BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd also point out that as poor as his balance was against lesser opponents that would surely play more of a hindrance to his porous defense against the elite than his chin would mask it. I don't think Whitaker or Mayweather could miss Aaron with a blindfold on. He was a favorite of mine, but it's another guy who gets credit for his prime ending as soon as his results were less impressive and gets credited with more wins than he ever earned.

I disagree with none of that. Pryor was an exceptionally flawed fighter in many respects, there's no denying that, but he was just so special in other aspects that those flaws were overshadowed by his effectiveness. He was one of the prime examples of a natural fighter. While Whitaker and Floyd would have countering opportunities galore, they'd also find it a lot more difficult to remain as poised when up against that unpredictable ring generalship and offense he brought.

I'd be more inclined to favour Whitaker in that one, but both are tough calls. Pryor definitely left a lot of questions unanswered.

Everyone always has a different opinion on these things, but here's my take:

Heavyweight: Muhammad Ali
Cruiserweight: Evander Holyfield
Light Heavyweight: Archie Moore

Super Middleweight: Joe Calzaghe
Middleweight: Carlos Monzon
Light Middleweight: Thomas Hearns

Welterweight: Sugar Ray Robinson
Light Welterweight: Julio Cesar Chavez
Light Weight: Henry Armstrong

Super Featherweight: Azumah Nelson
Featherweight: Willie Pep
Superbantamweight: Wilfredo Gomez
Bantamweight: Eder Jofre

SuperFlyweight: Khaosai Galaxy
Flyweight: Jimmy Wilde
Light Flyweight: Michael Carbajal
Minimumweight:Ricardo Lopez

NOTE: I would add that guys who win various World Titles at different weights are at a disdvantage here. Weight-jumpers like Sugar Ray Leonard and Floyd Mayweather don't stay in a weight division too long to dominate it, and as such they pay the price because others have done that and they deserve to be entered as the king of their weight-class.

Moore over Charles at LHW?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Moore over Charles at LHW?

I think prime-for-prime... Moore would have had him.

I'm sticking with the traditional 8 weight classes for mine:-

Heavyweight: Joe Louis

Light Heavyweight: Ezzard Charles

Middleweight: Harry Greb

Welterweight: Sugar Ray Robinson

Lightweight: Roberto Duran

Featherweight: Willie Pep

Bantamweight: Eder Jofre

Flyweight: Jimmy Wilde

Crease wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Moore over Charles at LHW?

I think prime-for-prime... Moore would have had him.

They fought 3 times, by the third fight Moore was definitely in his prime (if not earlier), and it was in that fight that Charles finally finished him. He was the better man, no questions asked.

King Carlos wrote:

Crease wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Moore over Charles at LHW?

I think prime-for-prime... Moore would have had him.

They fought 3 times, by the third fight Moore was definitely in his prime (if not earlier), and it was in that fight that Charles finally finished him. He was the better man, no questions asked.

Nah Moore would've bested him best 4 out of 7.

Ok, if not that,,,then it was styles mismatch.

;;-)

We have to judge fighters by what they did in a certain weight class. If we are talking about the Light Heavyweight division we can only judge all fighters by what they did at that weight and disregard everything else.

Moore was the Light Heavyweight Champion for 10 years....Charles did not.

Crease wrote:We have to judge fighters by what they did in a certain weight class. If we are talking about the Light Heavyweight division we can only judge all fighters by what they did at that weight and disregard everything else.

Moore was the Light Heavyweight Champion for 10 years....Charles did not.

Terrible logic.

Charles >>> Moore, any way you slice it.

Crease wrote:We have to judge fighters by what they did in a certain weight class. If we are talking about the Light Heavyweight division we can only judge all fighters by what they did at that weight and disregard everything else.

Moore was the Light Heavyweight Champion for 10 years....Charles did not.

Charles never received a title shot. Was Victor Galindez greater than Ezzard too?

Saad, traditionally....(and I know what baggage that brings lol) fighters are rated in one weight class.

So happily this means that Archie can have his place at the LHW head of the table.

Charles forfeited his right to LHW discussions when he achieved HW royalty. As did Tunney. Once you are of royalty, your common man ancestory must be dissavowed.

Seriously though, many do seem to subscribe to "one man one weight class". theory.

We've seen all sort of arbitrary lines in the sand here when it comes to ratings.

Tradition is as good as any other line I suppose.

Recently some have quipped that any performance in an upper weight class is irrelevant to your rating in the lower weight class.

I don't know who is subscribing to what lines, but I have read opinions from people that I respect right here on this board, that are

pretty diverse when it comes to the "ratings rationale".

BoxBuzz wrote:Saad, traditionally....(and I know what baggage that brings lol) fighters are rated in one weight class.

So happily this means that Archie can have his place at the LHW head of the table.

Charles forfeited his right to LHW discussions when he achieved HW royalty. As did Tunney. Once you are of royalty, your common man ancestory must be dissavowed.

Seriously though, many do seem to subscribe to "one man one weight class". theory.

We've seen all sort of arbitrary lines in the sand here when it comes to ratings.

Tradition is as good as any other line I suppose.

Recently some have quipped that any performance in an upper weight class is irrelevant to your rating in the lower weight class.

I don't know who is subscribing to what lines, but I have read opinions from people that I respect right here on this board, that are

pretty diverse when it comes to the "ratings rationale".

Charles weight class would obviously be at Light Heavy. Don't feel bad Buzz, Hearns is my favorite fighter. Sometimes you have to accept less than #1.

BoxBuzz wrote:Saad, traditionally....(and I know what baggage that brings lol) fighters are rated in one weight class.

So happily this means that Archie can have his place at the LHW head of the table.

Charles forfeited his right to LHW discussions when he achieved HW royalty. As did Tunney. Once you are of royalty, your common man ancestory must be dissavowed.

Seriously though, many do seem to subscribe to "one man one weight class". theory.

We've seen all sort of arbitrary lines in the sand here when it comes to ratings.

Tradition is as good as any other line I suppose.

Recently some have quipped that any performance in an upper weight class is irrelevant to your rating in the lower weight class.

I don't know who is subscribing to what lines, but I have read opinions from people that I respect right here on this board, that are

pretty diverse when it comes to the "ratings rationale".

Only in a fantasy setting.

Ezzard Charles run at 175 when he really hit his stride (and best fighting weight) in '46 is incredible. He was better than Archie then and proved it in the ring although obviously I've not seen the fights. Was there any controversy around them? I think only Tunney has an argument with Charles for no 1. However Klompton posted some criticisms that have made me favour Charles again.

Langford should also be in the mix for the #1 LHW spot.

He, Charles and Tunney (not in that order) are my clear top-3 at 175.

G.I. What are you suggesting? That people "generally" agree on a "rating rationale"? Or that anything other than your approach is "fantasy based"? Just not sure what your point was. Certainly you've seen many folks rate Charles and Tunney ONLY in the HW division. Not saying this is good or bad, but not an uncommon occurrence. Like Saad, the only reason I might enjoy hearing this approach is that it allows my favorite fighter a "leg up" in a division that he probably could do no better than 3rd unless the two HW's are dismissed. lol.

Hmm isn't there a good case for Tommy at the Super Welter? Could he be possibly be rated #1 at that weight class? Or is that not an "established enough" weight class to even suggest a #1?

Im not suggesting anything. Im flat out saying its pure fantasy to rank Moore #1, all-time, at 175. You can keep the rest.

Hearns is no worse than #3 all-time at 154, IMO. He could certainly be #1 at JMW.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Im not suggesting anything. Im flat out saying its pure fantasy to rank Moore #1, all-time, at 175. You can keep the rest.

Hearns is no worse than #3 all-time at 154, IMO. He could certainly be #1 at JMW.

Always good to get those "grounded" specs that only the precious few can supply!

..in other news: Yeah Hearns could well have a lock on that JMW slot.

I would take McCallum over Hearns, but its very much an Ali-Louis debate, with no wrong answer.