The Ring's 80 Greatest Fighters Of The Last 80 Years

Holyfield too low? :huh

 

A response to this should be interesting, well, humorous at least.

 

Owned.

 

Well if that ain't proof positive...

 

Better than Burt's, but some things don't make sense. Here's one of them. Marvin Hagler won the middleweight title and defended it 12 times. He beat Duran. He beat Hearns. Plus he beat a slew of other tough hombres. He lost his title in his last fight, a fight he really didn't lose. Even if you think he won it you think it was close and Hagler wasn't the same fighter.

Did Leonard win the welterweight title and lose it only in his last fight after 12 successful title defenses against outstanding opposition? No. In fact he lost the title in his very first defense against Duran, a fighter whom Hagler cleanly outpointed. And Duran's victory over Leonard was no questionable affair. He dominated Leonard. Leonard struggled against Hearns. Hagler blew Hearns away. Were Leonard's other defenses, which were obviously more successful, of the quality of Hagler's defenses? No.

How on earth does Leonard get ranked over Hagler? Because he struggled against Ayub Kalule at junior middleweight? Because he beat a one-armed fighter of limited ability for the WBC light heavyweight title? Because he was floored twice and outpointed by a severely shopworn Hearns? Because he was dropped twice and outpointed by Terry Norris at junior middleweight?

It's a ridiculous ranking. Hagler's accomplishments are way out in front of Leonard's. Hagler was the greater champion. Only hype puts Leonard out there and the Ring Magazine should be immune to such sentiment. Judge them based on the fact, not hype. Do that and at least Hagler and Leonard switch places.

 

What do you do, leave out his best wins and play down his spectacular upsets? Norris wins all his fights with ease. He took the master boxer leonard and turned him into knots! Leonard who actually IMPROVED since his meeting with Hagler (his finest career performance) and went on to win five titles in all 11 years without a loss as well as a 5-1 favorite and gave him a boxing lesson the world has seldom seen.

I know,it's embarrassing to see him lose the way he did after all those accomplishments but like they say, there's always someone out there who's better than you. The world just hadnt discovered it yet.

and FYI, Meldrick was only 25 at the time. Hardly the over the hill image you're trying to give him. One loss-a disputed tko loss.

With my man Norris, there is never controversy involved when he wins.

 

A man is only owned when he fails to come back with a response. You should know

 

Lose Fitzsimmons and this is not a bad list.

 

Meldrick Taylor was never the same after Chavez. We all know it.

 

Thats the second time you've had a go at Fitz whats your beef with him if you dont mind me asking?

 

You're analysis is made redundant by the face that you don't factor in that Leonard fought Hearns and Duran at WW, a weight that they were both better at than MW.

Victories over Hearns and Duran at MW aren't the greatest victories around...their acheivements there are not that great.

Hagler often escapes criticism for never moving up in weight IMO.

 

great point MM. Ring is full of ****, plain and simple. the magazine went donwhill since the departure of Fleischer and Loubet when they were replaced by the 1980s yuppies.

Leonard getting ranked over Hagler is nothing short of backwards and completely biased. For me, less is not more as it is with most of the leonard fans. The less Leonard does, the more recognition he gets for it.

In reality, Hagler is top ten easy. A fighter if ever there was one. Leonard strains to reach top 40 status because of all the lack on his resume. Personally, I would place him among the Wilfred Benitez' of the world.

Duraing the 1980s, it was Hagler who was nominated p4p top fighter 4 straight times to Leonard's one.

With that in mind, does Leonard REALLY deserve to be ranked ahead of him or is it just the media up to its old tricks, trying to find some way to help out a personal favorite of theirs once more?

I say the latter. After all, how hard can it be to put someone's name in front of a number? This I'm sure would be swallowed whole by the John Thomas's and the Sweet Peas of the world. They are gullible enough.

Me? I like results.

Where was Leonard while Hagler and Hearns were both boasting the title of baddest man on the planet? I didnt see him contesting either one of them. He just hid his head in the same until well after the smoke had cleared.

Ring magazine is much too influenced by all the hype

 

I asked for proof. Provide it or shut the **** up. Your eagerness to switch topics tells me you have no proof at all, and are once again just talking out of your ass. I'll ask you again to provide proof, because I've heard (only heard, mind you) the exact opposite of what you state.