The TOP 50 WINS OF THE DECADE, 1980-1989

arther1045 · Jun 22, 2011

goat15 said: ↑

i'll simplify it further: leonard vs jones at 175 in the mid-nineties.
Click to expand...

How about Leonard vs Norris in the 90s?

horst · Jun 22, 2011

Kalasinn said: ↑

Berbick was Grade B, not Grade C, he has good wins against Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page & John Tate. Plus i thought he deserved the decision against Snipes too.

I would say Michael Spinks was Grade B+ at Heavyweight, being blasted out by the most devastating fighting machine in Peak Tyson shouldn't detract from him.
Click to expand...

Both fair calls. I really rate Pinklon Thomas as a fighter, so maybe should've given Berbick a bit more love. I probably wouldn't change Spinks's rating, he just didn't do enough at the weight IMO. I didn't think he was particularly convincing in either Holmes fight, in fact I think he definitely lost the second one, and his other heavyweight fights were nothing to get excited about. To get a B+ rating at heavyweight, he'd really have needed to blow me away at least once, to show he had that top performance in him vs a good/prime contender. Cooney was a bit of a dud by the time Spinks got him.

horst · Jun 22, 2011

arther1045 said: ↑

How about Leonard vs Norris in the 90s?
Click to expand...

Not really the same scenario. Leonard-Norris took place 7lbs north of Leonard's best weight. Duran's fights with SRL, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez all took place 12-25lbs north of Duran's.

horst · Jun 25, 2011

Popkins said: ↑

I really am kind of blown away that someone who has been on these forums as long as you is making comments like this. It's really crazy.

If Thomas Hearns had survived into the mid 90s and fought all the best supermiddles and lightheavys, and lost all but one of those fights, would you view him as inferior to them, and unfairly praised for the wins he did achieve against other prominent supermiddles and lightheavys of the mid 90s?

:nut Of course you would not, not at all.

Say after the Hill win in '91, Hearns fought on until 1999, and in the mid 90s he fought and lost to James Toney at supermiddle, Roy Jones at lightheavy, etc.

Would view him as inferior to Jones & Toney? Would you whine and cry when people spoke about how great his win over Virgil Hill was? Despite the fact that Hearns was well past his best and well above his best weight when he was fighting those guys? Despite the fact that Tommy had shown his best form 10-15 years earlier against Cuevas, Benitez, etc?

OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T! So show the same respect to a 1970s lightweight who could've retired as in 1978 as one of the most brilliant and dominant lightweights ever, but didn't, and fought on against the best fighters of the 80s in the lightmiddle and middleweight division.

:deal
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

:admin Are you serious? Really?

Roberto Duran was a lightweight who won his first world title in 1972.

Thomas Hearns was a welterweight who won his first world title in 1980.

OF COURSE Duran gets more credit for winning the world lightmiddleweight title in 1983 than Hearns would have if he beat the same guy. OF COURSE he does.

Do you really not see the difference in terms of the accomplishment here???

Look at this:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257283

I placed Thomas Hearns vs Virgil Hill as the number 2 wins of the 1990s in my 90s list - and took some heat for it from people reacting much the same way about it as you are reacting about Duran-Leonard 1 now.

They, like you, did not understand the importance of the circumstances.

Obviously if it had been Henry Maske or Fabrice Tiozzo beating Hill in '91, it would not have been the number 2 win of the decade, because those guys are similar to Hill in terms of age and natural size.

Thomas Hearns was a welterweight who won a world title in 1980. Him winning the lightheavyweight title in 1991 was obviously MASSIVE as compared to what Henry Maske winning the same lhw title in 1991 would have been.

And I apply the exact same logic to rating Hearns's achievements as I do to Duran's.

Duran was a 70s lightweight. He had no business beating up lightmiddles and middles in the 80s, much like Hearns had no business outboxing a lightheavyweight in the 90s!

Duran and Hearns have been treated the exact same by me. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

You're overlooking the circumstances. Look again at my criteria on page 1. Duran was a natural lightweight (135lbs) who won his first world title in 1972. Barkley was a natural 160-175lbs fighter, and Duran beat him in 1989. If you don't think 17 years and 25lbs enhances a win, you have no business evaluating wins.

And FYI, Kalambay and Nunn didn't come close to "beating up" Barkley.

Kalambay outboxed and UD'd him over 15 rounds, Kalambay being one of the best boxers of the era.

Then Duran beat Barkley.

And after that, Nunn beat him on a ****ing majority decision, and Benn got the benefit of a premature stoppage in a fight that was warming up to becoming an all-out war.

Your petty dislike of Duran is making you say some stupid things.
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

I was going to re-post all my questions individually, until I read your post. Now I think we can get down to the crux of the matter without having to go to the laborious effort of going question-by-question.

You say Leonard "could go further and beat greats".

Leonard's wins over greats were:

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Benitez, at the age of 23

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Duran, at the age of 24

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Hearns, at the age of 25

- at 160lbs, vs Hagler at Hagler's prime weight (13lbs above his peak weight), at the age of 31

His loss in this period was:

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Duran (12lbs above Duran's peak weight)

So of Ray's 4 wins over greats, 3 of them were at his own peak weight, and all between the ages of 23 and 25, his real physical prime.

The last of which was a very, very close and controversial points decision over a past-prime Marvin Hagler.

Now we look at the contrasting circumstances of Duran's fights vs the same greats.

Losses

- at 147lbs, 12lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Ray Leonard (SRL's peak weight), at the age of 29

- at 154lbs, 19lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Thomas Hearns (either 7lbs above Hearns's peak weight or this was Hearns's peak weight, depending on your p-o-v) at the age of 33

- at 154lbs, 19lbs above his natural weight, vs Wilfred Benitez (7-14lbs above Benitez's natural weight), at the age of 31

- at 160lbs, 25lbs above his natural weight, vs Marvin Hagler at Hagler's peak weight, at the age of 32

His key win in this period was:

- at 147lbs, 12lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Ray Leonard at Leonard's peak weight, at the age of 29

So for Duran's fights with these greats, he was 12-25lbs above his natural weight, and between the ages of 29 and 33.

You think it's a fair judgement of who had that little extra in big fights, between a guy who had 3 of his 4 big fights at his peak weight class between 23 and 25, and a guy who had none of his big fights at his peak weight class, and all of them 12-25lbs over his natural weight, between the ages of 29 and 33?

Pull the other one mate. Your means of differentiating between these guys is a joke. This is like judging Ray Leonard on the basis of him fighting Roy Jones Jr and James Toney at 168 and 175 in the mid 1990s, which of course you would not do, because it would be ridiculously unfair, yes?

In fact, Leonard got his ass handed to him by Terry Norris 12 years after his first world title fight and 7lbs above his natural fighting weight. Compare this to Duran, who 11 years after his first world title fight went to a 15-round decision with Marvin Hagler 25lbs above his natural fighting weight!! And Hagler was a much better fighter in 1983 than Norris was in 1991, as well as bigger, as well as much bigger in relation to Duran than Norris was to Leonard!

Rating Duran on the basis of his fights vs the Fab Four would be like rating Leonard on the basis of his fight with Norris (actually it would be kinder to SRL, as the fight with Norris took place only 7lbs north of SRL's natural weight), which would be ludicrous as it discounts all the great work SRL did in his own weight class in the early 80s.

Roberto Duran was a 70s lightweight, just like Leonard and Hearns were 80s welterweights. If you judge the accomplishments of Leonard and Hearns on the basis that they were 80s welterweights, you must judge the accomplishments of Duran on the basis that he was a 70s lightweight.
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

Ken Norton was an All-Time Great? :huh

Bob Foster was an ATG at heavy? :huh

Floyd Patterson in his last ever fight and outweighed by 30lbs counts as an ATG opponent? :huh

Resume is about a lot more than name-recognition you know.

If Norton, Foster and Patterson count as ATGs on Ali's resume, then so do Buchanan (who arguably is one anyway), Marcel, Cuevas and Palomino on Duran's resume.

Ken Buchanan was a greater fighter and deserves to rank higher ATG than Ken Norton and Floyd Patterson anyway.

You could argue one way or the other who was better between Norton at heavy and deJesus at light.

And obviously Buchanan, Palomino, deJesus and many more on Duran's resume had much better resumes at the weights Duran fought them at than Foster did at heavyweight.
Click to expand...

I guess MAG has no intention of ever responding to any of these points directly. It's a shame that he is so opinionated on Duran, yet cannot actually discuss the man's career in detail when asked to.

lufcrazy · Jun 25, 2011

Popkins said: ↑

I guess MAG has no intention of ever responding to any of these points directly. It's a shame that he is so opinionated on Duran, yet cannot actually discuss the man's career in detail when asked to.
Click to expand...

I gave up yesterday. I swear he only sees duran as a lightmiddleweight competing in the 80's. I don't think he acknowledge's at all that duran was actually a 70's lightweight.

He tried using the following points, this is when I got bored

Duran was still fighting in 2001 so cannot have been old and past his best against hagler and hearns

Floyd would win a wide ud against duran at lightweight.

horst · Jul 8, 2011

Popkins said: ↑

I really am kind of blown away that someone who has been on these forums as long as you is making comments like this. It's really crazy.

If Thomas Hearns had survived into the mid 90s and fought all the best supermiddles and lightheavys, and lost all but one of those fights, would you view him as inferior to them, and unfairly praised for the wins he did achieve against other prominent supermiddles and lightheavys of the mid 90s?

:nut Of course you would not, not at all.

Say after the Hill win in '91, Hearns fought on until 1999, and in the mid 90s he fought and lost to James Toney at supermiddle, Roy Jones at lightheavy, etc.

Would view him as inferior to Jones & Toney? Would you whine and cry when people spoke about how great his win over Virgil Hill was? Despite the fact that Hearns was well past his best and well above his best weight when he was fighting those guys? Despite the fact that Tommy had shown his best form 10-15 years earlier against Cuevas, Benitez, etc?

OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T! So show the same respect to a 1970s lightweight who could've retired as in 1978 as one of the most brilliant and dominant lightweights ever, but didn't, and fought on against the best fighters of the 80s in the lightmiddle and middleweight division.

:deal
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

:admin Are you serious? Really?

Roberto Duran was a lightweight who won his first world title in 1972.

Thomas Hearns was a welterweight who won his first world title in 1980.

OF COURSE Duran gets more credit for winning the world lightmiddleweight title in 1983 than Hearns would have if he beat the same guy. OF COURSE he does.

Do you really not see the difference in terms of the accomplishment here???

Look at this:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257283

I placed Thomas Hearns vs Virgil Hill as the number 2 wins of the 1990s in my 90s list - and took some heat for it from people reacting much the same way about it as you are reacting about Duran-Leonard 1 now.

They, like you, did not understand the importance of the circumstances.

Obviously if it had been Henry Maske or Fabrice Tiozzo beating Hill in '91, it would not have been the number 2 win of the decade, because those guys are similar to Hill in terms of age and natural size.

Thomas Hearns was a welterweight who won a world title in 1980. Him winning the lightheavyweight title in 1991 was obviously MASSIVE as compared to what Henry Maske winning the same lhw title in 1991 would have been.

And I apply the exact same logic to rating Hearns's achievements as I do to Duran's.

Duran was a 70s lightweight. He had no business beating up lightmiddles and middles in the 80s, much like Hearns had no business outboxing a lightheavyweight in the 90s!

Duran and Hearns have been treated the exact same by me. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

You're overlooking the circumstances. Look again at my criteria on page 1. Duran was a natural lightweight (135lbs) who won his first world title in 1972. Barkley was a natural 160-175lbs fighter, and Duran beat him in 1989. If you don't think 17 years and 25lbs enhances a win, you have no business evaluating wins.

And FYI, Kalambay and Nunn didn't come close to "beating up" Barkley.

Kalambay outboxed and UD'd him over 15 rounds, Kalambay being one of the best boxers of the era.

Then Duran beat Barkley.

And after that, Nunn beat him on a ****ing majority decision, and Benn got the benefit of a premature stoppage in a fight that was warming up to becoming an all-out war.

Your petty dislike of Duran is making you say some stupid things.
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

I was going to re-post all my questions individually, until I read your post. Now I think we can get down to the crux of the matter without having to go to the laborious effort of going question-by-question.

You say Leonard "could go further and beat greats".

Leonard's wins over greats were:

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Benitez, at the age of 23

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Duran, at the age of 24

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Hearns, at the age of 25

- at 160lbs, vs Hagler at Hagler's prime weight (13lbs above his peak weight), at the age of 31

His loss in this period was:

- at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Duran (12lbs above Duran's peak weight)

So of Ray's 4 wins over greats, 3 of them were at his own peak weight, and all between the ages of 23 and 25, his real physical prime.

The last of which was a very, very close and controversial points decision over a past-prime Marvin Hagler.

Now we look at the contrasting circumstances of Duran's fights vs the same greats.

Losses

- at 147lbs, 12lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Ray Leonard (SRL's peak weight), at the age of 29

- at 154lbs, 19lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Thomas Hearns (either 7lbs above Hearns's peak weight or this was Hearns's peak weight, depending on your p-o-v) at the age of 33

- at 154lbs, 19lbs above his natural weight, vs Wilfred Benitez (7-14lbs above Benitez's natural weight), at the age of 31

- at 160lbs, 25lbs above his natural weight, vs Marvin Hagler at Hagler's peak weight, at the age of 32

His key win in this period was:

- at 147lbs, 12lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Ray Leonard at Leonard's peak weight, at the age of 29

So for Duran's fights with these greats, he was 12-25lbs above his natural weight, and between the ages of 29 and 33.

You think it's a fair judgement of who had that little extra in big fights, between a guy who had 3 of his 4 big fights at his peak weight class between 23 and 25, and a guy who had none of his big fights at his peak weight class, and all of them 12-25lbs over his natural weight, between the ages of 29 and 33?

Pull the other one mate. Your means of differentiating between these guys is a joke. This is like judging Ray Leonard on the basis of him fighting Roy Jones Jr and James Toney at 168 and 175 in the mid 1990s, which of course you would not do, because it would be ridiculously unfair, yes?

In fact, Leonard got his ass handed to him by Terry Norris 12 years after his first world title fight and 7lbs above his natural fighting weight. Compare this to Duran, who 11 years after his first world title fight went to a 15-round decision with Marvin Hagler 25lbs above his natural fighting weight!! And Hagler was a much better fighter in 1983 than Norris was in 1991, as well as bigger, as well as much bigger in relation to Duran than Norris was to Leonard!

Rating Duran on the basis of his fights vs the Fab Four would be like rating Leonard on the basis of his fight with Norris (actually it would be kinder to SRL, as the fight with Norris took place only 7lbs north of SRL's natural weight), which would be ludicrous as it discounts all the great work SRL did in his own weight class in the early 80s.

Roberto Duran was a 70s lightweight, just like Leonard and Hearns were 80s welterweights. If you judge the accomplishments of Leonard and Hearns on the basis that they were 80s welterweights, you must judge the accomplishments of Duran on the basis that he was a 70s lightweight.
Click to expand...

Popkins said: ↑

Ken Norton was an All-Time Great? :huh

Bob Foster was an ATG at heavy? :huh

Floyd Patterson in his last ever fight and outweighed by 30lbs counts as an ATG opponent? :huh

Resume is about a lot more than name-recognition you know.

If Norton, Foster and Patterson count as ATGs on Ali's resume, then so do Buchanan (who arguably is one anyway), Marcel, Cuevas and Palomino on Duran's resume.

Ken Buchanan was a greater fighter and deserves to rank higher ATG than Ken Norton and Floyd Patterson anyway.

You could argue one way or the other who was better between Norton at heavy and deJesus at light.

And obviously Buchanan, Palomino, deJesus and many more on Duran's resume had much better resumes at the weights Duran fought them at than Foster did at heavyweight.
Click to expand...

I think everyone on this forum would have more respect for MAG if he ever confronted these points on Duran, rather than just keep churning out the same ill-informed crap on the subject every day. :think

lufcrazy · Jul 8, 2011

Popkins said: ↑

I think everyone on this forum would have more respect for MAG if he ever confronted these points on Duran, rather than just keep churning out the same ill-informed crap on the subject every day. :think
Click to expand...

atsch his viewpoints on duran are blinkered it irritates me sometimes.

it's like he is completely unaware the guy was a 70's LW (and an absolutely legendary one at that!)

Wolf · Jul 8, 2011

Nice list.

If Hearns-Leonard 2 had been scored correctly and given to Hearns would youu rank it on your list? If so where?

Jorodz · Jul 8, 2011

just went through and started a list for all the fights i have to watch...THANKS!

lufcrazy · Jul 8, 2011

It has to be said popkins lists are top notch.

Log in or Sign up

The TOP 50 WINS OF THE DECADE, 1980-1989

arther1045 Member Full Member

horst Guest

horst Guest

horst Guest

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

horst Guest

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

Wolf Guest

Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... Full Member

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

***The TOP 50 WINS OF THE DECADE, 1980-1989***

arther1045 Member Full Member

horst Guest

horst Guest

horst Guest

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

horst Guest

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

Wolf Guest

Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... Full Member

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

The TOP 50 WINS OF THE DECADE, 1980-1989