Seems like the best way to do it. Who and when do you think he should/could have fought to deserve a higher placing?
The best win out of all of these is Trinidad by a large margin. He was not simply coming up in weight but a genuine tour de force, and was favoured by most to tear through B-Hop as he had everyone in recent years (laid waste Vargas at 154 before it was fashionable; ending th promising career of 154 titlist and Olympic Gold medallist David Reid, blasted out Joppy in his part of the tournament to declare a unified 160lb champ, B-Hop beat Holmes on points to grab the WBC) and Hopkins put on a clinic, the first, and only man to halt Tito (and the first to officially beat him, IMO Oscar won 115-113. but regrdless of your thoughts Tito was technically undefeated), who was hard as **** and P4P one of the most dangerous propositions of the last 20 years, even at 160. This win pushes B-Hops resume much higher IMO. It's the kind of defining win Floyds resume lacks. In terms of taking into consideration the application of skillset in fights, B-Hop is also on another technical level to all others in hiss respective choice of weightclass(es). So it's down to pure resume really, and B-Hop has the edge there in my opinion :thumbsup
Hagller then Hearns rematch at 160 (or even 154 for Hearns) then back to 154 for Mugabi, McCallum and then Curry around 1986. Back to 160 for the post Hagler mob of Graham, Olajide, Tate etc and a 3rd fight with Hearns. Tough schedule but its a fantasy thread!!
Good list, I wouldn't argue over any of those guys really. Moore has made my top ten on numerous drafts, I would personally hold Charles in the top bracket, but I can't argue with the fifth placing ;-) :good This. He usually sits inside the top 20 or at the 20th place, never lower. It's not particularly hard to make a case for him to be top ten either, whilst he lacks depth, those wins over the greatest 135lber of all time, a top 5 147lber of all time, and arguably (well, IMO definitely) the greatest middleweight of all time, as well as being the first man to beat a (still fairly interested ) Benitez, as well as stopping Kalule, a tricky man for any Elite level fighter and that CANNOT be underestimated, even Ray looked a bit ragged until he got the punches off late, as well as a solid level of B-wins (sparking Price in one, Green, Lalonde, although I barely rate it due to the terrible circumstances atsch) sees Ray actually gain credit for packing so much into so little number of fights. He obviously scores very high on attributes as well. Leonard is arguably deserving of a top ten place. But NOT greater than 'The Ghetto Wizard' :good
The likes of Langford (and Gans for that matter) are really tricky. They are universally held as great fighters but because of the situation at the time you are left guessing just exactly how good they were.
Yeah! Shame Curry at 154 around 1985 couldn't have happened when Don was dominating 147 and looking to move up but seeing not much value and a lot of fight in Mike McCallum at light middle and electing to stay at 147 for too long.
I know what you mean. I am a little hazy on some aspects of Gans' career, and the times make him a hard fighter to judge, but there is enough quality work in there, as well as being THE WORLD CHAMPION and being so formidable, it's impossible not to recognise him as a fighter of some repute. With Langford, I think he still managed to build what we can see is a quality resume. Almost by luck, the only fighters that would go anywhere near him at Heavyweight (McVea, Jeanette, Wills) were amongst the best HWs of that time. As well as practically being the Lightweight champion, if not for a lb! His resume reads like a who's who, and he scores well for attributes in some of his losses (being about a Welter when going the distance with Jack Johnson, who punished him down the stretch) so, I find Langford pretty easy to gauge really. As well as there being a bit of footage of him. A 5'6 guy who faced ATGs at lightweight (W15) welter (D15) Middle (W KO2; ND 6) as well as facing some top notch Light Heavyweights and going tit-for-tat with all the top Heavyweights not called Jack Johnson! I find it much harder to get a true gauge of Gans personally, maybe with that extra bit of insight I would rate him nearer to McGrains list? I know 'Elbows' McFadden was quality, and I know Jack Blackburn was superb! But I know little of the context of those wins, have never really delved too much into newspaper reports of Gans, it's just what I've heard about him over the years, rudimentary knowledge of the quality of his opposition, as well as having decent accounts of his fights with McGovern (don't know where to stand, why did he keep getting up for one?), Langford, and a bit of footage of him.
True. I think Ray can keep Don from stalking and timing him, he can break any timing he gauges, and most importantly, has the chin to withstand those sharp, sharp bombs. If Curry had moved up undefeated though, our perceptions of him going into a fight with Leonard at 154 would be insane! It would be ranked right up there with Rays best, and rightfully so. Curry looked capable in his fught with McCallum IMO, that definitely took the last of his zest. If he'd moved up before Honeyghan, I imagine his confidence going into a big fight with Ray would've made for a very intriguing matchup!!!!
One internal dialogue I always have when ranking is: 'just why do I continue to rank Jofre>>>Harada?' :think
I'be got a pretty big backlog of reading to do but my next 3 boxing buys will be Greb, Gans and Langford books. I love reading about those eras, crazy times. The only problem with those type of books is that the authur can fall in love with the subject a little and you get bias creeping in.
Those wins over Jofre are massive for that reason. Arguable 3-weight World champ, solid resume.....and those two wins :yep
If Leonard hadn't given it away in '82 how would you imagine his career panning out? Hagler immediately, maybe x2? Hearns again? Benitez again? Curry McCallum Mugabi Would have been one hell of a post-147 slate.