want to test a little theory

ok guys, on this forum and on other sites i see a lot of people descrediting certain fighters resumes and credentials, for example iv seen many people claim that Hopkins resume consists of blown up welters or that calzaghes best wins are over old and/or over hyped fighters

basically i think that its possible to discredit to any fighters reputation and resume in one way or another with maybe the exception of a couple like SRR and maybe Ali ,

so to test this i want people to post a fighter who they think is an ATG and has a brilliant resume , and then to see if anyone else can give logical thought out reasons as to why they are not so great

I don't know, I think you can just about make any fighter look overrated.

There's a line between nit-picking and just being plain ridiculous though.

How about one trying to downgrade Ezzard Charles and his achievements? That's a pretty tough one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

I don't know, I think you can just about make any fighter look overrated.

There's a line between nit-picking and just being plain ridiculous though.

How about one trying to downgrade Ezzard Charles and his achievements? That's a pretty tough one.

---

Simple he had way too many Z's in his name and you can't compare that to people without Z's in their names it's like apples to oranges.

That was a tough one to start with man, you win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

I don't know, I think you can just about make any fighter look overrated.

There's a line between nit-picking and just being plain ridiculous though.

How about one trying to downgrade Ezzard Charles and his achievements? That's a pretty tough one.

---

i think the weak era arguement would get used here to be honest

i dont know too much about ezzard charles but i dont think he beat anyone that notable did he ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

ok guys, on this forum and on other sites i see a lot of people descrediting certain fighters resumes and credentials, for example iv seen many people claim that Hopkins resume consists of blown up welters or that calzaghes best wins are over old and/or over hyped fighters

basically i think that its possible to discredit to any fighters reputation and resume in one way or another with maybe the exception of a couple like SRR and maybe Ali ,

so to test this i want people to post a fighter who they think is an ATG and has a brilliant resume , and then to see if anyone else can give logical thought out reasons as to why they are not so great

---

Well i could downgrade Muhammad Ali easily i thought he lost to Jimmy Young, Ken Norton x2, Earnie Shavers, draw with Doug Jones. Infact you could make an argument that Ali could have 10 losses on his record then would people consider him so great ? no doubt Ali done alot for the sport and was a very smart fighter with alot of strong attributes but i think he is overrated. And he also did struggle with alot of lesser fighters aswell far too many times IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

I don't know, I think you can just about make any fighter look overrated.

There's a line between nit-picking and just being plain ridiculous though.

How about one trying to downgrade Ezzard Charles and his achievements? That's a pretty tough one.

---

i think the weak era arguement would get used here to be honest

i dont know too much about ezzard charles but i dont think he beat anyone that notable did he ?

---

Ezzard Charles beat Archie Moore 5 times, aswell as the great Charles Burley, Jersey Joe Walcott etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

I don't know, I think you can just about make any fighter look overrated.

There's a line between nit-picking and just being plain ridiculous though.

How about one trying to downgrade Ezzard Charles and his achievements? That's a pretty tough one.

---

i think the weak era arguement would get used here to be honest

i dont know too much about ezzard charles but i dont think he beat anyone that notable did he ?

---

Jersey James Walcott for one, he earned everything fought his way through the ranks and conquered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

I don't know, I think you can just about make any fighter look overrated.

There's a line between nit-picking and just being plain ridiculous though.

How about one trying to downgrade Ezzard Charles and his achievements? That's a pretty tough one.

---

i think the weak era arguement would get used here to be honest

i dont know too much about ezzard charles but i dont think he beat anyone that notable did he ?

---

Ezzard Charles beat Archie Moore 5 times, aswell as the great Charles Burley, Jersey Joe Walcott etc.

---

oops as i said though my knowledge of him is very limited

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

i think the weak era arguement would get used here to be honest

i dont know too much about ezzard charles but i dont think he beat anyone that notable did he ?

---

Ezzard Charles beat Archie Moore 5 times, aswell as the great Charles Burley, Jersey Joe Walcott etc.

---

oops as i said though my knowledge of him is very limited

---

Here's some info for you on Ezzard Charles. His record against Hall of Famers:

24 fights against 9 Hall of Famers for a record of 18-6 with 2 KOs.

• 1-0 (0) against Teddy Yarosz
• 2-0 (0) against Charley Burley
• 5-0 (0) against Joey Maxim
• 1-0 (0) against Joe Louis
• 0-1 (0) against Harold Johnson
• 2-2 (0) against Jersey Joe Walcott
• 4-1 (1) against Jimmy Bivins
• 0-2 (0) against Rocky Marciano
• 3-0 (1) against Archie Moore

1941:

• 1-0 against Teddy Yarosz

1942:

• 2-0 against Charley Burley
• 2-0 against Joey Maxim

1943:

• 0-1 against Jimmy Bivins

1946:

• 1-0 against Jimmy Bivins
• 1-0 against Archie Moore

1947:

• 1-0 (1) against Jimmy Bivins
• 1-0 against Archie Moore

1948:

• 1-0 (1) against Archie Moore
• 1-0 against Jimmy Bivins

1949:

• 1-0 against Joey Maxim
• 1-0 against Jersey Joe Walcott

1950:

• 1-0 against Joe Louis

1951:

• 2-0 against Joey Maxim
• 1-1 against Jersey Joe Walcott

1952:

• 0-1 against Jersey Joe Walcott
• 1-0 against Jimmy Bivins

1953:

• 0-1 against Harold Johnson

1954:

• 0-2 against Rocky Marciano

i checked him out on boxrec and didnt notice hardly none of those names , man im gettin blind

a hypothetical possiblity, benchmark is what we need.. and should be facts and not speculation or bias idea.. facts means record that speaks for themselves..

Bob Foster - you can use the weak era argument on him, for sure. He lost every time he stepped up against a good heavyweight. Dick Tiger was past his prime. Neither Mike Quarryt, Pierre Fourie, or Chris Finnigan were all that great and they were his best wins. Padded his KO record with bums.

Here we go. I'll trash my favorite fighter. Duran dominated lightweight in weak era, and he padded his record with bums. Other than the first Ray Leonard fight, he came up short in every other fight against top competition - Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. Iran Barkley was overrated. The only good fighter he ever beat was Hearns, so that win doesn't mean much. He fought way past his prime and ruined his legacy losing to guys like Paz and Lawlor.

This is a fun game!

Three words ROY JONES JR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Three words ROY JONES JR.

---

Too easy to nitpick and criticize his resume.

Fighters of the past are harder because they were fighting so frequently and often against quality opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Three words ROY JONES JR.

---

Too easy to nitpick and criticize his resume.

Fighters of the past are harder because they were fighting so frequently and often against quality opposition.

---

Mmmm, good point.

Alright my favorite fighter is and always will be Sugar Ray Leonard. Alright here are the highlights to his career he was a champion WW, LMW, MW, SMW and LHW and also his best wins as Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler he was the top dog out of all of them only one beat them all. He was also in one of the toughest eras of boxing so go ahead and pick away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Alright my favorite fighter is and always will be Sugar Ray Leonard. Alright here are the highlights to his career he was a champion WW, LMW, MW, SMW and LHW and also his best wins as Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler he was the top dog out of all of them only one beat them all. He was also in one of the toughest eras of boxing so go ahead and pick away.

---

ok all ican really say to that is

1) fought a very stupid fight in terms of tactics in the first duran fight
2) Hagler win is very much debatable along with the draw in the second Hearns fight
3) went on too long and ruined his own legacy
4) seemed to shy away from a mega fight with Aaron Pryor

Well all i can say to that is Duran fight yea was stupid could of beat him like he did the other times. He was on a long layoff and he was moving up in weight against Hagler. Hearns the next time around he was old and for Pryor i dont buy the ducking thing because he fought Hearns who ruined his eye and i think a harder fight then Pryor. Well all i go to say good job good point on my favorite fighter Suager Ray Leonard andi was just trying to nit pick your pick but it just wanted to see what you thought of it.

Boxed Thomas Hearns instead what a copout ;D Interestly Charles by 49 was diagnosed with a form of M S which eventually He died from, a Fantastic Warrior He had good wins in 41 when He was 19, some Fighter ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Alright my favorite fighter is and always will be Sugar Ray Leonard. Alright here are the highlights to his career he was a champion WW, LMW, MW, SMW and LHW and also his best wins as Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler he was the top dog out of all of them only one beat them all. He was also in one of the toughest eras of boxing so go ahead and pick away.

---

Here's my attempt at nit-picking.

Wilfred Benitez trained just 5 days for the Leonard fight, less than his usual 8 days of training, and chased women 4 days a week during his "camp", rather than his usual 3 days a week. He was also dating Ray's sister.

Roberto Duran peaked two divisions lower, and won clearly. Leonard gave Duran an immediate rematch, knowing Duran would balloon in weight and party, and Duran was weakened for the rematch. Still, Duran was competitive before quitting.

Tommy Hearns was two pounds under 147, perhaps overtrained, and who knows if Leonard could've gotten to Hearns if the fight were scheduled for 12 rounds, like today's rules?

Ayub Kalule was untested.

Leonard waited until he had seen that Marvin Hagler had slowed, and even then, it was a controversial decision. He made Donny Lalonde shrink down from his natural weight so he could fight for two divisional titles, and only rematched Hearns because Tommy appeared to be a shot fighter.

Leonard fought sporadically from 1982-on, never fighting the likes of Mike McCallum, Michael Nunn, etc..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Well all i can say to that is Duran fight yea was stupid could of beat him like he did the other times. He was on a long layoff and he was moving up in weight against Hagler. Hearns the next time around he was old and for Pryor i dont buy the ducking thing because he fought Hearns who ruined his eye and i think a harder fight then Pryor. Well all i go to say good job good point on my favorite fighter Suager Ray Leonard andi was just trying to nit pick your pick but it just wanted to see what you thought of it.

---

I NEVER bought the Pryor ducking thing and have grown to dislike Legendary Nights (a series I very much enjoyed when it came out) because of things I've read such as "Leonard was scared of Pryor, didn't you watch the documentary?").

But this is a thread about nitpicking resumes and achievements, so it's fair game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Here we go. I'll trash my favorite fighter. Duran dominated lightweight in weak era, and he padded his record with bums. Other than the first Ray Leonard fight, he came up short in every other fight against top competition - Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. Iran Barkley was overrated. The only good fighter he ever beat was Hearns, so that win doesn't mean much. He fought way past his prime and ruined his legacy losing to guys like Paz and Lawlor.

This is a fun game!

---

I wouldn't say Iran Barkley was overrated, he done very well against Sumbu Kalambay and Michael Nunn who were both in there prime. Those fights alone showed he could compete at world class.

I never saw that show Thread Stealer good nit pick by the way very good have some rep on me and by the way who said he ducked him anyhow.

Also to come back form your nit pick all i got to say. Is that Hagler at prime was at higher weight then Leonard was so they would not of fought regardless pluse Leonards eye was jacked. Hagler may have been prime but neither was Leonard and he was 13 pounds above his prime weight. If he would of boxed Duran first time he would of won easily i feel. Also Leonard was still pretty young and green i think against the champ and he was countering the counter puncher and he knocked him down with a jab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

I never saw that show Thread Stealer good nit pick by the way very good have some rep on me and by the way who said he ducked him anyhow.

---

It all started with Leonard moving up a weightclass in the Amateurs to avoid Pryor, Leonard also got whooped few times in sparring by Pryor, and Pryor also called him out at a press conference but Leonard didn't want to know, hence why some people believe Leonard avoided Pryor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

I never saw that show Thread Stealer good nit pick by the way very good have some rep on me and by the way who said he ducked him anyhow.

---

HBO's Legendary Nights showed Pryor challege Leonard at a press conference, and Leonard never fought Pryor.

Butch Lewis was talking about how Leonard supposedly moved up a weight division in the amateurs to avoid Pryor and was handled by him in sparring.

Who doesn't challenge the big names? When does a welterweight champ have an obligation to fight the junior welterweight champ? Leonard had bigger challenges against established fighters in his own division. Of course money played a role in them being bigger names than Pryor, but they were established fighters in Leonard's division, unlike Pryor.

If Pryor did some work at welterweight, then the claim would be much stronger. But Pryor was best suited for divisions below 147.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Here we go. I'll trash my favorite fighter. Duran dominated lightweight in weak era, and he padded his record with bums. Other than the first Ray Leonard fight, he came up short in every other fight against top competition - Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. Iran Barkley was overrated. The only good fighter he ever beat was Hearns, so that win doesn't mean much. He fought way past his prime and ruined his legacy losing to guys like Paz and Lawlor.

This is a fun game!

---

I wouldn't say Iran Barkley was overrated, he done very well against Sumbu Kalambay and Michael Nunn who were both in there prime. Those fights alone showed he could compete at world class.

---

I was trashing Barkley to diminish Duran's win over him. Keeping with that theme, he was competitive with Kalambay and Nunn, but he lost. He got KTFO by Benn. James Toney made him look like an amateur.

OK, in real life, I don't think Barkley was overrated and in real life, Duran is one of my favorite fighters and I think that weak LW division or not, you could put Duran in with any LW he would have a good chance to come out on top, Mosley and Benny Leonard included.

The point of the thread is to take a guy who is recognized universally as an ATG and make a case against him. Old Duran's win over Barkley was one of his most compelling performances. Barkley gave a great fight to a Kalembay during Kalembay's peak. But to play devil's advocate, you could say that every time Iran Barkely stepped up, other than Hearns, he fell short, including to a way past it Duran.

I don;t blame him for avoiding Pryor. That guy had the instinct to kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Here we go. I'll trash my favorite fighter. Duran dominated lightweight in weak era, and he padded his record with bums. Other than the first Ray Leonard fight, he came up short in every other fight against top competition - Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. Iran Barkley was overrated. The only good fighter he ever beat was Hearns, so that win doesn't mean much. He fought way past his prime and ruined his legacy losing to guys like Paz and Lawlor.

This is a fun game!

---

I wouldn't say Iran Barkley was overrated, he done very well against Sumbu Kalambay and Michael Nunn who were both in there prime. Those fights alone showed he could compete at world class.

---

I was trashing Barkley to diminish Duran's win over him. Keeping with that theme, he was competitive with Kalambay and Nunn, but he lost. He got KTFO by Benn. James Toney made him look like an amateur.

OK, in real life, I don't think Barkley was overrated and in real life, Duran is one of my favorite fighters and I think that weak LW division or not, you could put Duran in with any LW he would have a good chance to come out on top, Mosley and Benny Leonard included.

The point of the thread is to take a guy who is recognized universally as an ATG and make a case against him. Old Duran's win over Barkley was one of his most compelling performances. Barkley gave a great fight to a Kalembay during Kalembay's peak. But to play devil's advocate, you could say that every time Iran Barkely stepped up, other than Hearns, he fell short, including to a way past it Duran.

---

In hindsight I have to agree but not too many guys can say 'other than Hearns' on they're resumes ;D. Barkley is a mainstay although just as hot as he was cold in some spots.He had such intensity and bad guy persona inside the ring but when outside in interviews and HOF ceremony type stuff,he comes across as a pretty cool dude.He was predictable but had some good scraps ......Casteneda,Benn & Olajide stand out.

I'll will always thank him for Van Horn mugging,that was hilarious. never have seen a father in such a hurry to get his sons arse kicked :fight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

I don;t blame him for avoiding Pryor. That guy had the instinct to kill.

---

With a trainer who'd be willing to help him. ;)

I would love to see someone try to be little Henry Armstrong. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

I would love to see someone try to be little Henry Armstrong. ;D

---

Well, i'll try... about half of Henrys opponents has a DOUBLE DIGIT LOSING RECORD.. hehe at least i try.. He lost about 10% of his fight.. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

ok guys, on this forum and on other sites i see a lot of people descrediting certain fighters resumes and credentials, for example iv seen many people claim that Hopkins resume consists of blown up welters or that calzaghes best wins are over old and/or over hyped fighters

basically i think that its possible to discredit to any fighters reputation and resume in one way or another with maybe the exception of a couple like SRR and maybe Ali ,

so to test this i want people to post a fighter who they think is an ATG and has a brilliant resume , and then to see if anyone else can give logical thought out reasons as to why they are not so great

---

Well i could downgrade Muhammad Ali easily i thought he lost to Jimmy Young, Ken Norton x2, Earnie Shavers, draw with Doug Jones. Infact you could make an argument that Ali could have 10 losses on his record then would people consider him so great ? no doubt Ali done alot for the sport and was a very smart fighter with alot of strong attributes but i think he is overrated. And he also did struggle with alot of lesser fighters aswell far too many times IMO.

---

Why did I just know youd go straight for Ali?
Oh yeah,you hate Ali
Truly overated,Im watching Lacy/Wiggins right now,Lacy is rubbish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Alright my favorite fighter is and always will be Sugar Ray Leonard. Alright here are the highlights to his career he was a champion WW, LMW, MW, SMW and LHW and also his best wins as Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler he was the top dog out of all of them only one beat them all. He was also in one of the toughest eras of boxing so go ahead and pick away.

---

ok all ican really say to that is

1) fought a very stupid fight in terms of tactics in the first duran fight
2) Hagler win is very much debatable along with the draw in the second Hearns fight
3) went on too long and ruined his own legacy
4) seemed to shy away from a mega fight with Aaron Pryor

---

He underestimated Duran fair enough. I feel Hagler result was accurate although I agree Hearns 2 was a bit off. I don't think he ruined his legacy at all with his 2 late defeats it's very rare a boxer doesn't go on too long including Ali and SRR. I didn't know there was much serious talk of a fight with Pryor and if there was what weight was it going to be at? If it was at WW I think SRL takes a hard fought but clear decision. If they could have made it a 140lbs fight then I think Leonard may have been weight drained and Pryor would take a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antimoron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

I would love to see someone try to be little Henry Armstrong. ;D

---

Well, i'll try... about half of Henrys opponents has a DOUBLE DIGIT LOSING RECORD.. hehe at least i try.. He lost about 10% of his fight.. ;D

---

Which meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING back then....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

ok guys, on this forum and on other sites i see a lot of people descrediting certain fighters resumes and credentials, for example iv seen many people claim that Hopkins resume consists of blown up welters or that calzaghes best wins are over old and/or over hyped fighters

basically i think that its possible to discredit to any fighters reputation and resume in one way or another with maybe the exception of a couple like SRR and maybe Ali ,

so to test this i want people to post a fighter who they think is an ATG and has a brilliant resume , and then to see if anyone else can give logical thought out reasons as to why they are not so great

---

Well i could downgrade Muhammad Ali easily i thought he lost to Jimmy Young, Ken Norton x2, Earnie Shavers, draw with Doug Jones. Infact you could make an argument that Ali could have 10 losses on his record then would people consider him so great ? no doubt Ali done alot for the sport and was a very smart fighter with alot of strong attributes but i think he is overrated. And he also did struggle with alot of lesser fighters aswell far too many times IMO.

---

Why did I just know youd go straight for Ali?
Oh yeah,you hate Ali
Truly overated,Im watching Lacy/Wiggins right now,Lacy is rubbish

---

Does it matter who i pick ? if you can't handle your favorite fighter taking criticism then don't go on threads like this end of. The whole point of this thread is to give out logical responses, and try and say why an ATG fighter wasn't as great as people thought, i gave out a logical answer which was the whole point of this thread, just like POB done the same with Roy Jones who is one of my favorite fighters, but i didn't pick him up on it did i ? because thats the whole point of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Well i could downgrade Muhammad Ali easily i thought he lost to Jimmy Young, Ken Norton x2, Earnie Shavers, draw with Doug Jones. Infact you could make an argument that Ali could have 10 losses on his record then would people consider him so great ? no doubt Ali done alot for the sport and was a very smart fighter with alot of strong attributes but i think he is overrated. And he also did struggle with alot of lesser fighters aswell far too many times IMO.

---

Why did I just know youd go straight for Ali?
Oh yeah,you hate Ali
Truly overated,Im watching Lacy/Wiggins right now,Lacy is rubbish

---

Does it matter who i pick ? if you can't handle your favorite fighter taking criticism then don't go on threads like this end of. The whole point of this thread is to give out logical responses, and try and say why an ATG fighter wasn't as great as people thought, i gave out a logical answer which was the whole point of this thread, just like POB done the same with Roy Jones who is one of my favorite fighters, but i didn't pick him up on it did i ? because thats the whole point of this thread.

---

I knew youd go for Ali first and foremost
Roy Jones is slightly over rated,but its not %100 his fault,the divisions he fought in were rubbish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Here we go. I'll trash my favorite fighter. Duran dominated lightweight in weak era, and he padded his record with bums. Other than the first Ray Leonard fight, he came up short in every other fight against top competition - Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. Iran Barkley was overrated. The only good fighter he ever beat was Hearns, so that win doesn't mean much. He fought way past his prime and ruined his legacy losing to guys like Paz and Lawlor.

This is a fun game!

---

I wouldn't say Duran wasn't great, but definitely overrated. As in not deserving of being ranked around #5 p4p all time by so many pundits and sportswriters. I just can't see it. There are not that many big name scalps on his record, he wasn't all that successful in moving through the divisions ( not one successful title defense in a division other than lightweight) . Sure he dominated lightweight, but there are many fighters who have dominated divisions who are never ranked anywhere near him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

I don;t blame him for avoiding Pryor. That guy had the instinct to kill.

---

With a trainer who'd be willing to help him. ;)

---

I don't like Pryor's chances against the welterweights like Leonard, Hearns, Duran, etc..

He was a terrific junior welterweight, and probably could've won the LW title too, but fighting bigger guys as great as SRL, Tommy, Duran.....I don't think Pryor beats any of them.