Best boxer in last 30 yrs - `Sugar`Ray Leonard

Well, I don´t take h2h into account when I do any rankings, too much theory and too less facts. But for example what I take into account is if somebody is an over- or an unerachiever. I admire overachiever like Ruiz but I´m dissapointed of underachievers like Jones, PBF, Hamed and Tyson and I take that into account if I have problems in what tier I rank a fighter.

 

But surely by taking underachievement into account, you are therefore saying "they could have done..." so this is too much theory and too little facts too? I don't see how this is any more speculative than considering h2h at their own weights??

 

Nah, let´s take Jones as an example. Look at his tremendous talent and than look at what he did and what not. Not much theory but there to be seen.

Also like I wrote, I just use this when I can´t decide. For example I couldn´t decide if Marciano is a tier 1 or 2 hw. Him doing what he did without the talent of an Ali, Tyson or even Wlad put him into tier 1.

 

Yes, exactly, looking at what he did not do is speculating as to what he could have done. You saying "he could've beat Hopkins in a rematch, he could've beaten a better heavyweight than Ruiz"- how is this any less an example of theory and speculation than me saying "Hagler would have beaten Hopkins h2h"?

Why do you think Rocky Marciano didn't have talent comparable to Wladimir Klitschko? Marciano fought in a different style, less refined maybe, but I wouldn't say he had less talent than Wlad who has merely allied a jab and a cautious nature to his own natural physical attributes. He is robotic, he has took time and made mistakes to learn how to box by numbers, I don't think he has much natural talent at all. Surely the success Marciano had with his comparative lack of finesse and technique prove he has MORE talent, not less?

 

Nah, I´m not saying he should/would have fought/beaten XYZ. I say look at the work he did and at the talent he had and than decide if his career achievements are enough for all the talent he had or if it was even more.

With talent I mean physical talent or attributes like you phrased it. Marciano lacked size, speed and reach but made up for it by adapting his style and his determination - especially in training - that should count for something.

 

Ok mate, cheers.

 

Just logged in again now Ezzard, i get your reasoning about the 10 round thing, i just couldnt ever pick Tommy over him personally though, just my opinion.

 

Well he might to better if not for his glass jaw. Didnt you notice all the times he hit the floor? Even Camacho knocked him out

 

I would say he was the best boxer of the last 30 years that didnt take a punch well. How's that? :good

 

Leave this section, please.

 

You know Roy was the best. Why deny it?

 

Head to head? He was the man, but please.. compare their best fights and come back with your comment...

SRL had them ALL on his list (Hearns, Hagler, Duran etc, etc..) and he beat them all. Roy Jones beat all he could except DM, he can't compare his three best wins to SRL's.

 

Hagler was shot so I cant count it as a win anymore than I would count Berbick's win over ALi. And Ray always struggled with the opposition at best managing some controversial decision after falling hopelessly behind. that's how all his fights were-no more real than his knockout of Benitez atsch or his winning two titles from Lalonde atsch atsch or any of his retirements

Now look at Roy's best wins: Ruiz. No problem. Roy wasnt even a heavyweight and lost but one round! This outdoes anything Fitzsimmons ever did. He unified the light heavyweight title as compared with leonard who did nothing with it.

Now who looks better??

Not to mention the fact he dominated Hopkins and Toney both without half trying! That's greatness. Let's not forget that he beat X with a broken hand and weight drained. :happy

Duran? Leonard? Don't make me laugh!

 

DM?? isn't he the one who lost to Roy Jones victinm Julio Gonzalez? You must be having one of your fantasies!