, 16:16 He lacked the " speed and skills " because he was a diminished fighter.. That happens through the passage of time, age and inactivity. fourteen months earlier he narrowly beat a 37 year old Duran and went inactive again until dropping down in weight to fight Norris. Losing to Terry at this stage in his career meant nothing to about 90% of the boxing community and to anyone with reasonable standards it shouldn't effect his overall rating historically

What do you mean "narrowly" beat and "old" Duran.. One judge gave Leonard 11 of 12 rounds and another scored it 120-110... NOT narrow.

And the Norris fight meant something to the 10% of the Boxing community who have any cognitive ability... And it raises the rating of Mayweather, who sometimes took more than 14 months off and didn't lose anything to inactivity -- and fought to age 40 while retaining skills.

Watch the Duran fight and decide for yourself rather than going by scores on paper. As for the rest of your post I'll chalk it up to trolling.

You're the troll dude...

You're not being serious by arguing Leonard-Duran III was close. Duran lifted Iran Barkley's Middleweight Title in his previous fight and Leonard dominated Duran in their rubber match. Duran had 1 strong round where he landed a big right. Saying Leonard-Norris didn't mean anything or it didn't affect Leonard's historical standing is an insult to Terry Norris's speed and boxing skills at that time.

Leonard took his time deciding on Norris... He was looking for an appropriate opponent, other than the top Middleweights in a stacked division.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017, 21:19 My point is that some people are trying to argue that beating great fighters at a weight is what determines how highly you rate at that weight. However, Hearns actual accomplishments at welterweight are not overwhelming. There are plenty of welterweights that would be heavily favored over everyone he beat at that weight.

This is right. And is why it's not enough just to look at records.

His career was short yet sweet. Lot's of great wins and performance, and very little to almost no padding. He also had a gold medal to boot. Not much to knock there.

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 15:37 His career was short yet sweet. Lot's of great wins and performance, and very little to almost no padding. He also had a gold medal to boot. Not much to knock there.

Where do you rankings the great Sugar Ray Leonard at the all time pound per pound rankings?

Where do you rank him at WELTERWEIGHT all time rankings?

38th and 6th...

Kalan wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 20:07 38th and 6th...

Wow! I gotta kill you! Or maybe, I'll leave it to Ambling Alp.

You 2 would be gone in 10 seconds each... BOOM!!! SPLAT!!!

Kalan wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 20:07 38th and 6th...

It's all subjective. I rated him higher but I have no problem with your opinion.

I think Napoles win over Griffith is still better than Hearns win over Cuevas. Some might claim he was past his prime but looking at his record there isn't really anything to indicate he had slipped significantly by that stage. Also I think there is a pretty big gap between Cuevas and Griffith in ability and even a slightly faded Griffith is probably a better win.

Out of Griffith's opponents at welterweight I think Rodriguez might be better than Hearns but he is probably the only one (Napoles wouldnt count because Griffith lost that fight).

Kalan wrote: ↑09 Dec 2017, 21:49 You 2 would be gone in 10 seconds each... BOOM!!! SPLAT!!!

You're really hilarious, Kalan!

tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Dec 2017, 22:49

Kalan wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 20:07 38th and 6th...

It's all subjective. I rated him higher but I have no problem with your opinion.

Ain't that too low? I believe that Leonard is one of the top 20 all time pound per pound boxers of the 20th century, even though his career was kind of short. I got him listed at #18 ATG pound per pound and at #5 at ATG Welterweight rankings.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 08:56

tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Dec 2017, 22:49

Kalan wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 20:07 38th and 6th...

It's all subjective. I rated him higher but I have no problem with your opinion.

Ain't that too low? I believe that Leonard is one of the top 20 all time pound per pound boxers of the 20th century, even though his career was kind of short. I got him listed at #18 ATG pound per pound and at #5 at ATG Welterweight rankings.

So you you have him one spot different at welterweight.
And realistically you have him 18 he has him 36. In the history of boxing you have 120 years of the sport. A million fighters in that time.
It's not much different.
Again I actually rate Leonard slightly higher than you do. But it's all subjective. There's not a scientific equation to come up with our list
It's just a preference.

I guarantee none of us will agree on where to place modern fighters mixed in with the old timers.

tiny_acres wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 09:43

elmersalsa wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 08:56

tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Dec 2017, 22:49

It's all subjective. I rated him higher but I have no problem with your opinion.

Ain't that too low? I believe that Leonard is one of the top 20 all time pound per pound boxers of the 20th century, even though his career was kind of short. I got him listed at #18 ATG pound per pound and at #5 at ATG Welterweight rankings.

So you you have him one spot different at welterweight.
And realistically you have him 18 he has him 36. In the history of boxing you have 120 years of the sport. A million fighters in that time.
It's not much different.
Again I actually rate Leonard slightly higher than you do. But it's all subjective. There's not a scientific equation to come up with our list
It's just a preference.

I guarantee none of us will agree on where to place modern fighters mixed in with the old timers.

Where you rate him all time pound per pound, tiny_acres?

elmersalsa wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 10:58

tiny_acres wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 09:43

elmersalsa wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 08:56

Ain't that too low? I believe that Leonard is one of the top 20 all time pound per pound boxers of the 20th century, even though his career was kind of short. I got him listed at #18 ATG pound per pound and at #5 at ATG Welterweight rankings.

So you you have him one spot different at welterweight.
And realistically you have him 18 he has him 36. In the history of boxing you have 120 years of the sport. A million fighters in that time.
It's not much different.
Again I actually rate Leonard slightly higher than you do. But it's all subjective. There's not a scientific equation to come up with our list
It's just a preference.

I guarantee none of us will agree on where to place modern fighters mixed in with the old timers.

Where you rate him all time pound per pound, tiny_acres?

Leonard I have at unlucky #13

elmersalsa wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 08:53

Kalan wrote: ↑09 Dec 2017, 21:49 You 2 would be gone in 10 seconds each... BOOM!!! SPLAT!!!

You're really hilarious, Kalan!

Not as funny as your face would look -- after you took that shot.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 15:46

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2017, 15:37 His career was short yet sweet. Lot's of great wins and performance, and very little to almost no padding. He also had a gold medal to boot. Not much to knock there.

Where do you rankings the great Sugar Ray Leonard at the all time pound per pound rankings?

Where do you rank him at WELTERWEIGHT all time rankings?

well he never lost in that class and posted wins over Hearns, Duran and Benitez. I think that has to put him in the top 3, but ratings at welter is hard. That division is loaded with greats. As for pound for pound, probably top 15-20

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑10 Dec 2017, 06:14 I think Napoles win over Griffith is still better than Hearns win over Cuevas. Some might claim he was past his prime but looking at his record there isn't really anything to indicate he had slipped significantly by that stage. Also I think there is a pretty big gap between Cuevas and Griffith in ability and even a slightly faded Griffith is probably a better win.

Out of Griffith's opponents at welterweight I think Rodriguez might be better than Hearns but he is probably the only one (Napoles wouldnt count because Griffith lost that fight).

At the time that Napoles beat Griffith, Griffith had not fought at welterweight in four years. He had to lose several pounds to get down to the weight. Griffith had Barely beat the legendary at Art Hernandez and actual lost to Stanley Hayward with the previous 12 months. So no, beating Griffith at that time is not as big of a deal as blowing out Cuevas in two rounds.

Griffith had four very close fights with Rodriguez. He could have the decision in all four, and just easily could have went 0-4. Had the judges called it 2-2, he would not be rated than Rodrigues.
You could make a pretty good case for Rodrigues being higher at welter than Griffith. At least he never lost to someone like Benny Paret.

I always thought Rodriguez was better than Griffith in their fights... I know 3 of t hem were close, but I thought Rodriguez clearly deserved them... However Rodriguez got a Middleweight Title Fight at Benvenuti and didn't convert... When Griffith got his shot at Dick Tiger he boxed really well and lifted the title easily.

Then when Dick Tiger later won the Light Heavyweight Title, Griffith pushed really hard for a Title Fight with him... He said he knew he could beat Tiger again and take the Light Heavyweight Title. I think Mickey Walker was the only previous Welterweight Title holder to take the Light Heavyweight Title...

Young Stribling started as a Featherweight and fought for the Heavyweight Title... Stribling won the Light Heavyweight Title for an hour... The referee Harry Ertle, who originally awarded the LHW Title to Stribling changed his mind back at his hotel and gave it to Mike McTigue...reportedly at gunpoint... Every newspaper reporter present had Stribling winning easy.

I'm really amazed that was never a bigger story, because it's an outrage.