You Have A Time Machine And You Can Attend One Fight From Each Decade.......

[elmersalsa]

Not all. Anyone could have beaten Hagler, who was shot.
This includes Leonard who was not a real fighter.

And you have t0 remember that Leonard-Halger wasn't near the fight that Barkley-Duran was. Imagine the two winners fought after the Duran-Barkley chess match. Duran would have beaten Leonard easily. Too bad that fight never happened, then we would know for sure.

And Hagler vs Barkley? Hagler would never have laid a glove on the elusive Barkley.

Barkley could've fought the Hagler that fought Leonard in 1987, and he'd still get his ass kicked.

The very worst Hagler is better than the very best Barkley.

You got yo be kidding me. Marvelous was through. He was just fighting for the motions because he knew that his time at the top was up.

Barkley would have beaten him bad if Marvelous came to fight like that.

[elmersalsa]

So SRL's quickness and ring IQ had nothing to do with Hagler missing shot? LOL!

Marvelous is very accurate. He didn't miss like that in his prime, what you're talking about?

What part didn't you understand?

And what part you didn't?

[tiny_acres]

If I had a time machine I would either go to the future to the year 2929 and finally see the end of Elmer's top 100. Or I would go in the past and give his father a condom and a kick in the nuts

[keithmoonhangover]

1900's - Joe Jennette - Sam McVey (49 round war)
1910's - Jack Johnson - James J Jeffries
1920's -???
1930's - Joe Louis - Max Schmeling 2
1940's - Rocky Graziano - Tony Zale 1 or 2
1950's - Sugar Ray Robinson - Gene Fullmer 2
1960's - Muhammad Ali - Cleveland Williams
1970's - Muhammad Ali - Joe Frazier 1
1980's - Sugar Ray Leonard - Tommy Hearns 1
1990's - Pernell Whitaker - Buddy McGirt 1
2000's - Diego Corrales - Jose Luis Castillo 1
2010's - Deontay Wilder - Luis Ortiz 1

Some great choices on that list.

[oogiebe]

Marvelous is very accurate. He didn't miss like that in his prime, what you're talking about?

What part didn't you understand?

And what part you didn't?

That doesn't even make sense. But that would be consistent with your posting habits. Your knowledge of boxing is limited. Watch more fights and read about boxing less. You'll thank me.

[Ambling Alp II]

there are a couple of things that you need to know about elmer

-He doesn't understand anything that you bring up. At all. Do you remember when we tried to explain KO %s to him awhile back? He didn't understand it. He just wanted to use his own "criteria" as opposed to math.

He knows some things about the boxing. However, he doesn't use the same criteria to rate fighters. He simply picks and chooses what favors his guys.
If it is a one of his favorites (Duran, Pedroza, Griffith) Their wins will be always be a big deal, excuses for their losses.

For example, elmer will go on and how important winning a title is. He claims Emile Griffith was a Jr. Middleweight champion, because he won the Austrian Board of Control title against someone named Ted Wright. Seriously.
He wants to make Duran's win over Ray Lampkin out to be a big deal. So he makes a big deal about Lampkin winning the NABF title.

On the other hand he despises Ray Leonard. He claims that Leonard wasn't very good above 147. Despite winning world titles at 154, 160, 168, and 175. Somehow, none of them count.

[margaret thatcher]

have any of you heard about the great euseibo pedroza? i hear that guy was real real good

[gilgamesh]

Not all. Anyone could have beaten Hagler, who was shot.
This includes Leonard who was not a real fighter.

And you have t0 remember that Leonard-Halger wasn't near the fight that Barkley-Duran was. Imagine the two winners fought after the Duran-Barkley chess match. Duran would have beaten Leonard easily. Too bad that fight never happened, then we would know for sure.

And Hagler vs Barkley? Hagler would never have laid a glove on the elusive Barkley.

Barkley could've fought the Hagler that fought Leonard in 1987, and he'd still get his ass kicked.

The very worst Hagler is better than the very best Barkley.

You got yo be kidding me. Marvelous was through. He was just fighting for the motions because he knew that his time at the top was up.

Barkley would have beaten him bad if Marvelous came to fight like that.

I thought you guys were kidding when you even dreamed Barkley could ever beat Hagler.

[elmersalsa]

What part didn't you understand?

And what part you didn't?

That doesn't even make sense. But that would be consistent with your posting habits. Your knowledge of boxing is limited. Watch more fights and read about boxing less. You'll thank me.

I don't think that you know more about boxing more than me. So, don't you go there.

[elmersalsa]

What part didn't you understand?

And what part you didn't?

That doesn't even make sense. But that would be consistent with your posting habits. Your knowledge of boxing is limited. Watch more fights and read about boxing less. You'll thank me.

I don't think that you know more about boxing more than me. So, don't you go there.

[Syntax Error]

If you don't understand that Marvelous was shot and through, then I can't explain it much better.

I didn't make a single comment about Hagler's condition after Hearns and/or Mugabi.

Could you just clarify...... Could anyone in the top 5 beat Hagler or just anyone in general? It's OK to admit that you messed up, we all do it, it's a perfectly normal thing to happen.

Well, of the top 5 contenders, Michael Nunn would have beaten Marvelous and Sugar Ray that night.

Thomas Hearns would have beaten Marvelous the way Marvelous came to fight. Tommy would have had his revenge.

Nigel Benn, Herol Graham, Sumbu Kalambay and probably the great Mike McCallum would have beaten Marvelous. Marvelous was no where of what he was in the early 80s decade. He missed so many shots against Sugar Ray. Shots that in the early 80s, he would not miss. But, he had to fight. That's what fighters fight for. For the big paydays. And Marvelous wasn't gonna let that opportunity slip away again like in 1982

Nigel Benn beats Hagler in 1987; seriously?

I know Hagler had lost his speed by then, but he would have still been too much for a reckless novice like Benn.

[Ambling Alp II]

Barkley could've fought the Hagler that fought Leonard in 1987, and he'd still get his ass kicked.

The very worst Hagler is better than the very best Barkley.

You got yo be kidding me. Marvelous was through. He was just fighting for the motions because he knew that his time at the top was up.

Barkley would have beaten him bad if Marvelous came to fight like that.

I thought you guys were kidding when you even dreamed Barkley could ever beat Hagler.

I was kidding. elmer is serious.

[Manrae]

1900's - Joe Jennette - Sam McVey (49 round war)
1910's - Jack Johnson - James J Jeffries
1920's -???
1930's - Joe Louis - Max Schmeling 2
1940's - Rocky Graziano - Tony Zale 1 or 2
1950's - Sugar Ray Robinson - Gene Fullmer 2
1960's - Muhammad Ali - Cleveland Williams
1970's - Muhammad Ali - Joe Frazier 1
1980's - Sugar Ray Leonard - Tommy Hearns 1
1990's - Pernell Whitaker - Buddy McGirt 1
2000's - Diego Corrales - Jose Luis Castillo 1
2010's - Deontay Wilder - Luis Ortiz 1

Some great choices on that list.

Thanks! Great thread premise...

[Syntax Error]

And what part you didn't?

That doesn't even make sense. But that would be consistent with your posting habits. Your knowledge of boxing is limited. Watch more fights and read about boxing less. You'll thank me.

I don't think that you know more about boxing more than me. So, don't you go there.

It's wrong of anyone to say you don't know about boxing, as you clearly do know about the sport and you are fully entitled to your opinion, like we all are; opinions are opinions, not facts, something that many people need to be made aware of.

The problem is, you do sometimes say outlandish things.

Claiming that ANYONE would have beaten Hagler in 1987 is clearly nonsensical, particularly when you cite Nigel Benn, who turned pro in 1987.

Hagler was definitely past his best, he had been since about '85, but he still managed to marmalise Hearns and mangle Mugabi.

Hagler was faded, no doubt, but so was Sugar Ray Leonard.

It seems that you just don't want to give credit to Leonard for some reason.

Even if you have a legitimate reason for not liking Leonard, belittling his achievement in beating Hagler in those circumstances is a tad churlish.

[elmersalsa]

That doesn't even make sense. But that would be consistent with your posting habits. Your knowledge of boxing is limited. Watch more fights and read about boxing less. You'll thank me.

I don't think that you know more about boxing more than me. So, don't you go there.

It's wrong of anyone to say you don't know about boxing, as you clearly do know about the sport and you are fully entitled to your opinion, like we all are; opinions are opinions, not facts, something that many people need to be made aware of.

The problem is, you do sometimes say outlandish things.

Claiming that ANYONE would have beaten Hagler in 1987 is clearly nonsensical, particularly when you cite Nigel Benn, who turned pro in 1987.

Hagler was definitely passed his best, he had been since about '85, but he still managed to marmalise Hearns and mangle Mugabi.

Hagler was faded, no doubt, but so was Sugar Ray Leonard.

It seems that you just don't want to give credit to Leonard for some reason.

Even if you have a legitimate reason for not liking Leonard, belittling his achievement in beating Hagler in those circumstances is a tad churlish.

Nobody's belittling Sugar Ray's achievement. I said that it was a great win, but some people put it way out of proportion like it was the mission impossible.

I said that it wasn't as great achievement as Duran's win over Barkley with facts.

Then, some of these guys get PERSONAL by saying things that I don't know about boxing, that my knowledge is limited, blah, blah, blah.

Marvelous was through as a fighter. He only took the Sugar Ray fight for the millions that he felt he deserved a long time ago and he wasn't going to let it slip this time when in 1982 he got the diss by Leonard. Marvelous was only fighting 1 fight per year since 1985.

Marvelous by 1986 wasn't INVINCIBLE. Mike McCallum would have taken him. So was Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay and even Thomas Hearns in a rematch. Marvelous ain't winning a fight against those dudes the way he came out to fight that night with Sugar Ray. Even Duran would have beaten him that night. Marvelous was terribly off in his performance.

It was THE WORST PERFORMANCE of his career, win, lose or draw. And why? He simply was flat out shot. Plus, he was 33, not an age of being in a prime after 7 years of middleweight dominance.

[gilgamesh]

Not all. Anyone could have beaten Hagler, who was shot.
This includes Leonard who was not a real fighter.

And you have t0 remember that Leonard-Halger wasn't near the fight that Barkley-Duran was. Imagine the two winners fought after the Duran-Barkley chess match. Duran would have beaten Leonard easily. Too bad that fight never happened, then we would know for sure.

And Hagler vs Barkley? Hagler would never have laid a glove on the elusive Barkley.

Barkley could've fought the Hagler that fought Leonard in 1987, and he'd still get his ass kicked.

The very worst Hagler is better than the very best Barkley.

You got yo be kidding me. Marvelous was through. He was just fighting for the motions because he knew that his time at the top was up.

Barkley would have beaten him bad if Marvelous came to fight like that.

Even if you want to say Hagler wasn't at his best in 1987, which he clearly wasn't. He still wasn't shot. We never saw a "Shot" Marvin Hagler enter the ring.

He was still more than capable of fighting exceptionally well, in my opinion he fought Leonard to a draw in 1987, and should've retained the title, but that's neither here nor there.

As a style matchup Barkley's style compliments Hagler's way more than Leonard's does. Leonard is a slickster, a quick guy who uses his movement, and speed to outbox guys.

Barkley is a slugger.

Look at all 3 of Hagler's losses. They came against slick, boxer types. No slugger ever outslugged Hagler, and he fought many better ones than Barkley.

[gilgamesh]

Nobody's belittling Sugar Ray's achievement. I said that it was a great win, but some people put it way out of proportion like it was the mission impossible.

I said that it wasn't as great achievement as Duran's win over Barkley with facts.

Then, some of these guys get PERSONAL by saying things that I don't know about boxing, that my knowledge is limited, blah, blah, blah.

Marvelous was through as a fighter. He only took the Sugar Ray fight for the millions that he felt he deserved a long time ago and he wasn't going to let it slip this time when in 1982 he got the diss by Leonard. Marvelous was only fighting 1 fight per year since 1985.

Marvelous by 1986 wasn't INVINCIBLE. Mike McCallum would have taken him. So was Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay and even Thomas Hearns in a rematch. Marvelous ain't winning a fight against those dudes the way he came out to fight that night with Sugar Ray. Even Duran would have beaten him that night. Marvelous was terribly off in his performance.

It was THE WORST PERFORMANCE of his career, win, lose or draw. And why? He simply was flat out shot. Plus, he was 33, not an age of being in a prime after 7 years of middleweight dominance.

There's no footage of 'em, but I'd bet heavily Hagler looked worse in losing to Watts or Willie Monroe. He was less experienced, and didn't have that Championship pedigree yet.

Duran's win over Barkley is not a bigger achievement than Leonard's win over Hagler. That's just plain ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The reason why people make a big deal out of Leonard coming out of a lengthy retirement to beat Hagler, is because nobody else in Boxing ever did that sh*t. Who else came out of a long retirement, when straight for the Champion, and beat him?

The list is gonna be short, and I guarantee you nobody's comeback win is gonna be better than Leonard's there.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

[Syntax Error]

Barkley could've fought the Hagler that fought Leonard in 1987, and he'd still get his ass kicked.

The very worst Hagler is better than the very best Barkley.

You got yo be kidding me. Marvelous was through. He was just fighting for the motions because he knew that his time at the top was up.

Barkley would have beaten him bad if Marvelous came to fight like that.

Even if you want to say Hagler wasn't at his best in 1987, which he clearly wasn't. He still wasn't shot. We never saw a "Shot" Marvin Hagler enter the ring.

He was still more than capable of fighting exceptionally well, in my opinion he fought Leonard to a draw in 1987, and should've retained the title, but that's neither here nor there.

As a style matchup Barkley's style compliments Hagler's way more than Leonard's does. Leonard is a slickster, a quick guy who uses his movement, and speed to outbox guys.

Barkley is a slugger.

Look at all 3 of Hagler's losses. They came against slick, boxer types. No slugger ever outslugged Hagler, and he fought many better ones than Barkley.

Agreed.

A Barkley fight might have been quite similar to the Hagler/Mugabi fight.

Marvelous was faded; his speed had gone, but his chin and his stamina still endured and anyone going to war with him would get bludgeoned; just ask Tommy Hearns and John Mugabi.

A good technical fighter had the best shot against Marvin as SRL showed and that ain't Iran Barkley.

[elmersalsa]

Nobody's belittling Sugar Ray's achievement. I said that it was a great win, but some people put it way out of proportion like it was the mission impossible.

I said that it wasn't as great achievement as Duran's win over Barkley with facts.

Then, some of these guys get PERSONAL by saying things that I don't know about boxing, that my knowledge is limited, blah, blah, blah.

Marvelous was through as a fighter. He only took the Sugar Ray fight for the millions that he felt he deserved a long time ago and he wasn't going to let it slip this time when in 1982 he got the diss by Leonard. Marvelous was only fighting 1 fight per year since 1985.

Marvelous by 1986 wasn't INVINCIBLE. Mike McCallum would have taken him. So was Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay and even Thomas Hearns in a rematch. Marvelous ain't winning a fight against those dudes the way he came out to fight that night with Sugar Ray. Even Duran would have beaten him that night. Marvelous was terribly off in his performance.

It was THE WORST PERFORMANCE of his career, win, lose or draw. And why? He simply was flat out shot. Plus, he was 33, not an age of being in a prime after 7 years of middleweight dominance.

There's no footage of 'em, but I'd bet heavily Hagler looked worse in losing to Watts or Willie Monroe. He was less experienced, and didn't have that Championship pedigree yet.

Duran's win over Barkley is not a bigger achievement than Leonard's win over Hagler. That's just plain ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The reason why people make a big deal out of Leonard coming out of a lengthy retirement to beat Hagler, is because nobody else in Boxing ever did that sh*t. Who else came out of a long retirement, when straight for the Champion, and beat him?

The list is gonna be short, and I guarantee you nobody's comeback win is gonna be better than Leonard's there.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

Duran was washed up and fighting in his 4th weight class at 37. He beat someone bigger, stronger, faster, taller and younger. When has Sugar Ray done that being he washed up? Tell me when?

[oogiebe]

[oogiebe]

I don't think that you know more about boxing more than me. So, don't you go there.

It's wrong of anyone to say you don't know about boxing, as you clearly do know about the sport and you are fully entitled to your opinion, like we all are; opinions are opinions, not facts, something that many people need to be made aware of.

The problem is, you do sometimes say outlandish things.

Claiming that ANYONE would have beaten Hagler in 1987 is clearly nonsensical, particularly when you cite Nigel Benn, who turned pro in 1987.

Hagler was definitely passed his best, he had been since about '85, but he still managed to marmalise Hearns and mangle Mugabi.

Hagler was faded, no doubt, but so was Sugar Ray Leonard.

It seems that you just don't want to give credit to Leonard for some reason.

Even if you have a legitimate reason for not liking Leonard, belittling his achievement in beating Hagler in those circumstances is a tad churlish.

Nobody's belittling Sugar Ray's achievement. I said that it was a great win, but some people put it way out of proportion like it was the mission impossible.

I said that it wasn't as great achievement as Duran's win over Barkley with facts.

Then, some of these guys get PERSONAL by saying things that I don't know about boxing, that my knowledge is limited, blah, blah, blah.

Marvelous was through as a fighter. He only took the Sugar Ray fight for the millions that he felt he deserved a long time ago and he wasn't going to let it slip this time when in 1982 he got the diss by Leonard. Marvelous was only fighting 1 fight per year since 1985.

Marvelous by 1986 wasn't INVINCIBLE. Mike McCallum would have taken him. So was Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay and even Thomas Hearns in a rematch. Marvelous ain't winning a fight against those dudes the way he came out to fight that night with Sugar Ray. Even Duran would have beaten him that night. Marvelous was terribly off in his performance.

It was THE WORST PERFORMANCE of his career, win, lose or draw. And why? He simply was flat out shot. Plus, he was 33, not an age of being in a prime after 7 years of middleweight dominance.

Sure you did. You rate a win over Barkley better than a win over Hagler. I'll agree to this though: you read more about boxing but you watch far too little.

[gilgamesh]

Nobody's belittling Sugar Ray's achievement. I said that it was a great win, but some people put it way out of proportion like it was the mission impossible.

I said that it wasn't as great achievement as Duran's win over Barkley with facts.

Then, some of these guys get PERSONAL by saying things that I don't know about boxing, that my knowledge is limited, blah, blah, blah.

Marvelous was through as a fighter. He only took the Sugar Ray fight for the millions that he felt he deserved a long time ago and he wasn't going to let it slip this time when in 1982 he got the diss by Leonard. Marvelous was only fighting 1 fight per year since 1985.

Marvelous by 1986 wasn't INVINCIBLE. Mike McCallum would have taken him. So was Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay and even Thomas Hearns in a rematch. Marvelous ain't winning a fight against those dudes the way he came out to fight that night with Sugar Ray. Even Duran would have beaten him that night. Marvelous was terribly off in his performance.

It was THE WORST PERFORMANCE of his career, win, lose or draw. And why? He simply was flat out shot. Plus, he was 33, not an age of being in a prime after 7 years of middleweight dominance.

There's no footage of 'em, but I'd bet heavily Hagler looked worse in losing to Watts or Willie Monroe. He was less experienced, and didn't have that Championship pedigree yet.

Duran's win over Barkley is not a bigger achievement than Leonard's win over Hagler. That's just plain ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The reason why people make a big deal out of Leonard coming out of a lengthy retirement to beat Hagler, is because nobody else in Boxing ever did that sh*t. Who else came out of a long retirement, when straight for the Champion, and beat him?

The list is gonna be short, and I guarantee you nobody's comeback win is gonna be better than Leonard's there.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

Duran was washed up and fighting in his 4th weight class at 37. He beat someone bigger, stronger, faster, taller and younger. When has Sugar Ray done that being he washed up? Tell me when?

Washed up, no. Fighting in his 4th weight class, yes. Barkley wasn't faster than Duran even at 37, but I'll give you the rest.

Sugar Ray I'm pretty sure retired from the sport altogether before hitting the age of 37 didn't he? If not then shortly thereafter.

You're kinda bending over backward to try to make it seem like a win over Barkley is bigger than a win over Hagler. It's not.

[elmersalsa]

There's no footage of 'em, but I'd bet heavily Hagler looked worse in losing to Watts or Willie Monroe. He was less experienced, and didn't have that Championship pedigree yet.

Duran's win over Barkley is not a bigger achievement than Leonard's win over Hagler. That's just plain ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The reason why people make a big deal out of Leonard coming out of a lengthy retirement to beat Hagler, is because nobody else in Boxing ever did that sh*t. Who else came out of a long retirement, when straight for the Champion, and beat him?

The list is gonna be short, and I guarantee you nobody's comeback win is gonna be better than Leonard's there.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

Duran was washed up and fighting in his 4th weight class at 37. He beat someone bigger, stronger, faster, taller and younger. When has Sugar Ray done that being he washed up? Tell me when?

Washed up, no. Fighting in his 4th weight class, yes. Barkley wasn't faster than Duran even at 37, but I'll give you the rest.

Sugar Ray I'm pretty sure retired from the sport altogether before hitting the age of 37 didn't he? If not then shortly thereafter.

You're kinda bending over backward to try to make it seem like a win over Barkley is bigger than a win over Hagler. It's not.

Yes, it is. In terms where the guys were at their estate of their careers.

Sugar Ray beat a bigger name.
Duran beat a bigger and stronger fighter being washed up. Sugar Ray has never done that.

The boxing experts didn't give Duran no shot to beat a younger and stronger, bigger foe. No shot. I remember KO Magazine predicted that it was going to be a war while it last, but it would end by knockout in favor of Barkley. I had to agree with the prediction. And what happened? Duran did the miracle.

[gilgamesh]

They figured Leonard didn't have a chance in hell either.

[elmersalsa]

They figured Leonard didn't have a chance in hell either.

Not according to some boxing writers.

Duran didn't had a prayer in his fight with Barkley. And how did he do it? It was a miracle, that's what ESPN commentator Al Bernstein and Gil Clancy said about the Duran win. Any other day, Duran doesn't beat him if they fought 10 times.