BoxRec

Here´s my list in no order:


Marvin Hagler
Bruno Arcari
Flash Elorde
Young Corbett III
Pernell Whitaker
Hector Camacho
Tiger Flowers
Lew Tendler
Khaosai Galaxy
Vicente Saldivar

I posted a Top 100 Southpaws of All Time last year, but it needs to be revamped. I'm still comfortable with my Top 10 though.




1.Marvin Hagler
2.Pernell Whitaker
3.Khaosai Galaxy
4.Young Corbett III
5.Freddie Miller
6.Tiger Flowers
7.Lew Tendler
8.Lou Brouillard
9.Horacio Accavallo
10.Manny Pacquiao

I read a rumor right here in the BOTP that all Southpaws have such deficits that they can not be considered great. And if you read it here it must be true.....right?

BoxBuzz wrote:I read a rumor right here in the BOTP that all Southpaws have such deficits that they can not be considered great. And if you read it here it must be true.....right?

Ringsiders retarded ass???

Grimm wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I read a rumor right here in the BOTP that all Southpaws have such deficits that they can not be considered great. And if you read it here it must be true.....right?

Ringsiders retarded ass???

"If he can find the keys....he must speak the truth."

I have never made a list like this, but thought it looked like fun. I'm sure that there is someone that is getting overlooked.

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Vincente Saldivar
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Tiger Flowers
5. Freddie Miller
6. Young Corbett III
7. Khaosai Galaxy
8. Winky Wright
9. Lew Tendler
10. Horacio Accavallo

Pacquio could eventually make it, depending on what he does the rest of his career.

Ambling Alp wrote:I have never made a list like this, but thought it looked like fun. I'm sure that there is someone that is getting overlooked.

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Vincente Saldivar
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Tiger Flowers
5. Freddie Miller
6. Young Corbett III
7. Khaosai Galaxy
8. Winky Wright
9. Lew Tendler
10. Horacio Accavallo

Pacquio could eventually make it, depending on what he does the rest of his career.

I keep looking at these lists and I'm confused. Why isn't Pernell given more credit? Outside of the fact that Marvin could beat Sweet Pea in a one on one fight. If you shrink Marvin down to Pernell's size do you really think that Marvin wins this? If you believe that then you are saying that pound for pound Leanord is better than Whitaker.....

I suppose it could be....but I think I would have to give this much soul searching in order to believe that.

However in the spirit of research, science and historical fact finding, I will volunteer to go and buy myself a six pack and watch the best of Whitaker, Sugar Ray and Marvin to see if I can be moved by the concensus of contributors that seem to be insinuating this.

Is anyone else puzzled by this? or is it my lack of experience and tender years that bring me to this naive assumption? Would most of you place Ray above Sweet Pea on a pound for pound basis?

BoxBuzz wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I have never made a list like this, but thought it looked like fun. I'm sure that there is someone that is getting overlooked.

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Vincente Saldivar
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Tiger Flowers
5. Freddie Miller
6. Young Corbett III
7. Khaosai Galaxy
8. Winky Wright
9. Lew Tendler
10. Horacio Accavallo

Pacquio could eventually make it, depending on what he does the rest of his career.

I keep looking at these lists and I'm confused. Why isn't Pernell given more credit? Outside of the fact that Marvin could beat Sweet Pea in a one on one fight. If you shrink Marvin down to Pernell's size do you really think that Marvin wins this? If you believe that then you are saying that pound for pound Leanord is better than Whitaker.....

I suppose it could be....but I think I would have to give this much soul searching in order to believe that.

However in the spirit of research, science and historical fact finding, I will volunteer to go and buy myself a six pack and watch the best of Whitaker, Sugar Ray and Marvin to see if I can be moved by the concensus of contributors that seem to be insinuating this.

Is anyone else puzzled by this? or is it my lack of experience and tender years that bring me to this naive assumption? Would most of you place Ray above Sweet Pea on a pound for pound basis?

i have to agree with you.pernell was better pound for pound than leonard.
i feel like leonard was great but is given far more credit than he deserves.

Leonard was superior to Whitaker in just about every facet of the game besides defence.

A far more complete fighter.

Pea was no better than Benitez in my book and that's not a bad level to be at.

boxbuzz- the Leonard haters may come out in droves for this and mention the same old baloney about bad decisions and not giving rematchs, bringing up fights when he was far past his best etc. I hope this thread doesn't evolve into this.

Of course it always gets tricky when comparing fighters of different weight classes. However, I do consider Leonard pound for pound better than Whitaker and really have no doubt about it. I also think Hagler was a little better.

In a nutshell, Whitakers defense was better than either Leonard or Hagler. However, the gap isn't as great as the difference between Leonard and Hagler's offense and Whitakers offense.

I thought having Whitaker as the #3 southpaw ever was pretty close. The only other two people to rank them had him at #2, which is pretty good.

Ambling Alp wrote:boxbuzz- the Leonard haters may come out in droves for this and mention the same old baloney about bad decisions and not giving rematchs, bringing up fights when he was far past his best etc. I hope this thread doesn't evolve into this.

Of course it always gets tricky when comparing fighters of different weight classes. However, I do consider Leonard pound for pound better than Whitaker and really have no doubt about it. I also think Hagler was a little better.

In a nutshell, Whitakers defense was better than either Leonard or Hagler. However, the gap isn't as great as the difference between Leonard and Hagler's offense and Whitakers offense.

I thought having Whitaker as the #3 southpaw ever was pretty close. The only other two people to rank them had him at #2, which is pretty good.

Well Ray made better decisions and was smarter no doubt and sometimes being a media darling is earned. It's close but I was leaning in the other direction obviously. Whitaker is often under rated for my money..but I understand the assessment based on the typical estimated value of offense vs defense. I'm not sure I agree but I certainly understand the rationale.

Please, see the record of this great southpaws:

José Carattoli
Atilio Caraune
Eduardo Lausse

Decagon wrote:Whitaker should be at #1 or #2.

Young Corbett III has for example the better resume IMO, he beat the likes of Apostoli, Conn, Foster, Walker, Ceferino Garcia, etc., Whitaker´s best wins (Ramirez, Mayweather, Nelson) are a class above IMO...

Whitaker should be at #1 or #2.

I have Whitaker at #1. He has a better resume than Hagler and was more dominant in his prime. Whitaker at his best, barely lost a round.

Comparing Hagler's and Whitakers careers is interesting. Hagler of course stayed a middleweight while Whitaker kept moving up.
I guess it's how you look at things. Some people think it's more impressive to win titles in many weight classes while others are more impressed with someone who stays in one weight class and dominates for a long time. It really doesn't matter either way to me.

I do think that Hagler had more "off nights" than Whitaker. He didn't look that great against Briscoe,Geraldo,Anteofermo I, and the first part of the Duran fight.
On the other hand, in most of Hagler's other fights he seemed more impressive.

I don't think that Whitaker was quite as dominaint as some people seem to. He had a lot of trouble with McGirt, who was a good fighter but nothing special. He wasn't lucky in acouple of decisons,but it's not like he completely dominated in those fights either.
When rating Hagler, there are some interesting questions;
1. How much credit does he get for whipping the "natural" middleweights such as Minter,Antuofermo,Sibson,Hamsho,Scypion,Obelmejias etc.
Good fighters, but not great. However,for the most part Hagler was very dominaint.
2. How much credit does he get for beating Jr Middleweights that moved up -Duran,Hearns, and Mugabi?
3. How much credit does he get for all the tough fighters he beat before he won the title?

Ambling Alp wrote:Comparing Hagler's and Whitakers careers is interesting. Hagler of course stayed a middleweight while Whitaker kept moving up.
I guess it's how you look at things. Some people think it's more impressive to win titles in many weight classes while others are more impressed with someone who stays in one weight class and dominates for a long time. It really doesn't matter either way to me.

I do think that Hagler had more "off nights" than Whitaker. He didn't look that great against Briscoe,Geraldo,Anteofermo I, and the first part of the Duran fight.
On the other hand, in most of Hagler's other fights he seemed more impressive.

I don't think that Whitaker was quite as dominaint as some people seem to. He had a lot of trouble with McGirt, who was a good fighter but nothing special. He wasn't lucky in acouple of decisons,but it's not like he completely dominated in those fights either.
When rating Hagler, there are some interesting questions;
1. How much credit does he get for whipping the "natural" middleweights such as Minter,Antuofermo,Sibson,Hamsho,Scypion,Obelmejias etc.
Good fighters, but not great. However,for the most part Hagler was very dominaint.
2. How much credit does he get for beating Jr Middleweights that moved up -Duran,Hearns, and Mugabi?
3. How much credit does he get for all the tough fighters he beat before he won the title?

And he loses very little luster in his losses to Monroe and Ray. You could outslick this guy but you had to be great and have a little luck getting it done. I think pound for pound Whitaker would have the recipe. However a one on one pound for pound superiority does not always mean he should be rated higher.

But like I say I would probably give Whitaker the nod not Marvin as pound for pound the best lefty ever. The far older boxers may have claim as well....but it is harder to be sure of their work based on less moving pictures from that era. But I would keep an ear open to those who beat the bushes in an attempt to compare apples to oranges via the writings of the sportswriters of those eras. Comparing video tape to the eyewitness accounts of old sportswriters has got to be pretty challenging indeed.

Galaxy is a strong contender as well.

You guys and your southpaw love. There a few above average southpaws......BUT there are no P4P great fighters who are southpaws. That is just the way it is. As far as your BS southpaw lists......about the only one on the list who has any boxing talent, can bang and move a bit(isn't tripping over his own feet like a typical southpaw), had some quickness, and was OK to watch was.............

Hector Camacho
I will quote the last paragraph of the the below listed article, because I know most guys who like southpaws have a short attention span and aren't very good readers. Southpaw lovers could never make it to last paragraph of the article. So here it is quoted. Read it and weep......
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/southpaws.html

Upon reviewing the southpaw boxers of history we can say emphatically that there have been few truly great left handed fighters. None of the outstanding southpaws can be said to be truly "complete" fighters, although there have been a good score of quality champions. The southpaw fighter is still considered unorthodox, dangerous and to be avoided if possible. He does everything wrong, but he does get the job done right.

ringsider wrote:You guys and your southpaw love. There a few above average southpaws......BUT there are no P4P great fighters who are southpaws. That is just the way it is. As far as you BS southpaw lists......about the only one on the list who has any boxing talent, can bang and move a bit(isn't tripping over his own feet like a typical southpaw), had some quickness, and was OK to watch was.............

Hector Camacho

Read the last paragraph, and weep......
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/southpaws.html

You remain and have always been a leftist bigot.

And Camacho over Marvin or Sweet Pea? BRILLIANT!





Since you refer to that last paragraph here it is....

Upon reviewing the southpaw boxers of history we can say emphatically that there have been few truly great left handed fighters. None of the outstanding southpaws can be said to be truly "complete" fighters, although there have been a good score of quality champions. The southpaw fighter is still considered unorthodox, dangerous and to be avoided if possible. He does everything wrong, but he does get the job done right

"All Southpaws should be drowned at birth" Alan Minter quote.

You remain and have always been a leftist bigot.

I have merely stated my opinion, and remain true to it. Bigorty is hardly a word that fits here. Since I have actually had a few amatuer fights, and some experience in the ring, along with being trained by a guy who fought under Tony Zale for the Chicago CYO, I think my information and opinions are pretty sound on the southpaw topic. And judging from the last paragraph of the article, I am not the only one who knows it or believes it.....

i have to agree with you.pernell was better pound for pound than leonard.

The above quote shows just how stupid some are.....and blind.

It is also too bad Minter didn't take his own advice and drowned himself in the tub as a child.......would have saved us from suffering through his joke of a MW reign.

ringsider wrote:

i have to agree with you.pernell was better pound for pound than leonard.

The above quote shows just how stupid some are.....and blind.

It is also too bad Minter didn't take his own advice and drowned himself in the tub as child.......would have saved us from suffering through his joke of a MW reign.

Hey for me it was all about the opportunity to use of the term "leftist bigot" in a rather benign and probably never to be repeated way.

Now as for boxing. How far short were pernell's skills short of Ray's? Can you give some specifics? I am one who is not set in his opinions and will always give an ear to those who have knowledge and are willing to share it. I'm just not a big fan of loud gaudy opinions that are simply "heartfelt".

That article seemed to be written just a bit tounge in cheek wouldn't you admit? Though it has a few good points. Outcomes are a pretty big deal in the science of boxing.

Oh and I do understand that Ray had a better offensive arsenal that Pernell but Sweet Pea sure had a first rate radar system.

I am sorry, but to compare "Sweet Pea" to Ray Leonard, or for that matter Roberto Duran at LW is absurd. "Sweet Pea" was a pitty-patter. You can go on and on about his "defense" or his "radar".....but I would attribute more of it to the fact he really didn't want to fight or engage anyone, (it takes two guys to have a fight) not to mention his goofy awkward southpaw stance and how he used to squat way down with his butt almost touching the matt.......no he just wasn't all that IMHO. Beside he really wasn't much of puncher. Heck at least Hagler could bang.....Camacho could bang and had some good movement and skills, especially in the beginning of his career when he would engage. "Sweet Pea" was boring to me, legs spread to far apart and his jump style punching.....Duva in his corner was more interesting than the"Sweet Pea" fight going on in the ring.

I tend not to favor any certain style. I like the fighters that use what they have and figure out how to win. But I would have to agree that the more defensive a fighter is the less interesting unless he's put in with the best punchers out there. Then the tension is sort of similar to a bull fight.

I try to recognize Pernell's talent and put it into the overall mix. My guess is that pound for pound the judges would quite likely give a fight to Pernell over Marvin more times than not. So he comes away rated higher in this catagory. IMHO.

My favorite lightweight is Duran....and I think Duran would beat Whitaker 8 out of 10 times. I say I favor no style....I lied I slightly prefer a fighter who really comes to engage. Your right about Whitaker, he only came to score and not be hit. I still think he is great, but he's not a fighter that greatly interests me. Though I recognize his skills and express props for his abilities.

Heyyy remember this?