Boxers most consider great, that you don't

just curious what your top-10 HWs list of all time looks like?

and top-10 p4p list of all time?

 

I can buy that.

 

At the risk of an outcry from the minority I've been giving him some divisional hints/subtle requests for his next top 10 list

 

You have, but he was quoting Senya who by the way I am really glad to see is still posting here.

 

Can't imagine that ever happening.

 

Ooooops.

 

Didn't they spar once and Laguna got the upper hand?

 

No idea. Doesn't mean much if they did, though.

 

Not sure of when this happened as they were overlapping in their careers, but it sounds like something that would have happened ca. '68-'70. Anyways, the story went that they put the young lion in with the old one for a little sparring and the young cat went at Laguna and took certain liberties with him in what was to be only a sparring session. And Laguna then turned up the heat and the session was terminated with Duran cut and bleeding. So the story goes.

 

Then you are in the vast minority.

There is some bias in your thinking at some level.

He was the consensus #1 fighter in the world for some time.

A great talent who fulfilled and succeeded expectations.

Without Latin bias, "loss" to Ramirez and "draw" against Chavez would mean he was in objective eyes undefeated until well past prime, only Delahoya and Trinidad beating him, and Oscar doing so controversially.

Do you consider Chavez to be a great Fighter?

Whitaker shut him down

In a battle of pound for pound #1 and number 2, Whitaker cemented his place as #1.

 

Yeah, but that's not what doublechin said. He argued that Whitaker was not a great fighter citing is style and personality.

I can separate my distaste for Whitaker's personality and style and still understand, objectively, that Whitaker was a great fighter.

He and some of those who liked his post , specifically Morelocks have displayed lty logic.

And not just in this thread. It's a pattern.

 

Who merged the threads? This sucks.

I said Vic Darchinyan deserves more credit.

 

Aaron Pryor:
1. Beat Cervantes when he was faded and had already lost to Benitez
2. Made a handful of gnerally soft defenses
3. Beat a faded Arguello in the wrong weightclass and definitely used PEDS. The rematch was against an even more done version.

That's it for him. I think he would've gone on to get butchered by top welterweights had he not chosen to the glass dick instead.

 

I haven't done hw for a long while. The only one I have is from long ago, I don't care to make a fresh one (and don't think this old one good anymore).
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/heavyweight-top-ten.583039/page-4#post-18442935

As for P4P, haven't tried it for several years, but when I did, it was changing gradually like this:

2007-02-09
1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Roy Jones Jr
5. Sam Langford
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Willie Pep
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Kid Gavilan
10. Barney Ross


2009-02-02
1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Roy Jones Jr
5. Packey McFarland
6. Floyd Mayweather Jr
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Sam Langford
9. Barney Ross
10. Ezzard Charles


2010-07-11
1. Joe Gans
2. Packey McFarland
3. Benny Leonard
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Roy Jones Jr
6. Harry Greb
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Floyd Mayweather Jr
9. Barney Ross
10. Sugar Ray Leonard


2013-09-28
1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Harry Greb
4. Packey McFarland
5. Sugar Ray Robinson
6. Roy Jones Jr
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Floyd Mayweather Jr
9. Barney Ross
10. Sugar Ray Leonard

 

Pernell Whitaker scored a boring 12-round decision over ONE Hall of Famer (Azumah Nelson), in Nelson's only fight at lightweight - Nelson wasn't a lightweight.

That was the biggest name Whitaker ever beat straight up.

Whitaker beat a lot of "good' fighters, there's no doubt about that.

But he didn't beat many great ones. Actually, only one. Who was fighting above his weight.

He wasn't "great" to me. To me, Whitaker was closer to the level of someone like Erislandy Lara or Vernon Forrest more so than on the level of an all-time great like Sugar Ray Robinson.

A fine champ in a couple divisions. But nothing extraordinary.

And I don't even know if Whitaker could've beaten Vernon Forrest at welterweight. He certainly wouldn't have been a sure thing.

Hell, I don't even know if Whitaker could've beaten his Olympic teammate Mark Breland at welterweight. I don't know if Whitaker could've beaten his Oympic teammate Meldrick Taylor at super lightweight (or welter). And I don't think either of them is an all-time great.

Whitaker just wasn't great to me.

I don't know what to tell you. He just wasn't. No classic wins. No classic wars. No classic performances. No classic KO wins. He wasn't a great character or personality. He didn't beat a lot of all-timers. He didn't stand for any big cause. His bouts were often a chore to watch.

Just a lot of people insisting that his tedious wins over primarily an ordinary to very good crop of guys is worthy of greatness.

To me, it isn't.

He was a winner. He won a lot (not as much as a lot of others.) But that doesn't make you great.

To each his own.