Originally Posted by Hadrian
I'm going to say this one more time as clearly as possible. If we are considering oppenets as much as has been posted thus far, the criteria should be: The opponents level (all time great, great etc.), where the opponent was in his career-because I could have beaten the Ali that fought Berbick, how succesful/convincing was the win. On that basis, INMO SRL beat 2 possibly 3 fighters which qualify. Benitez, Hearns 1 and maybe the infamous NO MAS Duran 2. NONE of his other fights were decisive wins against top level opponents in- or near- their prime. I will bump him higher for the first Duran fight which he-barely-lost. But Ayube kalube, Donnie and Marie Lalonde and co. are not up to snuff. Jones beat a prime hopkins a prime Toney, won a heavyweight championship and beat a lot of other tough rugged big men as well as some good lighter weight guys. I'm not saying RJJ had better oposition than SRL....but it is not as far as some of you make it out to be. Which brings up another interesting question- why do sports fans-boxing especially-always seem so stingy about awarding credit to people of a current era, particularly in relation to those from the past?
So lemme see. Hagler who was undefeated for 10 years and was coming off huge wins over the likes of Hearns & Mugabi is supposudley shot in comparison to the likes of Ali vs Berbick? Yet at the same time, A green hopkins is supposudley prime and Toney who was weight drained is also prime. This has nothing to do with old vs new era, if this was I would say Mugabi rates higher than Hopkins. Its just a case of one having greater accomplishments and happens to be a fighter from 30 years ago. Were not naming a fighter from 100 years ago either.