Why shouldn't Barney Ross be judged on par with Benny Leonard?

You're being pedantic by offering Haye, who has a thin resume and was never a legit heavyweight champion, as your example.

Your point is valid but clearly Ali and Louis did beat some very talented and skilled fighters, as well as heavy hitters. Louis has probably the best punching technique we have on film, despite being much heavier than the smaller guys you'd expect to have more of a chance of mastering that particular skill. Ali did things you wouldn't expect in a big body.

It works both ways.

 

My point regarding weight is that both Ali and Louis beat guys ten lbs or so heavier that were still really good.

The same kind of weight difference the likes of Ross and Leonard beat quality fighters at.

 

I gave an example that fits an obviously wrong criteria that was introduced as one of the reasons for ranking Ali and Louis that high.

And Benny Leonard had beaten ten times more talent, skills and heavy hitting. Both in quantity and quality.

His punching technique is obviously flawed in that it leaves lots of openings for counters, the reason why he suffered several flash knockdowns. Both Leonard and Ross had a whole lot more balance between the offense and defense.

He did them vs whom? His pre-exile opposition outside of two questionable bouts with Liston is pretty thin. Post-exile he showed more toughness than something unexpected from a big body.

 

It was you who started pointing out to opposition all a sudden comparing Ross and Leonard. I said it several times before and will repeat it again, do you want to compare Ali's or Louis' opposition with that of Benny Yanger or George McFadden? Name by name. Best wins and draws vs best wins and draws. I'm not even asking to compare Leonard's or Ross' opposition with that of Louis and Ali, I'm asking you to compare their opposition with that of fighters who won't get in Top 50 all-time.
Just because a lot of people get carried away by heavyweight hype doesn't make it reasonable or logical.

 

'an obviously wrong criteria'

There is no right and wrong criteria you condescending *****.

Fact of the matter is only two heavyweights make my top 40 pound-for-pound rankings.

They are not sentimental or tokenistic rankings. They speak of the quality of those fighters.

Benny Leonard never beat anyone who hit as hard as George Foreman, that I can assure you. And just as the lighter fighters can move around in a more nimble fashion, a sixteen stone man can categorically generate more force than a nine/ten stone lad.

Quite how the first Liston-Ali fight can be called questionable I don't know, but people continue to regurgitate that nonsense.

 

I would also love to read it.

Also, I would love Senya to write a book. He has the materials, and the nous, and I for one would buy any book he wrote regardless of the subject.

 

If you agree to do the Ali part (and not in the IBHoF-inductee/hundred-million-defenses/whatever manner), then we have a deal.

 

Not just list the victims, but to estimate their status, overall (during their career) and at the time they were beaten by Ali. Just as an example, Jimmy McLarnin beat Benny Leonard, one would have not just to list that win as a great accomplishment, but actually to evaluate how much did Benny Leonard have left at that time, according to contemporary writers and based on reports from several Leonard's bouts prior to that. Or, another example, to consider how well was Joe Gans prepared for Sam Langford, did he consider it an important bout and train accordingly, and how well was Langford doing in other bouts at the time (consistent and impressive or not)?

 

Just as an example, if you gonna pay no attention in your argument to Patterson's troubles with his back, there's no point to even bother arguing. You will basically ignore the circumstances surrounding the fight, which were significant. Or if you mention Cleveland Williams fight as Ali's most impressive performance pre-exile, without paying much attention to Williams having been literally shot before that. Or what was the experts' opinion about Ken Norton. Or things like that. If one ignores the context, the betting odds, the opinions about fighters by people who were there, etc, "because you have the fights on film", then I see no point to debate anything.