I'm busy at the moment, but I'll be back later on in the day to take you to task on the above posts, you can count on it. Though I'm not familiar with the term "scmuck". But I'd like to know, who exactly am I a nuthugger of that has to do with the argument at hand?
It is relevant. If there is some dispute as to Monzon's stats in his own weight class, his chances of being ranked at #1 ever in all weight classes is almost non-existant. He never stepped out of his weigh class, his win resume is only great but not incredible and you can make aruments to rate Hagler and Robinson above him at MW. Head to head, you have a strong case, resume wise, absolutley not. Hagler has a better resume, Robinson burries him for resume, at the weight. Guys like Dick Tiger,Mickey Walker, Tiger FLowers, Bob Fitzsimmons also have cases but Greb absolutley burries him, completely. YOu can't even see the Monzon resume under the quality wins Greb carries. He did lose numerous times but he also redeemed himself to become 3 time champion. It depends how you weigh these things - I personally agree with you, going unbeaten is better than losing and hauling yourself back up. Robinson's case lies in win resume (he beat more great MW's than Monzon) and head to head. I have Robinson, Monzon and Greb are my one, two and three overall, though the order is a little messed up at present. Greb, Amrstrong, Robinson, Charles, Walker, Pep, Moore, Duran, Ali and Benny Leonard are the first ones that come to mind. Taking only the peak version under consideration then, which is fair, you still have him losing to Leonard and DeJesus, the two ATG fighters he fought during his absolute peak. But I dont' agree that it "doesn't matter" where these other losses are concerned - it just has to be weight properly. BTW, Duran's best performance ARGUABLY is his demolition of Moore, which comes outside the paramaters you've described. Finally it also denies him credit for the astonishingly brilliant losing performance against Hagler, because if you can't hold it against him, you sure can't credit him for it. These performances were brilliant and arguably as impressive as anything in the sports history,yes. Look bro, you're not making sense. In terms of naming the pound for pound #1 fighter in the history of the sport it is HUGELY problamatic. It is the whole story. If Duran, a lightweight, can beat him at peak, how can you rate the man above the lighter fighter that defeated him? I am not saying that Leonard is **** because of this loss, or that he is not top 50 because of this loss, i'm saying that he is not the best fighter in the history of the world, partly because of this loss. That should be self evident in my view. I really don't know what to say to this. I think his case for the number one slot is as rock solid as any fighter's. Mayweather's case does not exsist.
You are not one that wants to debate properly or learn,you just want to give your opinion. Your a nuthugger of pea,you regard your own word as gospel,ive dealt with you before and know your agenda.... What part of 'i will ignore you from now on' dont you understand?
The part where you just responded to me. I always debate properly with those willing to do just that, debate properly. I don't do so the ignorant, and you qualify right now. I'll always take into account the opinions of those that make good points and are willing to back up their views with good points, not the garbage you just wrote regarding Armstrong(and as I said, I will be back later when I have time to take you to school on those comments)
Mcgrain,how many great middles do you consider robinson beat? (and lost to.) I feel that you rate robbies middle opposition very highly compared to carlos'. Also haglers resume at middle is much lesser than monzons,his biggest fights being against duran,hearns and leonard. (smaller fighters,and he lost to one.) Hagler never beat a great natural middle really. Im also one that doesnt feel you have to have a resume like the old timers to be no1,otherwise grebm should be number one without a doubt. The ten guys you mentioned,i dont think any of them is superior to carlos p4p really. Duran losing to dejesus was avenged emphatically TWICE. Duran also beat leonard when both were at their best. Durans career after this just shows how skilled a guy he was,i cant imagine pea,pep,armstrong or any other 135er giving hagler or barkley such fights. Regarding leonard,im saying he has a case,roberto was a special guy and considering what he did at weights above 147 its not a crippling loss for leonard,no other lightweight would beat leonard...(conversely hagler lost to a welter,robbie as middle to welter basilio,etc,etc..) Finally,as i ve said before,im not rigid on my views,but neither do i just follow the general view of 'robinson is number 1'. At the end of the day there is lot of subjectivity and speculation,especially given different eras. As an example who picked holy to comprehensively beat mike? Not me,yet if tyson had have retired before they fought i bet the consensus would have tyson to beat holy inside....
Fullmer, Olson, Graziano, arguably Turpin, LaMoota. Of these three - LaMoota, Fullmer and Graziano, are top 20, all time. I think Robinson's final defeat of LaMotta is the most extraordinary boxing on film. Hearns was a middle who boiled down to 147. His best might have been 154, but I don't see that that is neccesarily so. Certainly in terms of height and reach he is a middle. He is one of the best fighters to have ever lived and Hagler utterly destroyed him. It might be fair to say Hagler has a weaker resume than Monzon though. Compensatory arguments have to be made, however. Anyway, you don't have to be an old timer. Ali has one of the greatest resumes ever at the weight and he boxed much more recently than Greb. Mayweather, had he fought all comers, could have built an astounding resume by now. Duran is absolutely unique, yes. Pep and Armstrong were feathers and wouldn't have to come as high as middle to be compared to Duran. Though Amstrong DID come to middle. Yes, Duran avenged these defeats. However, this is a compensatory factor for the FACT that he was beaten by every ATG fighter he faced. This shouldn't keep him out of the ten, in my view (#9) but it does keep him out of the argument for #1. And I am saying he does NOT have a case. How can he have a case when he was beaten by a lighter fighter at his absolute peak? The P4P#1 of all time BEATS BIGGER MEN, he doesn't lose to smaller ones. I have Langford at #1. But Robinson's case is rock solid with only the tiniest of hairline cracks. I've yet to see why Monzon has a case at all.
You make some fair points. I agree with hearns,the night he fought hagler he was a great middle. (though i think his best was 147 and 154.) I disagree on fullmer,graziano,turpin and olsen,i dont think they were any better than valdez,briscoe,griffith and benvenuti. Robinson also lost to some of these guys as well which monzon didnt. Some fighters have lost to lighter guys and it doesnt distract unduly from their status (eg hagler v leonard,greb v tunney.) and as we agree roberto is unique. Im sure langford,charles,moore,fitzimmons,walcott and others lost to guys smaller than themselves at some stage of their career. Anyway,each to their own....More power to your elbow with langford.
Certainly when Robinson beat Graziano, it was to be expected. Why do you feel Fulmer falls short of greatness?
Its not that i feel fullmer is not great,i just dont feel he is any better than the guys i mentioned. I think robinsons and monzons opposition were both pretty solid. Its a shame monzon and robbie didnt have the likes of a hagler,hearns,jones or such like in their reigns. Leonard had hagler,duran and hearns, hearns had leonard and hagler, duran had leonard, and hagler had leonard and hearns. Having said that,i think carlos mashes duran,hearns and leonard and outpoints hagler. I think monzon takes robbie and hopkins at 160 as well. At 160 robbie takes duran and hearns. Leonard ,hopkins and hagler are toss ups.
A case can easily be made for him on his record,personally I think SRR takes it .Pep was probably the best Feather ,but imo he wasnt as dominant a champ as Benny Leonard at Lightweight,neither was his competiton as good for the most part . I prefer a p4p to have competed in more than one division,so its Robinson,Armstrong.Greb,for me.
Harry Greb could very definitely be number one on my list, but it's hard for me to place him there based strictly on records and reporting. Although there's certainly no substitute for ringside observation, we do have what is probably Langford's peak performance on film (Flynn III). This is also true for Mickey Walker (Milligan, in live sound). SRR/Fusari footage is finally on-line, so we can all see what Robbie looked like at 147, while still in his twenties. There's also pre plane crash film of Pep available. Gans/Nelson I and Gans/Herman are available of the Old Master, and everybody's seen Leonard/Tendler. The film of Greb/Walker probably wouldn't be sufficient evidence for me, as Harry was observed to clearly be in decline (especially his legs), although he handled a pre-peak Walker in impressive fashion. Film was shot of Greb/Tunney in action, and that's what I'd really want to be able to study, if it were to ever come to light. (Since clips of Greb sparring and training have survived in excellent condition after all these years, hope can surely be maintained for movies of Harry in competition eventually surfacing.)
1. Henry Armstrong 2. Harry Greb 3. Ray Robinson 4. Benny Leonard 5. Ezzard Charles 6. Willie Pep 7. Roberto Duran 8. Archie Moore 9. Joe Gans 10. Barney Ross
This is an excellent list. You underate Langford, but I already knew that. What a shame I can't quite convince myself that Burley is in the next ten. 1 - Sam Langford 2 - Sugar Ray Robinson 3 - Henry Armstrong 4 - Harry Greb 5 - Mickey Walker 6 - Ezzard Charels 7 - Willie Pep 8 - Archie Moore 9 - Roberto Duran 10-Bob Fitzsimmons. Wondering if I shouldn't switch Moore and Duran though.