Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
In-ring Performance
Achievements
Dominance
Mainstream Appeal
Marvin Hagler, BHop, RJJ, JCalzaghe, Antonio Tarver, Eubank, SRL, james toney, Sweet pea...
In Ring Performance
SRL- His fights w Duran, Hearns, Hagler alone dwarf the comp of everyone on the list but PW
Achievements-
SRL we have to go by quality of opp, amount of titles etc...Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, I mean these guys are in the top 25 ATG P4P...He won titles at 147, 154, 160, 168, 175
Dominance
Hagler absolutely ruled the MW division and beat his opp silly
Mainstream appeal-
SRL this guy in the 80's was DLH, Pacquiao, and everyone else on the list rolled into one...Those who don't realize the popularity of Leonard in his hey day are too young to have been around back then...He was the face of Boxing after Ali retired
\Leonard is the top of this list....Not saying the best fighter of them all but still using the criteria he dominated....Tarver and Eubank dont even belong in the company of the others
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Ok, all of these are in order
In-ring Performance
Sugar Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Marvin Hagler
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Achievements
Roy Jones Jr
Sugar Ray Leonard
Bernard Hopkins
Pernell Whitaker
Marvin Hagler
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Dominance
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Bernard Hopkins
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Mainstream Appeal
Sugar Ray Leonard (& it's not even close here)
Marvin Hagler
Roy Jones Jr
Chris Eubank (only in UK)
Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Tarver
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Pernell Whitaker
On the last one, it's Leonard in a far out lead, followed by Hagler, who's closely followed by Jones than the rest are all a similar level.
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Ok, all of these are in order
In-ring Performance
Sugar Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Marvin Hagler
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Achievements
Roy Jones Jr
Sugar Ray Leonard
Bernard Hopkins
Pernell Whitaker
Marvin Hagler
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Dominance
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Bernard Hopkins
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Mainstream Appeal
Sugar Ray Leonard (& it's not even close here)
Marvin Hagler
Roy Jones Jr
Chris Eubank (only in UK)
Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Tarver
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Pernell Whitaker
On the last one, it's Leonard in a far out lead, followed by Hagler, who's closely followed by Jones than the rest are all a similar level.
You really think Pernell was more Dominate then Jones was?
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Ok, all of these are in order
In-ring Performance
Sugar Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Marvin Hagler
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Achievements
Roy Jones Jr
Sugar Ray Leonard
Bernard Hopkins
Pernell Whitaker
Marvin Hagler
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Dominance
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Bernard Hopkins
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Mainstream Appeal
Sugar Ray Leonard (& it's not even close here)
Marvin Hagler
Roy Jones Jr
Chris Eubank (only in UK)
Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Tarver
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Pernell Whitaker
On the last one, it's Leonard in a far out lead, followed by Hagler, who's closely followed by Jones than the rest are all a similar level.
You really think Pernell was more Dominate then Jones was?
He maybe didn't dominate his opponents as much, but I felt his opposition was better & he did properly dominate the Lightweight & Welterweight division imo. Jones swept through to LHW, but I felt his opposition was too hideous at times there, which is what swayed me. Maybe opposition shouldn't come under dominance, but it's the same reason I have Calzaghe under Leonard despite him dominating SMW for so many years.
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Ok, all of these are in order
In-ring Performance
Sugar Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Marvin Hagler
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Achievements
Roy Jones Jr
Sugar Ray Leonard
Bernard Hopkins
Pernell Whitaker
Marvin Hagler
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Chris Eubank
Dominance
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Roy Jones Jr
Bernard Hopkins
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Calzaghe
James Toney
Antonio Tarver
Mainstream Appeal
Sugar Ray Leonard (& it's not even close here)
Marvin Hagler
Roy Jones Jr
Chris Eubank (only in UK)
Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Tarver
James Toney
Joe Calzaghe
Pernell Whitaker
On the last one, it's Leonard in a far out lead, followed by Hagler, who's closely followed by Jones than the rest are all a similar level.
You really think Pernell was more Dominate then Jones was?
He maybe didn't dominate his opponents as much, but I felt his opposition was better & he did properly dominate the Lightweight & Welterweight division imo. Jones swept through to LHW, but I felt his opposition was too hideous at times there, which is what swayed me. Maybe opposition shouldn't come under dominance, but it's the same reason I have Calzaghe under Leonard despite him dominating SMW for so many years.
Fair call and one I agree with 100%
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Hagler is my all time favorite fighter and I put him number one but not because of bias but based on your criteria. IMO, if you take a fighter's greatest asset away from him and then see how he performs, that tells you how good he is. With Roy, his gift was his reflexes. Once that went, he was merely mediocre. Hagler, like Leonard, was so well rounded they could have still been world champions if you took their single greatest skill away (I also feel Hagler beat Leonard but that's beside the point). Hagler, Whitaker, and Roy were the most dominant but Hagler clearly dominated against the toughest competition. As far as in ring performance, Hagler and Tarver had the most impressive single wins (against Hearns and Jones). Whitaker's dominance over Chavez I'd say is a distant third because I rate KOs far ahead of boxing clinics. As mentioned by a few people, Leonard is clearly the mainstream king. As far as achievments I don't put as much stock in moving up in weight as others, but moreso on who you beat. That's why IMO Hagler staying at one weight supercedes all the belts Roy won. Rolling all the criteria together, my list is:
1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Jones and Hopkins tied
5. Calzaghe
6. Toney
7. Tarver
8. Eubank
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
match
Hagler is my all time favorite fighter and I put him number one but not because of bias but based on your criteria. IMO, if you take a fighter's greatest asset away from him and then see how he performs, that tells you how good he is. With Roy, his gift was his reflexes. Once that went, he was merely mediocre. Hagler, like Leonard, was so well rounded they could have still been world champions if you took their single greatest skill away (I also feel Hagler beat Leonard but that's beside the point). Hagler, Whitaker, and Roy were the most dominant but Hagler clearly dominated against the toughest competition. As far as in ring performance, Hagler and Tarver had the most impressive single wins (against Hearns and Jones). Whitaker's dominance over Chavez I'd say is a distant third because I rate KOs far ahead of boxing clinics. As mentioned by a few people, Leonard is clearly the mainstream king. As far as achievments I don't put as much stock in moving up in weight as others, but moreso on who you beat. That's why IMO Hagler staying at one weight supercedes all the belts Roy won. Rolling all the criteria together, my list is:
1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Jones and Hopkins tied
5. Calzaghe
6. Toney
7. Tarver
8. Eubank
Saying Roy's "gift" was reflexes is basically saying he got "old". Roy actually fought longer than both of them. Hagler had more rounds, but roy was older. "Not including the fights with Tarver, johnson, calzaghe, etc" Roy was older than the both of them (SRL and HAGLER) when he first lost to Tarver. So there's no proof that i see to back up the statement that they could have lasted without the prime asset which you called "reflexes" and in boxing that's basically age. The asset of age isn't exclusive to Roy they all need that.
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
match
Hagler is my all time favorite fighter and I put him number one but not because of bias but based on your criteria. IMO, if you take a fighter's greatest asset away from him and then see how he performs, that tells you how good he is. With Roy, his gift was his reflexes. Once that went, he was merely mediocre. Hagler, like Leonard, was so well rounded they could have still been world champions if you took their single greatest skill away (I also feel Hagler beat Leonard but that's beside the point). Hagler, Whitaker, and Roy were the most dominant but Hagler clearly dominated against the toughest competition. As far as in ring performance, Hagler and Tarver had the most impressive single wins (against Hearns and Jones). Whitaker's dominance over Chavez I'd say is a distant third because I rate KOs far ahead of boxing clinics. As mentioned by a few people, Leonard is clearly the mainstream king. As far as achievments I don't put as much stock in moving up in weight as others, but moreso on who you beat. That's why IMO Hagler staying at one weight supercedes all the belts Roy won. Rolling all the criteria together, my list is:
1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Jones and Hopkins tied
5. Calzaghe
6. Toney
7. Tarver
8. Eubank
Saying Roy's "gift" was reflexes is basically saying he got "old". Roy actually fought longer than both of them. Hagler had more rounds, but roy was older. "Not including the fights with Tarver, johnson, calzaghe, etc" Roy was older than the both of them (SRL and HAGLER) when he first lost to Tarver. So there's no proof that i see to back up the statement that they could have lasted without the prime asset which you called "reflexes" and in boxing that's basically age. The asset of age isn't exclusive to Roy they all need that.
What do reflexes have to do with anything I said about Hagler and Leonard? I said 'Roy's' greatest asset was his reflexes, not Hagler and Leonard. Both of them were more well rounded and didn't rely solely on athleticism to win fights. The proof I see to back this up is simply watching Roy of the 90s vs Roy of today. Other fighters have gotten old yet managed to adapt based on being well rounded, and others as you stated simply got old. IMO Roy didn't lose to Tarver because he got old or because he lost weight, it was because Tarver just has his number. Me taking away a fighter's greatest strength, as I said, is just something hypothetical I do to try to see how well rounded a fighter is. To be fair, maybe I didn't explain what I meant clearly. Any fighter who's reflexes deteriorate will obviously not be as good, I think though that Roy's reflexes deteriorating has a more profound, negative affect on him than say anyone else, simply because he had the best reflexes I ever saw, but he relied to heavily on them.
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
match
Hagler is my all time favorite fighter and I put him number one but not because of bias but based on your criteria. IMO, if you take a fighter's greatest asset away from him and then see how he performs, that tells you how good he is. With Roy, his gift was his reflexes. Once that went, he was merely mediocre. Hagler, like Leonard, was so well rounded they could have still been world champions if you took their single greatest skill away (I also feel Hagler beat Leonard but that's beside the point). Hagler, Whitaker, and Roy were the most dominant but Hagler clearly dominated against the toughest competition. As far as in ring performance, Hagler and Tarver had the most impressive single wins (against Hearns and Jones). Whitaker's dominance over Chavez I'd say is a distant third because I rate KOs far ahead of boxing clinics. As mentioned by a few people, Leonard is clearly the mainstream king. As far as achievments I don't put as much stock in moving up in weight as others, but moreso on who you beat. That's why IMO Hagler staying at one weight supercedes all the belts Roy won. Rolling all the criteria together, my list is:
1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Jones and Hopkins tied
5. Calzaghe
6. Toney
7. Tarver
8. Eubank
Saying Roy's "gift" was reflexes is basically saying he got "old". Roy actually fought longer than both of them. Hagler had more rounds, but roy was older. "Not including the fights with Tarver, johnson, calzaghe, etc" Roy was older than the both of them (SRL and HAGLER) when he first lost to Tarver. So there's no proof that i see to back up the statement that they could have lasted without the prime asset which you called "reflexes" and in boxing that's basically age. The asset of age isn't exclusive to Roy they all need that.
Lets be honest the only reason why Roy stayed active so long is many easy fights...His whole LHW career before his move to heavyweight exist mostly of live bodies with a few exceptions...Easy fights allow a longer shelf life when u rely on speed like Jones did
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
match
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
match
Hagler is my all time favorite fighter and I put him number one but not because of bias but based on your criteria. IMO, if you take a fighter's greatest asset away from him and then see how he performs, that tells you how good he is. With Roy, his gift was his reflexes. Once that went, he was merely mediocre. Hagler, like Leonard, was so well rounded they could have still been world champions if you took their single greatest skill away (I also feel Hagler beat Leonard but that's beside the point). Hagler, Whitaker, and Roy were the most dominant but Hagler clearly dominated against the toughest competition. As far as in ring performance, Hagler and Tarver had the most impressive single wins (against Hearns and Jones). Whitaker's dominance over Chavez I'd say is a distant third because I rate KOs far ahead of boxing clinics. As mentioned by a few people, Leonard is clearly the mainstream king. As far as achievments I don't put as much stock in moving up in weight as others, but moreso on who you beat. That's why IMO Hagler staying at one weight supercedes all the belts Roy won. Rolling all the criteria together, my list is:
1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Jones and Hopkins tied
5. Calzaghe
6. Toney
7. Tarver
8. Eubank
Saying Roy's "gift" was reflexes is basically saying he got "old". Roy actually fought longer than both of them. Hagler had more rounds, but roy was older. "Not including the fights with Tarver, johnson, calzaghe, etc" Roy was older than the both of them (SRL and HAGLER) when he first lost to Tarver. So there's no proof that i see to back up the statement that they could have lasted without the prime asset which you called "reflexes" and in boxing that's basically age. The asset of age isn't exclusive to Roy they all need that.
What do reflexes have to do with anything I said about Hagler and Leonard? I said 'Roy's' greatest asset was his reflexes, not Hagler and Leonard. Both of them were more well rounded and didn't rely solely on athleticism to win fights. The proof I see to back this up is simply watching Roy of the 90s vs Roy of today. Other fighters have gotten old yet managed to adapt based on being well rounded, and others as you stated simply got old. I
MO Roy didn't lose to Tarver because he got old or because he lost weight, it was because Tarver just has his number. Me taking away a fighter's greatest strength, as I said, is just something hypothetical I do to try to see how well rounded a fighter is. To be fair, maybe I didn't explain what I meant clearly. Any fighter who's reflexes deteriorate will obviously not be as good, I think though that Roy's reflexes deteriorating has a more profound, negative affect on him than say anyone else, simply because he had the best reflexes I ever saw, but he relied to heavily on them.
Do you honestly believe Tarver would have defeated Roy before going up to HW?
Re: Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?
I think Tarver is to Jones is what Frazier was to Ali. Stylistically he's a bad matchup for him. He's a guy who would have given Roy fits at any time in his career. Roy is clearly the better of the two but if they had fought 10 times I think Tarver wins 3 or 4.
