Part I: Classic's Consensus P4P Top 10 Inclusions

This is mostly BS. Don't know why there's so hard to give Leonard his due.

In short: Hearn's loss to Leonard was due to Leonard knocking him out, nothing else. The rematch (which I feel Hearns won, though) showed clearly that Hearns always would have trouble lasting 15 with Leonard.

There's no reason to call the rematch for anything but what it was: A well conducted fight by Leonard and a shameful quit job by Duran. How Duran seems to come out the better in their series for most people is absolutely baffling to me.

Hagler, a dominant champion, shot? Please! Leonard comes out of a long retirement to fight a dominant champion above his natural weight, and Hagler is the one who's in bad shape? This is so stupid that it doesn't warrant a response probably, but you got it anyway.

Besides that, looking purely at resume I agree with you that Leonard is not quite top 10. But watching him on film I feel pretty sure he was one of the 10 best ever. But I go by resume, so he's out.

 

You are not objective. A knockout is when a boxer cannot rise before the count of 10. In the case of Leonard-Hearns I, the referee stepped in between them. This was a very subjective case. I would not have stopped it, maybe some others of you would, but it was not in any case a knockout.

I will prove you are not objective with your own words. You claim that Hearns would always have trouble over the 15 round distance. Really? If this were true then what explains why Hearns outboxed master boxer Wilfred Benetiz over 15 rounds at a more comfortable weight? There would plenty more examples but he was to busy blowing most people away in the early goings on.

This business about coming out of a long retirement is nonsense. Hagler was fighting ring wars that were taking everything out of him. Leonard waited until Hagler had declined substantially before agreeing to fight him. The Hagler that faced Leonard was not the Hagler that destroyed Hamsho. I thought everybody recognized this. Especially since Leonard himself has admitted to it!

You are clearly a huge Leonard fan and can't be objective. You are trying to build up an old shot Hagler in order to make Leonard look good in a fight that he didn't in any case win.

I give Leonard his due. But I also evaluate his career in context, in light of the facts, balancing his virtues and failings. Doing that, he falls short of inclusion in a top 10 pound-for-pound list. I'm not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying he doesn't belong on this list. There isn't room for him on there.

At least you agree with my conclusion. But then you insert this qualification about resume. That's ironic. His resume is actually more impressive than the film would indicate.

 

mainstream appeal can be equated to the contribution of a fighter to the growth of the sport...the NBA also included that criteria in naming its 50 greatest

 

Ok. Splitting words I see. Anyway we put it, he lost because of Leonard's punches. Nothing else.

Last over 15 with Leonard. You didn't seriously believe I thought that Hearns couldn't last 15 with anyone, did you? But in the two fights with Leonard he showed obvious trouble in lasting 15 with him.

Of course, Hagler was past his prime, but Leonard was even more past his, and also fighting above his natural weight. And this is clear to see in the odds before that fight. Hagler was a big favourite, just because of these reasons.

Now that's objectivity. Thanks for the lesson.

I very much disagree. But, yeah, resume is what I use when ranking fighters. Leonard's doesn't quite have the depth I would say, but he may very well be the most impressive fighter I've seen on film.

 

how do you define resume? does it include losses to lesser fighters?

 

If we're only limited to 3, here's my picks:

Armstrong
Robinson
Ezzard

Probably in that order too.

 

Of course it does. But it depends under what circumstances. Duran's losses when in his 30's and 40's at weights above his natural one isn't that damaging. Neither is Ali's losses to Spinks or Berbick.

But a Tyson in his physical prime getting his ass handed to him by a fringe contender is a bad mark.

 

here is my personal criteria

40%- resume, tangible accomplishments and dominance
20%- longetivity...how long does a fighter is ranked in the top 50 in the world p4p
20%- prime vs prime; head to head with other hall of famers
20%- timeliness...what did you do that others didn't do

 

Arguello? If not, Duran.

 

Those are all good, but can all be find in the resume.

 

but pep can beat more ATGs than angott...

 

An example of how I would look at an resume. Let's take Robinson:

40+ wins over ranked opposition - oustanding

Undefeated at WW and only two losses in the first part of his career that stretched well over 100 fights - oustanding

Most losses came after his comeback, when he was in his 30's and 40's. Even in this career he has several very good wins - clearly good

But

Not that many title fights, relatively speaking, and not terribly good record in those fights (even if almost all losses came after the comeback)

Didn't fight some potentially very dangerous opponents like Burley, Cocoa Kid and Holman Williams. Has some very good wins (Gavilan, LaMotta, Graziano, Basilio etc), but not on par with Charles, Greb, Duran or even Ali.