Leonard was on a less steep decline, and would have had all the negotiating power against Hagler if a rematch between them materialized. Ray would have won again, more decisively.
I agree that Leonard-Duran I and the Thrilla were both overated grapple-fests. In most fights, Muhammad Ali is a real bore to watch...holding, running, useless flurries. John Ruiz deserves respect.
Tony Ayala would've blown out Duran, Moore, Benitez and Hearns. The only guy who'd have a chance to overcome young Tony would've been a prime Hagler.
Tyson would KO Louis, Dempsey, Marciano and Frazier and maybe Johnson. Hamed at his best would have beat Barerra Buster Douglas was a good heavyweight who could have been great....maybe greater than Mike Tyson? Buster Douglas at his best could beat most ATGS The Klitschkos are overrated
I realised that Holmes-Cooney was going to be one sided,from the off. I never bought into the hype of this fight. Always felt it was going to be all Holmes.
Since the last thread i've changed opinion on some things. I no longer believe in any longcount theories, the ref's decision is final. Consequently I have tunney in my top 20 p4p. The strength of a an era shouldn't make any difference when ranking fighters. Comparing h2h is ridiculous because there is never a right answer. Louis and robinson are pretty much the closest thing we've seen to a perfect fighting machine. Any belts aside from the linear belt mean just as much as some being a top 3 contender in the good old days and nothing more. Linearity should be decided by the top two ranked fighters boxing off because sanctioning bodies are just too unreliable with their rankings today. Roberto duran's losses above welterweight can't be held against him. Langford's losses he successfuly rematched can't be held against him. No such thing as a fluke win. Noone will ever surpass fitz's achievements in the ring. Wlad klitschko's body of work overall so far is enough for him to crack any respectable top 15 whether or not haye beats him. Leonard didn't have a meaningful fight after hagler. The only reasonable excuse for losing is injury not caused by a punch.
- Joe Calzaghe is the worst 'great' fighter ever. The guy was technically deficient in pretty much every way, and beat a procession of terrible opposition which spanned almost his entire career. He outworked a stamina-shorn toothless 43 year old Hopkins, but still didn't deserve the decision IMO. - Ability-wise, Pernell Whitaker is the greatest fighter of all-time - But Duran would beat him at his best weight of 135 - Currently (and unlike pretty much every other sport) the skill level in boxing is lower than it was 60 years ago. Guys like Pascal, Pavlik, Maidana, Abraham, Alexander, Berto, Khan, JM Lopez etc would have struggled to be top 15 fighters in their divisions in the 70s and 80s. Far too much emphasis on physical conditioning, far too little emphasis on developing fundamentals and skillsets - JC Chavez Sr would've beaten Floyd Mayweather Jr at the weight where Mayweather is regarded as the GOAT, 130lbs More to come.
Me too. Look at that huge advantage in corners & Holmes was a guy that listened and prepared for his fights. Always. Cooney needed an opponent that was under prepared and a guy that wasn't in shape. He also needed a better corner himself to deal with the superior footwork of Holmes and how to neutralize it. When he went down in the 2nd round from a right hand, I knew then he was not going to win the fight. I thought he had no better than a punchers chance anyway & that pretty much went out the window the 2nd round. I was surprised Holmes did not jump on him a little more and try and get him out of there, but it showed a major and fatal flaw w/ Cooney didn't it? The ability to absorb a right hand from Holmes.