Which Boxers were lucky\unlucky in regards of timing?

[Gesta]

Which boxers would you concider to be lucky or unlucky in regards to timing of their timeline? eg. Hearns could be concidered unlucky to be around the same time as two of the best guys in their divisions, being Leonard and Hagler etc...

[Leon]

Charley Burley has to be the unluckiest.

[Jorodz]

great thread!

i think hopkins is a victim of a shitty middleweight period. the same could be said of holmes and to an extent roy jones at light heavy

jerry quarry could have been a champ in another era but was competing in the deepest heavyweight division in history

bobo olson had the misfortune to compete in an era where he had to routinely fight robinson for the middleweight belt...losing every time

and valdez could have been great had monzon not been there

[Boxed Ears]

I think you could definitely say that about Hearns, good call. He'd have ruled with no mercy over most welterweight eras, I'd bet. I hesitate to call a fighter just lucky, because it feels like I'm slagging off their achievements, but it is clear to me, a guy like ODLH, who I respect a lot as a fighter, would've either stayed at 140 if an SRL was at welter or he would've failed moving to his fourth weight class. Or a Cotto for instance, had he moved to 154 and there was one guy with a strap and it was Terry Norris. Etc.

[Gesta]

Originally Posted by Jorodz

great thread!

i think hopkins is a victim of a shitty middleweight period. the same could be said of holmes and to an extent roy jones at light heavy

jerry quarry could have been a champ in another era but was competing in the deepest heavyweight division in history

bobo olson had the misfortune to compete in an era where he had to routinely fight robinson for the middleweight belt...losing every time

and valdez could have been great had monzon not been there

Agree with all, I think that Roy might of been a bit lucky to be in a weak LHW era and to be able to win a HW belt but unlucky not to have better comp' at MW\SMW where he looked to be close to unbeatable, might of gotten some big wins.

[techks]

Ezzard Charles. He would've been one of the greatest light heavyweight champions ever had he been given the shot as the belts were frozen during his prime due to war. He was past prime against Louis and though he won, he was coming after the great Joe Louis which people tend to overlook those kinds of fighters(for ex. Larry, like mentioned, would have got more recognition had he not come right after Ali). Mccallum deserves a mention as he never got that "big chance" until he was past prime(beating Julian was very good though).

[Gesta]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

I think you could definitely say that about Hearns, good call. He'd have ruled with no mercy over most welterweight eras, I'd bet. I hesitate to call a fighter just lucky, because it feels like I'm slagging off their achievements, but it is clear to me, a guy like ODLH, who I respect a lot as a fighter, would've either stayed at 140 if an SRL was at welter or he would've failed moving to his fourth weight class. Or a Cotto for instance, had he moved to 154 and there was one guy with a strap and it was Terry Norris. Etc.

You don't think that OLDH would of taken on Leonard?, I think that he would lose anyway, he did take on a prime Hopkins.

[Jorodz]

Originally Posted by techks

Ezzard Charles. He would've been one of the greatest light heavyweight champions ever had he been given the shot as the belts were frozen during his prime due to war. He was past prime against Louis and though he won, he was coming after the great Joe Louis which people tend to overlook those kinds of fighters(for ex. Larry, like mentioned, would have got more recognition had he not come right after Ali). Mccallum deserves a mention as he never got that "big chance" until he was past prime(beating Julian was very good though).

good post and i think we'll see some interesting responses to the war era issue. for 3.5 years the belts weren't available and how many fighters were hitting their prime?

on that note, ali was unlucky to be around during vietnam and taking a stand. 67-70 he would have been even better...and considering he's the greatest heavy of all time that's saying something

[techks]

Originally Posted by Jorodz

good post and i think we'll see some interesting responses to the war era issue. for 3.5 years the belts weren't available and how many fighters were hitting their prime?

on that note, ali was unlucky to be around during vietnam and taking a stand. 67-70 he would have been even better...and considering he's the greatest heavy of all time that's saying something

Ezzard is one of my fav light heavyweights along with Saad and good point with this. I do agree that Ali wasn't the same fighter after the exile but he was still a smart fighter and still had enough talent to continue his success. I have no problem with people putting Louis over Ali but in a H2H matchup, that would be interesting.

[ecto55]

.............

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by Gesta

You don't think that OLDH would of taken on Leonard?, I think that he would lose anyway, he did take on a prime Hopkins.

What I said was he "would've either stayed at 140 if an SRL was at welter or he would've failed". I didn't say whether I thought he'd try or not.

[tommygun711]

Marciano. People question his opposition and how he would do against big heavyweights.

[Son of Gaul]

Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry


Also, teleport Frazier into any other era(except the 90's) and he'd probably go undefeated...

[Jorodz]

Originally Posted by Son of Gaul

Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry
Jerry Quarry


Also, teleport Frazier into any other era(except the 90's) and he'd probably go undefeated...

i'm not a genius, but i think you're a quarry fan....

[Boxed Ears]

Personally, I feel that in the modern era, Quarry's skin would be treated with a graphene coating or be interwoven with Kevlar or something.