Casting a closer eye over some of boxing's untouchables

Howdy fellas, looks as if this may be my last chance to talk some boxing until the Bank Hol weekend is out of the way, so let's see if we can russle up some good debate.

I guess the article is pretty straight forward - are there any fighters, commonly lauded as 'great' or 'legendary' who, though it may be seen as boxing blasphemy to even whisper such an idea, you think just aren't quite worth the praise? It's a topic which has been touched upon before many times, but nevertheless, it tends to result in wildly contrasting opinions, and I imagine it's the kind of topic where new candidates are being thought up all the time, too.

So without further ado, allow me to get the ball rolling - Jimmy Wilde.

I must stress that this is all relative. Was Wilde a great fighter? Too right. But while I'm highly reluctant to use the word 'overrated', does he also get far too much credit considering who he largely compiled his record against, as well as being ranked far too generously in the pound for pound lists of fans and historians alike? You bet.

136-3-1 is a sensational accumulation of results on paper. But let's look closer; before Wilde even managed to get a booking at the National Sporting Club, he'd run up an 81-0-1 record, with 55 of those inside schedule, solely against the coal miners of Tylerstown and other surrounding areas in his native Wales. He came to prominence in 1914 when he finally got his first NSC booking, but you could say that he was incredibly fortunate that he was picked up on the basis of this; his opponent, Eugene Husson, was picked for no other reason than actually being smaller than Wilde, as he scaled under 100 lb (Peggy Bettinson, the head matchmaker of the National Sporting Club at the time, previously argued that Wilde was just too small, and that his being on the bill would provoke complaints from his members about bad matchmaking).

After that, Wilde was moved on quickly, but he was trounced in his first world title fight by old rival Tancy Lee (although it's commonly accepted that Wilde had been suffering from a bout of 'flu not long beforehand), and had to then beat the likes of Lee in a rematch, Johnny Rosner and Young Zulu Kid to unify the title and make his claim undisputed on both sides of the Atlantic - but seriously, what kind of rank can those names command in the pantheon of Flyweight legends?

Outside of that, Wilde does, admittedly, have some superb wins, with Bantamweight luminary Joe Lynch being the pick of the bunch. Sid Smith and, perhaps, 'Memphis' Pal Moore could be considered meritorious, too. But another Bantam great, Pete Herman, handled him with relative comfort before stopping him - and back in his own division, Pancho Villa relieved him of his title in 1923 with a beating so severe that Wilde later admitted that, for four months after the fight, he was unable to recognize anyone. Of course, War service had restricted Wilde's activity in the years beforehand, but I must say this - how can Wilde be so overwhelmingly considered the greatest Flwyweight of all time? Villa, Frankie Genaro and Miguel Canto all have records which are surely comparable, and yet they never seem to command the same recognition that Wilde receives to this day. The more time that passes, the more I find myself wondering if one of these names may actually belong ahead of Wilde in the all-time 112 lb stakes, nevermind have to fight for the crumbs which continue to fall from his table.

Wilde was, of course, a legitimate Flyweight great. But the eighth greatest fighter of all time across all weight divisions according to Boxing News? The landslide, all-time number one at Flyweight? The third greatest puncher across the weights of all time, in the eyes of Ring Magazine? Really? I'm not convinced.

It seems to me that Wilde's punching power, which has gained almost mythical status, has greatly inflated his actual career achievements in the eyes of many. I'm not denying that he was, indeed, a great - my contention is that he's just not as great as we've all been lead to believe over the years, open to abuse though that leaves me!

So, do you agree or disagree with me, and crucially, who else do you feel has a record which, for whatever reason, doesn't quite match up with popular opinion?

The floor is yours, fellas. Cheers.

Great article.

I really don't have a pen to push here, as my knowledge of boxing doesn't really go beyond 1960 so I couldn't say. I do have fights and favorites, but not the knowledge to apply that to a sensible debate.

Agree with the points you've raised and an excellent read. I've heard of Jimmy Wilde and to be honest his record did seem somewhat...lop sided.

This is one of those threads where whoever you say you’re going to get dogs abuse but the one I sometimes waver on is Duran. Would never look to diminish his lightweight reign which is obviously stellar and his win over Leonard is about as good a win as the history of the sport has to boast. However I do think he is sometimes given a pass on some things and has the odd loss a fighter of his standard has no place having.

Would not want to use the phrase rolled like a drunk and if Tommy catches you right you can go but getting blitzed in that manner is pretty poor, however it is more the loss to the likes of Laing that stick in my craw a bit. People will say he was past his best but it was two years after the Leonard win and given he went on to win several decent fights after this think the argument he was past his best is a little too much of have your cake and eat it.

However we’re in to very fine margins with a guy like him, his lightweight reign absolutely gives him the right to be considered in the top couple in that division and the Leonard win definitely sends him rocketing up the P4P rankings but I do find myself sometimes questioning the almost universal acceptance he is a locked in top ten guy. I will now go and put my tin hat on for the volley of abuse that is no doubt on its way to me.

Good article by the way Chris. I was tempted to say Lennox Lewis but thought better of it.

Thanks JM and Jeff.

Can understand your points on Duran, Rowley. I think it can be down to a question of styles at times; as I said in the article, I think Wilde's knockout power perhaps helps to romanticise his career somewhat, and likewise, there's an argument to be heard that Duran being the charismatic, value for money, snarling wrecking ball that he was acts as a convenient reason to airbrush his incredibly patchy career post-1980.

Mind you, I'll maintain that Tommy still shouldn't be held against him too much; after all, what career Lightweight could even hope to match up against a 154 lb Hearns in the prime of his life? But as you say, Laing, mercurial or not, had no business beating Roberto, and the defeats to Sims and Benitez are worthy of scrutiny, too.

He still makes my top ten by the skin of his teeth, I suppose, but I hear what you're saying.

In one of the profiles in the Sundowners there is a bit of a rant about Mickey Walker that has you questioning his exalted status to a degree but can't remember enough of it to comment on here. However if time allows over the next few days may add it to the thread at some point.

Wilde is an interesting one, and one I struggle to evaluate myself. Usually when Im evaluating a fighter my main focus is on their championship years because its indicative of the time when they were at their best and fighting their stiffest competition.

The circumstnces of Wildes era is difficult as only a tiny proportion of his fights are "world" level. So I tend to begin really evaluating him around the British title level. This still means basically discounting 100 odd fights he had where the level of opposition is either sub standard or unknown. He proves beyond doubt that he is the best of his weight in Britain beating nearly all his relevant rivals.

I can excuse the losses more readily to Herman who held a decent weight advantage over him, and Villa who came when Wilde was basically coming out of retirement. It does leave the uncomfortable eeling that he may have lost to the two best fighters he faced though. He also split bouts with Pal Moore though the one he lost was only a short fight and he won the more meaningful one. Howeve the reports say the fight basically could have gone either way so it serves as a useful enough benchmark as I dont really see Pal Moore being a massivley elite fighter of top 20/30/40 all time proportions.

The flyweight division for most of Wildes time was kind of underdeveloped or non existant in the U.S also so it makes his claim as world flyweight champion maybe not as solid as one would like. Id guess fighters like Joe Symonds and Sid Smith would be world level challengers in the division but cross Atlantic travel just wasnt as common so its very difficult to say. Trying to put Wildes British success in context for what it means at world level, or how it ranks as an overall acheivement in all time rankings is difficult. I certainly cant see how he gets a top twenty place for example, and Im not convinced he proves hes the best flyweight of all time beyond reasonable doubt.

Sounds good, Rowley. I tend to have Walker as a nailed on top twenty-five (or so) man, pound for pound, so would be interesting to hear an argument on the contrary.

One other thing on Duran, though. His level of opposition beaten on it's own might fall short of top ten material, but it's evened out by his utter dominance of his best division, and even more so by his longevity, I think.

There are two statistics / facts which absolutely astound me with regards to Duran. First off, he beat world champions from Featherweight all the way up to Light-Heavyweight inclusive. Secondly, he beat his first world champion in 1970, weighing 122 lb, and his last in 1997, weighing 168 lb.

Certainly part of the reason that I can't bring myself to drop him from a top ten. Beating Marcel as a Super-Bantam and then, twenty-seven years later, beating Castro as a Super-Middle? Certainly goes to show that he was no mere "bar room brawler / slugger." More to Duran than meet's the casual's eye, I think.

To be honest Chris gun to head now if I wrote my top ten he'd probably be in it, guess my issue is less with Duran than with those that praise him sometimes, they will rave over the Barclay win or Green but if anyone mentions Benitez or Laing you are told he was past his best, seems a little inconsistent. However when you list some of the stats, as you have, they don't half make for impressive old reading.

In most of my experiences of encountering the kind of untouchable fighters that your post alludes, I find its usually the older ones I am most skeptical of. Its in part because I think as a general rule those who come first find it easier to get placed highly and it becuase subsequently harder for following generations to replace them. Every subsequent fighter not only has to prove he is great in his own era but then also contest with the weight of history and try to oust a great that is already established which become increasingly difficult.

With that in mind Ketchel is another guy who I have never quite got why is rated so highly. His record on its own isnt exactly spectacular but the more reading I do about him the less convinced about him I am. He seems to have alot of myths and legends following him courtesy of having a kind of personal pr man and biographer suitably named Hype Igoe who was responsible for stretching the truths about Ketchel to it limits. But basically Ketchel seemed to have little or no formal boxing training and lived life to excess. Ive always questioned how good he actually was as well as being a little perplexed as to why his acheivements rank so highly.

Certainly coming round to the thinking that Wilde shouldn't automatically be placed as the number 1 flyweight. As you mention, Chris, Genaro possibly has a stronger claim. As for his all time p4p standings, I find it next to impossible to start placing people once I get beyond the top 10. He's likely a top 30 fighter but I've no idea where.

The one that always bothered me was Frazier but following around three years of lobbying on 606 and on here, I'm happy to see that he's no longer uniformally placed in most people's top 10 heavyweights.

I know it's also been questioned on here before by some other posters, but I am starting to seriously consider Robinson's almost automatic placing as the number 1 p4p fighter. On balance though - it's hard to argue against because if you apply that level of scrutiny to his career, you have to apply it to everyone's career.

Wilde, Duran, Walker, Ketchel - all either murderous punchers or, at least, highly aggressive fighters who loved to 'have it' with the other man. A pattern emerging, perhaps? Supports even further my suspicion that fighters with crowd-pleasing, thrill-a-minute styles tend to be given a little more leeway than their more measured and technical counterparts.

P.S. somewhere out there Coxy is having a fit about Jimmy Wilde's record being questioned.

Please sir, can we bring on Julio Cesear Chavez for such analysis as well? I'm pretty sure many many many of his earlier fights were against Mexican sewer attendants or school janitors.

Ketchel is an excellent shout Manos, the other thing I would add is before his death Ketchel was on the cusp of signing to fight Sam Langford for his title, obviously pure speculation as to who would have won that but given Sam gave him absolute hell in their no decision fight whilst in second gear I know where my money would have been. Seems reasonable to think had Stanley dumped his title to Sam at 24 he may not have been held in quite such high esteem.

Think it is also pretty well known Stan lived pretty hard, hell have even read he had developed an opium habit before he died, given his lifestyle suspect had he not died his form would have tailed off pretty quickly. Obviously a lot of speculation and what ifs but do think in terms of standing dying young may have done Stanley a huge favour.

Controversial, Boon! The thing is, if you strip away all of Chavez's 'padding' fights with journeymen, he'd still be left with a seriously impressive world title career of some thirty-odd fights. Strip away Wilde's series of meaningless cakewalks, however, and that wouldn't be the case, or at least not to anything like the same extent.

A long reign at Super-Feather, a seriously impressive WBA / WBC double at Lightweight, and then seemed to reign for an eternity, only briefly interrupted by Randall, at Light-Welter. I'd say that, on a styles basis, he perhaps wouldn't translate such statistics in to great success when placed head to head with other legends between 130 and 140 lb, but in terms of career achievements I think Chavez is the real deal. A proper all-time great.

superflyweight wrote:P.S. somewhere out there Coxy is having a fit about Jimmy Wilde's record being questioned.

And the fact nobody has nominated Roy Jones yet should just about finish him off

superflyweight wrote:P.S. somewhere out there Coxy is having a fit about Jimmy Wilde's record being questioned.

Ha ha, I hope so, Superfly!

Oddly enough, it was an idle look at an old thread in which Coxy was doing his usual routine which prompted me to add some extra scrutiny to Wilde's record and all-time standing. Coxy and a couple of others were slamming Roy Jones (wo else?) for fighting 'bums' such as Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson and a weight-drained Toney while enthusing over Wilde's fantastic, legacy-busting victories over Young Zulu Kid, Sid Smith and Pal Moore.

I guess the thing about Ketchel is that he pretty much established himself as the main man in his division and compiled a pretty impressive record at middleweight prior to his early demise.

His wins over Papke and O'Brien particularly stand out and he was fairly dominant over the rest of the division at at time when fighters tended to have fairly inconsistent records and carried a few strange defeats. His ferocity and hiting power seem to have overcome any techincal deficiencies (rather like an early day Marciano).

88Chris05 wrote:Controversial, Boon! The thing is, if you strip away all of Chavez's 'padding' fights with journeymen, he'd still be left with a seriously impressive world title career of some thirty-odd fights. Strip away Wilde's series of meaningless cakewalks, however, and that wouldn't be the case, or at least not to anything like the same extent.

A long reign at Super-Feather, a seriously impressive WBA / WBC double at Lightweight, and then seemed to reign for an eternity, only briefly interrupted by Randall, at Light-Welter. I'd say that, on a styles basis, he perhaps wouldn't translate such statistics in to great success when placed head to head with other legends between 130 and 140 lb, but in terms of career achievements I think Chavez is the real deal. A proper all-time great.

Yeah I'm not the biggest fan of Chavez I will admit but 30 odd of his first load of fights were against dross. There's also something unsettling about the way he should have lost to Meldrick Taylor, despite the controversy. Had Taylor boxed rather than enaged so often he would have won no debate, the robbery of a draw against Whittaker. Being owned by De La Hoya. I don't think his H2H against to ATGs of his weight range division would have added up. At the very top level he loses to slicksters. Just sayin'.

Oh I agree with that point in general, Super D, as I alluded to. I think the fits that Taylor, Whitaker and Randall gave him is evidence enough that the likes of Mayweather, Locche, Duran and Benny would likely have worked him over somewhat, too. He was fortunate to fight in an era where his rivals tended to have styles which suited him, but even so, there's some real quality there; Martinez, La Porte, Uncle Roger, Lockridge, Lopez, Rosario, Ramirez, Camacho, Haugen etc. Going ninety fights in all before losing is an inflated stat, for sure, but going undefeated in your first twenty-odd world title fights, while going in with that kind of company, doesn't lie (even if he only escaped defeat against Whitaker via a bad, bad decision).

rowley wrote:Ketchel is an excellent shout Manos, the other thing I would add is before his death Ketchel was on the cusp of signing to fight Sam Langford for his title, obviously pure speculation as to who would have won that but given Sam gave him absolute hell in their no decision fight whilst in second gear I know where my money would have been. Seems reasonable to think had Stanley dumped his title to Sam at 24 he may not have been held in quite such high esteem.

Think it is also pretty well known Stan lived pretty hard, hell have even read he had developed an opium habit before he died, given his lifestyle suspect had he not died his form would have tailed off pretty quickly. Obviously a lot of speculation and what ifs but do think in terms of standing dying young may have done Stanley a huge favour.

Yeah his chief weaknesses were described as women, champagne, bright clothes, guns, fast cars and candy. My guess is training often took a back seat. Had he not died young it he doesnt strike me as the type that would have invested his money wisely and retired at the top. Chances are he would have had to keep fighting way beyond his best and ended up with a journeyman like record which probably would have really hurt his legacy.

Hagler is one who I don't rate as highly as others seem to. I've not seen every fight in his title reign but from what I have seen I've seen I often find myself underwhelmed. He struggled badly with Duran and Leonard when he had no business to be in hard fights given his size advantage over the pair of them and Leonards 3 year lay off. Also I'm convinced Tommy Hearns would have beat him had he chose not to try and trade with him, not Haglers fault of course but for me it does detract from the win slightly.

Hagler wiped out the middleweight division and the defeat of Hearns was pretty conclusive, all about opinion, seen most of his fights and great middleweight IMO.

Not untouchables, but I think: Hagler, Holyfield and Pacman are overrated because of their entertainment value.

Oh yes @Rowley:

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Its difficult and it depends on what criteria you use to rate the untouchables. There has been alot of talk of Marciano on the board lately, but his qualities were good enough to take him to the pinnicale of his era.

Another who shared these qualities (fighters spirit, desire to win, mental toughness, self-belief in the face of adversity, power etc) was Azumah Nelson. He is undoubtedly a great, but apart from the fact that he was an ultimate hard b@stard, he was very limited.

At times I am guilty of over-rating skill but guys like Nelson and Marciano give me a reality check. A combination of Heart, Stamina and Power are great equalisers. I have friends and family that rate Azumah immensely!

I'm not sure where 606 rates him?

Ok he was a tough son of a b!tch, but one of the greatest boxers ever?

Certainly not!

One of the Greatest fighters ever?

Most certainly!

Anyway if you's get a spare 58 minutes then watch this great documentary about him..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6fIc46B7sg

p.s. how do you do the spoiler thing?

Also, I can't argue with Monzons effectiveness but to me he is one of those guys where you think "if I was fit , I reckon I could take him, nothing special".

However, I'm sure many others thought this too......only to get smashed!

fearlessBamber wrote:Not untouchables, but I think: Hagler, Holyfield and Pacman are overrated because of their entertainment value.

Oh yes @Rowley:

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sorry bamber, I knew it was coming my only surprise is it took this long but as a great man once said all time greats don't get rolled like a drunk.

I think Mclarnin is slightly overrated in some corners. Having read Andrew Gallimore's 'Babyface goes to Hollywood', it is clear that whilst Mclarnin wasn't afraid of a challenge, he and old pop foster weren't afraid to negotiate fights in his favour, weight stipulations and all. He also fought a great many lightweights, despite settling at Welterweight in his prime years and has losses against many of the best names on his record to complement the wins (Ross, Mandell, Canzoneri). His win against villa is tarnished for obvious reasons. I wouldn't dispute Jimmy's greatness, and his destruction of Young Corbett III is up there with Patterson vs Liston in all time championship blowouts, but I nonetheless have seen him somewhat overrated at times on these boards.

Can I just start by saying great thread, thanks to Chris and everybody contributed so far. Don't really have much to contribute to whats been said previous as my knowledge of so far back is highly limited. But have enjoyed reading and found it very informative OP especially. Threads like this are one of the main reasons I am a member of 606v2.

But now for my input which will admittedly not be as well put across or informative as most of the above.

One person I just don't understand the rating of is as Bamber mentioned. Evander Holyfield... now while he is not particularly and ATG p4p ranked fighter he is nailed on #1 at Crusier and top 10 heavywesight for most.

Crusierweight ranking I can find no fault in and he is undoubtably a great of the division. But I just don't see where people get the top 10 Heavyweight from. To try and give him the fairest shot possible I tend to disregard everything from James Toney onward i.e 41 and up.

But even then his record at heavy still leaves a lot to be desired. sitting at 20-6-2 as a heavyweight. One of those draws should definitely be a defeat too.

Then taking in the fact that that record of 20-6-2 includes being 1-1 v Moorer who imo beat Holyfield more convincly than Holyfield beat him. 1-1-1 against a very average John Ruiz. 1-2 against Bowe who is consistantly ranked below him. Also 0-1-1 against Lewis which should of comfortably been 0-2.

Backed up by wins over a 42?? year old Foreman and 2 wins over Tyson which even when trying to give him full credit for I struggle to see how he could possibly even be ranked in the top 20 heavys let alone top 10.

And thats even giving him the benefit of the doubt in defeats to Chris Byrd and a rapidly expanding James Toney.

Please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong but I just don't accept Holyfield as anywhere near a top 10 or even 20 heavyweight.

Thats quite a good point Alan - think Chris pointed it out earlier - hes a ferocious fighter who elected to trade and thus goes up in our estimations.

Although I disagree with the point about Duran Curse you Rowley! (I was apoplectic therefore unable to respond earlier). Solely becuase Laing was fantastic when he wanted to be and the Narrow defeat to him wouldn't have looked quite so damaging had he not gone on a year long drug and alcohol binge.

Tyson gets let of a little for his buster douglas loss although recently its gone too far in the opposite direction - but at that night it could have been Holyfield or Marciano or maybe even Smoking Joe and he would have been battered senseless. Thats why I give a little leeway to duran on that - Dont get me wrong, whether or not he was past his best - Duran was still at that level and should have beaten him - but I do think Laings subsequent problems make it look much worse than it is.

I think though that fighters coming up in general are really in a no lose situation - they go up and get beaten by a fighter and its dismissed as loss to a too big fighter. Having said that - Tommy hearns was TOO big for Duran Pacquiao wouldnt even breathe the same air as Hearns and neither would mayweather though theyve both fought 150+. Its only because it was Duran they thought he might have a chance - owing probably to the ease with which he handled Cuevas and his courageous battle against the Marvellous one.

Sugar Ray Leonard for me. I get that he was a great fighter and all that but whenever I see him on an all time top 10 list I'm always a little surprised.

I also know that there's some quality names on his ledger but I can never see how a guy with only 40 fights gets to be ranked alongside Henry Armstrong and the original Sugar Ray. I wonder how effective Ray Leonard would have been if he'd fought in Robinson's era, fighting 10 to 15 times a year, for close to 20 years?

Thanks for the continued responses, lads. Some great stuff here. Alan, I think your points regarding Holyfield are excellent.

Mackem, you also make a very interesting shout with Nelson. I get what you're saying, insofar as Azumah sometimes didn't look all that special when you watch him in action. However, I'm more focused on a fighter's career achievements and records, rather than how bowled over they left an audience. All things considered, I think Zoomy is good value for the high rankings he tends to command.

He was definitely behind before stopping Gomez, but Gomez was hardly a patsy, even above his beloved 122 lb, and it's not as if the fight had been a landslide beforehand - he actually had Gomez looking gun-shy at times, and not many could manage that! After that, he was a pretty dominant Featherweight champion who never lost that crown in the ring, and wasn't that much less masterful as a Super-Feather, either - I'd say he's part of an elite foursome in the history of that weight class, along with Arguello, Mayweather Jr and Chavez Snr.

What's more, there's some serious quality which Zoomy accounted for in their own backyard; Fenech (seriously underrated, I think), Gomez, McDonnell etc. The beating he gave the hitherto undefeated Fenech in front of his fellow Australians was remarkable. The only time Nelson was really outclassed so to speak, or close to it, was up at 135 lb against Whitaker. He's deducted no points for that, as he was moving up in weight and because Whitaker was arguably the best Lightweight of all time.

Nelson's worth his place, I think.

Cheers for the response Chris, I can't really argue. He got the job done but doesn't blow my mind. What about my other choice...Monzon?

Atila you are a maniac! Leonard. Top 5 p4p.

I would echo the comments on Holyfield, while his record as a CW is pretty much faultless, I was never convinced of his abilities as an elite HW, and while a lot of people have him as an ATG HW, I don't. This is primarily due to the fact he never had a sustained period of dominance and of course the evan fields thing doesn't help. Having said that he was very entertaining.

Similarly I never rated SRL has highly as many fans/experts. I will readily admit that a lot of that might just be personal taste on my part (I still think he has a face you just want to slap), and I don't like how he made himself out to be some sort of mini Ali. His feats were impressive, particularly the hearns fight, but I without wanting to stir the hornets nest, I will never agree that he won the Hagler fight and think his idea to steal rounds by quick meaningless fluries was verging on cowardice rather than some sort of ring savvy or inverted rope a dope.

Leonard's a very tricky one in some respects, I admit.

As a pure boxing specimen, however, he's very possibly the most talented and complete all-rounder since the original Sugar Ray. He's lacking quantity in his record, but in quality there's very few who can best him. I still think that running Hagler so close after such a long spell of inactivity and fast living was a remarkable feat - to me, the biggest black mark against him was that a naturally smaller man was able to usurp him at his preferred weight. That said, inside-schedule wins over Benitez and Hearns are enough to make him a genuine top three in arguably boxing's greatest ever division.

Think I'd have him just inside my pound for pound top ten, to be honest, although the points against his inclusion are all valid, too.

reminds me of the thread where someone labelled robinson a ducker for not fighting the bmr... a large number of our more experienced and respected posters charged in on the bandwagon, before a reality check kicked in.

My pick for this (not to rile you chris!) is sal sanchez. Not that i don't think he was a great fighter because i do... just that it seems assumed that his good wins make him a shoe in top three feather, and some of his less brilliant work gets a bit airbrushed. There are a stack of guys whose careers looked stellar at 24 that didn't look quite as shiney when they finished. I just think that while sanchez had all the tools to go an and be what everyone else assumes, it's not the cast iron certainty often made out.

NathanDB10 wrote: but I without wanting to stir the hornets nest, I will never agree that he won the Hagler fight and think his idea to steal rounds by quick meaningless fluries was verging on cowardice rather than some sort of ring savvy or inverted rope a dope.

the bait is in the water and milky circles wondering whether to bite... reeled in hook line and sinker...
can't let this pass.

So, the natural welter who fought benitez, duran twice, an unbeaten kalule and hearns in his first 7 title fights was verging on cowardice for not going toe to toe with an all time great middle? Really?

Actually agree to an extent with atila, i think as chris has said its tough to rate someone whose prime was as short-lived as leonard's was. I consider leonard an all time great talent, but find it hard to know where to place him as an atg.

Milky you've never given ol sal a break - every chance you get you question him but I agree with you - imagine Naz had been killed at the absolute peak of his powers - apart from Alma dancing around in glee - we'd rate him as an all time talent and given him a rating that he perhaps wouldn't have deserved. I think Sal and perhaps others who have started a very promising career and had it ended abruptly i.e. not through lack of dedication/drive but accidents/illnesses get bonus points for what they might have done.

On a seperate note - how about Don Curry? Looked the business but got owned by an inspired Ragamuffin Man and didnt really do much after - a pre 90's Zab ? I always thought he quit in that fight - judging by his demeanour walking back to the corner in that last round and nothing afterwards has lead me to question that belief. Good silky skills and a left hook from hell but held in much to high a regard I think.

i wouldnt question him if he wasnt deified into the second coming

what are suggesting shah... a list of 'all time greats' in their early 20's whose star had waned a few years later? Where's truss when you need him for a top 10 list? Actually after your comments on curry, perhaps its best he doesnt show.

milkyboy wrote:

NathanDB10 wrote: but I without wanting to stir the hornets nest, I will never agree that he won the Hagler fight and think his idea to steal rounds by quick meaningless fluries was verging on cowardice rather than some sort of ring savvy or inverted rope a dope.

the bait is in the water and milky circles wondering whether to bite... reeled in hook line and sinker...
can't let this pass.

So, the natural welter who fought benitez, duran twice, an unbeaten kalule and hearns in his first 7 title fights was verging on cowardice for not going toe to toe with an all time great middle? Really?.

Like I said, maybe a lot of my dislike in regards to SRL is down to personal preference, but everyone seems to marvel at his technique of getting on his bike for 2:50 of a lot of rounds only to fire a quick flurry or two just before the bell. To me that is not boxing and should not be rewarded in the same manner as someone who forces the issue, looks to engage and then lands the more meaningful shots. Like I said in the above post, a lot of his victories were very impressive, I just don't go along with the Hagler fight being some sort of masterclass by SRL.

i dont know that anyone seriously calls it a masterclass nathan... but plenty give credit to it as an achievement. If hagler hadn't changed stance he might well have won, but i guess a lot of that fight boils down to whether you think haglers aggression was effective aggression. i didnt hence i had leonard winning a close fight

milkyboy wrote:i dont know that anyone seriously calls it a masterclass nathan... but plenty give credit to it as an achievement. If hagler hadn't changed stance he might well have won, but i guess a lot of that fight boils down to whether you think haglers aggression was effective aggression. i didnt hence i had leonard winning a close fight

Fair play mate, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Naturally because SRL got the nod people will point to it as an achievement and ergo as reason to include him somewhere approaching a top 10 P4P ATG. Personally I don't believe that particular argument.

I think sometimes it goes in the other direction too - not a criticism of you nathan as youve already acknowledged your dislike of him. But the fact that he was such a smug and irrtating arsewipe sort of is held against him. Much like Naz (again ) gets rated as a flat track bully when he more or less annihilated everyone who was just a touch under the elite and perhaps a little more desire would have seen him in the hall of greats.

As for Hagler Leonard - I think Hagler won narrowly but clearly - but really has no one to blame but himself. He was too busy trying to be clever to get the job done and put it beyond all doubt. Strange that Hagler should lose the verdict trying to be clever and for Leonard to demean his own legacy by seizing on post fight theories as proof of his own cleverness. Interesting psychologically also - we hate that which hate in ourselves but don't dare acknowledge.

As for Truss - the big man has gone to the rastafarians 606, but he'll probably read this an be frothing at the mouth - so nice to know some things are eternal

Don't get me wrong I fully acknowledge SRL was a very fine boxer, but for me is overrated, and I would use the Hagler fight as an example of that.
I have read people arguing that he could be rated over SRR! I also would say his longevity, or lack of it coupled with the repeated retirements could also count against him. I know some of those retirements were genuine due to his eye injury, but I think some of them were done for effect ala Haye, and that he was effectively playing with the public/fans as well as possible opponents for his own ends, which doesn't sit well with me either.

I think most people who put him at the top usually set high store by head to head analysis. He was amazingly talented therefore in any head to head he always has either a solid chance or is the favourite so he gets rated higher than he should be. I'm not sure if deserves a top 10 place and he definitley doesnt deserve the number 1 ranking

Duran does get a lot of harsh criticism compared to a lot of other fighters, the astounding thing for me is the stat that Chris posted going from beating the very very good Marcel and four world titles later some 46lbs higher than he started to beat the very under rated Castro is an amazing achievement. Combine that with his lightweight title reign where Buchanan and De Jesus were great champions to beating Cuevas, Palomino and the great Leonard at higher weights gives his record some impressive names.

I agree with much of the criticism of Leonard where his quartet of wins gets far too much credit compared to other greats, he's on the cusp of the top ten but just outside for me and would have the longevity and sheer top level consistency of Mayweather taking his number 11 position now.

Here we go again, rating boxers on thier record rather than ability.

Winning is all that matters when it comes to it, there are countless examples of fighters losing to fighters they have more ability than.

If infact boxing is the Sweet Science then variables need to be taken into consideration, as with any other scientific discipline.

Experimental results depends on variables, as too do boxers records.

Leonard is brilliant, the circumstances in which he got beat depend on variables such as age, weight and fight strategy..... but he is still brilliant.

Boiling water is hot, the temperature at which it boils depends on things such as altitude/pressure..... but it is still hot.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Winning is all that matters when it comes to it, there are countless examples of fighters losing to fighters they have more ability than.

Once again, that is not my point. Of course raw fighters win against skilled operators.

My point is you can't rate an untouchable on his record. Records are padded or depend opposition or other variables.