BoxRec

what is the line between a fighter being great and being an all time great?? the question is when do we start to believe a certain fighter is an all time greatt??

so i will start by asking what fights or moments do you think these fighters won there "all time great" status


muhammad ali- when did he earn his all time great status?? foreman fight?? first frazier fight??


sugar ray leonard- if he didnt come out of retirement and beat hagler, would we be calling him an all time great?


julio cesar chavez- did the incredible medrick taylor win earn him the all time great status??

rocky marciano- was it the first ezzard charles fight or was it the archie moore fight then retirement??

larry holmes- was it the cooney fight since it was so hyped up????

sugar ray robinson- st. valentines day massacre???

roberto duran- leonard fight????

roy jones- perhaps it wa the ruiz fight when he bumped up to face a heavy

etc


whatin ur opinion made or makes someone an all time great???

Ali - I'd say with his win over Foreman (who seemed unbeatable) is what guaranteed him that status -

SRL - His big wins Vs Duran and Hearns (along with his total accomplishments to that point) probably had him at this level ....irregardless of the Hagler fight (in which many thought he lost anyway).

J.C. Chavez - His work at LW / JWW as a total - His win Vs M. Taylor was more of a farce then a credit to his greatness - If not for a terrible Ref decision....(or if Taylor would have just stayed down like a chump...the bell sounds) and Taylor wins a clear Dec -

Looking at the list of the rest.....it many ways I think it was the "total" of their careers then any one particular fight -

I think it is a combination of longevity,& quality of opposition.The above mentioned fellows,I don't think it was the "one" instance that you mentioned,although they certainly contribute to it,it is a compilation of all these things.But I have to disagree with Leonard.Growing up I was a huge Leonard fan,but as I grew older,I realized that regardless of his vast skills,Leonard had become a Prima Donna.Everything had to be on his terms.Like the Lalonde fight,that was bogus.How do you as the challenger,demand that the Lightheavyweight champ,drop down to 168 to accomodate you the middleweight,and in addition,if you beat him,you win the vacant super-middleweight title as well?And his shit about not giving rematches.I thought Hearns beat him in the second fight.Duran although great,was fickle in those days.Had he not been,he would have won the rematch as well.But these are my thoughts.Everybody else you mentioned certainly qualify for greatness.Except Jones,another Prima Donna,who was Ruiz,nobody of note,
zuru

zuru wrote:I think it is a combination of longevity,& quality of opposition.The above mentioned fellows,I don't think it was the "one" instance that you mentioned,although they certainly contribute to it,it is a compilation of all these things.But I have to disagree with Leonard.Growing up I was a huge Leonard fan,but as I grew older,I realized that regardless of his vast skills,Leonard had become a Prima Donna.Everything had to be on his terms.Like the Lalonde fight,that was bogus.How do you as the challenger,demand that the Lightheavyweight champ,drop down to 168 to accomodate you the middleweight,and in addition,if you beat him,you win the vacant super-middleweight title as well?And his shit about not giving rematches.I thought Hearns beat him in the second fight.Duran although great,was fickle in those days.Had he not been,he would have won the rematch as well.But these are my thoughts.Everybody else you mentioned certainly qualify for greatness.Except Jones,another Prima Donna,who was Ruiz,nobody of note,
zuru

I agree with the first part of your post where you pointed out that longevity rather than one great moment is what determines greatness. I don't totally agree on the leonard part of your post. Leonard was beating Duran handily in their rematch, and I think he would have cruised to victory had Duran not quit. He also showed alot of grit in stopping Hearns. If you go back and review Leonard's record it will show that he never built his record on stiffs, and continued to fight the top fighters of his day.

I"ve never like Leonard either.
But I gotta respect his boxing skills and the fact he was a great fighter.
And I did enjoy watching Camacho kick his "over-the-hill" ass.

Leonard had become a Prima Donna.Everything had to be on his terms.Like the Lalonde fight,that was bogus.How do you as the challenger,demand that the Lightheavyweight champ,drop down to 168 to accomodate you the middleweight,

No one put a gun to Lalonde's head to make him except Leonards terms. Same goes for Haglar. The two were the reigning champs; if greed lead them into agreeing to the challengers demands, then the shame should be on them. Leonard should not be faulted for trying to make the best deal for himself especially if the other parties go along with it.

What demand did Hagler agree to? I don't remember the terms of that fight exept that they both made alot of money. I always thought it was a 50/50 split, but that was just a presumption on my part.

What demand did Hagler agree to?

12 instead of 15 rounds; the size of the ring and I believe the type of gloves.

..re; leonard and lalonde. the light heavy limit was 175 pounds and still is. the weight was not lalonde's or anyone else's to change. by agreeing to come in at 168 lalonde was not fulfilling the historical status of that weight, so it was in no way a fight for thre lightheavy title. the super middle..yes....if that title was involved....i don't know what lalonde claim was a that time.

now i don't want some experts coming on and saying the weight is "175 or less....." by agreeing to come in at 168 laonde was not defending the title on legitimate terms.

as for hagler.....yeah, leonard shrewdly manipulated hagler into terms that were to leonard's advantage, but hagler had the right to reject them. however, if he had, it's almost certain that the fight wouldn't have taken place, and the gate was too big for hagler to resist.

alltime greatness...to me ali's beating foreman sealed his status...and although a few decisions were stolen along the way, his dominance over the heavies of his time add credence.

sugar ray robinson....already an all-time great before the lamotta fight.

can't pick a fight for sugar ray leonard because he was not an all time great.

Jaclem wrote:..re; leonard and lalonde. the light heavy limit was 175 pounds and still is. the weight was not lalonde's or anyone else's to change. by agreeing to come in at 168 lalonde was not fulfilling the historical status of that weight, so it was in no way a fight for thre lightheavy title. the super middle..yes....if that title was involved....i don't know what lalonde claim was a that time.

now i don't want some experts coming on and saying the weight is "175 or less....." by agreeing to come in at 168 laonde was not defending the title on legitimate terms.

as for hagler.....yeah, leonard shrewdly manipulated hagler into terms that were to leonard's advantage, but hagler had the right to reject them. however, if he had, it's almost certain that the fight wouldn't have taken place, and the gate was too big for hagler to resist.

alltime greatness...to me ali's beating foreman sealed his status...and although a few decisions were stolen along the way, his dominance over the heavies of his time add credence.

sugar ray robinson....already an all-time great before the lamotta fight.

can't pick a fight for sugar ray leonard because he was not an all time great.

.I always thought that Hagler never fought the fight that he could have.And had he not agreed to Leonard's bullshit request,the fight never would have come off.It was almost as if Hagler bagged a huge retirement payday,to hold back,but do enough to keep it interesting,and let Leonard "win" a close decision.For Hagler to have accomplished all that he had,and NEVER request a rematch,or EVER come out of retirement?That is bizarre to me.I'm sure. many won't agree,but that is my thoughts.And he did beat Duran in the rematch,but look at what a fickle fighter Duran was.When he really wanted to fight,no one could stand against him.Leonard was boxing in the 2nd fight,but Duran didn't apply anywhere near the pressure that he did in the first fight.And the 1st Hearns fight,Leonard showed great heart,fire,and skill,in coming from behind to win in dramatic style.But the rematch he LOST! Hearns was prepared & robbed.And Lalonde was the LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT champion,meaning that is the title that should have been contested.Lalonde as champion should not have had to come in at 168.It doesn't matter that "well nobody put a gun to his head".If that is the title Leonard was after,he should have moved up,as every other fighter attempting to move up in weight did.That was bullshit.And to throw the 168lb title in to boot was a disgrace.I too used to be a Leonard fan,but that was due to the old Leonard.People got mesmerized by his flash,and overlooked the details.Leonard may have fought & beat some very good fighters,but look at the over all picture.If we're talking greatness,Hearns has done more to acheive greatness,by actually moving up to fight the champion,instead of acting like a spoiled brat,with his "it's my way or I won't play" attitude.Leonard may have been one of the most naturally gifted fighters "EVER" but he didn't earn the respect that he could have.Like I said Hearns & Hagler are far greater than him in that aspect.
zuru

Leonard was boxing in the 2nd fight,but Duran didn't apply anywhere near the pressure that he did in the first fight

Sure he did. Leonard just decided to fight his fight the second time around. In the first fight Leonard wanted to beat Duran at his own game and sufferred a very close lose for it. In the second fight he proved his vast supieriority and embarressed Duran into quiting. The only stomach cramps Duran was really suffering from were from Leonards devastating body shots.

the 1st Hearns fight,Leonard showed great heart,fire,and skill,in coming from behind to win in dramatic style.But the rematch he LOST!

First of all the second fight with Hearns was way too close for it to be considered a robbery. What the fight came down to was if the rounds Leonard had Hearns almost out on his feet should be judged 10-9 or 10-8. That was the difference in the fight. Besides, boith fighters were way past their prime so this fight shouldnt even count. At their absolute best, Leonard won. Period.

And he did beat Duran in the rematch,but look at what a fickle fighter Duran was.When he really wanted to fight,no one could stand against him

So Duran didnt want to fight When he fought Estaban Dejesus their first fight? Or Leonard in thier second fight? Or when he fought Hearns, who destroyed him, or Benetez who boxed him silly? What about Robbie Sims and Stickland Lang? He wasnt motivated enough to beat these lesser fighter?

It was almost as if Hagler bagged a huge retirement payday,to hold back,but do enough to keep it interesting,and let Leonard "win" a close decision.

If you believe this then you should not consider Haglar a great fighter. You should consider him a fraud and a disgrace to the sport.

Imagine Hagler letting someone beat him on his last fight. Please give me a break.

You act like know-it-alls,if that is the case then you should go back and watch Hagler's pre-Leonard fights,and then watch that fight.Hagler acted like he was sparring.I don't give a shit about the impossibility of "Hagler throwing his last fight".He was a monster.He trained & fought far too hard,to not DO IT for his biggest fight.Hagler never got the respect he craved or deserved.Many folks took notice and give him praise,but there was always somebody better ,who stole his thunder.That somebody being Leonard,so you mean to tell me that he is not going to throw EVERYTHING including the kitchen sink at the living thorn in his side?BULLSHIT! And Hearns won that 2nd fight hands down.You may need to watch it again.Duran was motivated,but surprised by Dejesus skill in the first fight.Uninspired against Laing,Benitez(and I am a Benitez fan),and a host of others.Duran was beatable,but when motivated,he was a tough one.You Leonard lovers can't see past the "bolo & smile".That's fine,True boxing fans know he was a good fighter,like the early Camacho was,but DOES NOT qualify for greatness.

Some would say Hagler won the fight, so it would be judges that could be suspect more than the fighter.

You may want to ease back on the caffeine. Hagler gave it what he had that day. To some it was enough. But he left the game behind after that day. I think that says it all.

leonard was in a much higher class than camacho, and owuld have tkaen camacho to school in his prime



did camacho beat a prime duran and hearns and benitez??? did camacho beat marvin hagler??