Alexis arguello or carlos monzon?

Hagler had the far better smaller men, obviously Leonard and Prime Hearns, but Duran is clearly more accomplised at 160 than Napoles/DLH. Its only natural you'll have more problems if the comp is tougher

DLH while P4P not as good is far bigger than Napoles and was experienced above 147, where as it was Napoles first fight. Would 34yo Napoles even beat Vargas? 154lb Mosley? Sturm?(DLH didnt). WOuld Napoles beat Valdez? Briscoe?

The reason I include 175lb wins is because we are discussing the 3rd greatest fighter in the last 40years, hence resume as a whole are to be included, not just MW wins

I'm certainly not convinced Valdez is the best Natural MW of the lot, hes quite limited in his boxing skills, I could certainly see Holmes/Roldan/Taylor outboxing Valdez. Anterfermo-Valdez would be interesting

How would you see Hagler/Hopkins, doing against: Napoles, Griffith, Benvenuti? I don't see them having any problem. I think Hopkins/Monzon would have problems with Hearns/Leonard/Duran though

 

Yes. Duran, Leonard, Hearns are better on average than Griffith, Napoles, Benvenuti or DLH and Tito.

Monzon had both, quality and dominance albeit iover slightly inferior opposition. Hagler had only quality but lacks dominance. Hopkins had dominance but lacks quality.

Yep, I think Napoles would beat all of them. I think he would knockout Vargas and Sturm. He wouldn´t beat Valdez or Briscoe.

Hopkins the third greatest fighter of the last 40 years? Yeah, right after Mayweather and Jones right?
We were comparing their mw reigns, so no the fights above 160 are out.

Valdez-Antuefermo would be interesting indeed. But Antuefermo would be stopped on cuts. Valdez actually was fairly skilled, he was hittable but had a good chin and if Briscoe doesn´t knock him out neither of those does.

Does it matter? All speculation. I don´t rate on speculation. I stated this many, many times on here.


I´ll keep answering you as long as your posts are on the level. When you start getting all idiotic again I´ll start posting pictures of clowns as answers. :deal

 

No. Your example is irrelevant. Obviously, dominance isn't going to be important in rating two fighters when one has an astronomically better record than another. Duh. It's the cases when their achivevements close that it starts to become important.

Yes.

I disagree strongly.

Perhaps.

 

Roldan outboxing Valdez?.

C'mon, Roldan's whole style was based around marching straight in and winging clubbing bombs at you(and he was good at it).He never made any attempt to outbox anyone.

Valdez had very good skills from the waist up imo.Didn't use his jab consistently well, but otherwise strong in most areas.Slipped and countered very well.Top combinations and offensive ability.

His footwork was probably his biggest issue.Not terrible by any means, but he didn't like chasing fighters.Same category as Eubank and toney there.

 

I'm aware. He had the frame to move up without giving away size to his opponents. He was a huge Featherweight, a very big Super Feather and a good sized Lightweight. He even filled out nicely at 140. Then again he only beat Rooney before losing to Pryor at that weight. I don't think beating Kevin Rooney gives cause for rating someone higher on the basis of their weight travels, even if he were legitimately bigger, which he clearly wasn't.

Not to mention moving up 4-5 pounds between weights is a lot less of a hurdle than moving up 15 pounds.

 

But Top 5 lock all time LMW? What has he done to be ranked above Kalule, Norris, McCallum, even Jackson? And that's without mentioning top tier guys like Winky, Hearns etc.

I don't get what the point of this is. That's a pretty dismal excuse for a loss, if it's meant to be one. It also doesn't explain away his defects on film - he has these issues vs. Griffith, for instance. It probably explains why his talent might not have been fully realised.

Well I see no good reason to think that they were right in holding him in such high esteem. I think it was another assumption that the boxing community makes when it has a new champion. Fighters' defects regularly get overlooked when they hit the top - Pavlik getting exposed by Hopkins, Margo getting exposed by Mosley: the historical record is rich with examples. People were trumpeting Tyson's potential for a ten year reign at HW before the Douglas incident.

How many Heavyweight title defences have the Klitschkos made?

 

1. I don't think its close, I think Leonard/Hearns/Duran are a long way ahead of the other 5 mentioned, Leonard/Hearns even had success at higher weights and were prime, the only other prime fighter is Tito who is nowhere near as good

2. All 3 were pretty dominant, Hopkins from 94-05, Hagler 79-87, Monzon 70-77. Bare in mind Hagler/Hopkins arguably beat Taylor/Leonard to boot, not in my view but in many peoples they did. So Monzons reign is shorter, would Monzon have not lost if he fought Hagler in say 78?

3. Pretty speculative though, Napoles is massively undersized above 147lbs, hes small at 147 as it is. He never fought above 147 before or after

4. A few (which I believe included yourself), stated Monzon was top3 P4P in the last 40years hence the full resume comparison. I would disagree and yes Duran, ALi, Leonard, Whitaker and yes Mayweather, Jones make my top 6

5. Yes I think Valdez may win that, but it would be close, I prefer Briscoe to Valdez myself. Reckon Minter might UD Valdez to

6. When you compare eras it does matter. We know Ali's competition was better than Larry Holmes for instance, hence he gets rated higher

 

I rank McCallum and Hearns above him. Winky and Norris too. Jackson and Kalule not. Griffith perhaps.
Thinking about it he probably isn´t a lock for the Top5. Still a great jmw.

Again what does this take away from him. And again my question you still haven´t answered, if he was so limited like you described how was he able to beat guys like Griffith and Rodriguez? Actually his wins over Griffith are better than any single win Hopkins had during his whole career - no I´m not argueing Benvenuti above Hopkins.

Tyson had the potential to do so. He just lacked the mindset. So sad
You have a point here.

Vitali: none, he was considered the best hw after Lewis retired but wasn´t the champ.
Wlad: one. He is champ since his win over Chagaev, made one defence since.

 

Well Arguello went up 14lbs, which is a much higher percentage of a fighters bodyweight

Monzon was massive at 160 and would be big at 175 imo

 

Nah, I don´t think so. Napoles and Leonard are pretty even. Griffith isn´t that far behind. Griffith is the best mw of them thouhg by a distance. He is arguable Top10 at that weight.

Yep, all were pretty dominant. Monzon over the best competition of them.
Monzon´s reign is shorter? Yeah, that´s why he has the title defence record and not one of the others. :roll:

Napoles beat Griffith. At welterweight but Griffith was a much better mw than any of them and I don´t think it would look different at mw.

I think Monzon, Duran, Ali were the greatest fighters of the 70s. P4p I rank Leonard above Monzon. Whitaker arguably. But no way Mayweather or Jones. I ignore those two as nuthuggery.
My mistake I thought you referred to Hopkins. We were still comparing their 160 career.

What has this to do with speculation about the outcome of fights? :huh

 

who happens to be a top ten all time great, who was strong as a bull at welterweight and had grew into the division and had recently came of one of his greatest performance against a former welter world champion. it was also only Leonard 24th fight.

I hate when people use that line, like Durans was just some blown up midget.

 

Right.

A combination of being bigger, Griffith being past his best, a stylistic advantage and, to his credit, fighting to an intelligent game-plan (clinching effectively, not opening up too much - although that could just be his nature rather than something he did consciously).

Indeed.

Wow. Ok, well you're consistent then. You have very high standards concerning what it takes to be a champion.

 

You should keep the purpose of the post in mind. It was highlight that Leonard lost a fight to a guy moving up. Monzon never happened that. When somebody moved up to fight him, he even got stopped most of the time.

 

In what way?