All-time pound-for-pound who do you rank higher: Griffith or Arguello?

Griffith, because of his tendency to fight "boring" fights, and because of his inconsistancy, is often underestimated and penalized when he is assessed in the big scheme of things. The fact is that aside from the Rubin Carter fight, no one ever blew Griffith away, not even Carlos Monzon in that first fight, rather that 14th round tko was the result of a VERY PATIENT, methodical beat down...my brother in law, who I was watching the fight with, when it was stopped said "what took him so long?" Being a more savvy fight fan than he, I had to explain that Griffith was a very good fighter, and wasn't getting blown away by anyone. I have always thought that the Carter fight was a bit of a fluke, and if rematched, especially after Griffith's ascension to middleweight, that he would have beaten Carter by a decision. The middleweight Griffith may have been decked by Carter, but would have gotten up and ridden it out and recovered from it like he did on other occasions, to go to the inevitable final bell to either win or lose a decision. Griffith's gifts weren't as spectacular as Arguello's and he was never a crowd pleaser, but the old master mechanic should never be lowrated because of that.

 

:deal To me thats what puts over Griffith, He was dominant at those weights and probably the greatest at 130 and top 5 126. Griffith cant say the same thing in any of the divisions he fought in.

 

:bbb

 

Arguello - As mentioned, Griffith was never really dominant, whereas Alexis cut a swath through three weight classes.

 

From memory I think I have them close enough that they are interchangeable and over the years I believe I have done that.

Last time I cared to think about I believe I had Argulleo 3 or 4 spots above Emile...not much but enough to make a distinction.

Im not so sure however Alexis would have been anymore dominant than Griffith was against the crop of fighter Emile fought...He would have knocked out more guys and had more decisive victories but I think he would have been walking the tightrope fighting guys like Logart, Dupas, Archer, Rodriguez, Gypsy Joe Harris etc...stylists that would have troubled Alexis greatly, especially if he fought them in non-title bouts over the shorter distance...He could have very well had just as a patchy record.

I think Emile would have beaten just about everyone Alexis fought, except he to would have come unstuck against a middleweight Aaron Pryor Id imagine.

 

You made some good points however i just think Arguello is higher ranked in the divisions he competed. He was more dominant. Arguello probably would have a tough time with those cuties in a pfp sense but there are also some guys that Griffith lost to that Arguello wouldnt have lost too. Paret,Carter,Benvenuti etc etc.

 

Flip it around though..you reckon Griffith would lose to a fighter like Fernandez? Keeping in mind Emile did handle cuties fairly well.

Griffith had a long and punishing career...a lot of his greatness has to do with how he was able to hang with the best fighters around at the time seemingly when well past it and written off. Im not to concerned that he wasnt as dominant, because I think he in general fought a higher calibre of opponent, gave up size more than Alexis did and fought more past his used by date.

I just dont see Alexis faring any better in the welter-middleweight division of that time..it was unbelievably strong. No fighter really came out of the 60's in those two division unscathed, I dont think Alexis would either.

If Alexis to go up in weight to face guys like Carter and Benvenuti like Emile did, I think has a pretty tough time. He is a much better fighter p4p but if he was not having the physical advantages he is used to, I dont think he tears them a new one either.
A bloke like Rubin probably brings as much as a guy like Ramirez did, perhaps not the chin or power but better skill level.

 

I have Arguello a bit higher because of his dominance but WAR makes a good point about Arguello and how he'd fair in non-title bouts with competent technicians over the short course. His record would patch up quite quickly...

I still think Arguello would fair a little better than Griffith though just because he had that equaliser.

 

Nope -- Griffith lost one of the Moyer fights.

 

I disagree vehemently. Griffith never proved himself the best fighter in any weight class he fought at, and was often times a bit lucky to get the verdict, (particularly in the matchups at the Garden) or if not was run very close during a whole lot of those fights. Arguello proved himself the best in 2 or 3 weight classes and usually did so a lot more convincingly than Griffith.

And I disagree that Griffith had a better record at Middleweight than Arguello at Super Feather. Let's compare:

Arguello beat: Navarette by KO, Castillo by KO, Chacon by KO, Limon by KO, Escalera twice by KO, etc. He KO'd pretty much every top fighter in the class, all without a loss, and his only loss around this time being in a non-title 10 rounder at 135.

Griffith beat: Lopez and Briscoe both by very close Decisions in 10 rounders, Tiger (first fight very disputed), Bogs, Archer (both fights very disputed), Benvenuti (all fights very close, lost the series), etc.

I don't get where you're coming from. On paper Griffith has a deeper record, in reality I don't think he was the greater fighter, or even really top 40 material in a pound for pound sense.

 

Definitely. I can see Arguello faring well with, and beating most any fighter from Featherweight to Lightweight. Griffith I see losing to most of the top Welters and Middles. I think he'd lose to a guy like McCallum, to be honest. Perhaps Curry as well.

 

Edit: Should think before i type!