BoxRec

Many of us have a fighter, or fighters, whose alleged greatness we either do not see, or is severely diminished, in our eyes. I saw someone a while back mention that our very own BoxBuzz was the, "Granberry of Aaron Pryor," a tremendous Jr. Welterweight champion, in my book.

Now, obviously, no one here is quite as relentlessly staunch about a great fighter as Gran is on Ali & Leonard, but who are you the Granberry of? All in good fun --- this forum could use a little self-deprication.

To get the ball rolling...

Me = Jack Johnson
Buzz = Aaron Pryor (Sorry, old son, he was excellent)
Elmer = Oscar De La Hoya

G.I,
Can I pick a couple ?

For me it would be - a few of the older guys, I really am trying my best to educate myself on them, getting as much footage as I can and all that, but I really find it hard to believe that they would beat alot of the more modern champs (being biased to HW's I am refering to this division, now).

If I was to pick one...it'd be Jack Johnson as well. He gets so much media, claim and accolades by many quarters and to me I struggle to SEE with my own eyes, his greatness. He was good, talented and all that, but head and shoulders above so many other talented men. Perhaps his vote like so many is based on nostalgia and respect.

Kym

Knock yourself out, Robinson. I suspected you'd go with Jeffries, but Johnson it is

Ringsider = Marvin Hagler.

Me = Jack Johnson

I'm with you on this one. I've seen most of the video available of Johnson and I think his skills were great for his time, but are overrated in an all-time sense. If any other fighter who came after him clinched as much as he did, he would have been severely criticized for it.

I reckon myself can be called the Chuck Wepner of this site, as many of my posts are usually overshadowed by the more "expert" posters on this site.

HomicideHenry wrote:I reckon myself can be called the Chuck Wepner of this site, as many of my posts are usually overshadowed by the more "expert" posters on this site.

You sure you read the thread right, Henry?

Oh lol, sorry...Its late and I am fornicating tired as hell...I reckon I must be the Granberry of both Ali and Marciano, Marciano for me is likened to Jimmy Young for Gran, lol

HomicideHenry wrote:Oh lol, sorry...Its late and I am effing tired as hell...I reckon I must be the Granberry of both Ali and Marciano, Marciano for me is likened to Jimmy Young for Gran, lol

LOL, I think you got it wrong again, Henry, me ole mucker. Go to bed, ya dummy

Roy Jones Jr - Very good fighter, but great? Nah

banjo wrote:Roy Jones Jr - Very good fighter, but great? Nah

Sicko

Roy was the man!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

banjo wrote:Roy Jones Jr - Very good fighter, but great? Nah

Sicko

Roy was the man!

If Roy had unified against the likes of McClellan, Benn and Eubank at 160 and 168 then I would see him in a different light.

I wouldnt chose someone like Jeffries because he is seldom discussed outside of 'hardcore' fans.

A guy like Johnson is revered and proclaimed as the best from way to many sources to list.

But in his few fights, I do feel that James J by those who do know, and whose opinions I do take on board, gets a lot of credit.

Jake LaMotta

I see him as a bigger but worse version of Hatton, Tough but not really that good.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Many of us have a fighter, or fighters, whose alleged greatness we either do not see, or is severely diminished, in our eyes. I saw someone a while back mention that our very own BoxBuzz was the, "Granberry of Aaron Pryor," a tremendous Jr. Welterweight champion, in my book.

Now, obviously, no one here is quite as relentlessly staunch about a great fighter as Gran is on Ali & Leonard, but who are you the Granberry of? All in good fun --- this forum could use a little self-deprication.

To get the ball rolling...

Me = Jack Johnson
Buzz = Aaron Pryor (Sorry, old son, he was excellent)
Elmer = Oscar De La Hoya

The "someone" you saw describe me as "The granberry of Pryor" was ME.....I'm purported to have a sense of humor on just about any subject including myself. I clearly recognize what the popular opinion of Pryor is and that my thoughts run counter to them. I'm fine with others thinking that he is special and can give you my reasons for my opinion. Some will say that on occasion when you are too close to a subject you lose objectivity..perhaps that happened to me. granberry will tell you it's because i don't know http://www.squat about boxing in general. I'll say again he is the most over rated "big" name to come down the pike. He just happened to have a few absolutely great days at the office. Even if he needed a bit of Dr Pepper to get through at least one of those great days.

(Please give yourself the knowledge of his top 10 opponents, consider who he lost to, view some films, go over some managment history and review how at an early age his skills apparently just deserted him and see if you STILL believe that)

And if you do......I'll simply and without fanfare tell you that I continue to hold a dfferent opiinion while respecting yours. I promise I will think nothing less of you because Aaron can be quite the enigma and I recognize that fact.

I only wish he would have actually stepped into the ring with some other greats of his time besides the TWO fading stars that he timed so well.


When Roy was at the top of his game he deserved the respect even if he possessed some unneeded timidity but that in itself may make him worthy of criticism.

Does anyone really go full blown attack on someone else just because of their opinion of a fighter?

Now to the reverse:

I Hold Archie Moore in high honor.....and honestly believe he would wear Jones Down and beat him 2 out 3 as would Ezzard Charles had they all been present in and around the same time frame. I think they would both make him pay enough for him to lose his confidence and smooth cool demeanor and ultimately take him out. However he might manage a win in a trilogy with either, perhaps most likely in the first try....but both of them were great at learning from their mistakes and Jones can be figured out. Perhaps at their mutual peaks both Ezz and Archie were a bit bigger than Roy though.

for me, gene fullmer is up there. he was champ i respect that and he was tough as hell but his boxing ability was not that great imo. i was watching one of his old fights on espn classic a while back and i was further unimpressed. with that said, he had a lot of very good wins and that's what counts.

while we're at it, how is barry mcguigan in the hall of fame? he was a better than average fighter, imo. i understand a lot of that had to do with outside the ring stuff but look at his record.

banjo wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

banjo wrote:Roy Jones Jr - Very good fighter, but great? Nah

Sicko

Roy was the man!

If Roy had unified against the likes of McClellan, Benn and Eubank at 160 and 168 then I would see him in a different light.

all those guys would have been huge underdogs against jones at his time at 168. jones could have beat all of them and people would still say he hadn't beaten anyone. some fighters are judged differently than others and that's what makes jones great, imo. people still criticize his win over ruiz. what if calzaghe moved up and won a title at heavy? he would be considered one of the all-time greats.

to set the record straight it was me that saw the potential of greatness in the phrase "the granberry of pryor" and i used it often enough for it to adhere to its originator, boxbuzz. therefore it is I who should be recognised as the instigator of this remarkable linguistic usage.

for myself, I am "the granberry of dempsey"

bjermaine wrote:for me, gene fullmer is up there. he was champ i respect that and he was tough as hell but his boxing ability was not that great imo. i was watching one of his old fights on espn classic a while back and i was further unimpressed. with that said, he had a lot of very good wins and that's what counts.

while we're at it, how is barry mcguigan in the hall of fame? he was a better than average fighter, imo. i understand a lot of that had to do with outside the ring stuff but look at his record.

I think McGuigan is an excellent 'gatekeeper' for the HOF - they needed to establish a bottom margin for entry, and Barry has done it, no chance of Zelenoff trying to blag it now, we have our lowest denominator already

bjermaine wrote:

banjo wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Sicko

Roy was the man!

If Roy had unified against the likes of McClellan, Benn and Eubank at 160 and 168 then I would see him in a different light.

all those guys would have been huge underdogs against jones at his time at 168. jones could have beat all of them and people would still say he hadn't beaten anyone. some fighters are judged differently than others and that's what makes jones great, imo. people still criticize his win over ruiz. what if calzaghe moved up and won a title at heavy? he would be considered one of the all-time greats.

JONES WOULDOF BEEN A SLIGHT UNDERDOG AGAINST MCLELLAN DIRECTLY AFTER HIS JACKSON 2 PERFORMANCE ND A SLIGHT UNDERDOG AGAINST EUBANK DIRECTLY AFTER HIS WHARTON PERFORMANCE

BUT EUBANK SIMPLY DID'NT WANT THE FIGHT -RJJ WAS CHASING HIM FOR YRS

RJJ MADE BUTTONS COMPARED 2 EUBANK (IN MONEY )

aight, I admit it, I absoloutely hate Roy Jones, Jr and don't have him anywhere near my top 10 175 pounders list

Well he does not hate you.

i'm the granberry of granberry!

ben k wrote:Jake LaMotta

I see him as a bigger but worse version of Hatton, Tough but not really that good.

That is because you have never seen film of a prime jake lamotta. not the weight drained worn out lamotta you see in the 1950s


Lamotta in the early 1940s at his peak had a very rare great combination of stamina/durability/high workrate/high punch rate that we have never seen in the 160lb weight class before. lamotta could keep coming in and keep punching without ever getting tired, and ever worry about getting knocked out

Lennox Lewis.

Robinson wrote:Well he does not hate you.

He might if he saw this thread.