Posted: 31 Jul 2005, 06:50
Jofre may have been around longer but for me Harada was the better fighter... he just had a shorter peak becuase of his style... I'd certainly rate him higher than Jofre as he beat him twice when both were in their primes. Armstrong had a short peak compared with many all timers (simular style to Harada too) but still makes most peoples top 5 all timers.dnahar32 wrote:My Jofre pick was based on sustained excellence over long periods, multiple titles, a willigness to fight anyone anywhere, and some love for the smaller weights. The point I made in my post still holds: I think Jofre goes 1-1 with Harada in a neutral site, and wins if either fight is held in Brazil (and not hometown decisions either but legitimate wins). Imagine Hagler-Leonard at Boston Garden? Don't you think the fight would have been different in fromt of Hagler's hometown fans? Maybe I'm reacting to watching Hatton-Tszyu, but I think a close matchup between great fighters can hinge on the home crowd.silkov wrote:I agree that Jofre was a great fighter but I think you should rate Harada higher as Harada beat a peak Jofre 2 times clearly. Harada should have been a 3 weight world champion but was robbed in his first fight with jOHNNY Famechon... (refereed by Willie Pep!... who certainly wasn't an all timer as a Referee!).dnahar32 wrote:Yes, I do consider him one of the five best fighters of all-time and this is not a question of experts. As you might have seen in the article, Nat Fleisher and the author both would agree and it's a matter of perspective. I notice you do not have Jofre among your 50 greatest fighters. Maybe the article and some facts about him will change your opinion.
I base Eder Jofre's greatness on these facts:
1) He was a Ring Top 10 contender for a span of 18 years (1959-76) and every year he was active. Not too many fighters can make that claim. Longetivity means a lot when I rate a fighter.
2) He won the lineal title in both the bantamweight and featherweight divisions. He didn't duck challengers. He fought and beat a variety of fighters of different styles and in different ways.
3) All but one of those defenses were against Top 10 contenders and he went into other fighters backyards and beat them on a regular basis. The Harada fights were extremely close, and both were fought in Japan. Do you really think he might not have legitimately won one or both of those fights if they were held in Brazil (not a hometown decision but legitimately)? You're a wrestler, aren't you more pumped up hearing the cheers of your fellow students than a rowdy crowd on the road? Doesn't your team perform better? BTW, Harada would make my Top 20 P4P list as well.
4) Jofre held the bantamweight title for 5 years and won the featherweight title over Legra coming out of retirement to do it. He went 11-2 in title fights.
5) Saying that he didn't fight HOF fighters is a bad argument because the IBHOF ignores lighter weight fighters. It's better to look at Ring Top 10 contenders IMO. But I ask you, does Ingemar Johansson belong in the Hall of Fame? Tommy Burns? Jess Willard? But because they are heavyweights, they get in. On your 50 fighters list, you rank 12 or 13 heavyweight champs plus Langford but only 2 bantamweights (McGovern and Olivares and both were featherweight champs as well) and one flyweight (Jimmy Wilde, who is the only "hyped" flyweight media couldn't ignore).
For your greatest fighters list, it's obvious you didn't consider Jofre, but did you carefully consider Panama Al Brown? Fighting Harada? George Dixon? Kid Williams? Abe Attell? Carlos Zarate? Fighters like Yoshio Shirai and Howard Winstone not in the HOF are far better than Burns or Johansson, but who cares about the lighter weights, right? Well, boxing fans that take the time to learn about those fighters do. The best fighter not currently in the HOF is Jung-Koo Chang and he fought at 108 pounds.
It's obvious that you study the higher weights more than the lighter weights. There is nothing wrong with that, most people do. But if you're going to make an informed all-time P4P list with credibility, you have to look into these little guys as well.
The only reason the post comes off as being "upset" is because I feel you did not even consider Jofre's credentials before challenging his inclusion on my p4p list. And no, just saying he lost to Harada or didn't fight another HOF (which he did, Vicente Saldivar) is not enough. If you did consider Jofre, then he would have easily made your Top 50 list and been much higher.
:)
Yeah Jofre was great but Harada is very underrated by many and should get more recognition... I think if Harada was Mexican he'd be mentioned much more.
Harada is way up there as well, in my Top 20, but not Top 5 P4P. The Asian fighter bias is definitely there or Jung-Koo Chang would have made the HOF in his first year of eligibility. Wilde, Greb, Pep, Duran and others mentioned are all up there. It's tough to name just five.
While Longevity is a factor for rating fighters I think the most important factor should be how good a fighter was at his best and what he achaived in that short time. Both Harada and Armstrong did more in their 3 or 4 peak years than other champs did in much longer reigns.