should fighters who duck others be all time greats

Should a fighter who dodges another while they are both in their glory years still be considered one of the greatest ?

Yes and no. If a fighter flat out don't want to fight a guy, then his record might be an all-time great, but it would be considered padded.

On the other hand. With the big networks, and promoters, and sanctioning bodies interfering, some fights may never happen due to contracts. If don King signs you, you only fight who he wants you to. Tito was his cash cow, and wanted a rematch against BHOP, and King wouldn't let it happen. That's why he retired the first time. It's a damn shame that outside entities affect the outcome of the sport. I wish there was one cure-all situation, but there isn't.

All we can do is hope.

If thats true then Mayweather will never be an all time great for ducking Casamayor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P.G.H Angel Eyes

If thats true then Mayweather will never be an all time great for ducking Casamayor.

---

Come on. You know that HBO and Showtime didn't let that fight happen. Besides, Floyd would beat him, he should have fought him, but he would still win.

A lot of the fighters I consider all-time Greats, were victims rather than perpetrators; on this subject.

Although now that I am comming round to placing Roy Jones Jr as an all-time Great, I guess this subject is going to get more and more heated.

I would certainly say, it does not help your case, especially when it is a deliberate decision, rather than a political one. ;)

would dempsey be considered an all time great for refusing to fight wills? is marciano considered and all time great for not fighting valdes. im pretty sure both men would have fought these challengers but influences outside dictated otherwise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LBSCFC

would dempsey be considered an all time great for refusing to fight wills? is marciano considered and all time great for not fighting valdes. im pretty sure both men would have fought these challengers but influences outside dictated otherwise

---

But IMO neither Dempsey nor Marciano are all time Greats. ;)

Get off the crack BRITKID....Dempsey and Marciano not all time greats? wait lemme guess you have Hatton as the greatest WELTERWEIGHT of all time already don't you.. thought so..probably think Judah is second to Hatton in the p4p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

Get off the crack BRITKID....Dempsey and Marciano not all time greats? wait lemme guess you have Hatton as the greatest WELTERWEIGHT of all time already don't you.. thought so..probably think Judah is second to Hatton in the p4p.

---

Dempsey and Marciano do not fully meet my criteria at the moment. They are huge icons of the sport, no doubt. But both lack in the quality of opposition and both have small redemption issues, to make it into Boxing Valhalla.

As for Ricky and indeed Zab Zab, time will tell....

Below is the 35 fighters, I consider all-time greats:

35 Roy Jones
34 George Foreman
33 Joe Gans
32 Ruben Olivares
31 Thomas Hearns
30 Marvin Hagler
29 Joe Louis
28 Gene Tunney
27 George Dixon
26 Eder Jofre
25 Carlos Zarate
24 Alexis Arguello
23 Pernell Whitaker
22 Oscar de la Hoya
21 Pancho Villa
20 Bob Fitzsimmons
19 Stanley Ketchel
18 Harry Grebb
17 Ezzard Charles
16 Benny Leonard
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
14 Mickey Walker
13 Ray Leonard
12 Carlos Monzon
11 Muhammad Ali
10 Charley Burley
9 Archie Moore
8 Jimmy Wilde
7 Willie Pep
6 Sandy Sadler
5 Georges Carpentier
4 Roberto Duran
3 Sammy Langford
2 Henry Armstrong
1 Ray Robinson

On average, you tend to get an all time great come along every three years or so, but that is not a given...

At the moment these five are just outside being considered all time Greats, but I suspect in time, I will consider them all, all time greats:

40 Kid Gavilan
39 Azumah Nelson
38 Bernard Hopkins
37 Jack Johnson
36 Ricardo Lopez

And for the record I have Marciano at #56 and Dempsey at #70, in my all time top 100 list. For the moment neither Ricky or Zab Zab are not listed.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatsandy

Should a fighter who dodges another while they are both in their glory years still be considered one of the greatest ?

---

"yes and no" is the right answer lol

because ofcourse its bad to duck a boxer who you MAY or may not be afraid of thats always noticbly bad

however in cases like RJJ vs Tarver ..RJJ shouldnt have fought him because he had moved up and shoulda stayed up in weight ...he didnt have anything to prove by fighting him at 175

When its mandatory u fight someone like in the case of Lewis byrd ...u shouldnt just give ur belt up like Lewis did ...or like riddick did to lewis but w/e they have reasons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

Get off the crack BRITKID....Dempsey and Marciano not all time greats? wait lemme guess you have Hatton as the greatest WELTERWEIGHT of all time already don't you.. thought so..probably think Judah is second to Hatton in the p4p.

---

Dempsey and Marciano do not fully meet my criteria at the moment. They are huge icons of the sport, no doubt. But both lack in the quality of opposition and both have small redemption issues, to make it into Boxing Valhalla.

As for Ricky and indeed Zab Zab, time will tell....

Below is the 35 fighters, I consider all-time greats:

35 Roy Jones
34 George Foreman
33 Joe Gans
32 Ruben Olivares
31 Thomas Hearns
30 Marvin Hagler
29 Joe Louis
28 Gene Tunney
27 George Dixon
26 Eder Jofre
25 Carlos Zarate
24 Alexis Arguello
23 Pernell Whitaker
22 Oscar de la Hoya
21 Pancho Villa
20 Bob Fitzsimmons
19 Stanley Ketchel
18 Harry Grebb
17 Ezzard Charles
16 Benny Leonard
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
14 Mickey Walker
13 Ray Leonard
12 Carlos Monzon
11 Muhammad Ali
10 Charley Burley
9 Archie Moore
8 Jimmy Wilde
7 Willie Pep
6 Sandy Sadler
5 Georges Carpentier
4 Roberto Duran
3 Sammy Langford
2 Henry Armstrong
1 Ray Robinson

On average, you tend to get an all time great come along every three years or so, but that is not a given...

At the moment these five are just outside being considered all time Greats, but I suspect in time, I will consider them all, all time greats:

40 Kid Gavilan
39 Azumah Nelson
38 Bernard Hopkins
37 Jack Johnson
36 Ricardo Lopez

And for the record I have Marciano at #56 and Dempsey at #70, in my all time top 100 list. For the moment neither Ricky or Zab Zab are not listed.... ;)

---

I don't know how you decide who's an all-time great, but you leaving off Dempsey and Marciano makes no sense, Dempsey K.O. d Carpentier and Marciano beat Charles in 2 epic battles, and had Dempsey been active prior to the Tunney bout, Dempsey would had beaten him soundly, Dempsey was perhaps the most fericous fighter to ever step into the ring, Tyson idolized him and even wore his hair like Dempsey early in his career. So your way off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atomic bull

I don't know how you decide who's an all-time great, but you leaving off Dempsey and Marciano makes no sense, Dempsey K.O. d Carpentier and Marciano beat Charles in 2 epic battles, and had Dempsey been active prior to the Tunney bout, Dempsey would had beaten him soundly, Dempsey was perhaps the most fericous fighter to ever step into the ring, Tyson idolized him and even wore his hair like Dempsey early in his career. So your way off.

---

How I decide an all-time Great:

Quality of opposition
Length of World Class career
Redemption

Then is intangibles like

Originality and poineering qualites
Iconic status
Impact on boxing history (all of them can be connected)

Then to break ties; I bias

Ring Generalship
Technical ability
Impact on society; then if still level
The most crowd pleasing style

And if making an all time Great was as simple as who beat who, then Leon Spinks beat Ali, and Spinks was beaten by Jose Ribalta, who was beaten by Tim whitherspoon, was beaten by Brian Nix, who was beaten by Audley Harrison; so .... ;)

The truth is Carpentier and Charles were more impressive meeting the criteria; such as redemption and quality of opposition, than either Dempsey or Marciano, IMO.

I don't entirely agree My #1 would be your #15 (J C Chavez) then robbinson and all the other poops like Ali. Besides what other fighter do you know Besides Julio who went 90 & and 0 before being handed his first lost. 3 time World champ and lots more. Then there is Rocky who is the only heavyweight to have retired undefeated.Not to mention Ricardo Lopez who also retired a champ & undefeated ;D

that being said I rest my case :lickish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memojaras

I don't entirely agree My #1 would be your #15 (J C Chavez) then robbinson and all the other poops like Ali. Besides what other fighter do you know Besides Julio who went 90 & and 0 before being handed his first lost.

---

LOL, JCC is one of my all time favourite fighters, but there is no getting away from the fact, that the big unbeaten record at the start of his career, is simply not true, he DID lose fight #12, it is just because Tyson went to jail, and DKP were left with JCC as their top draw, they had to try, and re-write history. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

Get off the crack BRITKID....Dempsey and Marciano not all time greats? wait lemme guess you have Hatton as the greatest WELTERWEIGHT of all time already don't you.. thought so..probably think Judah is second to Hatton in the p4p.

---

Dempsey and Marciano do not fully meet my criteria at the moment. They are huge icons of the sport, no doubt. But both lack in the quality of opposition and both have small redemption issues, to make it into Boxing Valhalla.

As for Ricky and indeed Zab Zab, time will tell....

Below is the 35 fighters, I consider all-time greats:

35 Roy Jones
34 George Foreman
33 Joe Gans
32 Ruben Olivares
31 Thomas Hearns
30 Marvin Hagler
29 Joe Louis
28 Gene Tunney
27 George Dixon
26 Eder Jofre
25 Carlos Zarate
24 Alexis Arguello
23 Pernell Whitaker
22 Oscar de la Hoya
21 Pancho Villa
20 Bob Fitzsimmons
19 Stanley Ketchel
18 Harry Grebb
17 Ezzard Charles
16 Benny Leonard
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
14 Mickey Walker
13 Ray Leonard
12 Carlos Monzon
11 Muhammad Ali
10 Charley Burley
9 Archie Moore
8 Jimmy Wilde
7 Willie Pep
6 Sandy Sadler
5 Georges Carpentier
4 Roberto Duran
3 Sammy Langford
2 Henry Armstrong
1 Ray Robinson

On average, you tend to get an all time great come along every three years or so, but that is not a given...

At the moment these five are just outside being considered all time Greats, but I suspect in time, I will consider them all, all time greats:

40 Kid Gavilan
39 Azumah Nelson
38 Bernard Hopkins
37 Jack Johnson
36 Ricardo Lopez

And for the record I have Marciano at #56 and Dempsey at #70, in my all time top 100 list. For the moment neither Ricky or Zab Zab are not listed.... ;)

---

While you obviously know a lot about boxing history, Britkid, it's always been just as obvious to me that your "alltime" lists seem slightly skewed "geographically speaking." I can't help noticing how none of the famous Puerto Rican fighters made your list. And yet you seem to have a lot of British fighters in there that the majority of the boxing fan base on this side of the world hasn't even heard of.

I have a lot of issues with your "list." Felix Trinidad and Wilfredo Gomez not on there, when you have other dubious entries in there? Carlos Zarate? Didn't Gomez take him apart at the peak of his career? Surely you'll have a "historical" answer for that, complete with dates, names and anecdotes.

For my money, however, "alltime" lists are highly subjective and yours is no exception.
Hope you understand.

TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatsandy

Should a fighter who dodges another while they are both in their glory years still be considered one of the greatest ?

---

fighters who say other fighters are ducking them when all they have to do is vacate thier WBO belt and beat some bum who is ranked 1 by the WBA/WBC/IBF should not go down as all time greats ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

While you obviously know a lot about boxing history, Britkid, it's always been just as obvious to me that your "alltime" lists seem slightly skewed "geographically speaking." I can't help noticing how none of the famous Puerto Rican fighters made your list. And yet you seem to have a lot of British fighters in there that the majority of the boxing fan base on this side of the world hasn't even heard of.

I have a lot of issues with your "list." Felix Trinidad and Wilfredo Gomez not on there, when you have other dubious entries in there? Carlos Zarate? Didn't Gomez take him apart at the peak of his career? Surely you'll have a "historical" answer for that, complete with dates, names and anecdotes.

For my money, however, "alltime" lists are highly subjective and yours is no exception.
Hope you understand.

TitoFan

---

Like you say TitoFan these lists are purely subjective, and indeed mine is absolutely no exception.

But to answer a couple of your points:

I have two British fighter in my top 50; Jimmy Wilde and Bob Fitzsimmons. And Fitzsimmons is a very dubious 'honorary' Brit.

As for the Puerto Rican thing, honestly it is nothing personal, your country is an amazing producer of superb boxing talent. I have Trinidad rated #49 in my list, Gomez #63 and Benitez #46.

As for the Zarate thing; like I said to Atomic Bull, IMO rating the greats is not as simple as who beat who. Zarate was at the pinnacle of his career as a Bantamweight, during which, he put some amazing numbers together. Gomez was a brilliant 122lber, but despite still being at his peak, Sanchez found him out that night he moved to 126lbs, and that damaged his legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

While you obviously know a lot about boxing history, Britkid, it's always been just as obvious to me that your "alltime" lists seem slightly skewed "geographically speaking." I can't help noticing how none of the famous Puerto Rican fighters made your list. And yet you seem to have a lot of British fighters in there that the majority of the boxing fan base on this side of the world hasn't even heard of.

I have a lot of issues with your "list." Felix Trinidad and Wilfredo Gomez not on there, when you have other dubious entries in there? Carlos Zarate? Didn't Gomez take him apart at the peak of his career? Surely you'll have a "historical" answer for that, complete with dates, names and anecdotes.

For my money, however, "alltime" lists are highly subjective and yours is no exception.
Hope you understand.

TitoFan

---

Like you say TitoFan these lists are purely subjective, and indeed mine is absolutely no exception.

But to answer a couple of your points:

I have two British fighter in my top 50; Jimmy Wilde and Bob Fitzsimmons. And Fitzsimmons is a very dubious 'honorary' Brit.

As for the Puerto Rican thing, honestly it is nothing personal, your country is an amazing producer of superb boxing talent. I have Trinidad rated #49 in my list, Gomez #63 and Benitez #46.

As for the Zarate thing; like I said to Atomic Bull, IMO rating the greats is not as simple as who beat who. Zarate was at the pinnacle of his career as a Bantamweight, during which, he put some amazing numbers together. Gomez was a brilliant 122lber, but despite still being at his peak, Sanchez found him out that night he moved to 126lbs, and that damaged his legacy.

---

Again, let me state why I think "all-time" lists are entirely subjective and cases can be made for many fighters included in some lists and left off others.

You rank Chavez 15th on your list, while Trinidad, Gomez and Benitez are all out of your top 40. And yet, I've stated in other posts where I think Chavez's record is very much overrated, as is his standings on your all-time list.

You list as your first factor for rating fighters being: "Quality of Opposition."
Let's see a few facts:

1. Chavez's opponents cumulative records was a losing record through Chavez's first 45 fights (45 fights!!).

2. Here's a sampling of some of Chavez's opponents records very much into his career:

a) 45th opponent: 1-6-0 record
b) 52nd opponent: 1-12-0 record
c) 67th opponent: 0-0-0 record
d) 80th opponent: 1-0-0 record

Fighting bums at this stage in your career?!? Hmmmm.....

3. Chavez's first 37 fights were ALL in Mexico. His 38th fight? He fought the "great" Jerry Lewis (the boxer, not the comedian) in California. Chavez had already KO'ed Lewis less than two months earlier in Mexico, when Lewis was 6-3-0 at the time. Not exactly a stretch. Chavez's first quality opponent outside of Mexico came a little later.

Let's talk about opponents winning percentage. Trinidad, who you rated as 49th, fought opponents with a combined winning percentage of 84.3% throughout his famed 44-fight career.

By contrast, Chavez's opponents winning percentage by his 44th fight was a measly 46.5%. He later improved on those numbers as he continued to pad his record.

As far as Wilfredo Gomez being 63rd, that just leads me to believe you have some serious gaps in your knowledge of Latin boxers, of which Puerto Rico has more than its share of champs. Very few boxers in history can boast a higher KO percentage than Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez throughout his career. His KO over Carlos Zarate, undefeated and a rising Mexican superstar at the time, is an all-time classic. And his two losses were to Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson, all-time greats in their own right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Again, let me state why I think "all-time" lists are entirely subjective and cases can be made for many fighters included in some lists and left off others.

You rank Chavez 15th on your list, while Trinidad, Gomez and Benitez are all out of your top 40. And yet, I've stated in other posts where I think Chavez's record is very much overrated, as is his standings on your all-time list.

You list as your first factor for rating fighters being: "Quality of Opposition."
Let's see a few facts:

1. Chavez's opponents cumulative records was a losing record through Chavez's first 45 fights (45 fights!!).

2. Here's a sampling of some of Chavez's opponents records very much into his career:

a) 45th opponent: 1-6-0 record
b) 52nd opponent: 1-12-0 record
c) 67th opponent: 0-0-0 record
d) 80th opponent: 1-0-0 record

Fighting bums at this stage in your career?!? Hmmmm.....

3. Chavez's first 37 fights were ALL in Mexico. His 38th fight? He fought the "great" Jerry Lewis (the boxer, not the comedian) in California. Chavez had already KO'ed Lewis less than two months earlier in Mexico, when Lewis was 6-3-0 at the time. Not exactly a stretch. Chavez's first quality opponent outside of Mexico came a little later.

Let's talk about opponents winning percentage. Trinidad, who you rated as 49th, fought opponents with a combined winning percentage of 84.3% throughout his famed 44-fight career.

By contrast, Chavez's opponents winning percentage by his 44th fight was a measly 46.5%. He later improved on those numbers as he continued to pad his record.

As far as Wilfredo Gomez being 63rd, that just leads me to believe you have some serious gaps in your knowledge of Latin boxers, of which Puerto Rico has more than its share of champs. Very few boxers in history can boast a higher KO percentage than Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez throughout his career. His KO over Carlos Zarate, undefeated and a rising Mexican superstar at the time, is an all-time classic. And his two losses were to Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson, all-time greats in their own right.

---

Chavez was brought up a different way to many fighters now a days. He learnt his trade properly before moving up in class. As for your 'facts' if you were using boxrec to put Chavez's career opponents together, the figures will be wrong, as many of his more obscure opponents have incomplete records.

As for a direct comparison, Chavez was a World class fighter from 1984 to 1998 and during the period of 1986 to 1993, he was in the argument for being the best in the world. Trinidad on the other hand was World class from 1993 to 2001, and became a contender for the best fighter in the world from 1999 to 2001...

As for Gomez, the thing that really hurts him, is the fight that was supposed to make him a superstar (Sanchez), he lost, and he never really recovered from that fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Again, let me state why I think "all-time" lists are entirely subjective and cases can be made for many fighters included in some lists and left off others.

You rank Chavez 15th on your list, while Trinidad, Gomez and Benitez are all out of your top 40. And yet, I've stated in other posts where I think Chavez's record is very much overrated, as is his standings on your all-time list.

You list as your first factor for rating fighters being: "Quality of Opposition."
Let's see a few facts:

1. Chavez's opponents cumulative records was a losing record through Chavez's first 45 fights (45 fights!!).

2. Here's a sampling of some of Chavez's opponents records very much into his career:

a) 45th opponent: 1-6-0 record
b) 52nd opponent: 1-12-0 record
c) 67th opponent: 0-0-0 record
d) 80th opponent: 1-0-0 record

Fighting bums at this stage in your career?!? Hmmmm.....

3. Chavez's first 37 fights were ALL in Mexico. His 38th fight? He fought the "great" Jerry Lewis (the boxer, not the comedian) in California. Chavez had already KO'ed Lewis less than two months earlier in Mexico, when Lewis was 6-3-0 at the time. Not exactly a stretch. Chavez's first quality opponent outside of Mexico came a little later.

Let's talk about opponents winning percentage. Trinidad, who you rated as 49th, fought opponents with a combined winning percentage of 84.3% throughout his famed 44-fight career.

By contrast, Chavez's opponents winning percentage by his 44th fight was a measly 46.5%. He later improved on those numbers as he continued to pad his record.

As far as Wilfredo Gomez being 63rd, that just leads me to believe you have some serious gaps in your knowledge of Latin boxers, of which Puerto Rico has more than its share of champs. Very few boxers in history can boast a higher KO percentage than Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez throughout his career. His KO over Carlos Zarate, undefeated and a rising Mexican superstar at the time, is an all-time classic. And his two losses were to Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson, all-time greats in their own right.

---

Chavez was brought up a different way to many fighters now a days. He learnt his trade properly before moving up in class. As for your 'facts' if you were using boxrec to put Chavez's career opponents together, the figures will be wrong, as many of his more obscure opponents have incomplete records.

As for a direct comparison, Chavez was a World class fighter from 1984 to 1998 and during the period of 1986 to 1993, he was in the argument for being the best in the world. Trinidad on the other hand was World class from 1993 to 2001, and became a contender for the best fighter in the world from 1999 to 2001...

As for Gomez, the thing that really hurts him, is the fight that was supposed to make him a superstar (Sanchez), he lost, and he never really recovered from that fight.

---

The length of time at "World Class" status (in your opinion, I might add), does nothing to disprove my point. By your own admission, Chavez was brought along differently than a lot of fighters nowadays. He plodded along, destroying totally inferior opposition for years, before getting quality opposition or even leaving the comforts of home in Mexico. By contrast, Tito, as with many world class fighters nowadays, was brought along much quicker. You're comparing apples and oranges if you go solely by record. Put Chavez in today's environment and throw him against a world champion 20 fights into his career, and see how he would have survived.

Even after Chavez began fighting quality fighters, he always managed to sprinkle in a few "Bozos" every now and then. After a while, his quest to reach 100 wins became more important than the quality of fighters he was using to get there.

Don't get me wrong, I also feel Chavez is an all-time great. It's just that there's NO WAY he's 15th all-time to Trinidad's 49th. And Gomez at 63rd with one of the best alltime KO ratios in history?!? What are you smoking there, Britkid? Because he lost two fights? And Zarate, whom Gomez destroyed, is 25th? See, that's why I can't take your list seriously. Don't get me wrong, you've got some good fighters in there. Robinson's, Duran's, Monzon's, Arguello's and Hagler's rankings are well-deserved. But De la Hoya 22nd? Give me a frigging break!

Subjective, Britkid........ that's what it is. Subjective.

Not gonna say whether Hopkins deserves to be an alltime great or not

but he did duck Calzaghe and Jones for the rematch ???

The answer is a definite NO!!! Very simple. If you don't prove yourself against the best competition out there (win or lose), you don't deserve to be called an all time great. I'm tired of hearing guys say they'll fight anybody, anytime and then when they're called out, they say there's not enough money in it for them. They go around saying that no one wants to fight them, then they turn down fights against those same guys they mentioned. I think Floyd is the best out there right now but I don't know that it's his legacy he's working on. I'm tired of him saying guys are ducking him and he'll fight anyone and then when they ask him, will you fight this guy? The answer is always the same. If the money is there. I'm so sick of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raleights

Not gonna say whether Hopkins deserves to be an alltime great or not

but he did duck Calzaghe and Jones for the rematch ???

---

NON-SENSE

if calzaghe wanted hopkins he could have dropped a few pounds and beat a #1 contender, B-HOP HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH BELTS FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH #1 CONTENDER HE WANTED TO FACE

Don't you remember Joe calling him and Roy Jones out

Both guys said something along the lines of he doesn't wanna fight or he's not worth it lol - why? Of course Jones would of handed Joe his ass back then, but not Hopkins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatsandy

Should a fighter who dodges another while they are both in their glory years still be considered one of the greatest ?

---

RJJ must be the ATG that has ducked most potentiel dangerous opponents. The same with B-Hop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raleights

Don't you remember Joe calling him and Roy Jones out

Both guys said something along the lines of he doesn't wanna fight or he's not worth it lol - why? Of course Jones would of handed Joe his a** back then, but not Hopkins.

---

but its like i said, if he REALLY wanted hopkins he could have moved down to MW and become #1 contender in any of the numerous titles b-hop held,

half the time b-hop was making a run at the record MW defenses thing, he had no reason to fight a fight that wouldnt have counted toward this...


i just think if calzaghe wants to talk all big now about having called out b-hop and that b-hop is afraid of him then people shouldnt be offended by my calzaghe jokes

why would I be offended by what you say about someone else lol

I just don't think Bernard is good enough to beat Joe - not fast enough - not smart enough - and he couldn't keep up with his pace (look at his pace in the taylor fights, Joe would make him fuckin dizzy)

and if Bernard is worried about having more title defenses than having the best fights possible, well he really can't be an alltime great in my useless opinion

Ofcourse Joe would beat B-hop now, he is old and past his prime. he and Tarver need to fight and yes I think and hope joe will beat the hell out of Tarver. BUt when he was calling B-Hop out , all he had to do was loose the weigth and fight him. Tarver will prove nothing if he beats B-hop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

The length of time at "World Class" status (in your opinion, I might add), does nothing to disprove my point. By your own admission, Chavez was brought along differently than a lot of fighters nowadays. He plodded along, destroying totally inferior opposition for years, before getting quality opposition or even leaving the comforts of home in Mexico. By contrast, Tito, as with many world class fighters nowadays, was brought along much quicker. You're comparing apples and oranges if you go solely by record. Put Chavez in today's environment and throw him against a world champion 20 fights into his career, and see how he would have survived.

Even after Chavez began fighting quality fighters, he always managed to sprinkle in a few "Bozos" every now and then. After a while, his quest to reach 100 wins became more important than the quality of fighters he was using to get there.

Don't get me wrong, I also feel Chavez is an all-time great. It's just that there's NO WAY he's 15th all-time to Trinidad's 49th. And Gomez at 63rd with one of the best alltime KO ratios in history?!? What are you smoking there, Britkid? Because he lost two fights? And Zarate, whom Gomez destroyed, is 25th? See, that's why I can't take your list seriously. Don't get me wrong, you've got some good fighters in there. Robinson's, Duran's, Monzon's, Arguello's and Hagler's rankings are well-deserved. But De la Hoya 22nd? Give me a frigging break!

Subjective, Britkid........ that's what it is. Subjective.

---

Chavez won a fight with Mario Martinez, four years after turning pro, hardly an age. Trinidad beat Blocker three years after turning pro, there is hardly any difference, the only real difference is Chavez was a lot more active.

The same applied after Chavez beat Martinez, Chavez continued to fight at a pace of sometimes a fight every two months, while Trinidad fought at a pace more suited to this era, a fight every four months.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong way of becoming an excellent fighter, if you succeed. And both Chavez and Trinidad succeeded, it was just Chavez then stepped up a couple more levels and became a Great, while Trinidad merely became an all-time top 100 fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a4mrmarine

Ofcourse Joe would beat B-hop now, he is old and past his prime. he and Tarver need to fight and yes I think and hope joe will beat the hell out of Tarver. BUt when he was calling B-Hop out , all he had to do was loose the weigth and fight him. Tarver will prove nothing if he beats B-hop.

---

I see what you're saying, but I always thought Bernard was entirely too small for a middleweight and was scared to go up. After beating Trinidad there was noone at middleweight, and Joe walking around at 200lbs when not training makes losing 8+ pounds of muscle hard. Like I said, in my useless opinion I don't think Hopkins could deal with the speed or the pace, prime or not. Hell Joe is nearly 34 and look at his last fight. Bernard never showed that kind of heart to go along with a brilliant boxing mind - thus he can't be an all time great, because every all time great showed us that skill/heart combined.

i never said he would not beat him just simply if he wanted bad enough the go down. You may be right maybe joe would have taken B-hop to school who knows, but that is just it we dont know and probably never will. And I know joe is great and shows great skills and heart and would love to see him beat the hell out of tarver since RJJ and B-hop are done.

In that case we can only draw one conclusion

John Ruiz Sucks Llama Dick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raleights

why would I be offended by what you say about someone else lol

I just don't think Bernard is good enough to beat Joe - not fast enough - not smart enough - and he couldn't keep up with his pace (look at his pace in the taylor fights, Joe would make him F****** dizzy)

and if Bernard is worried about having more title defenses than having the best fights possible, well he really can't be an alltime great in my useless opinion

---

I couldn't have said that better. That's what I've been saying about that guy all along. He beats two guys, Trinidad (who started his career at 140) and Delahoya (started at like 130) and he's god's gift to boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

The length of time at "World Class" status (in your opinion, I might add), does nothing to disprove my point. By your own admission, Chavez was brought along differently than a lot of fighters nowadays. He plodded along, destroying totally inferior opposition for years, before getting quality opposition or even leaving the comforts of home in Mexico. By contrast, Tito, as with many world class fighters nowadays, was brought along much quicker. You're comparing apples and oranges if you go solely by record. Put Chavez in today's environment and throw him against a world champion 20 fights into his career, and see how he would have survived.

Even after Chavez began fighting quality fighters, he always managed to sprinkle in a few "Bozos" every now and then. After a while, his quest to reach 100 wins became more important than the quality of fighters he was using to get there.

Don't get me wrong, I also feel Chavez is an all-time great. It's just that there's NO WAY he's 15th all-time to Trinidad's 49th. And Gomez at 63rd with one of the best alltime KO ratios in history?!? What are you smoking there, Britkid? Because he lost two fights? And Zarate, whom Gomez destroyed, is 25th? See, that's why I can't take your list seriously. Don't get me wrong, you've got some good fighters in there. Robinson's, Duran's, Monzon's, Arguello's and Hagler's rankings are well-deserved. But De la Hoya 22nd? Give me a frigging break!

Subjective, Britkid........ that's what it is. Subjective.

---

Chavez won a fight with Mario Martinez, four years after turning pro, hardly an age. Trinidad beat Blocker three years after turning pro, there is hardly any difference, the only real difference is Chavez was a lot more active. (Yes...... he also fought a lot more bums or mediocre fighters. What's your point?)
The same applied after Chavez beat Martinez, Chavez continued to fight at a pace of sometimes a fight every two months, while Trinidad fought at a pace more suited to this era, a fight every four months. (Exactly, more suited to this era. Constantly fighting high-caliber opponents, the way the public demands it nowadays, WOULD tend to slow your pace down just a tad. I agree.)

Ultimately there is no right or wrong way of becoming an excellent fighter, if you succeed. And both Chavez and Trinidad succeeded, it was just Chavez then stepped up a couple more levels and became a Great, while Trinidad merely became an all-time top 100 fighter. (You forgot to add: "in my opinion". Again, a totally subjective last sentence and one based solely on opinion. Hardly one that merits ranking Trinidad so far below Chavez).

---

Again, you have many facts.... but in the end your opinions are subjective, just like mine and everyone else's. Let's not limit it to Tito and Chavez. You have Ali 11th, below the likes of Archie Moore and Charley Burley. I don't think Ali should be number 1, but 11th is a little farther down than he deserves. Also, like I said before... DLH 22nd? No way in hell. I may just come up with my own list one of these days.

I'm not quite done with this subject, Britkid. Again, you obviously know a great deal about boxing history. But there's more to knowing about boxing than just being able to spew dates and names.

Back to your "all-time" list. Let's take Ali again, for instance. In an earlier post, you list among your deciding factors (on how to rate a boxer all time): Quality of opposition, Length of World Class Career, Originality and pioneering qualities, etc., etc.

And yet, you list Ali 11th alltime, under the likes of Sammy Langford, Georges Carpentier, Charley Burley. Why? I'm not the greatest (no pun intended) of Ali's fans. I don't even think he should be number one on the list. But he CERTAINLY rates higher than 11th. Especially given the names above him on your list.

About your factors again. You name: "Impact on society" (another of Ali's strengths over some of your other names above him). Tell me, WHOSE society? Just as Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano had deep impacts on U.S. boxing fans back in their day, boxers such as Chavez, Arguello, and Trinidad have had on their respective cultures. You, being British, can speak for impacts on British society. But are by no means an authority on any fighter's impact on other societies.

What changes would I make on your list? Many. But to mention a few:

1. Ali deserves better than 11th.
2. De la Hoya should be lower than 22nd.
3. Carlos Zarate CANNOT be ranked above Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez, the fighter who destroyed him at his peak in a mega-fight between two great fighters.

Maybe in YOUR circles, fighters like Pancho Villa, Stanley Ketchel and Harry Grebb are household names. On THIS side of the world, the average boxing fan might mistake Pancho Villa for Don Quijote's (Spanish spelling) sidekick.

It's a well-known fact (again, on THIS side of the world) that Puerto Rico and Mexico are hotbeds for producing great boxing champions. I'm sorry, but any list that includes Don Quijote's sidekick and omits fighters like Trinidad, Gomez and Benitez is totally one-sided and woefully subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I'm not quite done with this subject, Britkid. Again, you obviously know a great deal about boxing history. But there's more to knowing about boxing than just being able to spew dates and names.

---

True; but sometimes it helps if you can! I always comeback with reasons backed up with facts, why I am disagreeing with something, and sometimes that does indeed mean spewing dates and names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Back to your "all-time" list. Let's take Ali again, for instance. In an earlier post, you list among your deciding factors (on how to rate a boxer all time): Quality of opposition, Length of World Class Career, Originality and pioneering qualities, etc., etc.

And yet, you list Ali 11th alltime, under the likes of Sammy Langford, Georges Carpentier, Charley Burley. Why? I'm not the greatest (no pun intended) of Ali's fans. I don't even think he should be number one on the list. But he CERTAINLY rates higher than 11th. Especially given the names above him on your list.

---

Ali was a Heavyweight; the Heavyweights lack the quality of opposition of the Welterweights and Middleweights, and thus Burley gets ahead of him.

Carpentier is to my knowledge the only man in boxing to claim a pro national title in all eight classic divisions. He was also a European Champion from Lightweight though to Heavyweight, and claimed the World Championship at Light Heavyweight, and also held a claim as a World Heavyweight titlist.

Sammy Langford was a Middleweight who competed with the best heavyweights of the day, in a 200+ fight career.

I am comfortable putting all three above the Great Muhammad Ali.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

About your factors again. You name: "Impact on society" (another of Ali's strengths over some of your other names above him). Tell me, WHOSE society? Just as Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano had deep impacts on U.S. boxing fans back in their day, boxers such as Chavez, Arguello, and Trinidad have had on their respective cultures. You, being British, can speak for impacts on British society. But are by no means an authority on any fighter's impact on other societies.

---

I said 'Impact on society' was used as a tie break:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

How I decide an all-time Great:

Quality of opposition
Length of World Class career
Redemption

Then is intangibles like

Originality and poineering qualites
Iconic status
Impact on boxing history (all of them can be connected)

Then to break ties; I bias

Ring Generalship
Technical ability
Impact on society; then if still level
The most crowd pleasing style

---

That means there is going to be bias towards the society I know of, when I cannot separate the qualities listed above 'Impact on society' ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

What changes would I make on your list? Many. But to mention a few:

1. Ali deserves better than 11th.
2. De la Hoya should be lower than 22nd.
3. Carlos Zarate CANNOT be ranked above Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez, the fighter who destroyed him at his peak in a mega-fight between two great fighters.

Maybe in YOUR circles, fighters like Pancho Villa, Stanley Ketchel and Harry Grebb are household names. On THIS side of the world, the average boxing fan might mistake Pancho Villa for Don Quijote's (Spanish spelling) sidekick.

It's a well-known fact (again, on THIS side of the world) that Puerto Rico and Mexico are hotbeds for producing great boxing champions. I'm sorry, but any list that includes Don Quijote's sidekick and omits fighters like Trinidad, Gomez and Benitez is totally one-sided and woefully subjective.

---

I think you speak with a bias towards Puerto Rican fighters, and a natural instinct to look at the worst in a Mexican Great. That is fair enough, we (England) have the same rivalries with the Celts (Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France), Australia and Germany; and I probably do have a bias against the fighters from these countries.

As for Pancho Villa, well rather than mocking his name, look at his record, he was an amazing fighter who was taken from the sport too soon....

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9433

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

I think you speak with a bias towards Puerto Rican fighters, and a natural instinct to look at the worst in a Mexican Great.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9433

---

I'll admit to that being partly true. I dislike Chavez, Vargas and De la Hoya and think they're overrated. On the other hand, I like and am perfectly willing to give fighters like Ricardo Lopez and Marco Antonio Barrera their just dues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

That is fair enough, we (England) have the same rivalries with the Celts (Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France), Australia and Germany; and I probably do have a bias against the fighters from these countries.


http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9433

---

I'm glad to see you admit to suffering from the same "condition."
;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LBSCFC

would dempsey be considered an all time great for refusing to fight wills? is marciano considered and all time great for not fighting valdes. im pretty sure both men would have fought these challengers but influences outside dictated otherwise

---

But IMO neither Dempsey nor Marciano are all time Greats. ;)

---

I have to agree with with that statement....IMO think Marciano is one of the most over rated fighters ever...Dempsy took alot of easy bouts and stayed clear of his most dangerous challenger....