BoxRec

generic screen name wrote:Yeah dude, I think McGirt was a great fighter, but I'm not buying that.

In an article in one of the New York Dailies back in the '80's, a well-known sportswriter compared Buddy to Sugar Ray. Sure, I agree it's a stretch, but it was a popular opinion for a while. Hey, Shane Mosely was also favorably compared to SRR for a while, wasn't he?...Buddy was for a time ranked as the top pfp fighter in the world.

For me Whitaker v Chavez stands as one of the most unbelievable decisions I have ever seen.
If ever the fix was in,it was here.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

generic screen name wrote:Yeah dude, I think McGirt was a great fighter, but I'm not buying that.

In an article in one of the New York Dailies back in the '80's, a well-known sportswriter compared Buddy to Sugar Ray. Sure, I agree it's a stretch, but it was a popular opinion for a while. Hey, Shane Mosely was also favorably compared to SRR for a while, wasn't he?...Buddy was for a time ranked as the top pfp fighter in the world.

It was a popular opinion that Buddy McGirt for a while was better than Sugar Ray Robinson? What in the world are you talking about? Shane Mosley was compared favorably to Sugar Ray Robinson as well? By who?
Are you sure you're not thinking of Sugar Ray Seales? :)

McGirt was a good fighter and he did give Whitaker some trouble. However it's doubtful that he is one of the top 30 welterweights of all time, much less better than Robinson.
Whitaker simply wasn't as good at welterweight as he was at lightweight. There is no logical reason to rate him among the top 10 welterweights of all time.

Sweet Pea stunk, plus he was another slapsy patsy runaway southpaw. He never deserved to hold any title. The judges knew that and did the right thing. No southpaw should ever hold a title. Southpaw champions only appeal to those who don't really know boxing.

My greatest welterweight rankings:

1) SRR (in his prime, even though it was about 60 years ago, he was simply awesome)
2) SRL (Some say he didn't do enough at Welter, but his list of victims reads like an all-time pfp ranking)
3) Pernell Whitaker (close between him and leonard....I rank Leonard higher because of his edge in power, but Pea would have given him all he could handle. A defensive wizard and a masterful technical boxer)
4) Tito Trinidad- A true knockout artist w/ relentless pressure.
6) Thomas "Hit man" Hearns- Tall, fast and explosive. One drawback was his brittle chin. A Tito-Hearns fight would have been fireworks.
5) Kid Gavilan- Lacked power, but his finesse and skill more than made up for it.
5) Jose Napoles- Popular champ. Smooth boxer with power.
6) Emile Griffith- Powerful and athletic.
7) Henry Armstrong- A true original. Roared through 4 divisions.
8) Marlon Starling- Underrated boxer-puncher who beat the best of his era.
9) Wilfred Benitez- Defensive master who would have had a much longer reign had it not been for SRL
10) Barney Ross- Legendary old-timer. Ring smarts and pop.

Dentsun4228 wrote: 1) SRR (in his prime, even though it was about 60 years ago, he was simply awesome)

I don't undertsand the relevance of this line? Leonard's prime was 25 years ago. This is the boxers of the past forum.

Kid Galivan under Trinidad??? huh?!?

I'm a fan of Sweet Pea, but as a lightweight he only had one controversial loss, so I consider him more of a lightweight than welterweight.

Trinidad is not close to being a top 10 welterweight of all time.

Whitaker might crack the top 25 but that weight class had so many tough, proven fighters in MUCH deeper eras.

Ross, Hearns, Paret, Griffith, Napoles, McClarnin, Duran etc. would've all not let Trinidad even see the 10th round.

dempseyfire wrote:Trinidad is not close to being a top 10 welterweight of all time.

Whitaker might crack the top 25 but that weight class had so many tough, proven fighters in MUCH deeper eras.

Ross, Hearns, Paret, Griffith, Napoles, McClarnin, Duran etc. would've all not let Trinidad even see the 10th round.

Whitaker might crack the Top 25??? Are you serious?

Ezzard wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote: 1) SRR (in his prime, even though it was about 60 years ago, he was simply awesome)

I don't undertsand the relevance of this line? Leonard's prime was 25 years ago. This is the boxers of the past forum.

THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS THAT FIGHTERS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE TEND TO IMPROVE WITH TIME...IT'S TESTIMONY TO WHAT AN INCREDIBLE FIGHTER ROBINSON WAS THAT HE'S STILL CONSIDERED THE BEST WELTERWT BY MANY EVEN AFTER SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF GREAT FIGHTERS WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD ON WHAT HE BROUGHT TO BOXING. MOST OTHER DIVISIONS TEND TO SEE A GRADUAL PROGESSION IN THE QUALITY OF THE FIGHTERS, UNTIL THE FIGHTERS CONSIDERED GREAT DECADES AGO BEGIN TO BE LOOKED UPON AS LACKING THE FINESSE THAT COME WITH IMPROVEMENTS OVER TIME.

AS FAR AS RANKING TITO OVER HEARNS, I'D SAY THAT ONE OF TITO'S BIG DRAWBACKS WAS HIS BALANCE, WHICH CAUSED HIM TO GET DROPPED A NUMBER OF TIMES. HE USUALLY CAME BACK TO DESTROY THE OTHER GUYS. HEARNS-HAGLER WAS A GREAT FIGHT WHICH WENT 3 ROUNDS....TITO SOAKED UP A BEATING FROM HOPKINS FOR 11 AND A HALF ROUNDS BEFORE GOING DOWN. THE THING WITH HEARNS IS THAT IT ALWAYS SEEMED THAT ALL IT WOULD TAKE IS ONE GOOD SHOT ON THE CHIN AND HIS LEGS WOULD BUCKLE. LOOK AT THE OLAJIDE FIGHT...AND OLAJIDE WAS NOTABLY UNDER-POWERED.

AS FAR AS CHARLEY BURLEY GOES, I'VE NEVER SEEN TAPES OF HIM. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY TAPES OF HIM EVEN EXIST. I'VE ONLY HEARD AND READ ABOUT HOW GREAT HE WAS, BUT I'M ALWAYS SKEPTICAL UNTIL I ACTUALLY SEE A GUY.

FYI, I'VE SEEN MANY OF GAVILAN'S FIGHTS...HE WAS A GREAT FIGHTER, NO DOUBT. I DON'T SEE THAT RANKING HIM AT #5 BELOW SRR, SRL, PEA AND TITO DISCREDITS HIM. I DON'T SEE HIM BEATING ANY ONE OF THOSE GUYS, BUT I STILL THINK HE WAS AN AWESOME FIGHTER. REMEMBER IT'S BEEN ABOUT 60 YEARS SINCE HE WAS AROUND...THE FACT THAT HE'S SO HIGH ON THE LIST SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING.

ringsider wrote:Sweet Pea stunk, plus he was another slapsy patsy runaway southpaw. He never deserved to hold any title. The judges knew that and did the right thing. No southpaw should ever hold a title. Southpaw champions only appeal to those who don't really know boxing.

cocaine is a hell of a drug woudn't ya say?

Dentsun4228 wrote:AS FAR AS RANKING TITO OVER HEARNS, I'D SAY THAT ONE OF TITO'S BIG DRAWBACKS WAS HIS BALANCE, WHICH CAUSED HIM TO GET DROPPED A NUMBER OF TIMES. HE USUALLY CAME BACK TO DESTROY THE OTHER GUYS. HEARNS-HAGLER WAS A GREAT FIGHT WHICH WENT 3 ROUNDS....TITO SOAKED UP A BEATING FROM HOPKINS FOR 11 AND A HALF ROUNDS BEFORE GOING DOWN. THE THING WITH HEARNS IS THAT IT ALWAYS SEEMED THAT ALL IT WOULD TAKE IS ONE GOOD SHOT ON THE CHIN AND HIS LEGS WOULD BUCKLE. LOOK AT THE OLAJIDE FIGHT...AND OLAJIDE WAS NOTABLY UNDER-POWERED.

You can't compare the punishment taken by Hearns in the hagler fight to that taken by Tito in the Hopkins fight. Hearns came out and decided to trade for two rounds with one of the most relentless champions in the sport's history and by the time he decided to box in the third round it was too late. Trinidad was disected by a master ring general who bided his time and took full advantage of the opening when it eventually came. You put Tito in the ring with Marvin that night he would have been lucky to hear the bell for the end of round one.