Best Fighters of the 1980's, 1-10

Given i score the fight for Leonard and the majority do (that i have seen in polls, on forums and watched it with) i don't find it overly controversial or anything tbh.

SRL may have been a media darling but he is also held in disdain by many fans. He bordered on refusal with rematches when he'd already won an initial fight, the later catchweight controversies, he beat so many of peoples favorite fighters (between Benitez, Duran, Hagler and Hearns he had a lot of us covered lol). You can see in another thread he is outright accused of ducking Hagler, a guy two divisions above him. So he creates a bit of bias against himself as well. He can polarize. A guy like Hagler is more blue collar. A good hard working guy who has got to where he is thru sheer hard work and diligence.

I didn't like him one bit when i joined this forum. His win over one of my faves and then the rematch refusal was a bitter pill to swallow. Then i saw the heavy bias against him by so many (talking 10 years back) that i eventually started to defend the guy - on merit. I slowly came around to actually appreciating him.

Being a heavy underdog comes into things for sure. Ali twice shocked the world as a huge underdog against guys seen to be basically invincible. It gets him a lot of mileage.

Both Spinks and SRL were massive underdogs. It's partly why we are discussing the merits of their two great wins.

We do disagree on Ray's performance mostly yes. I thought he boxed superbly. I thought Spinks was great too, mixing caution with some good flurries.

It would have been done previously if Ezzard Charles was actually given a shot at the 175 title when he was at his most feared.

Holmes was ready to be taken tho and we know it. His demise had been predicted for some time with many declining performances behind him even while handpicking the lesser lights of the division. We could see him aging for longer than Hagler had been tho Haglers slippage was undeniably evident against Mugabi and recognized by many at the time.

I have no trouble with anyone picking the Spinks win over Ray's and even pushing it as the win of the 80's if they feel that way.

Factors. I've already mentioned them. We had a slipping Hagler but look at what we had in Leonard too. There's this too - Hagler would likely have still defeated anyone in the division even tho declining. Then we have Ray's performance, which we see differently of course. Mugabi put in a great one night stand for sure. I never however had the feeling he was going to win that fight as impressive as he was.

Ultimately i saw Leonard outbox him and do the better work. There is some shine taken off but both were still very serviceable and the best two in the division i believe on their shared night.

Duran - Leonard is up there with basically anything i think. I'm not forgetting however that 17 out of 30 writers picked Duran to win with 16 predicting a ko.

 

I could also say that more than double thought SRL won as opposed to thinking Hagler won.

 

My go i guess after posting profusely in here yet not doing a list

Lets try and balance that out -

1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Mike Tyson
3. Michael Spinks
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Salvador Sanchez
8. Larry Holmes
9. Roberto Duran
10. Jeff Fenech
11. Alexis Arguello
12. Jeff Chandler
13. Azumah Nelson
14. Eusebio Pedroza
15. Aaron Pryor

Honorable mentions among others - Curry, McCallum, Pintor, Holyfield, Camacho, Starling, Benitez.

Notes - Mike Tyson packed a career worth into the second half of the 80's while decimating a division that had become somewhat stale. Youngest Heavyweight champ ever, unification of the three belts in blink of an eye, good contender after good contender (most destroyed) with no filler or ducking, passing of the torch and 9 straight defenses after winning that first title. 37-0 for the decade. If he had a peer somewhat better in that lot he'd be a shoe in for #1. Michael Spinks didn't get enough done to qualify imo tho the way he beat him counts for plenty. If the Douglas loss came 2 months earlier he may have moved down a spot of two.

Spinks and Hagler are basically awash. If Hagler beats Leonard even close to the way he was expected to he'd move to #1 and Leonard would drop down some places. Losing to a comebacking Leonard the way he did loses him quite a bit of ground and gains Leonard some big traction.

Hearns loss to Hagler probably allows Marvin to just pip him. If Hearns beats Barkley he could possibly jump two spots. He got some great work done and the KO of Duran is one of the greatest wins of the decade. Making his mark right from the start of the decade until the end of it.

Chavez had a superb decade and was extremely strong and consistent.

Sanchez got what was to be his entire top end of work done in just 2 1/2 years. It was extremely good work too.

Holmes got some good work done but avoided tough matches late and losing to Spinks was quite ugly.

Duran blew hot and cold and could easily place worse. That win over SRL however gets him a lot of points and then we have that win over Barkley allied to Moore, Ceuvas and co. He has some ugly loses in there to tho - the quit, the immense ko loss to Tommy, Laing, the schooling by peak Benitez etc. The man is a headache to rate in the 80's and i could see him faring a lot worse on lists.

Jeff Fenech got a lot of solid work done and was dominant and consistent across many divisions and beat some good fighters. Fitting in Villesana and Martinez back to back at the end of the decade helps him along very nicely too.

 

Hagler gave Obelmejias a rematch only because the WBA made him do it. The WBA LOVED Obelmejias. I don't have the exact quote, but after the second fight Hagler said he beat Obelmejias especially brutally so he wouldn't have to fight him again. It wasn't something personal against Obelmejias...Hagler meant that the WBA would make a rematch if there was any excuse at all, so he destroyed him so the WBA couldn't even consider it.

 

you could but since when has your word ever been worth something?

 

LOL! Your entire post is a joke! dont you ever get embarrassed showing yourself in public?

 

Excellent stuff as always, JT.

And you're absolutely right to have Jeff Chandler up there - I managed to complete forget him! Probably somewhat reflective of his generally status as a forgotten great of the bantamweight division and also of the 80s having so many tremendous fighters that someone always seems to slip off the memory radar.

 

Thanks Jel, been reading all of your posts too rest assured. This particular topic is a tough one with plenty of variables.

 

You lil redrascal you

 

Hello JT - Nice list And, some quite detailed notes.

I do have a couple of questions, though - out of genuine interest.

1. If Hagler/Leonard had never happened (but everything else for Leonard in '88/'89 stayed the same), where would you have placed Leonard then?

2. You make clear Hagler's ranking takes a hit, for losing an SD decision against Leonard, but seem to give Spinks a pass for the beating he took, in half a round, at the fists of Tyson. Why the perceived disparity?

 

He would drop a handful of spots. Hagler, Spinks and Tyson would have him for sure. Tommy too. I'd have to think further from that point. The Hagler win is huge.

Hagler lost to a guy who had one fight in 5 years and none for 3. He'd also never fought above 153 and was last seen at 149 - he had never fought as high as middleweight. A guy whose peak was two divisions below Marvin, a guy that was a 4-1 underdog. Tho he wasn't blown out, losing was not a good result at all.

By contrast Spinks was the 4-1 underdog, not the 4-1 favorite. He was a 100% natural light heavyweight. He was naturally smaller man by a significant margin. Hagler was the naturally bigger man. Spinks was fighting the most feared boxer on the planet, a guy who was on one of the great streaks in history and who many already thought to be invincible. A future top 10 heavyweight.

Tho Spinks was blown out it was hardly unexpected. Realistically he didn't belong in the same ring as Tyson. I think the likes of Louis, Foreman and Liston would have been a big chance of stopping him early and a great many others would have beat him imo. He caught Holmes at just the right time and matched up well with him given his decline. I think peak Holmes would have schooled him before a stoppage win.

 

Not massively, the guy was past peak and Leonard did put on one helluva display even if we discount the inactivity. Who would have beat either that night? Holmes losing to Spinks at a similar stage or later is no biggie either given Spinks was superb and Holmes old.

 

We also have to take into account various factors both internal and external. We need to take in the big picture.

I know you won't have a bar of it but it's beyond dispute Tyson had a disgusting preparation for Douglas and had become both lazy and overconfident. Douglas however was superb as was SRL.

Expections do play a part. Tyson does take a big hit for the Douglas loss but he also got a lot of work done in a short time prior.

 

Thomas and Tucker were never going to beat Tyson. A fully committed Tyson may well have beaten Buster. Buster did showcase a heck of a lot of that potential tho. As underdone as Tyson was Buster was magnificent.

Yes but there are stages.

It can extend beyond not accepting any intangibles too.