Bert Sugar's 100 Greatest Fighters(What Do You Think?)

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Why these 3?

All great great fighters. But just a to high for my liking and especailly when they are higher than the likes of Whitaker, Monzon, Hagler, Foreman, Ike Williams etc.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

McLarnin was a great fighter. But he was inconsistet and didnt have dominanat title reign. Lets not forget Ring Magazine didnt even have him in there top 50 fighters of the last 80 years.

The ring 80 of the last 80 was pretty horrible too.


McLarnin beat guys like Lou Ambers, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Young Corbett III (most impressive 1 round KO of all time IMO), Pancho Villa.

George Foreman beat Joe Frazier and Ken Norton.

McLarnin's second string wins were more impressive too. The comparison is embarrassing.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

The Ring's list was only marginally better. How exactly do you come to the conclusion that McLarnin was inconsistent? On a ratio of number of fights in comparison to quality of opposition he has probably the greatest resume of all time.

He would win a big fight, lose win, and some of his biggest wins, he also lost to that fighter.

Sorry I don't think he is a top 20, and thats my opinion. But why isn't anyone saying about why Bert dosent have Monzon, or Whitaker so low, who were both better fights than McLarnin.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

All great great fighters. But just a to high for my liking and especailly when they are higher than the likes of Whitaker, Monzon, Hagler, Foreman, Ike Williams etc.

Napoles and Griffith are right on par with Williams, Hagler, and co., and far, far above the likes of Foreman. What is it about Foreman that has you rating him so highly in a P4P sense? He'd make my top 100, but honestly not too much higher.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by McGrain

The ring 80 of the last 80 was pretty horrible too.


McLarnin beat guys like Lou Ambers, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Young Corbett III (most impressive 1 round KO of all time IMO), Pancho Villa.

George Foreman beat Joe Frazier and Ken Norton.

McLarnin's second string wins were more impressive too. The comparison is embarrassing.

Ross and Canzoneri also beat Jimmy do, which I feel takes some shine off them wins as they beat him to. And lets not forget, Jimmy lost to some pretty medicore fighters like Ray Miller, and Doc Snell.

His wins were good, but if you done a list only on resume of wins Jimmy Bivins would be a top 10. But he isnt because you have to include other things.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

He would win a big fight, lose win, and some of his biggest wins, he also lost to that fighter.

Sorry I don't think he is a top 20, and thats my opinion.

I have arguments with myself about whether he should be top 20 or not, partly for the reasons you describe. Also, he tended to be the bigger fighter, and his blown first title-shot does bother me. But he's above Foreman and Holmes. On any sane list.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Napoles and Griffith are right on par with Williams, Hagler, and co., and far, far above the likes of Foreman. What is it about Foreman that has you rating him so highly in a P4P sense? He'd make my top 100, but honestly not too much higher.

I don't have Foreman extremely high. But I do rate him.

Foreman's Resume Of Wins.....

Joe Frazier (29-0) x2
Ken Norton
Chuvalo
Lyle
Qawi
Cooney
Micahel Moorer(35-0)

I'd say Foreman's resume is pretty impressive.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

Ross and Canzoneri also beat Jimmy do, which I feel takes some shine off them wins as they beat him to. And lets not forget, Jimmy lost to some pretty medicore fighters like Ray Miller, and Doc Snell.

His wins were good, but if you done a list only on resume of wins Jimmy Bivins would be a top 10. But he isnt because you have to include other things.

Ray Miller was an excellent fighter from what I can gather, a real tough.

I agree that you have to include other things, too. But McLarnin is one of the most proven fighters in boxing history at the highest level.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I have arguments with myself about whether he should be top 20 or not, partly for the reasons you describe. Also, he tended to be the bigger fighter, and his blown first title-shot does bother me. But he's above Foreman and Holmes. On any sane list.

I respect your opinion. But I feel Holmes had the more domiant title reign and was the more consistet fighter which makes him the better fighter.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

He would win a big fight, lose win, and some of his biggest wins, he also lost to that fighter.

More like, he would win a string of huge fights in a row in impressive fashion before finally conceding one to only the best fighters in the game, whom he'd also beaten on either previous or subsequent occasions. You're telling me you detract from his career for losing to the likes of Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Billy Petrolle, etc? All fighters he also beat? The only fighter he ever lost to that he didn't rematch and beat was Lou Brouillard, as he only faced him the once.

Sorry I don't think he is a top 20, and thats my opinion. But why isn't anyone saying about why Bert dosent have Monzon, or Whitaker so low, who were both better fights than McLarnin.

We're not discussing Sugar's list in this argument, but rather your disagreements. Everyone is in agreeance that Sugar's list sucks. I also don't think it's a given that either fighter is absolutely greater than McLarnin, whose resume blows either fighter's away.

Also, your earlier point about his lack of a title reign doesn't really make much sense, especially when you consider that the same applies for Sam Langford and Ezzard Charles, both fighters you claim Sugar rated too low. Both seemed a lot more inconsistent than McLarnin as well if you look at the numbers.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Ray Miller was an excellent fighter from what I can gather, a real tough.

I agree that you have to include other things, too. But McLarnin is one of the most proven fighters in boxing history at the highest level.

I agree that Jimmy was a brillant fighter, but i dont think he was top 20. And is no were near as good as the likes of Monzon or Whiatker.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

I respect your opinion. But I feel Holmes had the more domiant title reign and was the more consistet fighter which makes him the better fighter.

But being consistent against B-level is not difficult for an ATG. Holmes didn't even match the very best of his HW era. Jimmy matched the best of an absolutley stacked era in multiple weight classes. NOBODY could have fought to his schedule and been consistent.

Consistency as a benchmark of excellence over level of competition is deeply, deeply flawed. It would make Omar Narvaez (excellent fighter, unbeaten, consistent, great title reign, shity competition) p4p higher than Sugar Shane Mosley (inconsistent, always fighting the best, no great title reign) currently.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

I agree that Jimmy was a brillant fighter, but i dont think he was top 20. And is no were near as good as the likes of Monzon or Whiatker.

He might not be as good as Monzon and Whitaker (I agree with you that he wasn't) but he is more proven at the highest level than either.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

More like, he would win a string of huge fights in a row in impressive fashion before finally conceding one to only the best fighters in the game, whom he'd also beaten on either previous or subsequent occasions. You're telling me you detract from his career for losing to the likes of Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Billy Petrolle, etc? All fighters he also beat? The only fighter he ever lost to that he didn't rematch and beat was Lou Brouillard, as he only faced him the once.

We're not discussing Sugar's list in this argument, but rather your disagreements. Everyone is in agreeance that Sugar's list sucks. I also don't think it's a given that either fighter is absolutely greater than McLarnin, whose resume blows either fighter's away.

Also, your earlier point about his lack of a title reign doesn't really make much sense, especially when you consider that the same applies for Sam Langford and Ezzard Charles, both fighters you claim Sugar rated too low. Both seemed a lot more inconsistent than McLarnin as well if you look at the numbers.

Don't compare Langford to Jimmy. Most of Langford loss record is due to throwing fights and having to carry fighters due to not wanting them to scare away, whole different situation. Langford could be the best of all time.

Charles was pretty consistet and should of been the LHW champ for years. He was more consistet than Jimmy and was the better fighter!

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

Ross and Canzoneri also beat Jimmy do, which I feel takes some shine off them wins as they beat him to. And lets not forget, Jimmy lost to some pretty medicore fighters like Ray Miller, and Doc Snell.

His wins were good, but if you done a list only on resume of wins Jimmy Bivins would be a top 10. But he isnt because you have to include other things.

Miller was one of the biggest and most feared punchers of the era. A fighter who, once again, McLarnin bested in their rematch. The Snell loss can pretty much be coughed up to "shit happens", as he proved on numerous other occasions that he was capable of beating far higher quality fighters. He was also just 19 at the time of that defeat, I believe. If you're going to hold that loss against him, how about Armstrong's losses to guys like Al Greenfield, Charles's losses to guys like Donnie Fleeman, Langford's losses to multiple bums, etc. etc. You can point out a minor inconsistency on any fighter's record. It doesn't detract from what they accomplished, especially if their hiccups were so few and far between as McLarnin's. Almost all of his lossses came to the very best, fighters he also beat.