Can I ask where abouts Ezzard Charles would feature if your list was extended? As a sidenote; my list consists mostly of old timers because they had more fights back then and therefore beat more contenders/champions. They had more room to create a legacy, more bouts in which to achieve. You wouldn't catch anyone racking up a record like Greb's nowadays.
Dislike? I dislike Ali's fans, or rather, the fanatical ones which seem to be all too common. Moore can be somewhat excused for losing some of his bigger fights because he was fighting better opponents. Charles in a pound-for-pound sense was well ahead of any Joe Fraziers, Sonny Listons or George Foremans, for example. Also, Rocky Marciano or Floyd Patterson, facing a naturally light heavyweight/small heavyweight Moore, would have been more of a challenge than what most of Ali's opponents could offer. Wins over such fighters as Harold Johnson - about on Frazier's level - and Jimmy Bivins - Patterson level (relative to Ali)? - catapult Moore into the elite. Holman Williams, Joey Maxim, Jack Chase, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall, the top names are all there, as well as some solid ones from the weight class above. I genuinely think Moore deserves to be rated above Ali, who falls at about #12. If you examined them win-for-win I think Moore would lead the way. Loss-for-loss, Ali would be in front, but you have to consider the very different times and locations in which the two fought; Ali, the Olympic champion, was a protected golden boy in comparison to the rough n' ready Moore of the '30s and '40s.
I'm in agreement with your opinion about old timers. Its so hard to knock them when comparing their statistics and quantity of fights they had against the modern era greats. Robinson was 120-1 when he stepped into the ring to challenge Lamotta for the middleweight title in 1951, with the previous loss at the hands of Lamotta 8 years earlier. As you probably know. Then went on to win the middleweight title 5 times. Willie Pep was another who had a crazy unbeaten streak over a lengthy span of time. Ezzard Charles would not make my top 10. He was a great light-heayweight, its a shame he never won the title at that weight. His longevity as heavyweight champion was brief, and his two failed attempts to regain the title against Marciano were good efforts, but overall not good enough for elite status in my eyes.
What about this though? Charley Burley x2 Lloyd Marshall x2 Joey Maxim x5 Archie Moore x3 Teddy Yarosz Jersey Joe Walcott x2 Jimmy Bivins x4 These are all Hall of Fame level fighters. Throw in the other various contenders, many of whom had a weight advantage over Charles, and there lie a resume more impressive than Muhammad Ali's - in my opinion. Beating Archie Moore, a genuine boxing legend, three times in his prime, has to be the best set of wins in boxing history. The rest is just icing. Many will comment on Charles' losses. My argument against that is that fighters change. Charles was thrashed by Bivins and Marshall, but after he joined the army and became bigger, stronger and more importantly; mentally focused, he returned the favour multiple times over. Check out Charles' streak from '46 to '49, it's one of the better ones throughout history. He only lost to Walcott after he became dissinterested and unconfident as he didn't receive the respect he deserved. Charles was a fighter like Henry Armstrong - not that great at the start of his career, not that great at the end of it, but fantastic in the middle.
If you don't mind he asking, how highly do you rate Pernell Whitaker?. Not necessarily ranking him on a "pound for pound" list, but his skills and achivements against fellow modern greats of the last 30 years. Personally he's on par with the most skillful boxers I have ever seen bar none. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali, Leonard, etc. I'll go one further, he's the best boxer I have ever seen for being effective on the backfoot.
I think Whitaker is one of the four best lightweights in history - now considering the talent in that division, that's saying a lot. Roberto Duran, Ike Williams and Carlos Ortiz are the three others members, in no order (Duran beats Whitaker, Williams beats Duran, Whitaker beats Williams, Ortiz versus any of them is a toss up). I've not seen fighters much slicker than Whitaker. Benitez perhaps, maybe Locche, but Locche didn't have Whitaker's offense (underrated, especially to the body) to match. I don't like him much but I have to admire his talent. I think Pep was more dynamic, Duran, Charles and Robinson more rounded, but Whitaker probably belongs in that same class.
Whitaker against Duran must be one of the most talked about mythical fights in history, along with Louis v Ali and Robinson v Hagler. Duran happens to be my favourite fighter of all time. I'd pick Whitaker to hand Duran a defeat via decision. Look at Duran's first title fight against Buchanan, then fast forward 6 years to his unification rubber match with De Jesus, and you see a totally different fighter style wise. He was a constant aggressive machine during the early 70's, never paced himself well, and was wild with his punches. Maybe a better way to sum him up: Very rushed and untidy. Brown and Arcel made him more refined as the years ticked along during the 70's. He became more economical with his punches, combined better boxing ability from long range, and his defense was vastly improved. Some people seem to forget this about Duran, he had many non-title fights between his defenses. Maybe as much as 20 non-title fights over his 7 year reign. The Duran of the early 70's losses easily to Whitaker, however the primely oiled all round fighting beast of the late 70's gives Whitaker a serious headache. Whitaker's movement, effective backfoot boxing, and well balanced percentage of offense and defense is too much for Duran.
Just checked the exact number of non-title fights during Duran's reign as lightweight champion, 23 non-title fights.
I don't think Whitaker beats Duran at all; Duran was no Chavez. Chavez was one dimensional in comparison to Duran, and too clean and tidy - easy to predict. Duran shopped and swapped his punches, mixed them up, feinted a fighter into knots and suffocated them up close. Chavez was a technically sound fighter, bobbing, weaving, punches tight, but all this was easy for Whitaker to read. Chavez lacked that same genius Duran had, that ability to find angles and innovate, to invent. Movers might have given Duran trouble, but Whitaker wasn't a mover - he stood still for far too long to defeat Duran, who outguns him at most ranges.
Whitaker sure was a mover. During some fights at lightweight he'd stand in there, but for the most part he'd move and create angles behind the jab. His movement declined after moving up to welterweight, as he became more flat-footed. Watch his fight with Nelson, and a similar type of approach against Duran gives him the win. Although I confess, Nelson and Duran ain't the same. I agree, Chavez is too measured stylewise when compared to Duran, who got off more freely with his punches. No question Duran slipped punches better than Chavez, and closed the distance quicker.
You're right in that Whitaker did move; he didn't have cement boots. But he didn't move like Ray Leonard or run like Lou Bizzarro. Compared to them he was relatively stationary, keeping his distance and jabbing but not using a whole lot of ring space. That's fine, it worked great for him, but it's one of the reasons why I think Duran would catch up to him. And in all seriousness, I'm not even sure Whitaker would have the better of it from the outside, I mean, look at Duran against Leonard in their first fight. Long range, Duran was there all the way. He was really quick back then. I remember one of the commentators saying 'look at Leonard's speed' and then the other one said 'yea, but look at Duran's!'
Watch Whitaker v Ramirez I and you'll see him use ring space. He exclusively used the jab that night, but not much variation. On his bicycle for the entire fight and scoring effectively at the same time, with the jab. One of the worst decisions in boxing history. His constant movement while back pedaling poking out the jab cost him dearly. But he made Ramirez miss all night long. Also against Nelson he moved relentlessly, sometimes backwards in a straight line, and also to the side. Compared to his fight first fight with Ramirez, he showed more weapons in this fight. He varied his work, with many more left hand power punches. He went downstairs more often, and would stand and get off with authority, then slide away again. Whitaker has the style to fight the same kind of fight at lightweight as Leonard did during his rematch with Duran. It must be said, Duran would be in better shape than he was that night, and would be sharper all round. I still think Whitaker beats him. When I match fighters head to head in a match up, I try to focus soley on what they did in each division we are matching them at, rather looking at their strategy and performances in other divisions. Although sometimes its hard not to look at a fighters activity elsewhere.
Sugar Ray Leonard. The hateful bile spouted on these forums in the direction of this guy is unbelievable (it's mostly down to petty personal 'issues' perople seem to have, causing 'em to under-rate the guy). He should be judged on the grounds that he was a truely great fighter, nothing else. :good
Whitaker boxed excellently against Nelson and Ramirez, and Chavez, but here is my gripe: I don't think he did. Whitaker was quick, but Leonard had that extreme top-five-all-time speed, both of hand and foot. He was a dancer in the Ali mould, a spearing, rangy fighter - at least when he boxed Duran in that fateful rematch. Whitaker could move, but not in the same way. He slid like a snake and occasionally ran or hopped back out of distance, but he didn't dance and glide like Leonard. His jab was a piston, rather than a whip and he wasn't as rangy either. These aren't necessarily bad things regarding Whitaker in general as a fighter because he was better than Leonard in other areas, but he lacked the tools needed to beat Duran, who would be all over him like a rash. Even if he only got close occasionally, as I said before - I'm not even sure Whitaker would have the best of it on the outside. Duran was quick and clever. Of course, I would never assume Duran would have his way completely with Whitaker on the inside as the latter was a quality fighter at that range too, but Duran would be the dominant force - too much of a strength-power-skill balance for Whitaker to handle. The decision would be close, but Duran wins.
Seriously though, who is underrating Leonard? Rooster and Hank, both of whom are ridiculed. It's not a big deal.
