BoxRec

I have to agree with Elton John here . . .Monzon's comp is getting severely over-rated on this thread. Valdez would have NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell vs Hagler . . .Hagler would have easily sliced and diced him to ribbons via smart counterpunching. And yes the Roldan comparison IS valid. I think Roldan-Valdez is pretty much a 50/50 fight.

Napoles? Are you kidding me. Hagler crushes him. An old Griffith loses a clear decision. A prime Briscoe would've looked very similar to the fight they had in 78.

I rate Benvenuti higher than he does but I don't think he would've had a shot vs Marvin.

And let's stop acting that Arto 'split' a pair of fights with Hagler. That draw was BS. Close fight but Marvin should have gotten the decision.

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:EJ.....it's really all about timing isn't it? The "when" of such things are relevant. You might actually pose Ali a bit of a challenge on this day. Maybe not much of one, but certainly more than in the days before you were born.

It's real simple. if youre talking years it would matter but not within months dropping a decision to Monzon

beating him once might be considered a fluke but twice no way.

Valdez 3X beat Briscoe.

Corro twice beat Valdez.

Antuofuermo beat Corro.

And Vito is more or less the equal of Hagler and therefore, my boys are better than your boys

Quite often styles make fights, one of my points here is that Monzon was less affected by styles than most. Based on that microprocessor he seemed to possess.

dempseyfire wrote:I have to agree with Elton John here . . .Monzon's comp is getting severely over-rated on this thread. Valdez would have NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell vs Hagler . . .Hagler would have easily sliced and diced him to ribbons via smart counterpunching. And yes the Roldan comparison IS valid. I think Roldan-Valdez is pretty much a 50/50 fight.

Napoles? Are you kidding me. Hagler crushes him. An old Griffith loses a clear decision. A prime Briscoe would've looked very similar to the fight they had in 78.

I rate Benvenuti higher than he does but I don't think he would've had a shot vs Marvin.

And let's stop acting that Arto 'split' a pair of fights with Hagler. That draw was BS.

well, BS certainly happens.

dempseyfire wrote:I have to agree with Elton John here . . .Monzon's comp is getting severely over-rated on this thread. Valdez would have NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell vs Hagler . . .Hagler would have easily sliced and diced him to ribbons via smart counterpunching. And yes the Roldan comparison IS valid. I think Roldan-Valdez is pretty much a 50/50 fight.

Napoles? Are you kidding me. Hagler crushes him. An old Griffith loses a clear decision. A prime Briscoe would've looked very similar to the fight they had in 78.

I rate Benvenuti higher than he does but I don't think he would've had a shot vs Marvin.

And let's stop acting that Arto 'split' a pair of fights with Hagler. That draw was BS. Close fight but Marvin should have gotten the decision.

Elton John wrote:

Mr E wrote:


Tell me you didn't really pick Michael Nunn to beat Bad Bennie Briscoe. [And Hagler never fought Nunn anyway, so what's the point?] Briscoe kicked the daylights out of Eddie Gregory the same way James Scott did a few years later. Gregory was accused of not trying hard enough against Galindez but I never heard he fought a "lazy" fight against Briscoe. Where did you get that?

Valdes would have troubled Hagler plenty. Strong, huge puncher, tough as nails. At his peak, Valdes was an animal. 12-3??????????????????????? Did you ever seen Valdes fight?

Juan Roldan or John Mugabi beating Nino Benvenutti? Really?

You really think Rodrigo Valdes, Bennie Briscoe, Nino Benvenutti, Emile Griffith, and Jose Napoles do not compare favorably, and by that I mean dominate by a wide margin, the guys against whom Hagler defended his title? I almost can't imagine anyone taking that position. To me, it cannot be justified.

Why not? Where you been the past 33 years?

Please! Vito in just his second year whipped the great Griffith. Nothing like a direct conmparison to settle the issue

Napoles would have been trampled by the beasts of hagler's day: Sibbo, Hamsho, Roldan, Nunn, Mugabi, Hearns. He was simply too small and too beat up to put up a fight. These top contenders were much too energetic for the little cuban or whatever he was

him getting the opportunity to face Monzon was one of those merciful, once before I retire paydays

Briscoe was just too slow. The only reason he outpointed Gregory is because Eddie is lazy in fights so he gets outhustled. But he wouldnt have the same luck against Hamsho, Sibbo, Roldan who would outhit him by 3-1 at least

Benvenuti was average at best even in his prime. Not very powerful. Not very fast. In fact, not fast at all! What did he have going for him?

Valdez-he might be strong and powerful but strong those types were dime a dozen to someone like Hagler. Even in Hagler's old age he put Mugabi away and ruined his career. Roldan and Hamsho too. IMO, Hamsho was much better. He didnt win one then lose the next like Benny would. Even early in his career, one could see Mustafa was a winner the way he would pass one crucial test after another. Not like Benny

2x Well said Elton John and dempseyfire and I fully agree

first, what a great thread this is. irene, fantastic stuff
second, i have to answer buzz's theory that boxing has improved due to conditioning, greater opportunities to scutinise opponents styles etc etc by asking him to simply select a period of maybe 5 years from the dim and distant history of our sport, looking at the champs of all weights from that period and matching them up with the champs across the weights from the last 5 years. if he can prove that todays "super-improved" battlers with the advances mentioned above edge out the undernourished guys of yesteryear then i'll eat my hat and go along with his theory.

lastly, we know enough about harry greb from the many testaments of fighters and pundits and fans and trainers to plant him firmly at the top of this excellent league. the arguments to the contrary make good reading, though

Both Monzon in the 70s and Hagler in the 80s terrorised the middleweight division. Monzon's challengers were on the whole probably better than Hagler's - Valdez in particular is better than any of Hagler's MW contemporaries. A speculative fight between Monzon and Hagler is very hard to pick; both were superb.

harrygreb wrote:first, what a great thread this is. irene, fantastic stuff
second, i have to answer buzz's theory that boxing has improved due to conditioning, greater opportunities to scutinise opponents styles etc etc by asking him to simply select a period of maybe 5 years from the dim and distant history of our sport, looking at the champs of all weights from that period and matching them up with the champs across the weights from the last 5 years. if he can prove that todays "super-improved" battlers with the advances mentioned above edge out the undernourished guys of yesteryear then i'll eat my hat and go along with his theory.

lastly, we know enough about harry greb from the many testaments of fighters and pundits and fans and trainers to plant him firmly at the top of this excellent league. the arguments to the contrary make good reading, though

Thanks.

Hey I'm the oldest here I'm sure, so I ought to be sentimental about those who fought long ago, and to some degree I am. But I'm haunted by the feeling that certainly something must be evolving in this rather scientific sport. The more knowledge that can be reviewed the more the grey matter has to consider. Nutrition knowledge has improved, guys are certainly getting bigger...faster? stronger? Seems like the fighters of today must be operating with increased savy. I also know that the boxing matches back then were refereed differently and went more rounds. So today's training must be focused on today's dynamics. I will say that we see few fights as fast paced as the old ones, especially in the HW division, as today's behemoths seem to be happy to pack on the pounds as some sort of defense. But the more controlled weight classes? I can't understand why they wouldn't have some sort of improvement. The only argument that really resonates for me as to why the sport could devolve would be more distractions in life in general. And perhaps the luster that brings the top talent to the table has gone.

Anyway I'm just thinking in type here and throwing out questions to be pondered without making a statement as to just what I subscirbe to as I am rather ambivilent on this matter.

Harry....I'm open minded that in fact the sport is static....but I'm resistant to the thought because it does not make common sense to me. I'm not taking a shot at the traditionalists here....and maybe I'm one of them. But if everything else is on the move, why would this sport be the thing to stand still or worse yet fall back?

buzz, i value your opinions on here as you know and i respect your ambivalence on this particular issue...i sort of conform to the idea myself, but i reckon my little tester stands up.
Liebling said that the low standards of boxing in his later days (compared to a previous era he had enjoyed) was down to disposable razor blades! he linked the mass ad campaigns of companies like gillette to the increase in big fights on TV and therefore less interest in people going to the fights where lesser known young fellas had previously been able to make a few bucks in front of good sized crowds. you can make a case for improvements in diet, training and such but hunger and economic need has always had a big say in this sport.

Idisagree wrote:

2x Well said Elton John and dempseyfire and I fully agree

thanks Idisagree

I felt I had to step in and correct a few things by pointing to what actually happened. Mr E been saying Hagler's comp were pushovers but when you actually look at the record, whevenever you pit Hagler's versus Monzon's, the Hagler era more than holds its own.

I don't think he said they were pushovers, only that they compared favorably with Hagler's competition. Let's not get into over exaggeration. If anything I think based on his input you are actually giving Monzon's competition some respect, perhaps for the first time. Neither of these era's were a place where a dandy like Sven Ottke would want to find himself alone without a proper chaperon.

BoxBuzz wrote:Hey I'm the oldest here I'm sure, so I ought to be sentimental about those who fought long ago, and to some degree I am. But I'm haunted by the feeling that certainly something must be evolving in this rather scientific sport. The more knowledge that can be reviewed the more the grey matter has to consider. Nutrition knowledge has improved, guys are certainly getting bigger...faster? stronger? Seems like the fighters of today must be operating with increased savy. I also know that the boxing matches back then were refereed differently and went more rounds. So today's training must be focused on today's dynamics. I will say that we see few fights as fast paced as the old ones, especially in the HW division, as today's behemoths seem to be happy to pack on the pounds as some sort of defense. But the more controlled weight classes? I can't understand why they wouldn't have some sort of improvement. The only argument that really resonates for me as to why the sport could devolve would be more distractions in life in general. And perhaps the luster that brings the top talent to the table has gone.

Anyway I'm just thinking in type here and throwing out questions to be pondered without making a statement as to just what I subscirbe to as I am rather ambivilent on this matter.

Harry....I'm open minded that in fact the sport is static....but I'm resistant to the thought because it does not make common sense to me. I'm not taking a shot at the traditionalists here....and maybe I'm one of them. But if everything else is on the move, why would this sport be the thing to stand still or worse yet fall back?

It makes complete sense. Boxing was one of the biggest sports IN THE WORLD from the 19teens through the 1940s. The pool of talent and greater activity vs this pool ensured extremely levels of skills ,conditioning and toughness for the fighters in the upper echelon during that time period. Boxing from the 1970s onwards has declined overall across the world and the pool of talent overall is much smaller. You have fighters fighting less, experiencing less and ultimately becoming lesser products. Fighting Gene Tunney 4 times will teach you much more about boxing than any amount of hours reveiwing tapes of his fights (and they had film for fighters to reveiw from the teens onward anyway)

In his prime Hagler would have dealt with Valdez. He liked a guy who came at him. Hagler's chin and boxing skills would have seen him dice 'Rocky' up. But Valdez was at the end of Monzon's career.

I don't think the Hagler who fought Mugabi (far inferior) and Leonard (not as good a MW as Valdez) would go 2-0 against the Columbian.

In terms of styles I also doubt Hagler would go 4-0 in 2 fights with Benvenuti and Griffith.

I don't see anyone who Hagler beat that Monzon would have problems with.

When I weight it all up I may prefer Marvin as a man but I think Monzon sneaks it.

dempseyfire wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Hey I'm the oldest here I'm sure, so I ought to be sentimental about those who fought long ago, and to some degree I am. But I'm haunted by the feeling that certainly something must be evolving in this rather scientific sport. The more knowledge that can be reviewed the more the grey matter has to consider. Nutrition knowledge has improved, guys are certainly getting bigger...faster? stronger? Seems like the fighters of today must be operating with increased savy. I also know that the boxing matches back then were refereed differently and went more rounds. So today's training must be focused on today's dynamics. I will say that we see few fights as fast paced as the old ones, especially in the HW division, as today's behemoths seem to be happy to pack on the pounds as some sort of defense. But the more controlled weight classes? I can't understand why they wouldn't have some sort of improvement. The only argument that really resonates for me as to why the sport could devolve would be more distractions in life in general. And perhaps the luster that brings the top talent to the table has gone.

Anyway I'm just thinking in type here and throwing out questions to be pondered without making a statement as to just what I subscirbe to as I am rather ambivilent on this matter.

Harry....I'm open minded that in fact the sport is static....but I'm resistant to the thought because it does not make common sense to me. I'm not taking a shot at the traditionalists here....and maybe I'm one of them. But if everything else is on the move, why would this sport be the thing to stand still or worse yet fall back?

It makes complete sense. Boxing was one of the biggest sports IN THE WORLD from the 19teens through the 1940s. The pool of talent and greater activity vs this pool ensured extremely levels of skills ,conditioning and toughness for the fighters in the upper echelon during that time period. Boxing from the 1970s onwards has declined overall across the world and the pool of talent overall is much smaller. You have fighters fighting less, experiencing less and ultimately becoming lesser products. Fighting Gene Tunney 4 times will teach you much more about boxing than any amount of hours reveiwing tapes of his fights (and they had film for fighters to reveiw from the teens onward anyway)

You make a good point, one that I believe I mentioned as a quite possible explanation. However as far as video reviewing of styles, it's certainly far more feasable these days for anyone. Back in the teens it would be quite decadent amd time consuming to be able to review a boxers filmed history. That remains true up to the 80's. Even the ol' projectors were pretty uncommon for the common man up to the late sixties. Video cassettes changed the equation....and I suppose to a lesser degree 8mm film was the common man's option.

But the biggest point is the talent pool. I have to agree that with each generation boxing has become less popular and the pool probably shrinks. When you watch the HW's you can more easily see the downward spiral. I think it's harder to detect that in the other weight divisions. But talent follows money and fame....so I get what your saying here. I'm going to hang around denial for a bit longer, as I do love this sport and don't want to believe it's fading.

blame it on the razor blades

Elton John wrote:Why not? Where you been the past 33 years?

I strongly suspect I have been watching and participating in an awful lot more fights than you have.

Please! Vito in just his second year whipped the great Griffith. Nothing like a direct conmparison to settle the issue

You find it significant somehow that Antoufermo, who was 26-1-1, outpointed a 36-year-old Emile Griffith, who was in the midst of the 6-8-1 slide that ended his career? That tells you that Hagler beat (well, drew with and beat) better fighters than Monzon did?

Napoles would have been trampled by the beasts of hagler's day: Sibbo, Hamsho, Roldan, Nunn, Mugabi, Hearns. He was simply to small and too beat up to put up a fight. These top contenders were much too energetic for the little cuban or whatever he was him getting the opportunity to face Monzon was one of those merciful, once before I retire paydays

None of the guys you name was a great middleweight and the only one who was even close to being a great fighter at all was Hearns. I think Napoles beats Hearns at welter, though Hearns probably would have had the advantage after he bulked up to 160. But I like Napoles over any of the rest of them, and I certainly like Briscoe and Valdes over all of them, including Hearns @ 160. BTW, tell me where you got that 'merciful before he retired' stuff. Same place you got the notion that Greggory fought a lazy fight against Briscoe?

Briscoe was just too slow. The only reason he outpointed Gregory is because Eddie is lazy in fights so he gets outhustled. But he wouldnt have the same luck against Hamsho, Sibbo, Roldan who would outhit him by 3-1 at least.

Mustafa Hamsho or Juan Roldan better than Bad Bennie Briscoe? Nonsense. Again I ask you, where do you get the idea that Gregory fought a lazy fight against Briscoe? My guess is you read somewhere that he wasn't active enough in the Galindez fight and then just guessed or hoped that all the other fights he lost were due to the same reason.

Benvenuti was average at best even in his prime. Not very powerful. Not very fast. In fact, not fast at all! What did he have going for him?

Oh, geez. Nino Benenuti and average fighter? World Middleweight and Jr. Middleweight Champion, 2-0 v. Sandro Mazzighi, took 2 of 3 from Emile Griffith, knocked out Luis Rodriguez, waxed Don Fullmer and you think he was average? And, better yet, you think Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson, and Juan Roldan had more impressive careers?

Valdez-he might be strong and powerful but strong those types were dime a dozen to someone like Hagler. Even in Hagler's old age he put Mugabi away and ruined his career.

Man, John Mugabi does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Rodrigo Valdes. The fact that you draw this comparison tells me you have seen very little, if any, of the 70s-era middleweight on film.

Roldan and Hamsho too. IMO, Hamsho was much better. He didnt win one then lose the next like Benny would. Even early in his career, one could see Mustafa was a winner the way he would pass one crucial test after another. Not like Benny

I suppose we'll have to leave it like that. You think Mustafa Hamsho, Juan Roldan, and Tony Sibson were superior to Nino Benvenutti, Bennie Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdes. I find that absolutely astonishing but there it is.

dempseyfire wrote:I have to agree with Elton John here . . .Monzon's comp is getting severely over-rated on this thread. Valdez would have NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell vs Hagler . . .Hagler would have easily sliced and diced him to ribbons via smart counterpunching. And yes the Roldan comparison IS valid. I think Roldan-Valdez is pretty much a 50/50 fight.

Napoles? Are you kidding me. Hagler crushes him. An old Griffith loses a clear decision. A prime Briscoe would've looked very similar to the fight they had in 78.

I rate Benvenuti higher than he does but I don't think he would've had a shot vs Marvin.

And let's stop acting that Arto 'split' a pair of fights with Hagler. That draw was BS. Close fight but Marvin should have gotten the decision.

No way. Hagler faded badly down the stretch against Antoufermo and that decision was very close. Hagler fans want to call that a robbery but it wasn't. Napoles was exactly the kind of slick fighter to give Hagler trouble. No way in Hell does Hagler 'crush' him.

And, you guys have got to tell me how you analyze Valdes V. Roldan so it's "pretty much a 50/50 fight." Of all the statements I've read on this thread, that may be the one I find most indefensible.

Mr E wrote:
You find it significant somehow that Antoufermo, who was 26-1-1, outpointed a 36-year-old Emile Griffith, who was in the midst of the 6-8-1 slide that ended his career?

You make a statement like that and yet Benvenutti was prime when he fought Monzon? He was in the midst of 5 -2 – 1 slide after only 1 loss in his previous 70 fights. Yet again other fighters were not prime, but Benvenutti was?

None of the guys you name was a great middleweight and the only one who was even close to being a great fighter at all was Hearns. I think Napoles beats Hearns at welter, though Hearns probably would have had the advantage after he bulked up to 160. But I like Napoles over any of the rest of them, and I certainly like Briscoe and Valdes over all of them, including Hearns @ 160. BTW, tell me where you got that 'merciful before he retired' stuff. Same place you got the notion that Greggory fought a lazy fight against Briscoe?

Napoles was a great welter but again he was not good at all at middleweight, and I’ll bet my house that Hearns crushes Napoles at middleweight. Even Duran was much better middleweight than Napoles, and Hagler would’ve eaten alive Napoles at middleweight. Even at welter I give the advantage to Hearns over Napoles.

I suppose we'll have to leave it like that. You think Mustafa Hamsho, Juan Roldan, and Tony Sibson were superior to Nino Benvenutti, Bennie Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdes. I find that absolutely astonishing but there it is.

I’d like better a prime Hearns, Hamsho, Roldan, Vito, and Duran over not bad but fading Benvenutti, Griffith, Briscoe (who lost every major fight he was into), Napoles (who was not a good middleweight at all), and Valdez. Collectively I think Hagler's competition was better than that of Monzon.

Idisagree wrote:You make a statement like that and yet Benvenutti was prime when he fought Monzon? He was in the midst of 5 -2 – 1 slide after only 1 loss in his previous 70 fights. Yet again other fighters were not prime, but Benvenutti was?

Of course. How much Griffith had left when he fought Antoufermo has nothing to do with how much Benvenutti had left when he fought Monzon the first time. Did you see either of those fights? I saw them both. If Benvenutti had ever been any better than he was when he fought Monzon the first time, it wasn't better by much. Griffith looked slow and over-the-hill against Antoufermo. You can't just look at the record book and then flat out guess as to how the fighters must have looked in the matches.

Napoles was a great welter but again he was not good at all at middleweight, and I’ll bet my house that Hearns crushes Napoles at middleweight.

Well, he only fought the one fight at middleweight, as far as I recall, so you don't have a whole lot on which to base that statement. Recall, when Napoles shut out Emile Griffith, people were writing articles comparing Napoles to Ray Robinson. Possibly our biggest difference is the extent to which, IMO, you (and several others) wildly under-rate Mantequilla. Be that as it may, and I said this before, I would favor Hearns over Napoles @ 160, but not because Hearns could even dream of 'crushing' him. Instead, Hearns had the range to keep Napoles off him long enough for Napoles's skin to come apart.

Even Duran was much better middleweight than Napoles, and Hagler would’ve eaten alive Napoles at middleweight. Even at welter I give the advantage to Hearns over Napoles.

Totally disagree with every aspect of this statement.

I’d like better a prime Hearns, Hamsho, Roldan, Vito, and Duran over not bad but fading Benvenutti, Griffith, Briscoe (who lost every major fight he was into), Napoles (who was not a good middleweight at all), and Valdez. Collectively I think Hagler's competition was better than that of Monzon.

Totally disagree with every aspect of this statement also. C'est la vie.

Mr E wrote:


I suppose we'll have to leave it like that. You think Mustafa Hamsho, Juan Roldan, and Tony Sibson were superior to Nino Benvenutti, Bennie Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdes. I find that absolutely astonishing but there it is.

Oh Please. What else can you say? Their records speaks for themselves

Bennie's was spotty

Hamsho's was free of those pesky L's

and yet you still BRAG about how great Briscoe was! Hilarious! Tell us some more and maybe it'll start to sink in

Benvenuti was lucky he didnt have Hagler or hamsho to contend with or someone like Sibbo

and Valdez lost to Corro who was beaten by Vito

Results speak more loudly than words

Its also about when people lose, not just that they lose. Valdez lost to Corro near the back end of his career, doesnt mean that Vito is better than Valdez because he went on to beat Corro. And Sibson wouldnt have got near a prime Benvenuti, different leagues

dr_devious wrote:Its also about when people lose, not just that they lose. Valdez lost to Corro near the back end of his career, doesnt mean that Vito is better than Valdez because he went on to beat Corro. And Sibson wouldnt have got near a prime Benvenuti, different leagues

it would be pretty hard to judge Rodrigo at the end of his career as he just picked up another title and standing at the top of the middleweight ranks

He just couldnt beat Corro and figured what's the use of continuing when you can't be champ. Between 1976 and 1980 when he retired, the only ones he lost to were Monzon twice and Corro twice

Benvenuti? Since he couldnt handle an aged Dick Tiger I find it hard to believe Sibbo wouldnt make short work of him. Nino couldnt cut it as a midlleweight and lost quite often against various opponents, several of whom I'd never heard of. Check the record book

Elton John wrote:Oh Please. What else can you say? Their records speaks for themselves

Yes they do.

Bennie's was spotty

Look at the names on that list, the frequency of his fights, his success in rematches, and, better yet, watch a couple films. Bennie's record gets more impressive the more one examines it.

Hamsho's was free of those pesky L's

What do you mean by "pesky"? Hamsho was a solid enough contender whose career trajectory showed ability but not greatness. If I recall, he was the guy who retired Boogaloo Watts, and he got some other good wins, including a gift in the Curtis Parker fight. What in his record dazzles you?

and yet you still BRAG about how great Briscoe was! Hilarious! Tell us some more and maybe it'll start to sink in

I don't think you know what the word "brag" means. Briscoe a "great"? I didn't say that and I'm not sure I would. Close, have to think it over. Certainly, he was far superior to Mustafa Hamsho. Not even close.

Benvenuti was lucky he didnt have Hagler or hamsho to contend with or someone like Sibbo

I would favor Hagler to beat Benvenutti certainly. But he'd beat Hamsho or "Sibbo," no question about it.

and Valdez lost to Corro who was beaten by Vito

It's obvious, both because you haven't denied it and also because of the things you write that you haven't seen any of these fights. Majority of the people watching Valdez and Briscoe fight for Monzon's vacated title noticed that they had both slipped by then. I think that last Monzon bout took all the motivation out of Valdez, he wasn't the same later. Take a look at the fight and tell me if you can disagree with a straight face.

Still, you have to admit that Corro was a damn good fighter whose slick, defensive style was precisely the match-up to give a rough and tumble slugger like Valdez trouble. Corro went on to beat Ronnie Harris too and Vito, when he didn't cut, was a real quality fighter himself. But, whereas Corro's style gave Valdez trouble, Antoufermo's crowding, swarming style gave Corro trouble-- styles make fights. Oh, and then Vito's style ate Hagler up in the last 5 rounds of that fight as Hagler did everything he could to fold up and throw away the decision he seemed to have earned in the first 10 rounds. Nothing "robbery" in that draw at all. If having trouble with Vito Antoufermo means a fighter is 2nd rate, then Marvin Hagler has something to answer for too.

Results speak more loudly than words

Of course they do.

Elton John wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Its also about when people lose, not just that they lose. Valdez lost to Corro near the back end of his career, doesnt mean that Vito is better than Valdez because he went on to beat Corro. And Sibson wouldnt have got near a prime Benvenuti, different leagues

it would be pretty hard to judge Rodrigo at the end of his career as he just picked up another title and standing at the top of the middleweight ranks

He just couldnt beat Corro and figured what's the use of continuing when you can't be champ. Between 1976 and 1980 when he retired, the only ones he lost to were Monzon twice and Corro twice

Benvenuti? Since he couldnt handle an aged Dick Tiger I find it hard to believe Sibbo wouldnt make short work of him. Nino couldnt cut it as a midlleweight and lost quite often against various opponents, several of whom I'd never heard of. Check the record book

You need to stop 'checking the record book' and start watching some films. I haven't seen one post from you where you discuss how a fighter actually looked in an actual fight. The 'he won 5 fights in that 2 year period' stuff is okay to provide some context to the analysis but it needs to be anchored something more substantive.

Did Nino Benvenutti look sharp and fit in the early stages of the first Mozon fight to you, yes or no? If no, when did he look better to you?

Did Valdes look like he was 100% in the Corro fight to you, yes or no? Did he look remotely as quick and energetic as he did against Monzon, yes or no?

My guess is you have no idea because you haven't seen any of these fights.

Mr E wrote:

Elton John wrote:Oh Please. What else can you say? Their records speaks for themselves

Yes they do.

Bennie's was spotty

Look at the names on that list, the frequency of his fights, his success in rematches, and, better yet, watch a couple films. Bennie's record gets more impressive the more one examines it.

Hamsho's was free of those pesky L's

What do you mean by "pesky"? Hamsho was a solid enough contender whose career trajectory showed ability but not greatness. If I recall, he was the guy who retired Boogaloo Watts, and he got some other good wins, including a gift in the Curtis Parker fight. What in his record dazzles you?

and yet you still BRAG about how great Briscoe was! Hilarious! Tell us some more and maybe it'll start to sink in

I don't think you know what the word "brag" means. Briscoe a "great"? I didn't say that and I'm not sure I would. Close, have to think it over. Certainly, he was far superior to Mustafa Hamsho. Not even close.

Benvenuti was lucky he didnt have Hagler or hamsho to contend with or someone like Sibbo

I would favor Hagler to beat Benvenutti certainly. But he'd beat Hamsho or "Sibbo," no question about it.

and Valdez lost to Corro who was beaten by Vito

It's obvious, both because you haven't denied it and also because of the things you write that you haven't seen any of these fights. Majority of the people watching Valdez and Briscoe fight for Monzon's vacated title noticed that they had both slipped by then. I think that last Monzon bout took all the motivation out of Valdez, he wasn't the same later. Take a look at the fight and tell me if you can disagree with a straight face.

Still, you have to admit that Corro was a damn good fighter whose slick, defensive style was precisely the match-up to give a rough and tumble slugger like Valdez trouble. Corro went on to beat Ronnie Harris too and Vito, when he didn't cut, was a real quality fighter himself. But, whereas Corro's style gave Valdez trouble, Antoufermo's crowding, swarming style gave Corro trouble-- styles make fights. Oh, and then Vito's style ate Hagler up in the last 5 rounds of that fight as Hagler did everything he could to fold up and throw away the decision he seemed to have earned in the first 10 rounds. Nothing "robbery" in that draw at all. If having trouble with Vito Antoufermo means a fighter is 2nd rate, then Marvin Hagler has something to answer for too.

Results speak more loudly than words

Of course they do.

Mr. E you dont know who I am do you?

I'll give you a hint:

We used to spar over this very subject on Cyberboxing until that fathead moderator kicked me off. The little bitch!

This is just like old times :P