Fighters you are astounded are considered ATGs?

I think most are in ,and those that are not will be in time.lol

 

Fine post!

 

Greb.

Hear me out - not that he's an ATG (his ring record is stupidly Super Saiyan crazy) but that many place him above SRR and Hammering Henry Armstrong with no footage whatsoever.

Of course, I rate him but I've seen SRR, Pep, Armstrong, Duran, Jofre, Charles etc. I'm not even saying that his ring record isn't fantastic but I'm not pushing him into no. 1 without footage to analyse for myself.

I don't take historian views overly seriously these days as I've realised through my own scrutiny of tapes, an awful lot of so called experts don't know what they're watching, don't know how to describe it and certainly just repeat long repeated nonsense that the film immediately shows as being wrong.

Absolute ATG but I don't and won't bother to debate his ranking as the top of the tree.

 

Very close fight vs an all-time great, who he embarrassed in the rematch.

Hearns would be a nightmare for virtually every welter that ever lived and Leonard still beat him when both in/close to their primes. Turning it on in Rounds 13 and 14 was something else. Great stuff.

Hardly a robbery on Whitaker-Chavez, Lockridge-Gomez or Ocasio-Qawi levels. Not even a robbery at all. Even if he lost a close one, it would have still been a great comeback. Superb fighter Leonard, a genuine ATG, no doubts.

 

How do Holmes' wins over Ken Norton and especially Gerry Cooney compare to Leonard's wins over Duran, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez? I wouldn't even rate the Cooney win over Leonard's victory over Kalule. They're outstanding wins and signature wins, sure. But not remotely on that level. Signature wins aren't created equal - and Leonard's short-list of signature wins are so special and indicative of top-tier H2H prowess, that it (1) outstripes plenty of greats who have more depth and filler and (2) boosts him higher in the rankings.

 

The Gerry Cooney who came in against Larry Holmes was a seriously tough night out for any heavyweight in history. Cooney is very underrated and wrongly remembered for the Spinks and foreman fights. He won rounds and was genuinely competitive against arguably the best heavyweight champion ever, and Larry himself likely puts it best when he says any other fighter and Cooney would have been champion. It was a great great fight and Holmes proved how champion he was, taking and beating all top comers, unlike Leonard, who was soundly beaten by Duran in his first serious defense as champion. Maybe I’m wrong for putting high value on the mentality and dominance of a champ beating all comers like Holmes, and NOT Ray Leonard who lost his championship straight away.

And the Norton win is very underrated. Larry Holmes simply does not benefit from making an ugly mess of things in his fights like Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard did.

Of Ray’s signature wins, the only convincing one is Benitez, the weakest fighter of the lot. If you believe the stories, he needed all kinds of scheming to beat an unprepared Duran, and even then Duran (imo ingeniously) quit and never gave Ray the chance to beat him properly lol. Prime for prime they are 1-0 via competitive but clear 9-6/10-5.

Against Hearns, Ray was a way down on the cards and only got his win because the guy he was against was a fighter packing pure glass and poor survival skills. If Hearns had a good chin, he wins about 12-13 rounds, a sign that Ray’s actual boxing skills of outjabbing a bigger man, getting inside a top jab etc, are lacking.

And the ugliest mess of all was the Hagler split decision, where again he may have needed all kinds of scheming, favourable judging, an unconvincing (but great) performance where he’d likely never have won over 15.


On the contrary, the display of hand speed, ring generalship, heart and conditioning over 15 against Norton would easily be the career high performance of both Ray Leonard and Ali. Ali himself could NEVER get a hold of Norton simply because he was not as good as Larry Holmes. Compare the performances. Totally different class. Fact. And Norton was a hell of a boxer as well (Ali would never have beaten him over 15) so I’m more than happy to rank prime Norton with Hagler, Hearns wins etc simply because he was such a nightmare for boxers and Holmes did such a fantastic job.

And reduce the weights what not and have a p4p equal fight with Ray and Larry and Holmes jabs his head off all night and there will be no late comeback stoppage for Leonard because Larry is no Hearns packing pure glass.

Ray Leonard is simply a fan favourite rather than a genuine p4p god like Larry Holmes. My favourite fighter is actually Evander holyfield and I see the similarities with Leonard of the Lazarus esque comebacks, razor thin decisions to build up these signature wins, which Holmes doesn’t benefit from because of his consistency and dominance in the ring. And whilst I’d rate Evander Holyfield as one of the greatest fighters ever along with Leonard, I can admit deep down that Holmes is a class above.

Oh and if it wasn’t already clear that Larry Holmes was flat out a better pugilist than Ray Leonard, Holmes schooling of Mercer and effort against Evander Holyfield at 42, compared to the slop Leonard served up post Hagler should be very very telling.

 

Truth stings. Larry Holmes was a greater/better fighter than Ray Leonard.

 

Rest assured it's not me that's been stung by the post.

 

I am shocked and confused.

Beating Benitez is a fine, fine win, let alone Duran (nobody forced him to eat and come into the ring in the condition he did in No Mas).

I have never heard anybody argue that being behind on cards to Hearns, who hit harder, had better reach and equivalent handspeed is a sign that Ray wasn't a master boxer. Very few fighters outside of the Rays would be capable of stopping that version of Tommy at welter.

Beating Hagler post detached retina, after being out of the ring for so long - if you could write a script about how to cement greatness in such a short span of fights, Stallone woulda copied what Ray did.

I don't want to hear about his politics as Hagler did what he had to do to get his big payday and virtually every big fighter has negotiated things to their favour, whether it be purse, rounds, glove size etc. If Ray was so poor, how is it that he holds victories over four ATGs?

 

Yeah just another Ray basher among many. We've seen it week after week, month after month and year after year. There was so much else wrong too but it would take 2 hours to address........for nothing. Leonard for me is a top 20 fighter all day long.

 

Couldn't have said it better--spot on!! (If Marciano fought in the golden era of the 70's at least 4-5 fighters in the HW division could've beaten him.)

 

Good choices. Thin resumes, and especially in the case of Pryor, not much time at the top. He gets a huge amount of mileage for beating a creaky Arguello.

 

Did you just compare beating Benitez, Hearns and Hagler with friggin' Cooney?

Bowe is not on that level either and Holy is 1-2, arguably 0-3, against him.

Spinks beating Holmes is great but most of your other comparisons range from poor to hideuos.

 

Red Rooster doppelganger?