Floyd or Duran - Most skilled?

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

IBRO's

Updated September 2006**
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali (Tie)
4. Joe Louis (Tie)
6. Sam Langford
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Willie Pep
10. Bob Fitzsimmons
11. Joe Gans
12. Ezzard Charles (Tie)
12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)
14. Jimmy Wilde
15. Eder Jofre
16. Mickey Walker
17. Archie Moore
18. Jack Dempsey
19. Jack Johnson
20. Gene Tunney

Just missing the cut: Stanley Ketchel, Barbados Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Ike Williams, George Dixon, Sandy Saddler, Roy Jones Jr., and Larry Holmes.

At least they have the first few right. Then comes Joe Louis who should NOT be tied with Muhammad Ali.

[Hands of Iron]

It's alright and everything I guess -- I'd have Ezzard Charles in the Top 5 really. Johnson and Dempsey just look wildly out of place. Over Ross and Canzoneri? Why? For what good reason?

[Leonit]

Originally Posted by elchivito

I love both SRL and Duran, but I don't buy the SRL hogwash about him fighting the wrong fight. Like many great fighters of any era you choose, Ali, Leonard, and today, Floyd, you will see they have always adapted to the most dire of situations and mostly come out on top. THEY ALWAYS FOUND A WAY TO WIN against other great fighters. That's what seperated them from the rest. Leonard no matter what he could of done was not going to beat Duran that night. Not Hearns, not Mayweather, not anyone was beating Monreal Duran that night. Duran at his very finest, period. Before that night or after you can make a case of him being beaten, but that night he was destined to boxing immortality. You can thank his hatred for SRL at the time which fueled him even more.

It's like Pryor from the Arguello fight or Hagler from the Hearns fight. Combination of a great fighter being in his absolute physical prime plus having a point to prove.

[tezel8764]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

Yeah, he wouldn't.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY5F0p53ezQ[/ame]

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by tezel8764

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcgpf6TK39c&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcgpf6TK39c&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

[SJS19]

Hmm.

[Hands of Iron]

You're not late or anything.

It's okay, SJS. We know how you feel and accept you for who you are.

[SJS19]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

You're not late or anything.

It's okay, SJS. We know how you feel and accept you for who you are.

You are one of the nicest Mexicans I have come across.

[Hands of Iron]

[Vanboxingfan]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

It's alright and everything I guess -- I'd have Ezzard Charles in the Top 5 really. Johnson and Dempsey just look wildly out of place. Over Ross and Canzoneri? Why? For what good reason?

Well there are a couple of valid reasons why this isn't so perposterous.

One reason might be this. Nate Fleischer. He viewed both Johnson and Dempsey as better fighters than Louis. I'm not saying I agree with him, but that was his opinion. Also consider this little tidbit:

===================================================


In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] The sportswriters of the first half of the century named Dempsey as the greatest fighter they had ever seen. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

====================================================

Now the arguement goes, those who are challenging the rating of Dempsey downward and revising Louis upward, never actually saw both these fighters fight. Most of these writers actually saw them fight, and in Fleischer case, he saw all of them fight, ringside. That's Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Marciano.


But this is a side topic from the thread, I posted it maining to enlight posters that the lightweight division is deep and to just throw a couple of named such as Mayweather and Chavez and label them the greatest is an injustice to the history of the sport.

[Hands of Iron]

Dreadful stuff.

[tezel8764]

Floyd Mayweather Jr. - King of Kings

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by Leonit

It's like Pryor from the Arguello fight or Hagler from the Hearns fight. Combination of a great fighter being in his absolute physical prime plus having a point to prove.

I disagree with this. Arguello and Hearns weren't at their best at 140 and 160; more like fourth and third respectively. They went up to meet those guys and lost -- Leonard is a definition natural welter. Duran overcame more than Pryor or Hagler, and Leonard's better than both Arguello and Hearns at their best weight, much less where those fights took place.

[JMP]

Can we shut this thread down? The answer is Roberto Durán Samaniego - clearly - which is saying something given Mayweather's brilliance. Watch the damn fight films. Watch their entire careers. Watch their best performances. Assess the level of opposition they're facing at their best and the different facets (and the depth/quality of those facets) they show when dealing when them.

Cool? Good? Okay, let's move on.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by JMP

Can we shut this thread down? The answer is Roberto Durán Samaniego - clearly - which is saying something given Mayweather's brilliance. Watch the damn fight films. Watch their entire careers. Watch their best performances. Assess the level of opposition they're facing at their best and the different facets (and the depth/quality of those facets) they show when dealing when them.

Cool? Good? Okay, let's move on.

Would you really put Dempsey and Johnson over Ross and Canzoneri?