Twenty One Years Ago A Banner Year For Champs!

Top to bottom, without looking, I think I'd take that group in a team match against the champs from just about any other single moment in history. And if Sanchez hadn't gone all James Dean, it would be even better.

 

Damn, all those guys with the exception of the wonderfully entertaining Limon and Chandler and Castillo are legitimate all-time greats. That's pretty sick when you think about it. Well, okay Pryor as well...but he was a fine, fine fighter.

 

31 years ago. I wish it was only 21.

 

Imperessive stuff.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

With some publications this was true, not so KO, who had younger staff and weren't obsessed with talking about how Bob Fitzsimmons would have beaten Larry Holmes and the like. Most writers were careful not to rate 'active' fighters too highly- as they could have been one or two fights away from an embarrasing defeat. Duran was already rated in their all-time list, a year or so after New Orleans. In 1981 they compiled their "Best fighters of the past 50 years", which went like this- and was complimentary to fighters active or recently retired:

1. Robinson
2. Ali
3. Louis
4. Pep
5. Duran
6. Monzon
7. Marciano
8. Napoles
9. Saddler
10. Moore


A decent list, with four fighters either active or retired in the previous few years. In 1981 they also tried their first pound-for-pound ratings, something they would do regularly from 1985, as mentioned adopted by later Ring, thus:

1. Gomez
2. Leonard
3. Hearns
4. Hagler
5. Arguello
6. Benitez
7. Holmes
8. Sanchez
9. Saad Muhammd
10. Pedroza

If they'd have adopted their monthly pfp lists around this time, then Sanchez effectively he could have been #1 after beating up Gomez; my guess he'd have been 3rd after Leonard and Hagler.

As i'm on a (mini) roll, here's what I believe are the very first dedicted monthly pound-for-pound rankings, which were first done by World Boxing (KO sister publication) in January 1985.

1. Hagler
2. Hearns
3. Pryor
4. Pedroza
5. Spinks
6. Curry
7. Holmes
8. Camacho
9. De Leon
10. McCrory
11. Laciar
12. Arroyo

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Nice post Conteh. I really miss the boxing magazines. Around these parts, they have been off shelves for ages now.

As a kid, I used to blow my entire monthly allowance on boxing magazines like The Ring, KO, B.I. and World Boxing. (although KO and World Boxing had many 'spillover' articles which would sometimes make one or the other expendable if I was a bit short on cash.)

It's interesting to see De Leon so highly rated in a P4P sense back then.

 

Yes, the head-to-head's were good and seeing how often writers got it spot on, ahead of trainers (which was more often than not). Angelo Dundee had a 100% record in being right...and wrong (e.g. "Cooney early, Holmes late") . It was good when older guys like Don Dunphy and Ray Arcel, got to predict. Of course, if Ray Arcel said Dempsey could beat everyone he 'must' be right...just like he was in 1962 when he said Patterson would be too much for Liston. :hey

Great mag it was, just don't mention Jeff Ryan to SalSanchezFan. :yep

 

Same here mate. All those mags and Boxing News. I still see Ring, BN and Boxing Montly in most shops. I buy one now anad again...usually when getting on a train or plane.


Hope all is well with you mate...I'll drop you a PM...when Liverpool hit a bad patch.

 

I didn't mind Jeff Ryan...he and Farhood made a good team I thought. I think they had a Point/Counterpoint feature for a while either in KO or World Boxing, which was a good read.

I do think Ryan shot from the hip sometimes, and was too hard in criticism of certain fighters. Farhood was more reserved. But the one guy I literally couldn't handle was Jim Bagg. Useless waste of ink and paper.

 

Your pm's are always welcome in my inbox. :good

 

Re: DeLeon rating. I think it was a case of him being involved in a lot of world title fight activity for a long period, rather than him being one of the very best. In the 1981 poll list I posted, KO regarded him as the 2nd worst champion in boxing (after Antonio Avelar and ahead of Mike Weaver) so at least he'd changed opinions of his creds. Incidentally, they ranked the best chin in boxing as Hamsho's...best puncher as Hearns...best boxer Benitez.

 

I liked Ryan, I just remember he used the term 'dog' a lot to describe a fighter who, maybe, hadn't given his best, which wound SalSanchezFan up.

Ha ha, honestly, I was about to mention Jim Bagg in my last post. An absolute dick- he's generally criticise everyone and always referred to himself with a stupid name "The Baggster wasn't impressed; The Baggerino's bum of the month is..." The man was a berk. He'd probably be a good laugh to have a pint with, just not to read on a regular basis.

 

I think you've got it right with De Leon; he was nothing if not persistent. (Not the right word, but it'll have to do for now.)

Regarding Hamsho, Hearns and Benitez...all solid picks. I was shocked at how Hamsho could repeatedly take flush, hard shots from Hagler and not blink in their first fight.
Hearns and Benitez of course rank among the finest in those respective categories in history.

As a younger reader back then, I always found KO or The Ring easier to digest than B.I. which was I think in many ways more of a purist magazine. At least the B.I. I got to know, with Bert Sugar at the helm. Their ringside reports were top-notch and nobody could report on a fight in the same colourful way as Sugar.
In general, I found B.I to have better, more in-depth articles, especially about past greats, but I only really appreciated B.I. more as I got a bit older.