P - o - u - n - d - f - o - r - p - o - u - n - d - t - o - p - 1 - 0 - 0

OK, you keep analysing and keep thinking Calzaghe would embarrass Monzon then, there's nothing else for us to discuss.

 

You're trolling for a reaction obviously. You have failed as I'm not getting led into such a ridiculous discussion. Calzaghe embarrasses Monzon - hi:

 

That was a comment with relation to Joe would be the weakest - not a criticism, it's your opinion. At least it was recognised that he had a claim to be one of the 100 best fighters in history.

The "murky" part is in that - the top 55 generally can be ranked due to their amazing achievements, record, fighting ability, then afterwards - it gets a lot closer (you yourself acknowledged this when you made your top 55 (or similar number) a month or two back.)

I dont know nearly enough about half of that list to comment on any specific issues, it was more of a props to you that you've been able to separate them and really gauge how each guy's achievements stack up.

With Pep - people criticise his resume, but (aside from different weight divisions), who did he not fight in his division? everyone with a pro license? He fought every single guy (I cant think of anyone he missed really) in that division possible, and amassed an amazing record - without having much power himself. The plane crash recovery also plays a part in my ranking him very highly.

A comment I'd like to nitpick (i really dont want to turn this thread into an argument about you know what - but I'd like some direct clarity)

Why do you slate Joe for this then? For large reasons the same could be said DIRECTLY about him (sure there was Ottke - yet he was a BS champion, and Joe did make efforts to fight him with no avail, and in any case - Reid should have been champion when they fought). You may bring up him never fighting prime Roy - yet Hopkins had a much clearer case for avoiding Joe back in 01/02 (one of the two).

Is that still your stance - about the depth of era? I'm not debating Joe's ranking or position - just the clarity of that comment.

Cheers matey

(ps. My only main greivance with the list is that Ali is ranked far far far too high - yet everyone else does. I consider the guy to be scum, and vastly overrated - but I'm in a small minority, so I'll leave it - it's a personal thing, McGrain will probably know why I detest him).

 

For a start, Monzon fought his whole career at 160, so a straight h2h discussion about him and a guy who never ever fought at that weight once is pretty pointless and unfair anyway. Calzaghe never fought at 160 but is now fighting at 175, he's more of a lhw than a mw. Who do you think would win between lhw Calzaghe and the David Haye of the night Haye fought Mormeck or Maccarinelli? H2H discussions only really work when you discuss guys who fought in the same divisions.

However, I will still respond to your post anyway since this is my thread.

You are making the common mistake of being able to differentiate between styles but not between levels of quality. It's very simplistic and reductive just to say "Monzon had trouble with speed, Calzaghe is fast, therefore Calzaghe embarrasses Monzon" - not exactly a deep and insightful analysis, is it?? You have differentiated between their styles (kind of), but you do not recognize/acknowledge the difference in quality here.

In terms of ability, Emile Griffith and Nino Benvenuti are probably two of the top 15 middleweights ever. Ever. They are certainly in that bracket. Monzon beat them both - twice.

Joe Calzaghe's best wins are over Jeff Lacy (not even one of the top 10 supermiddleweights currently active), Mikkel Kessler (a guy with talent and potential but as of now he hasn't proved to be anything other than a relatively good short-term alphabet smw champion), Bernard Hopkins (great fighter but well past-prime by the time he fought Joe) and Chris Eubank (who was not ranked in the top 10 in the smw division at the time of his fight with Calzaghe because he had been in semi-retirement for 2 years after losing to Collins twice). I'm not even mentioning RJJ as that fight was a farce from day one, it's not even one of the better wins on Calzaghe's notoriously feeble resume.

So Monzon has proved he can fight and defeat world-class boxers in a strong era. Calzaghe has proved he can fight and defeat some decent opposition in a weak era.

To just say "Calzaghe would be too fast" is too simplistic. You have disregarded the rule of "cream rises to the top" - ie that great fighters on their best nights can often rise above mere stylistic issues and impose their greatness upon seemingly difficult opponents. Who expected Sugar Ray Leonard to produce what he did to Roberto Duran in their rematch, considering how the first fight went? Who expected Cassius Clay to knock out Sonny Liston? Or even, who expected James Toney to beat Jirov for the cruiserweight title or Barrera to dominate Hamed so convincingly? History is littered with times when a great fighter has faced a seemingly horrible opponent for them but their greatness has shone through and they have produced special performances.

Monzon was such a great. Sure Calzaghe would be awkward and difficult for him, but Calzaghe is not in his league at all. Monzon is not a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out, he would work Calzaghe out, adapt, assert his quality over Calzaghe, and outpoint him pretty clearly. The cream would rise to the top.

I'm not even going to touch the comments comparing Monzon to Pavlik or using Eubank to back your case up about Monzon, as they are just too ridiculous!

 

It's a fair question, and I hope you find this a fair answer.

I slate Joe because he did not fight the best fighters available in a weak era. Simple as that. He was not a victim of circumstance or anything of the sort, he chose to spend 9 years from 1997-2006 beating up dire opposition in Cardiff because it was an easy way to make money, protect the zero and gain a reputation as a great fighter, and I do not respect that attitude in a fighter. He never fought the two best fighters of his era, Jones and Hopkins, until one of them was well past-prime and had stamina issues, and one was utterly shot to **** and had been for years. Had he pushed the boat out to fight them when they were prime (like Hatton chased Mayweather) then I wouldn't have this issue with Joe. Even if he hadn't got fights with those two, if he had unified earlier than in his 9th year as champion and/or had just fought a better general standard of opposition then again that would also have made a difference (smw has never been the strongest division, but Joe could have fought better fighters than he did, no question - I made a thread about his standard of opposition, I can privatemail you the link if you want), but I disagree with the way he managed his career, I don't respect it at all.

I leave personal feelings about Ali's personality aside when making a list. The 1960s Ali was one of the most talented fighters in history, and he has perhaps the best resume of the past 50 years. Those two things justify his ranking IMO.

 

No Don Curry ?And i remember you saying you think Pacquaio is fighter of the decade ahead of Mayweather . But you think Mayweather ranks higher all time ?
Out of interest where do you think someone like Nigel Benn or Eubank would rank on a list. Top 200 ?
Come on lets have 101-200 fella .

 

Thank you for the comments.

I left out George Dixon (I left a note in the thread-start for McGrain to explain why) as he is a gap in my knowledge. I simply don't know enough about the guy to make a definitive judgement. He is definitely one for me to research this week.

I don't really have any response for your comments on Burley-Williams, Carpentier, Liston, Monzon, Walcott, it's just a matter of opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

I do disagree regarding Benitez and Lopez though, I cannot place them any higher. Benitez's lack of longevity and lack of great wins and Lopez's weak resume are my reasons, and I am comfortable with those decisions.

There is such a difference between Ali and Louis as in my opinion, Ali was a substantially greater fighter. A better fighter h2h and a better resume.

Again though, thank you very much for the comments and criticisms, all much appreciated. :good

 

Don Curry was on the shortlist for the final few places (along with Mosley and others) but he was one of the ones to miss out. Resume and longevity counted against him. He lost to the best fighters he fought.

I think either Pacquiao or Hopkins is the Fighter Of The Decade, I go back and forth on it. Mayweather 3rd. For me, FOTD isn't a pound-for-pound award, the guy who wins it should be the guy who took most big, tough fights and won most of them. Mayweather proved from 1998-2008 that he was a supremely skilled fighter, but IMO he never took on enough big risky fights to justify a huge award like FOTD. Plus his peak was at superfeather and so two years of it are lost (1998-2000) if we are talking FOTD 2000-2010. When you look at the big wins that Pac and B-Hop have had this decade (MAB,Morales,Marquez,De La Hoya - Trinidad,Tarver,Wright,Pavlik), I think they edge PBF into 3rd for this award. However, I still think Mayweather was a slightly greater fighter than Pac p4p, but the way things are going, Pac will soon overtake him as his resume and achievements are getting better and better while Mayweather's stagnates (if Pac fights and beats Hatton, he goes above PBF IMO).

Benn and Eubank would both definitely be in a top 200 IMO, definitely. They didn't come into my thinking for this list as I don't think they are quite of that standard, but they are locks for a 200, no doubt. Brilliant fighters both of them.

I will never make a 101-200, my knowledge is not great enough for that.

 

Would you have Benn and/or Eubank in your top 100?