BoxRec

Better wins than beating Tiger, Benvenuti, and Rodriguez? What would those wins be?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:43 I don't think putting Griffith ahead of Leonard is at all ridiculous. Leonard fans can fall back on the argument that Leonard had fewer losses but that's at least partially a product of fighting in an era when more emphasis was placed on unbeaten records and fighters fought less frequently.

Exactly. I see both of them as a toss up.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 18:57 Better wins than beating Tiger, Benvenuti, and Rodriguez? What would those wins be?

Here is a clue: First names are Roberto, Tommy, and Marvin. You could argue for a guy named Wilfred as well.

Griffith also lost to legends such as Benny Paret, Rubin Carter, Manuel Gonzales, Don Fullmer, Stanley Hayward. If Leonard lost once to anyone remotely like that you would never hear the end of it. Happened to Griffith several times. Also had a zillion decision wins that easily could have been a draw or a loss go his way.

I think Rodriguez is arguably on par with Hearns. I would put Tiger ahead of the faded Hagler that Leonard faced. As for Duran he was overall a better fighter than Benvenuti but Benvenuti was at his optimal weight against Griffith whereas Duran was not at his best at welterweight.

How are Griffiths middleweight losses relevant when Leonard barely fought at the weight?

I rate Hearns a little higher than Rodriguez, but that one is arguable.

No way was Tiger (when he fought Griffith) better than the Hagler that Leonard beat. Tiger was 36 years old and had taken a ton of punishment during his career by the time Griffith fought him.
You also left off the part where Leonard had a ton of ring rust and still beat Hagler. Hagler was closer to his best than Leonard was to his.

Duran was at his optimal weight when he fought Leonard. Fighters from the lower weights almost always move up. Rodriguez did, Hearns did. Leonard did. Benvenuti did. Benitez did. That it's always such a big deal for Duran to do it has always been ridiculous. (cue elmer) Duran was a better welter than Benvenuti was a middleweight.

Griffith's middleweight losses are relevant because we are judging his career, not just as a welter. You should use the information that you have.

I was comparing Hearns to Rodriguez not Napoles.

Emile Griffith and Sugar Ray Leonard are almost equal in the same scale. I rated Leonard above Griffith pound per pound, but if someone says that Griffith was better I don't have an argument of it. Better Welterweight was Griffith. Better pound per pound was Leonard in my opinion.

There is absolutely no reason to rate Griffith as a better welterweight than Leonard. Leonard had better wins. Leonard's only loss was to Duran; Griffith managed to lose to Benny Paret. Plus watching them on film you can tell Leonard did everything as good or better.
Griffith is not even in Leonard's league pound for pound. There is no legitimate argument for him.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2019, 11:19 I was comparing Hearns to Rodriguez not Napoles.

I edited it and changed it to Rodriguez.

Leonard appearance too fast and mobile for Griffith.

This thread is becoming eerily too familiar.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2019, 15:43 There is absolutely no reason to rate Griffith as a better welterweight than Leonard. Leonard had better wins. Leonard's only loss was to Duran; Griffith managed to lose to Benny Paret. Plus watching them on film you can tell Leonard did everything as good or better.
Griffith is not even in Leonard's league pound for pound. There is no legitimate argument for him.

Griffith had more longevity.
Griffith beat more quality REAL WELTERWEIGHTS
Griffith was champion longer (3 times)
Griffith NEVER LOST TO A LIGHTWEIGHT.
Griffith had more fights at Welterweight.

Beating better fighters is better? Not necessarily. We got to look the whole entire picture. Carlos Ortiz nor Duilio Loi nor Flash Elorde challenged Griffith. He didn't had that luxury. But, Griffith was going up and down tackling Jr middleweights and middleweights.

The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT LEONARD beat was the great Thomas Hearns. Sugar Ray was even going to fight Aaron Pryor, a Jr.
welterweight.

Griffith at Welterweight had more accomplishments than Leonard.

Duran had been at 147 for almost 2 years when he fought Ray. And Emile was molested as well.

Palomino and Leonard were absolute peak Duran. Never was better. That was his absolute prime. Griffith has no comparable win to Leonard's top 3.

Benitez and Hearns both handled Duran easily at 154 (especially Hearns). Do you have any reason to believe the outcome would be different a few pounds south at 147? Because losing to those guys at 147 would have dropped Duran's stock at that weight quite a bit I imagine.

Benitez didn't handle Duran easily. Duran was slipping (though still very good) by 1984 when he fought Hearns.
At 147, in 1980, Benitez-Duran would have been very close. Hearns probably beats Duran at 147 in 1980, though the fight certainly would have last a lot more than two rounds.
Btw, Leonard beat Benitez and Hearns. And Duran. Far exceeds what Griffith did at welterweight. And he beat Hagler, and far exceeds Griffith for his entire career.

We can keep moving the chairs around to try to confuse things, but this is what it goes down to. Leonard was better and it's not particularly close.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 14:10 Benitez didn't handle Duran easily. Duran was slipping (though still very good) by 1984 when he fought Hearns.
At 147, in 1980, Benitez-Duran would have been very close. Hearns probably beats Duran at 147 in 1980, though the fight certainly would have last a lot more than two rounds.
Btw, Leonard beat Benitez and Hearns. And Duran. Far exceeds what Griffith did at welterweight. And he beat Hagler, and far exceeds Griffith for his entire career.

We can keep moving the chairs around to try to confuse things, but this is what it goes down to. Leonard was better and it's not particularly close.

I believe that it is close. Sugar Ray ain't way better than Emile Griffith by a mile. Their careers are somewhat similar. If Sugar Ray had at least 60 or 70 fights, then it would have been clearer for Leonard. But, you can't be better by a mile with only pro 40 fights. Especially, when we're discussing against one of the greatest fighters pound per pound in history like Griffith.

Griffith fought over 120 fights. Had more longevity. And beat a special crop of boxers in his time: Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Gaspar Ortega, Dick Tiger, Nino Benvenutti, Benny "Kid" Paret, Florentino Fernandez, Denny Moyer, Ralph Dupas, Isaac Logart, Jorge Fernandez, Don Fullmer, etc. These guys were excellent opposition. Some of them he fought 2 or 3 and maybe 4 times. These guys could fight. They weren't no bums like Randy Shields and Pete Ranzany.

Due to the quality of opposition, I rate Leonard on top of Griffith overall pound per pound. But, if someone rates Griffith over Leonard, how could I argue with him? It's pretty close.

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2019, 17:30 This thread is becoming eerily too familiar.

I used to peg cojimar as eo in this section, but that's giving eo too much credit. Just a different troll stirring it up. Worst kind, just uses arguments per argument.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 13:41 Benitez and Hearns both handled Duran easily at 154 (especially Hearns). Do you have any reason to believe the outcome would be different a few pounds south at 147? Because losing to those guys at 147 would have dropped Duran's stock at that weight quite a bit I imagine.

Benitez fight could have been different. Hearts was a nightmare. Rubin Carter did the same thing to Emile. Tommy might have too.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 16:13 I used to peg cojimar as eo in this section, but that's giving eo too much credit. Just a different troll stirring it up. Worst kind, just uses arguments per argument.

Sometimes it's hard to tell (for me) who has multiple screen names. EO is uniquely annoying, as he takes giant leaps from facts to his insane deductions/arguments. It was obvious that he was also Verlicht and another name, I don't recall at this time.

I always thought of cojimar along with homicidehenry and elmer as sort of he Big Three. Maybe the Great Triumvirate is a better term.
They seem to make up their mind about a guy, and then try to back it up. Instead of researching things first, and then taking a position about something.
No amount of reasoning or facts mean anything to them. They just keep moving the goalposts to favor their guy.

I think there should be a Forum rule that if 2 of the 3 ever disagree on something, nobody else should interfere until it's obvious they are done. It could get pretty funny.

I remember once homicidehenry and elmer started to disagree about something. I thought finally, my dream had come true. Unfortunately other people started commented and their debate never really materialized. Alas, there is always hope foe the future.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 16:37 I always thought of cojimar along with homicidehenry and elmer as sort of he Big Three. Maybe the Great Triumvirate is a better term.
They seem to make up their mind about a guy, and then try to back it up. Instead of researching things first, and then taking a position about something.
No amount of reasoning or facts mean anything to them. They just keep moving the goalposts to favor their guy.

I think there should be a Forum rule that if 2 of the 3 ever disagree on something, nobody else should interfere until it's obvious they are done. It could get pretty funny.

I remember once homicidehenry and elmer started to disagree about something. I thought finally, my dream had come true. Unfortunately other people started commented and their debate never really materialized. Alas, there is always hope foe the future.

EO has taken over from Kalin as the number one troll on here, IMHO.

I find myself a tad confused that beating Duran is held up as a spectacular achievement well beyond anything Griffith achieved when Duran was arguably only the 4th best welterweight during the extremely brief period he fought at welterweight (circa 2 years). That doesn't really make much sense.

If Duran was arguably only the 4th best welter of his own time why would we assume he would dominate in other eras?

As far as being set in my ways, I don't have any strong feelings on this matchup. You could certainly make a case for Leonard being the better fighter but I don't think its as simple as simply pointing to all Griffith's losses as proof of Leonard being better. Many great fighters from earlier eras had numerous losses to non-greats. Armstrong and Gavilan have plenty of bad losses.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 17:59 As far as being set in my ways, I don't have any strong feelings on this matchup. You could certainly make a case for Leonard being the better fighter but I don't think its as simple as simply pointing to all Griffith's losses as proof of Leonard being better. Many great fighters from earlier eras had numerous losses to non-greats. Armstrong and Gavilan have plenty of bad losses.

Face it, Leonard had the advantage of fighting in perhaps the greatest era for the mid weights if not all of boxing. Fighting Hagler; Duran; Hearns; Benitez, et al is tough to beat when comparing records. Don't like Ray much, but one of the best I've ever seen fight.