Part I: Classic's Consensus P4P Top 10 Inclusions

and that would put charles, robinson and wilde at the top...i just feel that we need to do this just to make sure that the real skill of a fighter would really show against other greats..i hate it but i put saddler #1 h2h FW...

 

My HW h2h list

ali
louis
lewis
holmes
liston
foreman
jackson
tyson

 

I really like the canvas level-footage of Liston-Patterson I that you posted a while back. It really shows how very accomplished Liston was at his peak (or at least near it). How I would love to see him against Louis and Tyson. Of course, Frazier-Marciano wouldn't be half bad either.

 

ive always thought to do a really good top 10 P4P you have to rate the top 10 in everyweight then a top 10 of weight jumpers then a top 10 P4P

 

My comments are directed mainly to Bokaj, but they goes generally to the posts that include Leonard in the top ten. Sorry for being so longwinded. I will try to be more brief in the future.

Fighters sometimes lose just because of punches. Other times it's because of fatigue, poor officiating, injury, illness, cuts, etc. Sometimes is a combination of these factors. The reality of the boxing ring is complicated and discussions of it suffer from interpretations that are self-serving rather than objective.

Leonard's punches were not what brought Hearns down in that fight. Leonard wasn't doing very well in the fight, as you may recall. In fact, he was getting outboxed. The main reason for Hearn's downfall was fatique and a referee who jumped the gun.

Hearns lost. Leonard won. We all know this. It goes down in the record books as a referee-stopped-fight. Yet the dynamics of the fight are important, too, and, as with all referee-stopped-fight calls, one needs to look at the circumstances and not a number in a record book. Objectivity requires looking at all the facts, not interpreting events in order to pump up one's favs.

At the very least, the fact that Leonard was being so thoroughly outboxed by Hearns goes directly against the claim that he was maybe the best Bokaj ever saw. The best we have ever seen is not videotaped losing to a boxer who we wouldn't put in the top ten. (He also isn't the boxer we see with his back to the ropes for 15 rounds in a losing effort to a lightweight.)

However, I did misread Bokaj's point about 15 rounds in terms of specifics, and I apologize for that. Still, the fact that Hearns went 15 with Benitez at a more comfortable weight shows that under proper conditions Hearns had no problems going 15 rounds with a master boxer who carried a punch. Benitez was a great boxer. Does anybody disagree with this?

If, as Bokaj claims, Leonard was more shot than Hagler, then this would explain why he couldn't beat the old man. But the evidence indicates something more profound: Leonard with considerable skill remaining couldn't really get past a shot fighter in Hagler.

He also couldn't get past a shot Hearns, tasting the canvas twice and rarely - just as in the first fight - able to reach Hearns. True, when he did reach Hearns we saw how shot Hearns was, but then Leonard couldn't put Hearns away. I imagine had it been scheduled for 15 rounds the referee would have again been saving Hearns? I doubt it.

For those who don't think Hagler was shot, that's maybe because they didn't see him on the canvas or helpless against the ropes.

But fighters do shot in different ways, and how they do shot typically reflects the character of their careers. I can think of no boxers that took a better punch than Hagler (perhaps some equals, but none better). He took bombs from arguably the two hardest punchers in middleweight history and kept coming. Hagler's shotness doesn't show up here. Hagler's shotness was exposed by poor timing and an inability to pull the trigger, which were always his ticket to power. He looked like he was swimming not flying through the air.

I didn't want to see Hagler in this state. He is one of the best ever and it pained me to see him missing so many shots, firing punches when his prey had moved well beyond range, being turned around, etc. Hagler was not one to be fooled, and Leonard was pulling every trick in the book and many of them were working. It was like watching Ali at the end of his career. It was a difficult to see.

It must have driven Hearns crazy thinking about his prospects against this version of Hagler instead of the version he faced in 1985. If Hearns had approached a rematch with boxing in mind, having learned his lesson about overtraining (his legs were shot for the Hagler fight), he may very well have won a rematch. He had the skills. Hagler no longer did. Hagler's best years were far behind him.

At any rate, the contours of Leonard's career don't speak well of the man Bokaj claims to be maybe the best he ever saw. Leonard was a great. His greatness was at the level of a Benitez. But Leonard wasn't great at the level needed for a top 10 list. If you include Leonard, I don't see why Benitez and Hearns can't be candidates.

 

The point about people seeing Charles as a heavyweight and evaluating from that perspective is an excellent one!

Charles started as a middleweight and was really ideally a light heavyweight. Had he stayed there our evaluation of Archie Moore would be very different.

People like to talk about Michael Spinks' accomplishment. Although Charles wasn't the reigning light heavyweight when he won the title, he was the best light heavyweight - probably in history - when he won the heavyweight title.

Ezzard Charles was amazing. He's a lock in my view.

 

MrMarvel, you're so longwinded that I didn't read your post thorugh.

But here it goes again:

Leonard had Hearns in severe trouble several times during both their fights. In the second one Hearns didn't look like he would have lasted 15, and as for blaming his loss in the first one on the ref... That's just not serious.

As for Leonard's fight against Hagler... Just look at Ali and Tyson what a long lay-off does. And neither of them moved up in weight to take on a dominant champion. There's just no way getting around that this was a great win for Leonard.

If you think Hagler should have won I've no problems with that, but it was a great perfomance in any case. There's a reason that the commentator goes towards the end of the fight: "Nothing like this has ever been done before in boxing history, win or lose". (Personally I would rank at least Duran's victory over Barkley higher, but you get the point.)

As for Leonard on film: His ability to turn into a predator when getting outboxed is one of the things that makes him great. He outboxed and outfought Benitez, frustrated Duran (and did a good if losing job of brawling with him), outfought Hearns, and outboxed and out-thought Hagler. What more can you posssible want from a fighter? He showed that he controlled every aspect of the game against the very best.

 

"Leonard wasn't great at the level needed for a top 10 list" ...but Roy Jones was?!

That is an untenable position. To say the least.

 

It would in my opinion reflect rather poorly on this fine forum if "Ruby Robert" and "the Old Master" are not considered for the mix.

Did these men really engage in a different sport just because they retired before the Roaring Twenties? I would say not at all.

Both were complete Queensberry packages, with sterling records, polished skills, amazing success through the divisions and rightfully have always been considered all-time pound-for-pound titans.

Maybe?

 

Too many newspaper decisions, too little oversight, too many shady dealings that we can't trace very closely, too many rounds, too much wrestling... and frankly their skillset is 2 parts primitive and 2 parts adapted to what was essentially a different sport. I can't do it. I see them as pioneers and/or folk heroes. There are exceptions -including Gans, but I can't pick and choose based on personal preference. They're essential guys, but the vast majority of boxers from that era would have been fodder in the golden era.

 

Fine. But in this case, shouldn't you also discard Sam Langford, whose glorious career certainly spanned an era mostly prior to your Twenties cutoff point?

And perhaps Jack Johnson, who kayoed Burns to become champion in 1908, was improperly considered at heavyweight, then?

 

Jofre sure as hell doesn't belong if you're giving Hagler and Leonard no chance.

 

Given the criteria:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Roberto Duran
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Benny Leonard
6. Barney Ross
7. Mickey Walker
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

Back and forth with Duran and Charles, but in the end I just decided that Duran was the better fighter, even though Charles beat a more stacked list of opponents. You could also throw Pep in at the #10 spot.