Comparing Fighters from Different Eras

[Kalan]

10 Heavyweight Champions from different eras matched up in Time Tunnel fights (winners billed 1st):

Tyson vs Ali... Joshua vs Holmes... Jeffries vs Marciano... Haye vs Foreman... Louis vs Dempsey... Carnera vs Willard... Lewis vs Louis... Johnson vs Tunney... Dempsey vs Baer... V Klitschko vs W Klitschko didn't match different eras---but I would still like to have seen it... Holmes-Foreman too.

And another 10 --- Wladimir vs Ali... Liston vs Foreman... Dempsey vs Marciano... Johnson vs Holyfield... Joshua vs Ali... Vitali vs Louis... Haye vs Tyson... Tunney vs Frazier... Schmeling vs Walcott... Fury vs Bowe

[JC]

Carl Froch and Gene Fullmer

[Tony1244]

Wow, that's a little anti-Leonard.

Regarding his "I don't want to fight anymore" quote, any fighter has the right to retire. Leonard chose to comeback.

Howard and Finch were no HOFers but Howard was his first fight back. Hagler fought Tony Sibson who isn't in The Hall either. Oblemjamas, Hagler fought twice.

It is not " anti " anything. There is no doubt Leonard earned his ATG status as a Welterweight, and rightly so. However the fact that I refuse to buy the slop that folks try to sell me on his career ABOVE 147 doesn't make me a hater. Rather it makes me a realist.

FACT.

Leonard first started " TALKING " about Hagler soon after the unification bout with Tommy Hearns.

FACT.

Here is Hagler's record from October 81 until October 84.

Mustafa Hamsho W TKO 3/15

Juan Domingo Roldan W TKO 10/12

Roberto Duran W UD 15/15

Wilford Scypion W KO 4/15

Tony Sibson W TKO 6/15

Fulgencio Obelmejias W TKO 5/15

Caveman Lee W TKO 1/15

Mustafa Hamsho W TKO 11/15

We are all more than well aware SRL had eye surgery in May 82, but within a few months he was fully recovered. Yet he chose to fight Finch before that problem was diagnosed, then " chose " to stay " retired " until May 84, then face Howard in his comeback. All the while TALKING about fighting Hagler.

I'm sorry but " anti " doesn't come into it. If you can't see a pattern there you can only be a biased avid Leonard fan. Then again, perhaps where you come from talking big about fighting a guy, then calling a press conference to say " well actually, I don't want to fight you at any time soon " is admirable. But it isn't for me.

If your point is Hagler was a more prominent Middleweight than Leonard, of course I agree with that. Hagler was a great middleweight. Leonard was a great welterweight. Their one fight happened after both of their primes and it was very close. I had Leonard up by 115-114 if I remember correctly. I was just responding to one post where you seemed to list all of SRL's negatives without any of his positives.

[Tony1244]

Wow, that's a little anti-Leonard.

Regarding his "I don't want to fight anymore" quote, any fighter has the right to retire. Leonard chose to comeback.

Howard and Finch were no HOFers but Howard was his first fight back. Hagler fought Tony Sibson who isn't in The Hall either. Oblemjamas, Hagler fought twice.

Please don't try to sell me HOF slop as though it has ANY great meaning. It is a hall of FAME, not greatness, hence guys like Gatti, and McGuigan are in it. I am sure people are aware exactly why Arturo was inducted, but in case you don't know allow me to explain why McGuigan got the nod.

He came from a border town between Northern Ireland ( British ) and the Republic Of Ireland, and when he fought both Catholics, and Protestants who ordinarily would concern themselves with ways to literally kill each other stood shoulder to shoulder for that one night supporting him.

He made a nonsense of sectarianism, and THAT is what gave him " fame "

Fair enough. I used the term HOF as synonymous with great fighter and that's not always the case.

[Ambling Alp II]

It is not " anti " anything. There is no doubt Leonard earned his ATG status as a Welterweight, and rightly so. However the fact that I refuse to buy the slop that folks try to sell me on his career ABOVE 147 doesn't make me a hater. Rather it makes me a realist.

FACT.

Leonard first started " TALKING " about Hagler soon after the unification bout with Tommy Hearns.

FACT.

Here is Hagler's record from October 81 until October 84.

Mustafa Hamsho W TKO 3/15

Juan Domingo Roldan W TKO 10/12

Roberto Duran W UD 15/15

Wilford Scypion W KO 4/15

Tony Sibson W TKO 6/15

Fulgencio Obelmejias W TKO 5/15

Caveman Lee W TKO 1/15

Mustafa Hamsho W TKO 11/15

We are all more than well aware SRL had eye surgery in May 82, but within a few months he was fully recovered. Yet he chose to fight Finch before that problem was diagnosed, then " chose " to stay " retired " until May 84, then face Howard in his comeback. All the while TALKING about fighting Hagler.

I'm sorry but " anti " doesn't come into it. If you can't see a pattern there you can only be a biased avid Leonard fan. Then again, perhaps where you come from talking big about fighting a guy, then calling a press conference to say " well actually, I don't want to fight you at any time soon " is admirable. But it isn't for me.

If your point is Hagler was a more prominent Middleweight than Leonard, of course I agree with that. Hagler was a great middleweight. Leonard was a great welterweight. Their one fight happened after both of their primes and it was very close. I had Leonard up by 115-114 if I remember correctly. I was just responding to one post where you seemed to list all of SRL's negatives without any of his positives.

My point is Tony, that Ray Leonard had no intention of fighting Hagler between 82, when he first started talking about it, and 87 when they actually did fight. He waited until he was convinced Hagler simply didn't have the legs to catch him if he adopted the tactics of tap and run. Preferring instead to remain " retired. "

And obviously in those 5 years Leonard knew his own speed and reflexes would magically get faster and faster while the active Hagler's speed and reflexes would decrease to a crawl.
This is why everyone thought Leonard would easily.
Obviously Leonard that Hagler would remain the best yet somehow be way, way past it.
And he knew it 5 years in advance.

[Tony1244]

It is not " anti " anything. There is no doubt Leonard earned his ATG status as a Welterweight, and rightly so. However the fact that I refuse to buy the slop that folks try to sell me on his career ABOVE 147 doesn't make me a hater. Rather it makes me a realist.

FACT.

Leonard first started " TALKING " about Hagler soon after the unification bout with Tommy Hearns.

FACT.

Here is Hagler's record from October 81 until October 84.

Mustafa Hamsho W TKO 3/15

Juan Domingo Roldan W TKO 10/12

Roberto Duran W UD 15/15

Wilford Scypion W KO 4/15

Tony Sibson W TKO 6/15

Fulgencio Obelmejias W TKO 5/15

Caveman Lee W TKO 1/15

Mustafa Hamsho W TKO 11/15

We are all more than well aware SRL had eye surgery in May 82, but within a few months he was fully recovered. Yet he chose to fight Finch before that problem was diagnosed, then " chose " to stay " retired " until May 84, then face Howard in his comeback. All the while TALKING about fighting Hagler.

I'm sorry but " anti " doesn't come into it. If you can't see a pattern there you can only be a biased avid Leonard fan. Then again, perhaps where you come from talking big about fighting a guy, then calling a press conference to say " well actually, I don't want to fight you at any time soon " is admirable. But it isn't for me.

If your point is Hagler was a more prominent Middleweight than Leonard, of course I agree with that. Hagler was a great middleweight. Leonard was a great welterweight. Their one fight happened after both of their primes and it was very close. I had Leonard up by 115-114 if I remember correctly. I was just responding to one post where you seemed to list all of SRL's negatives without any of his positives.

My point is Tony, that Ray Leonard had no intention of fighting Hagler between 82, when he first started talking about it, and 87 when they actually did fight. He waited until he was convinced Hagler simply didn't have the legs to catch him if he adopted the tactics of tap and run. Preferring instead to remain " retired. "

It's not that I disagree, I don't. But a lot of fighters don't want to fight a lot of other fighters at various times for various reasons.

RJJ beat Ruiz, but he didn't want to get near a Klitschko. Mayweather doesn't want to come out of retirement and fight GGG.

SRL admitted as much that he liked to control the whens and wheres. Agreed, he didn't want to fight Hagler until he thought he could beat him. I don't remember his exact words, but he seemed to pretty much admit this.

But SRL was still a Great Amateur and Pro Champion. And I don't use the term "Great" loosely.

[Ambling Alp II]

But tony, do you really think Leonard was closer to his best in 1987 than Hagler?
Having one fight in 5 years is not exactly ideal.
And the fight was at middleweight.
Hagler is the one with advantages here.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hagler was far from shot. He wanted Leonard for so long that he tried to outbox him from a conventional stance. Ray might have been the strongest mental fighter ever. Hagler's biggest problem was, oddly, Mancini/Kim. If that fight was 15 Leonard wouldn't have made it. I won money on that fight, one of my good upset picks.

[Tony1244]

My point is Tony, that Ray Leonard had no intention of fighting Hagler between 82, when he first started talking about it, and 87 when they actually did fight. He waited until he was convinced Hagler simply didn't have the legs to catch him if he adopted the tactics of tap and run. Preferring instead to remain " retired. "

And obviously in those 5 years Leonard knew his own speed and reflexes would magically get faster and faster while the active Hagler's speed and reflexes would decrease to a crawl.
This is why everyone thought Leonard would easily.
Obviously Leonard that Hagler would remain the best yet somehow be way, way past it.
And he knew it 5 years in advance.

Do you by any chance keep pictures of Ray Leonard on your bedroom wall?

In the 5 and a half years between Leonard fighting Tommy Hearns at 147, and Hagler at 160, Hagler had 10 fights ALL against guys who hit equally as hard, and in most cases a lot harder than Leonard. And as he aged it became far more difficult for him, forcing him to rely more and more on his granite chin, as opposed to the fighting skills he showed in his prime, culminating in the back and forth shootout with Mugabi.

Meanwhile through careful selection ( cherry picking ) SRL had had 2 hard fights, in his whole career, Duran 1, and against the weight affected Hearns, but still chose to test himself against those GIANTS of the sport. Finch, and Howard, within the same time span.

Get real for gawds sake man.

Do you by any chance keep pictures of Marvin Hagler on your bedroom wall? Not really seeing what we're saying different about SRL than virtually all knowledgable boxing people.

[Tony1244]

But tony, do you really think Leonard was closer to his best in 1987 than Hagler?
Having one fight in 5 years is not exactly ideal.
And the fight was at middleweight.
Hagler is the one with advantages here.

Both were passed their prime. Writer Michael Katz called it a crackerjacks old timers fight. Actually I really don't think SRL was closer to his best. I'm not going to pretend to know what would have happened if they had fought 5 years earlier, even though I'm sure half the guys in here believe they know EXACTLY what would happen.

Generally speaking though, power stays longer than speed ADV Hagler, and yes Middleweight also ADV Hagler.

I remember SRL saying that he thought he could beat Hagler after watching Hagler-Mugabi.

[Tony1244]

I remember SRL saying that he thought he could beat Hagler after watching Hagler-Mugabi.

Aha, at last the voice of reason. That is exactly what he said, and is exactly why he took the fight, after NON STOP TALKING about fighting Hagler for the previous 5 years.

Yes, but your tone has a lot of anger towards SRL. SRL was being honest about it.

[Tony1244]

Do you by any chance keep pictures of Ray Leonard on your bedroom wall?

In the 5 and a half years between Leonard fighting Tommy Hearns at 147, and Hagler at 160, Hagler had 10 fights ALL against guys who hit equally as hard, and in most cases a lot harder than Leonard. And as he aged it became far more difficult for him, forcing him to rely more and more on his granite chin, as opposed to the fighting skills he showed in his prime, culminating in the back and forth shootout with Mugabi.

Meanwhile through careful selection ( cherry picking ) SRL had had 2 hard fights, in his whole career, Duran 1, and against the weight affected Hearns, but still chose to test himself against those GIANTS of the sport. Finch, and Howard, within the same time span.

Get real for gawds sake man.

Do you by any chance keep pictures of Marvin Hagler on your bedroom wall? Not really seeing what we're saying different about SRL than virtually all knowledgable boxing people.

Don't confuse outright Sugar Ray Leonard fan boy types, and knowledgable boxing people. They are not one and the same thing.

What did ambling alp write that showed he wasn't knowledgable? I don't knock anyone for being a fan of a fighter. I've been a fan of journeymen fighters. But yes, if someone writes something patently inaccurate I point it out. I haven't read every single word of this debate, but it seems to me the argument has more to do with tone than substance.

[Kalan]

Don't get the similarity between Carnera and Smith.

Frazier and Marciano have some similaities, as do Robinson and Leonard.
I guess Lyle and Rahman are vaguely similar, but not that much.

Can you please explain to me exactly what similarities Leonard, and Walker Smith had, other than both were known as Sugar Ray, and both were black guys from America?

Please don't tell me both had " worthwhile " careers at Welter, and Middle weight, because they DIDN'T. One had 28 fights at 147 or lower, and a mere 12 above that weight. Meanwhile the REAL Sugar Ray had 113, at Welter or below, and a further 85 above Welter.

NO comparison there methinks.

You have to remember that about 160 of those so-called Robinson fights were against guys he was almost certain to beat... They were little more than glorified sparring sessions... Several more of SRR's fights were against guys Robinson was very likely to beat.. Leonard actually had more prime fights against skilled guys like Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Norris who were actually very good boxers... Name several very good boxers in that class who Robinson ever beat.

[lazboy]

I see some Tommy Hearns in Sergey Kovalev. Anyone think the same?

[Tony1244]

Don't confuse outright Sugar Ray Leonard fan boy types, and knowledgable boxing people. They are not one and the same thing.

What did ambling alp write that showed he wasn't knowledgable? I don't knock anyone for being a fan of a fighter. I've been a fan of journeymen fighters. But yes, if someone writes something patently inaccurate I point it out. I haven't read every single word of this debate, but it seems to me the argument has more to do with tone than substance.

Take the time and trouble to look at the guys Hagler fought ( and their resume's ) prior to facing Leonard. Then look at the 2 or 3 " tough" fights Leonard allegedly had before April 87.

Duran?

A career ( at that time ) Lightweight. L1 - W1

Benitez?

A great win IMO, but others would claim Wilfred already had drug issues by that time.

Tommy Hearns?

Another great win, but the fact that Tommy never fought at, or even attempted to make 147 again simply can't be dismissed by these " knowledgable " fans you refer to.

Kalule?

Oh, please.

As stated, by myself and plenty of others, ( including yourself ) Ray Leonard waited, and waited until he knew ( as evidenced by the Mugabi fight ) if he tapped and ran he could win a fight with Hagler. Only a fool or a fanboy would believe Leonard would EVER have found the courage to get in the ring with Hagler in 1982.

I think you are downplaying the seriousness of a detached retina. Please look what happened to Sugar Ray Seales. If the injury never occurred, perhaps the fight would have happened in 1982. Maybe not.
Mayweather won't fight GGG without the injury.

I'm not a fanboy, but I did read his autobiography, like I read about 8 other boxing autos. To be honest, his "I used to be all messed up on drugs, and now I'm all messed up on the lord," attitude was irritating.

My 3rd point is SRL was very honest about saying he didn't want to fight Hagler until he "saw something" in the Mugabi fight.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Duran told Leonard he could beat Marvin after their fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Do you by any chance keep pictures of Marvin Hagler on your bedroom wall? Not really seeing what we're saying different about SRL than virtually all knowledgable boxing people.

Don't confuse outright Sugar Ray Leonard fan boy types, and knowledgable boxing people. They are not one and the same thing.

What did ambling alp write that showed he wasn't knowledgable? I don't knock anyone for being a fan of a fighter. I've been a fan of journeymen fighters. But yes, if someone writes something patently inaccurate I point it out. I haven't read every single word of this debate, but it seems to me the argument has more to do with tone than substance.

I guess I just get tired of the whole "Leonard got all the breaks" narrative. It's nonsense.
Benitez was on drugs or whatever, Hearns was weight drained, Duran was partying too much, had tummy ache or whatever, Hagler was way past it.
If you put the name of John Smith instead of Ray Leonard, everyone would be impressed with these wins and and not give any of the crybaby excuses and credence.

You could come up with these types of lame excuses for anybody.
He beat them all fair and square.

[Tony1244]

Don't confuse outright Sugar Ray Leonard fan boy types, and knowledgable boxing people. They are not one and the same thing.

What did ambling alp write that showed he wasn't knowledgable? I don't knock anyone for being a fan of a fighter. I've been a fan of journeymen fighters. But yes, if someone writes something patently inaccurate I point it out. I haven't read every single word of this debate, but it seems to me the argument has more to do with tone than substance.

I guess I just get tired of the whole "Leonard got all the breaks" narrative. It's nonsense.
Benitez was on drugs or whatever, Hearns was weight drained, Duran was partying too much, had tummy ache or whatever, Hagler was way past it.
If you put the name of John Smith instead of Ray Leonard, everyone would be impressed with these wins and and not give any of the crybaby excuses and credence.

You could come up with these types of lame excuses for anybody.
He beat them all fair and square.

SRL was a Great Fighter Period. Some love him, some hate him. I have mixed feelings myself.

He was very open about winning part of the fight outside the ring. Example: he dangled Million$ in front of Duran for an almost immediate rematch when he knew Roberto was partying up a storm. That may bother some people.

Yes, everyone wanted to see SRL-Hagler years earlier, but he had every right to worry about his eye or to simply not sign for the fight at that time for whatever reason.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I hate him, but he earned his way to the top of the sport to make those moves.

[Ambling Alp II]

What did ambling alp write that showed he wasn't knowledgable? I don't knock anyone for being a fan of a fighter. I've been a fan of journeymen fighters. But yes, if someone writes something patently inaccurate I point it out. I haven't read every single word of this debate, but it seems to me the argument has more to do with tone than substance.

I guess I just get tired of the whole "Leonard got all the breaks" narrative. It's nonsense.
Benitez was on drugs or whatever, Hearns was weight drained, Duran was partying too much, had tummy ache or whatever, Hagler was way past it.
If you put the name of John Smith instead of Ray Leonard, everyone would be impressed with these wins and and not give any of the crybaby excuses and credence.

You could come up with these types of lame excuses for anybody.
He beat them all fair and square.

SRL was a Great Fighter Period. Some love him, some hate him. I have mixed feelings myself.

He was very open about winning part of the fight outside the ring. Example: he dangled Million$ in front of Duran for an almost immediate rematch when he knew Roberto was partying up a storm. That may bother some people.

Yes, everyone wanted to see SRL-Hagler years earlier, but he had every right to worry about his eye or to simply not sign for the fight at that time for whatever reason.

Ok lets take that example. Leonard supposedly dangled millions for an almost immediate rematch. when he knew Roberto was "partying up a storm".
Duran was the one with the leverage here. Leonard had no power to dictate when the rematch would happen. If Duran wanted to wait longer, he could have and Leonard would have had no choice but to wait. He was the champion. Leoanrd wanted a rematch. Virtually any compettitive person would have.
More importantly, It was not an immediate rematch. The second fight took place a full 5 months after the first. Are we really supposed to believe that Duran was "partying" for five months? He plenty of time to get into shape.

This is a perfect example. If this was someone else, nobody would give the "partying excuse" any credibility at all.

[elmersalsa]

I guess I just get tired of the whole "Leonard got all the breaks" narrative. It's nonsense.
Benitez was on drugs or whatever, Hearns was weight drained, Duran was partying too much, had tummy ache or whatever, Hagler was way past it.
If you put the name of John Smith instead of Ray Leonard, everyone would be impressed with these wins and and not give any of the crybaby excuses and credence.

You could come up with these types of lame excuses for anybody.
He beat them all fair and square.

SRL was a Great Fighter Period. Some love him, some hate him. I have mixed feelings myself.

He was very open about winning part of the fight outside the ring. Example: he dangled Million$ in front of Duran for an almost immediate rematch when he knew Roberto was partying up a storm. That may bother some people.

Yes, everyone wanted to see SRL-Hagler years earlier, but he had every right to worry about his eye or to simply not sign for the fight at that time for whatever reason.

Ok lets take that example. Leonard supposedly dangled millions for an almost immediate rematch. when he knew Roberto was "partying up a storm".
Duran was the one with the leverage here. Leonard had no power to dictate when the rematch would happen. If Duran wanted to wait longer, he could have and Leonard would have had no choice but to wait. He was the champion. Leoanrd wanted a rematch. Virtually any compettitive person would have.
More importantly, It was not an immediate rematch. The second fight took place a full 5 months after the first. Are we really supposed to believe that Duran was "partying" for five months? He plenty of time to get into shape.

This is a perfect example. If this was someone else, nobody would give the "partying excuse" any credibility at all.

The great Roberto Duran was partying like freaking animal in New York City for at least 3 months in a 5-month time. Sugar Ray knew it. He demanded a quick rematch. Duran ballooned to more than 60 pounds. You could even see a video a month after he won the title how much and quickly he gained all that weight. Leonard was a strategist INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE RING. HE WAS THE PERFECT CALCULATING MASTER. Something never seen before or after him. It was Duran's OWN FAULT, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. But to say that Duran was in the same shape as in Montreal, then, you must be DELUSIONAL. VERY DELUSIONAL.

I'm not saying that Leonard could have never beaten Duran at his very best. But, as I see the two fights, the second one, it was not Duran at his very best. And it showed. The fight was over before the opening bell.

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard demanded a quick rematch?
What could Leonard possibly do to make it happen after "only" five months, if Duran just said "No, I want to wait a couple of more months" ?

[Tony1244]

SRL was a Great Fighter Period. Some love him, some hate him. I have mixed feelings myself.

He was very open about winning part of the fight outside the ring. Example: he dangled Million$ in front of Duran for an almost immediate rematch when he knew Roberto was partying up a storm. That may bother some people.

Yes, everyone wanted to see SRL-Hagler years earlier, but he had every right to worry about his eye or to simply not sign for the fight at that time for whatever reason.

Ok lets take that example. Leonard supposedly dangled millions for an almost immediate rematch. when he knew Roberto was "partying up a storm".
Duran was the one with the leverage here. Leonard had no power to dictate when the rematch would happen. If Duran wanted to wait longer, he could have and Leonard would have had no choice but to wait. He was the champion. Leoanrd wanted a rematch. Virtually any compettitive person would have.
More importantly, It was not an immediate rematch. The second fight took place a full 5 months after the first. Are we really supposed to believe that Duran was "partying" for five months? He plenty of time to get into shape.

This is a perfect example. If this was someone else, nobody would give the "partying excuse" any credibility at all.

The great Roberto Duran was partying like freaking animal in New York City for at least 3 months in a 5-month time. Sugar Ray knew it. He demanded a quick rematch. Duran ballooned to more than 60 pounds. You could even see a video a month after he won the title how much and quickly he gained all that weight. Leonard was a strategist INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE RING. HE WAS THE PERFECT CALCULATING MASTER. Something never seen before or after him. It was Duran's OWN FAULT, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. But to say that Duran was in the same shape as in Montreal, then, you must be DELUSIONAL. VERY DELUSIONAL.

I'm not saying that Leonard could have never beaten Duran at his very best. But, as I see the two fights, the second one, it was not Duran at his very best. And it showed. The fight was over before the opening bell.

I couldn't say it better myself. The fact that he was a "CALCULATING MASTER," impresses some people, and annoys others. There is no right or wrong answer in being impressed or annoyed.

[Tony1244]

Leonard demanded a quick rematch?
What could Leonard possibly do to make it happen after "only" five months, if Duran just said "No, I want to wait a couple of more months" ?

Duran was such a poor kid, I guess it was hard for him to wait, which would have been much smarter.

[Tony1244]

Don't confuse outright Sugar Ray Leonard fan boy types, and knowledgable boxing people. They are not one and the same thing.

What did ambling alp write that showed he wasn't knowledgable? I don't knock anyone for being a fan of a fighter. I've been a fan of journeymen fighters. But yes, if someone writes something patently inaccurate I point it out. I haven't read every single word of this debate, but it seems to me the argument has more to do with tone than substance.

I guess I just get tired of the whole "Leonard got all the breaks" narrative. It's nonsense.
Benitez was on drugs or whatever, Hearns was weight drained, Duran was partying too much, had tummy ache or whatever, Hagler was way past it.
If you put the name of John Smith instead of Ray Leonard, everyone would be impressed with these wins and and not give any of the crybaby excuses and credence.

You could come up with these types of lame excuses for anybody.
He beat them all fair and square.

Agreed. It wasn't Leonard's fault that Benitez partied too much. Leonard was doing some partying too. It was the 1970s, and none of these guys were choirboys.

If guys didn't have drug, alcohol, women, or weight problems, the P4P all time lists would look quite different.

If Pinklon Thomas wasn't shooting heroin at 14.....

We could do this forever....