Originally Posted by Bill Butcher
Whats wrong with you ?... seriously
Wtf does consistency have to do with anything in a 1 off fight at their MW best ?
Im talking both at their best, on top form, respecting the opponent & coming in 100%.
Since we are on the subject, Robinson never showed any inconsistency until the Turpin fight, his 1 loss in over 120 odd fights came vs a MW Lamotta when Ray was a WW, Ray won the series 5-1 & stopped Lamotta in their last & most important fight for the MW title... that version of Robinson beats any version of Hagler because he was just outright better, thats what Im saying.
Please tell me Ive been clear this time ?
So you are saying that you are picking your greatest fighter of all time, based on what they did (or were capable of doing on their very best night?).
Okay, that is a different proposition to what I have thought, so yes this time you may have been clearer. To be clear, Buster Douglas rates much higher under this system. Jimmy Braddock, i presume, also comes right up into calculations on a pound for pound basis on your list. Still, irrelevant, but i guess we have the criteria you are talking about right.
I agree that Ray vs Hagler is a close pick them fight. I have said this, even though i think Hagler will knock him out. In fact, Hagler vs Turpin, Lamotta possibly even Servo or Levine might also be close fights where Hagler certainly isnt 100% guaranteed to win. (Same with Duran, Hearns etc by the way). Hagler has the better record at middleweight. He is the stronger fighter, has the better proven chin, is naturally bigger, while i havent checked, i assume he does better on tale of the tape and reach but coudl be wrong. In fairness, Sugar has probably an advantage in technique and in speed certainly.
As i stated with regards to inconsistency, i am talking only in the company of all time greats. Ray was not inconsistent compared to mere mortals or even lower top 10 middleweights. By inconsistent, i am also talking in delivering results also, not necessarilly performances, since (like for example Ali in fight of the century) Rays "inconsistent" performances were actually still very good performances that most fighters would not be capable of putting in.
My problem with Ray is not that he wasnt great, because he clearly was. It is just that he wasnt as outstandingly great compared to other great fighters as many people think. Strangely enough, i think that a lot (though definitely not all) of this has to do with the media and his promotion in it as the greatest of all time. His wonderful welterweight record (which again doesnt suggest that he outclasses every other welter that ever lived, though he very well might) helps his middleweight record immensely when it perhaps should not . As a middleweight, he was the best fighter of his time but he was nowhere near as dominant compared to say Monzon, Greb, Fitzsimmons or Hagler in each's own time. If you want to say he is greater than these then you have to rely on your own vision, favourtism and instincts and invent critera such as i think he would beat these guys on his best night.