Bert Sugar's 100 Greatest Fighters(What Do You Think?)

I totally disagree with that. Whitaker and Monzon were much MORE consistet and than Jimmy, and both were not beaten in there prime either.

 

Sure. How about all the other great fighters my point applies for, then?

Charles lost a higher percentage of his fights than McLarnin, which makes him less consistent. And believe it or not, McLarnin in his prime was actually facing and beating a higher level of opposition consistently than Charles, or pretty much any fighter I can think of, for that matter. Charles's edge in the resume department is due to his larger number of fights, nothing more.

You need to re-think your stance on McLarnin.

 

That's because neither fighter faced anywhere near the opposition that Jimmy was consistently facing. What don't you understand about that statement? How do you consider losing to fellow all time greats like Ross and Canzoneri a black mark on one's record, especially when he also beat them? Your arguments are very fragile.

 

Whitaker and Monzon fought no were near the oppostion? WHAT???

Whiatker fought Nelson, Chavez, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Vasquez(53-1),

Monzon fought Napoles, Benvanuti, Grriffith x2, Briscoe,

 

I feel Jimmy was to inconsitent and never had a dominant world title reign and most of his best wins, that fighter also beat him.

He wound't be in my top 20. And I feel Monzon, Whiatker, Hagler, Foreman, Holmes, Leonard, Charles, and Archie are all better fighters.

And am not my own really guys, Ring Magazine have some good writers and they didnt even have him in there top 50 and had Holmes, Foreman, Monzon, Whiataker, and Hagler all higher than him.

 

As if I'm unaware of their accomplishments.

Let's compare that to McLarnin's resume, shall we?

McLarnin beat: Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Lou Ambers, Young Corbett III, Pancho Villa, Bily Petrolle, Kid Kaplan, Bud Taylor, Sammy Mandell, Sammy Fuller, Benny Leonard, Joe Glick, Sid Terris, Jackie Fields, Fidel LaBarba, etc.

You wanna try again?

 

If rating's should be done on soley wins, Jimmy Bivins would be a top 10. But other things have to be taken in consideration to.

 

Ring had Khaosai Galaxy in their top 40 and Jack Dempsey/Johnson in their top 10. That should tell you enough about their list.

You haven't proved McLarnin's inconsistency at all aside from simply making the statement. Any fighter that has ever fought would take a few losses against that caliber of opposition. Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri are both probably top 20 ATG's in their own rights (Ross arguably top 10) and McLarnin faced both men multiple times. Of course he's going to rack up a couple of losses in the process. The bottom line is, he was always able to come back from adversity to conquer his foes in rematches, no matter what the caliber of opponent or the manner in which he was defeated in the first bout.

Again, your arguments don't hold water. You need to re-think your stance.

 

We've been through this already. It appears that you're trying to detract from McLarnin's achievements based on the fact that he lost a few fights to some of the very best fighters of all time, all of whom he also beat. That doesn't make much sense to any even-minded person.

 

You need to rethin your stance. Jimmy was inconsistet FACT! His wins over Villa and Leonard should mean to much either as Leonard was shot and Villa was ill.

He did have some great wins, but most of his wins, that fighter also beat him.

You ever laced on a glove? and actually boxed in a ring?

 

True, they were still good wins, though. Just not as good as they could've been. He was not inconsistent at all. He lost a few fights here and there, but ONLY AGAINST THE BEST OPPOSITION, all of whom he would later beat in rematches. An inconsistent fighter is one who regularly phones in performances or loses to less than satisfactory fighters, while at other times competing with the very best. He was a fighter who occasionally lost only to the very best in competitive matches. You have no argument here.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. I'd just give it up if I were you.

Yes. Remind me what that has to do with anything at all?

 

Johhny Farr the best oppostion....:huh

Who BTW defeated Jimmy

 

That was a 19 year old Featherweight Jimmy yet to hit his prime. And again, I could point out minor inconsistencies like that on the resume of pretty much any fighter you care to mention. You're intentionally missing the point and grasping at straws. End it now. Trust me, you're doing yourself no favors by being exposed as a stubborn ass on your first day here.

 

That whole list is **** from #3 down. As soon as I saw Pep at 3 I knew what I was in for.

I can't even begin to say how I'd rip that list apart. It's like he just pulled names out of his straw hat.

 

Don't you think Pep should be that high?