Top Five Greatest Fighters Ever

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I do stand by that comment. I think any champ should aim to unify all title claims.

I've got to sympathise with Luf, here, K. Frankly, unification bouts have always caused me to have a pugilistic nerdgasm. And they always will. When Donaire signed to fight Mathebula, recently, many said "Oh, no! God, no! Sweet baby Jesus, no!" and I said "This is great! " Importantly, I have worked very hard to speak in ESB emoticons. And I have succeeded. Thanks to reading "The Secret".

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Kittikasem

I'd argue that you are wrong. One win over Cuevas (27-6), 3 title defences against B/C list fighters, and a stoppage loss to SRL does not justify the description of a "welterweight great", same as Shane Mosley isn't a lightweight great. I'd have no problem with anyone saying Hearns is one of the top 5 ww's ever h2h; in fact, I think that myself. But because he looked great there doesn't translate into saying he earned/proved greatness, because he didn't.

I think you and Vic are thinking that I'm saying resume is the only factor though; I'm not.

Saying "resume above all" is not the same as saying "only resume". I consider resume by far the most important single factor, but I do take other things into consideration as well.

And that's our main difference because his greatness isn't questionable to me.

I understand exactly what you mean which is why i'm focusing on the fact I give achievement equal weighting. I'm highlightin the cases of strong achievement and weak resume as that's the difference for those I think are great (john l, hearns) whilst you disagree.

Mosley was never really better than the wbc guys at the time and they mixed at a higher level despite not looking as quality.

[Kittikasem]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

And that's our main difference because his greatness isn't questionable to me.

I understand exactly what you mean which is why i'm focusing on the fact I give achievement equal weighting. I'm highlightin the cases of strong achievement and weak resume as that's the difference for those I think are great (john l, hearns) whilst you disagree.

Mosley was never really better than the wbc guys at the time and they mixed at a higher level despite not looking as quality.

A title win, 3 defences, and a stoppage loss = strong achievement???

I don't think so.

You are rating Hearns at welterweight on the basis of Hearns as the fighter he proved to be through all weight classes across his whole career, which is bogus IMO.

Well, either that or you're rating him as a proven great welterweight because of one win over a top guy, 3 wins over mediocrities, and a stoppage loss he looked good in. This is a very dangerous road to go down - where does it end?

Is Manny Pacquiao a proven great light-welterweight because he obliterated one of the best lww's of his era there?

You have to draw a line between 'looking good there' and proving good there. Hearns was an h2h monster at ww and fully merits recognition as such. But he simply did not prove to be a great welterweight in the same way as many others who had many more meaningful wins there.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Kittikasem

A title win, 3 defences, and a stoppage loss = strong achievement???

I don't think so.

You are rating Hearns at welterweight on the basis of Hearns as the fighter he proved to be through all weight classes across his whole career, which is bogus IMO.

Well, either that or you're rating him as a proven great welterweight because of one win over a top guy, 3 wins over mediocrities, and a stoppage loss he looked good in. This is a very dangerous road to go down - where does it end?

Is Manny Pacquiao a proven great light-welterweight because he obliterated one of the best lww's of his era there?

You have to draw a line between 'looking good there' and proving good there. Hearns was an h2h monster at ww and fully merits recognition as such. But he simply did not prove to be a great welterweight in the same way as many others who had many more meaningful wins there.

he proved himself to be the second best of the Leonard era which is a massive achievement in it's own. he destroyed a hof fighter in one of the best performances the division has ever seen. he built a reputation as one of the best fighters to weigh within 147.

his resume isn't piss poor neither: Cuevas, Finch, Gray, Weston, Curry, Muangsurin, Espada, Primera, Shields - Leonard (L).

all in all I have him number 19 as a WW.

Jones Jr breaks my top 10 as a LHW also.

[Kittikasem]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

he proved himself to be the second best of the Leonard era which is a massive achievement in it's own

This is just hyperbole. It is not a "massive" achievement to beat Cuevas and a couple of routine challengers. Come on. In a discussion of the greatest ww's ever, that obviously isn't a "massive" achievement.

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

all in all I have him number 19 as a WW.

Well, that seems fair enough to me. Not sure if I'd have him that high as have never bothered to make a top 20 or so for ww, but that doesn't seem too outlandish. His win over Cuevas was excellent, his performance against Leonard showed some considerable skill, and he was convincing in his ww title defences, few that there were.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Kittikasem

This is just hyperbole. It is not a "massive" achievement to beat Cuevas and a couple of routine challengers. Come on. In a discussion of the greatest ww's ever, that obviously isn't a "massive" achievement.



Well, that seems fair enough to me. Not sure if I'd have him that high as have never bothered to make a top 20 or so for ww, but that doesn't seem too outlandish. His win over Cuevas was excellent, his performance against Leonard showed some considerable skill, and he was convincing in his ww title defences, few that there were.

well our definition of massive differs obviously

it's good the subjective nature of our sport, the way two people can see the exact same things yet see something totally different

[turbotime]

Safest bets against peers or other atgs :

Ray Robinson
Roy Jones
Ray Leonard
Cassius Clay
Pernell Whitaker

[PetethePrince]

Glad to see Fitzsimmons back to being overrated. Armstrong has an argument as the GOAT, let alone top 5. Charles, Benny Leonard, & possibly Pep all have better arguments to be ranked ahead of Louis and Fitzsimmons IMO. I'll respect those that disagree strongly on the latter. Actually, I'd probably rank Mickey Walker ahead of Louis.

I think Vic is right in that Joe Gans gets overlooked far too often. I'm not sure he's top five but he certainly isn't rated in enough peoples top 10 or 15's. I feel similarly about Benny Leonard too.

[he grant]

Originally Posted by Seamus

All factors included, pound for pound, record, legacy... all of it.

Harry Greb
Sam Langford
Sugar Ray Robinson
Robert Fitzsimmons
Joe Louis

Who else can the argument be made for to fit into this utmost top echelon. Armstrong comes to mind but a relatively short prime hinders him just enough. Ali certainly has a case. Duran has a case in my mind but again comes up just short. I don't think the dust has settled enough on the fighter of the past 20 or 30 years to properly place them but I suspect none qualify to threaten anyone in this group.



Thoughts?

It's a great list ...

Langford to me is tops on any
Greb
Robinson
Fitz
Charles
Gans
Johnson
Ali
Louis
Leonard

[turbotime]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Glad to see Fitzsimmons back to being overrated. Armstrong has an argument as the GOAT, let alone top 5. Charles, Benny Leonard, & possibly Pep all have better arguments to be ranked ahead of Louis and Fitzsimmons IMO. I'll respect those that disagree strongly on the latter. Actually, I'd probably rank Mickey Walker ahead of Louis.

I think Vic is right in that Joe Gans gets overlooked far too often. I'm not sure he's top five but he certainly isn't rated in enough peoples top 10 or 15's. I feel similarly about Benny Leonard too.

PTP!

[lora]

Hearns was matched very competitively on the way up at Welter.He cleaned out most of the fading-but still decent-former top contenders\fringe contenders\prospects, top ten men and some fighters from 140 that you would expect a prospect to be matched with.

Definitely true he's more of a h2h man that someone who gets in from fighting a whole era's worth of Welters.Leonard and Duran are the same.

[El-Mafioso]

1. Duran
2. Ray Robinson