Fighters you are astounded are considered ATGs?

Trust me when i say no-one on this forum is going to feel insecure via anything you post.

 

You messed your quote up.

But what you "feel" about Bowe is neither here nor there for anyone else.

You reasoning boils do to that Leonard beating Hearns wasn't that big a deal since Leonard could beat Hearns, but Holy beating Bowe was actually a big deal because Bowe could beat Holy.

That's it. So now I will leave you to your own inane discussion.

 

Well, I rate Bowe very highly and you don’t, which appears to be the crux of the matter here.

I likely don’t rate Hearns as highly as most do either, so it should be pretty easy to see where I’m coming from when I say Bowe was a tougher prospect than Hearns. And I highly doubt I’m the only one who thinks that.

 

Spinks

 

Fair comment my friend but then you could say the same about a lot fighters.

 

When it comes to P4P ratings, I do not see the logic in isolating individual fights - one for Boxer A and another Boxer B - to compare and contrast the relative merits of those fights.

P4P ratings are more dependent on the whole career wouldn't you say?

I myself don't rate Leonard's win against Duran as highly as his Benitez or Hearns wins (or even his 'W" against Hagler), and if one wants to make the comparison you have made, then that's all well and good - you might even have a point - but, on its own, it doesn't serve to build a strong case against Leonard's 'greatness'. It doesn't change the fact that Leonard was facing proven Champions, while poor unproven Cooney was thrown in against Holmes.

Isn't subjectivity a big part of rating boxers, in general?

And, re Duran/Leonard II, I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as you are making it appear. One can hold that particular Leonard victory in lesser esteem than his other wins and not necessarily need to be in the school of thought you describe to hold that view. Likewise, one doesn't need to be in that school to consider the fight a significant contribution to Leonard's overall rating.

I am fairly sure I have not asserted Holmes beating Cooney doesn't count for much. It was a significant victory. But Cooney was not on a par with Benitez, Duran, Hearns or Hagler.

It is also interesting to see you imply that 'subjectivity' plays a big part in Leonard's rating and then rely almost entirely on subjectivity to define Cooney as a "signature win" for Holmes. In the latter case, one has no choice but to rely heavily on subjective assessment - and there is nothing wrong with that - but it does highlight how subjectivity works in all directions.

I've said all I need to about Hearns and, quite frankly, its Hearns' career record that does all the talking here. All I can add is that, if you want to focus on a single perceived issue to mark him down, despite his ledger, then - yes - you must be serially underrating Hearns.

Bowe simply doesn't have the career record to back up what you are suggesting. Moreover, factoring in "immense size advantages" to claim Bowe is "a better p4p package" is counterintuitive.

It seems to me that you are conflating the words "quality" and "exciting". Hagler/Leonard was a better quality bout, in my opinion because, as far as Holmes/Spinks I is concerned I tend to align with the late great Gil Clancy's comments:

"You know how they rate performances for football teams? The offense gets a B; the defense gets a C minus. Well, Spinks was a C fighter who beat a D fighter. He won because the other guy was worse. Holmes was so bad, and Michael was wandering around in there like a giraffe. All that stuff [referring to Spinks' training and nutritional regime] might be good ideas, but not off that performance."

 

interesting conversation.

not atg, but carmine basillio looks horrible to me. okay on the inside i guess, basically he looks and was ****

 

Clearly the latter. Alan Minter gave Vito Antuofermo a rematch 3 months after he won the title from him in 1980 too. Hardly earth-shattering that a Leonard-Duran rematch would happen 5 months later. In fact, Minter fought Hagler six months after winning the title too, with the Vito fight in between.

People take too much stock in the Leonard 'scheme' thing, influenced by a guy (Ray) who's been asked about this fight about a million times and seems to add little tidbits on each time. Just like he 'schemed' the 12-round limit vs Hagler, but Marv hadn't fought a scheduled 12-rounder since 1984 anyway, so far more is made of it ever since the event, again fuelled by Ray himself (among others).

Also, Duran was never compliant giving De Jesus more time in their rematch when Papa Benitez wanted to delay it. It was a case of fight then, in my country, in that heat, with all 3 officials from Panama- or don't. And if you're not in top shape, tough.

 

The point is, in this instance, you are focusing on just one fight each from Holmes' and Leonard's records, respectively - not their complete careers. If you disagree with the notion that P4P ratings rely on an assessment of a whole career then there is little else to be said on the matter.

All you are doing here is re-confirming your belief that Cooney was on the level of Leonard's opposition. Either that or you are making an isolated comparison which has little to no bearing on an overall P4P rating, i.e. Preferring one boxer's win over another boxer's win doesn't make the former boxer better than the latter. If you believe it does then, once again, your system of rating is too far off the mark for me to consider sensible.

Re the Duran/Leonard fight, I have already alluded to the fact that one can have a view which incorporates alignment with both the extremes you propound here. So, I am not sure why you are insisting on the matter being addressed in such absolute black and white terms.

I would suggest that your criticisms of Leonard have been delivered with the explicit intent to count against Leonard's greatness and, in turn, bolster that of Holmes, Holyfield and Spinks.

Did you not state:

"Ray Leonard is simply a fan favourite rather than a genuine p4p god like Larry Holmes"?

No. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I think you are placing way too much value on what is essentially a false dichotomy.

But that's a matter of opinion, as is your assertion that Cooney is a signature win for Holmes, and an opinion doesn't become objective just because you put the word "objectively" in front of it.

So the point stands. Subjectivity works in all directions for all assessments. It is not something of a special feature applied only to assessments of Leonard.

Have an opinion by all means, but a credible rating of fighters P4P is based on a ledger of actual results. The eye test is not a convincing substitute.

Hearns has a superior ledger to Bowe because, notwithstanding his losses, he fought better competition and added some superior wins. Ergo, Hearns is the greater fighter.

This is an absolutely horrible argument.

Disagree all you like. Spinks was unimpressive in the eyes of many and Holmes was viewed as having had an awful fight.

That Holmes put on some better latter-career displays doesn't change what happened in '85.

A tricky customer Spinks might have been, but Holmes didn't look good in the rematch either - just improved from their first encounter (which isn't saying a lot) and he still won in eyes of the clear majority of sportswriters and spectators.

It's strange that you suggest both Holmes and Spinks as stacking up well against Leonard any yet choose to highlight the fights that likely rank among their least impressive performances.

 

Oh Lord. Loma was being matched with Duran and more for a bit there.

 

Marvin was robbed that night

 

I agree except for Golovkin. He was extremely dominant over middleweight for many years, and he should have gotten the Canelo wins. I can't fault the guy for the judges not raising his hand. He has a crazy number of defenses and pretty much beat the best middleweights of his day.