Sugar Ray Leonard. Best scalps?

Gene Tunney:

Harry Greb
Jack Dempsey
Tommy Loughran
Tommy Gibbons
Battling Levinsky

Ezzard Charles

Archie Moore
Charley Burley
Jersey Joe Walcott
Jimmy Bivins
Rex Layne


Muhammad Ali:

George Foreman
Sonny Liston
Joe Frazier
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry

 

Don't forget that Duran was 1 old weight division smaller than Leonard, a lot older, and actually went 1-1 with him. So you cannot really claim Duran as a 'scalp'. Ali on the other hand came out clearly ahead versus all his top 5 opponents. Bob Foster was an ATG fighter, but imagine if he went 1-1 with a younger Ali - would this really be something in Ali's favour, to tie a series of 2 with a natural LHW?

 

You have a point, but Duran accomplished a lot also above LW. He would after all claim a MW title long after losing to Leonard the first time. If Foster had beaten Ali that would have been his only major win at HW.

But I agree that Benitez, Hearns and Hagler are clearly better wins. Not least because they ended more conclusively.

 

Obviously no one rates Norton or Quarry's career achievements over Patterson. But remember, you don't judge the quality of a win by judging the career achievements of the defeated fighter - if that were true, then Amir Khan's beating of Barrera would be an epic victory. Instead, you judge it on how tough an opponent the beaten fighter was at the time of the fight. Norton and Quarry were much younger than Patterson, being a similar age to Ali, whereas when Floyd fought Muhammad he was giving up a lot in age disadvantage. Norton was also a true heavyweight, whereas Patterson was a bit on the small side.

IMO a 215 lbs live challenger like Norton is a more dangerous proposition than a 195 lbs ex-champ who is giving up many years in age.

 

Benny Leonard beat : Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton, Johnny Dundee, Lew Tendler, Rocky Kansas.
And others.
Most of them he beat more than once.

 

I think Quarry's resume is easily about on a par with Patterson's anyway.
Norton, I don't know, but he gave Ali a good argument.

Patterson benefitted from a vacuum of quality fighters, the retirement of Marciano, and his careful manager.
Quarry may well have been world champion in the late 50s if he'd taken Floyd's place. Norton too.

 

Quarry also benefits from two bad decisions over Patterson.

 

You feel Floyd won both?

 

Close fights. They weren't robberies.
I don't rate Quarry as a great heavyweight, and neither was Patterson.

 

Quarry did little to deserve them aside from the usual knockdowns of Patterson.

 

Quarry was never champ though and Patterson achieved two great things: the first one to regain the title, the youngest champ ever. Not easy to achieve either, too. And no I don´t buy late 60s/70s were such a superior era crap, Patterson competing there on even terms despite beeing past prime pretty much disproves that.

 

Winning the title back is an achievement, but beating Johansson first time around would have been better than getting bounced around like a yo-yo.
Youngest champion ever, but the man he beat for that recognition was just the light-heavyweight champion, not the heavyweight champion.

I don't stress that the late 60s/70s were a "superior era". Patterson was outclassed by Liston and Ali in 1962, '63 and '65.
And if he's past his prime in the mid-late-60s, we have to look back at his "prime", where he's fighting the likes of London, Jackson, Harris, Rademacher and McNeeley. Going life-and-death with Ingo, and failing to meet Folley and Machen when they were prime. Not an impressive reign.

Patterson was very good, as were Quarry and Ellis.