Fighters you are astounded are considered ATGs?

But who has them as ATGs other than maybe at 140, a historically thin division?

 

Alot of people do surprisingly.

 

I think many do, shockingly.

 

I have never seen either on any p4p list personally, I think.

 

I have no issues with Ray though I’m sure I shall be told I have an agenda. He was an awesome fighter with a glittering career and a great fun watch.

But he’s not the only fighter ever who beat other great fighters. I hate picking apart resumes, but when people make claims of Leonard being one of the absolute best p4p fighter ever and shoving him in their top 10 OAT, I feel the need to point out that at their absolute zeniths, Duran proved the better fighter, and that if Hearns hadn’t such a terrible fatal flaw for an ATG he’d have easily outpointed a supposed master boxer. I don’t even necessarily score the Hagler fight for Leonard despite all the scheming. And that’s the whole strength of his career, because there’s really no dominant title reign, the longevity is not there, and save for the Hagler fight there’s no immense p4p achievement imo.

Im not actually convinced Ray Leonard is actually a greater fighter than Spinks, Holmes or Evander Holyfield who all typically rate around 25-50 and are of a similar era to Ray. Holmes is just flat out a better fighter than Leonard, Spinks was a fine boxer with awesome power at 175 so I might rate him above Ray, and Holyfield was a natural 180lber battling monstrous heavyweights whilst Leonard wasn’t interested in the top young middleweights, which makes my decision easy there too.

I think Hagler was a greater fighter as well despite their match up. Being champ for a long time beating all comers is impressive.

Im not really interested in arguing about politics. If you don’t think Leonard’s scheming is an issue that’s fine. I do. All the retirements, humiliating opponents, dictating the terms etc is not my cup of tea. Just not a proper champion to me. I didn’t like how Mayweather did it, but he actually didn’t lose, was more consistent, dominant and had ten fold better longevity, so it would be a no brainer sticking him ahead of Leonard for me. He did Leonard’s whole gig better, which I reckon kills Leonard aha.

As for Hearns, I will again reiterate that judging Leonard as this top 10 p4p fighter so many value him as, the criteria gets stricter, and getting outboxed like that unable to get past a jab becomes an issue.

 

Depends how deep the list is of course. I've never seen them in the top ten on anyone's list, no, but Pryor, for example, is routinely mentioned as a standout in the talent-rich 80's.
Don't know how that necessarily translates into any official pound-for-pound ranking or anything like that, but he's considered one of those Rushmore figures for that era, and I never understood why.

 

I don't see Ray getting rated in the top 10, I see him usually argued between 15 - 20.

Getting outjabbed by Hearns isn't as big an issue for me as what you're making it out to be. I tell you why - SRR is the greatest fighter to ever box but I have film of him getting caught with jabs by fighters who don't have the jab speed, strength or dimensions of Hearns. Hearns' jab is arguably a top 3 jab across all divisions. It is no shame that Ray couldn't outbox it but he found a way.

I'm no fan of Ray's politics/strategic negotiations but if I take it away from him, I have to take away points from Ali, RJJ, Hagler - fighting smaller men and not daring to be great at 175lbs, Floyd, Canelo, Benitez, Duran, B-Hop, Louis, Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Holmes - so many fighters do things in negotiation, avoid the best fighters, that doesn't fit in with Sullivan's ethos of "being able to lick any son of a witch in the room".

I rate fighters on ring record, skillset demonstrated on film and my own, admittedly subjective, appraisal of their H2H ability. The Ray arguments are tired. He isn't the first to beat great fighters but the fighters that he beat, the circumstances and the conditions they were beaten in tells us what we need to know. Even Ray in defeat versus Duran shows us things that we didn't know he had at the time - that Duran on film is arguably the most skillful infighter of all times, showing technical excellence, footspeed and ring awareness that very few fighters have ever matched - Ray proved himself in defeat.

 

I suppose it's a bit the same as with Bowe in the 90's. They judge what they think was his talent level from just a couple of fights. But I would say that even that has been overestimated by some tbf.

I've seen people here who think he would have been a real threat to Leonard. Hell, I had a discussion with one poster who favoured him over Hearns at WW based on their fight in the amateurs. Man, that was some crazy shiiieeeet. Had forgotten that one.

So, yes, I would agree that he is given a crazy h2h status by some that isn't really based on what he actually did.

 

The Cooney who turned up against Holmes was a very menacing fighter and would be a nightmare H2H for loads of fighters in history. His poor overall legacy does not change this.

And Bowe at heavyweight was a way more menacing fighter than Hearns at 147/154. Obviously I say with hindsight but you have 15 rounds to catch Hearns with something half decent. He’s an awesome fighter and believe me I’d love to have seen him hang on against Leonard or beat Hagler but his chin was just such a flaw and defensively his issues were way worse than Bowe’s once you got in close against him. Beating Bowe is just better than beating Hearns.

And the more I think about Spinks beating Holmes clearly over 15 (not 12), granting a rematch and (although I had it to 143-142 Holmes) still arguably doing enough to win, was definitely greater than the Leonard Hagler win

 

For what it's worth, I agree that on his best day Cooney presents a significant challenge to the majority of Heavyweights in history. However, his "poor overall legacy" has a lot to do with him having still been relatively unproven going into the Holmes bout. Cooney put on his best performance against Holmes but is ultimately defined by the loss.

He can't be credibly be viewed as being on the same level as Benitez, Duran, Hearns or Hagler, each of whom were proven going into their matches with Leonard.

This^ is somewhat of an outlandish claim.

Hearns at 147/154 was both a monster and quite probably the best technician in the game. He had a 94% KO rate going into to the Leonard bout and his devastating KO of Duran at 154 will never grow old. His masterful display against Benitez was another exhibition of some of the best boxing one will ever witness.

Leonard was the only man to beat him there in a contest he was well on the way to losing, had he not taken the necessary risk in R13 to turn the match into a fight.

What does Bowe have on his record to compare to that? Nothing at all.

This is another poor comparison, really.

While I don't rate Leonard's win over Hagler as highly as some do, it was a much better quality fight than Spinks/Holmes I (and a good many - perhaps, even the majority - would argue that Spinks didn't deserve the nod in their rematch).

As tight as the Hagler/Leonard decision might have been, it was Leonard who got the nod and it must count towards his overall rating. Even if it had gone the other way, it would have counted as a very high quality loss on his record.

By the way, I don't think Leonard warrants a place in the Top-10 of Pound-for-Pound All-Time Greats (and I have seen him there on occasion) but he's not a million miles away from it, in my opinion, and that's because he matched elite class competition, who were quite capable of beating him, and prevailed.

 

This you surmise from him feasting on the 70's leftovers?

If he was such a menace why hadn't he been matched with one live opponent?

Are you... Are you shitting me right now? Are you trolling? You must be.

Bowe beat absolutely NO ONE of real note besides Holy. And Holy could be 0-3 against him with no complaints.

Hearns destroyed Cuevas and Duran and many others and almost shut out Benitez.

How can you possibly say this with hindsight when Hearns went on to have a legendary career after Leonard while Bowe got beat into retirement by friggin' Golota. Do you know what hindsight even means?

Have you had a look at the guys Hearns beat and the guys Bowe beat? You do understand that Hearns would win titles all the way to LHW while Bowe's best win after Holy beating was pretty much a washed up Dokes or maybe Hide, excluding the two DQ wins over Golota?

It's only in your feverish fantasy that Bowe is anywhere close to Hearns. And again, he got the better of Holy. Very clearly so.

My only advice to you then is to stop thinking. Holmes in 1985 had been on the slide for 2-3 years and struggled with just about every decent opponent during that time and said clearly himself that he was done with serious competition. In contrast, Hagler had KO'd two nr. 1 contenders in a row and Leonard was coming off powdering his face for the best part of five years. There was good reason not many gave him a chance.

Spinks's win was great, though. But it was against a champion who no longer was standout in the division, which Hagler still was.

 

De La Hoya. He lost to Whitiker, beat an antiquated Chavez...a good fighter but a lot hinges on that very dodgy Pernell win.

 

Yeah, doubtful if DLH is an ATG. An ATG in getting the right fights made, though.

 

I started to flirt with that thought. Close fit but not quite but having said that i am keeping an open mind.