Top 3 fighters since Ray Robinson`s prime ????

Fair enough. To me, it looked like an impressive win on paper, but I always have to temper such opinions with the caveat that I was no longer a fan of boxing by this time. My tendency would normally be to withhold my opinion in such a situation, as I know little more about contemporary boxing than I do about cricket.

 

Ray's career could certainly be described as pithy. The flip side of course is that his competitive prime was shockingly brief compared to the others, especially when you factor in that he was never in less than top condition. (Ray always began his training camps astutely weighing underneath the weight limit of the division he was going to be competing in.) When he declined, he still had very little mileage on him. How important is longevity to you when making these considerations? Ray was 30 years old when he took on Hagler.

Monzon generated ten of his title defenses after he turned 30, and would remain champion for another five years before leaving on his own terms. His final two time victim was his successor, guaranteeing a minimum of one more year at the top if he had chosen to remain. (Could anybody have beaten him before the 1970s were up?)

 

in terms of raw ability, i agree

 

Longevity in general is very important,i mean great champions should be on top for at least five years in my book. I just have a soft spot for leonard,as 1) his top wins were soo great, and 2) his prime was truncated by injury,and questions of 'what could have been'? It is a bit dissapointing that despite little mileage on the clock he faded badly after duran 3.

 

All right. Let's say Ray hit his stride in 1979. He dethrones Benitez at the end of November that year. Bruce Finch came in mid February 1982, less than 27 months after Benitez. (Let's forgive SRL his dreadful outing with Kevin Howard in 1984.) You've got the controversial SD with Hagler in April 1987, a weight drained Lalonde over half a year later in November 1988 (where he has to get off the deck), the draw with Hearns in June 1989 which Ray admits Tommy won (and where Ray had to climb off the floor twice), and his 36th and final career win over an aging and smaller 38 year old Duran in December 1989, when he was 33 years old.

That rubber match with Duran came a little more than two and a half years after Hagler. Depending on when you think Ray first got on top, do you believe he reached your five years minimum criteria? (At this point, I do want to mention my belief that Ray probably would have stopped Tommy again had that match been scheduled for 15 rounds, as both SRL-Hearns II and SRL-Hagler should have been. But does Ray even get past Marv if 15 rounds had been the distance then?)

Bottom line: is Ray truly more worthy of rounding out your top three more than either Ali or Monzon, according to your own standards? (Keep in mind that SRL had a grand total of ten wins after dethroning Benitez, fewer wins than Monzon and Ali had title defenses.)

 

Your logic is near flawless duo. Its just my intuition about leonard,combined with a soft spot.
Where do you rank carlos among the great middles,and what do you think about a monzon jones match,over 15 of course!!!!

Ps: i think hagler leonard in both their 'nearer primes' in about 85 over 15 would end the same way.

 

Jesus, I wrote that post years ago, how is it still being flogged now??

I disagree - but then as a fan of Joe Calzaghe and Floyd Mayweather you call beautiful boxing what I call (in the case of Calzaghe) ineffective and inaccurate flurries or (in the case of Mayweather) dull over-cautious pot-shotting, so I think our divergence of opinion is deeper than any one fight or fighter.

 

I think winning the hagler fight after one fight in five years,13 pounds over his natural weight against an active champion atg really puts leonard in the rareified stratosphere,despite his lack of longevity.

 

Duran is a lock. The other spots are pretty close. Ali, Monzon, Leonard, Whitaker have the best arguments I think. Ali and Monzon would be my picks.

 

Monzon is my top middleweight. There is no controversy about the outcome of any of his championship performances, and he retired on top when he was clearly not washed up. Rationally, you look at Jones and can have trouble seeing how King Carlos could have coped with that, but he always, always found a way, especially early in his reign. He punched out fitness fanatic Emile Griffith in a war of attrition, and I suspect he would have gotten Roy out of there in the championship rounds (especially now that we know RJJ's chin is not exactly concrete). It's not really fair though to place Jones in a 15 rounder, as he was clearly geared for shorter distances, and 160 wasn't his best weight.

Ray more than proved himself over the championship distance, and he did obtain much quality experience against southpaw opposition when he took out Bonds and Kalule back to back in 1981, so maybe he had a better chance against Hagler than was commonly supposed after those contests. Too bad we never got to find out.

 

I too put monzon top of the 160 pile. I just thought it would be interesting stylistically to see jones v monzon. Monzons record at 160 is near flawless,and head to head he seems almost unbeatable. Oh well,im gonna sit on the fence...
At least i know and agree duran is a lock and the consensus number one on the list.

 

It does begin to seem as though you are more inclined to lock in Monzon as a top three candidate than Ali (of course Carlos is the one who has been dominating the discussion more). Can you favor Ray over Muhammad? Personally, when I contemplate the so called "aura of invincibility" it seems that SRL is the odd man out among the four. Prior to Montreal, it was written that Duran, our mutual number one lock, "may be invincible when in prime condition."

Nobody came close to defeating Ali in ten championship fights from 1964 to 1967. All ten successful title defenses of his second reign took place when he was past the age at which SRL posted his final win. (He was an iron man in 1975, and recorded four more defenses in 1976. This was a great, great fighting champion, who kept the biggest prize in sports out of mothballs, trotted the globe, and would take on just about everybody.)

Few people talk about who Monzon and Ali never took on as champions. So often, fans discuss Muhammad's decline when he defended against Shavers, Norton and Young in 1976 and 1977, but how often is it pointed out that his challengers (and Monzon's) were generally at their very best for the chance of a lifetime?

Robinson failed to finish against Maxim, while Hearns failed to finish against SRL in 1981. The difference? Robby had Joey beaten on points, while Tommy had an insurmountable lead on the scorecards. Between Montreal and the scoring in Hearns I, many would argue that Prime Leonard falls short of prime Monzon and peak Ali. (It also bears repeating that Muhammad lost the best years of his fighting life to politics and an enforced exile, while Monzon got himself shot. Does SRL's retinal tear and volitional hiatus compare to this?)

These are merely taps and shoves to determine just how firmly seated you are on that fence of yours concerning King Carlos, RC Leonard and The GOAT. Are you teetering, or fully committed to having your top three remain a top four? (It's all cool either way. Ray Charles Leonard is somebody few are indifferent to, and he'll evoke strong passions as long as boxing has fans. Paraphrasing Napoleon, "Fame is fleeting, obscurity, forever." Ray is surely not obscure, and maybe all he gives a damn about is that we're continuing to discuss him. Ergo, he wins.)

 

I'd say the same.