Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Personally I go for redemption...

    Take Tommy Hearns; sure the fights with Leonard (fight one) Duran, Hagler, Shuler, Andries and Hill were superb in their own unique ways; but nothing personifies Hearns' Greatness, than the redemption he got in the Leonard rematch.

    Yes, officially it was a draw, but everyone involved in that fight, including Leonard, knows who really won.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In my own little Universe
    Posts
    9,945
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2196
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Longevity at the top of the game
    If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Britkid
    What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Personally I go for redemption...

    Take Tommy Hearns; sure the fights with Leonard (fight one) Duran, Hagler, Shuler and Andries were superb in their own way; but nothing personifies Hearns' Greatness than the redemption he got in the Leonard rematch.

    Sure officially it was a draw, but everyone involved in that fight, including Leonard, knows who really won.
    i know what you mean, but tbh Hearns did not beat him convincingly.....He almost got knocked out in the 12th round and 5th.
    Hearns was lucky to make it out of the fight, but you're right he did win on points....
    But he certainly was the worse for ware

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    oh......to the question
    A fighter who gets hurt and knocked down and gets back up to win against an opponent of whom he can't beat (nigel-mcclelan)...
    And a fighter who losses and comes back in a rematch, (chris-carl thompson).
    And obviously who he has beaten blah blah blah

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1018
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Yeah maybe Hearns won the rematch but no doubt about it Ray was the better fighter.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_One77
    Quote Originally Posted by Britkid
    What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Personally I go for redemption...

    Take Tommy Hearns; sure the fights with Leonard (fight one) Duran, Hagler, Shuler and Andries were superb in their own way; but nothing personifies Hearns' Greatness than the redemption he got in the Leonard rematch.

    Sure officially it was a draw, but everyone involved in that fight, including Leonard, knows who really won.
    i know what you mean, but tbh Hearns did not beat him convincingly.....He almost got knocked out in the 12th round and 5th.
    Hearns was lucky to make it out of the fight, but you're right he did win on points....
    But he certainly was the worse for ware
    No doubt it was a damn close fight, but all the rounds were very easy to score, one way or the other, and IMO, 113/112 to Tommy should have been the scorecard on all three judges, it was that obvious...


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In my own little Universe
    Posts
    9,945
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2196
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Grace under extreme pressure
    If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,748
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1274
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Quote Originally Posted by cockey cockney
    Yeah maybe Hearns won the rematch but no doubt about it Ray was the better fighter.
    I have a hard time with that one actually.. It may be that Ray was better, but really Thommy was doing very well in their first fight.. And could have won it if he had learned to hang on occasionaly, imo. He was convincingly outboxing SRL, using his own bolo punch and taunts against him.. I just watched that fight for the first time in a couple years last night so I dunno it's fresh in my mind.. Hearns was a great great fighter, but I suppose he didn lack that sort of instinct that SRL had, to recover from being hurt etc.. I think really it's just his chin wasn't as good, other then that Hearns had practically everything leonard did and alot more power and range. Plus he beat most great opponents of SRL spare for Hagler, but that fight and the Mugabi fight afterwards took alot out of Hagler and SRL pretty much rested and waited till the time was right to fight him, dictated all the terms of the fight, then wouldnt give him the rematch.. I never respected that.. I personally think Hearns SRL I is one of the greatest fights ever and doesn't get enough recognition as such.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a hole in the ground
    Posts
    23,387
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3312
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    I think the most important quality is that they beat the best in their era.

    I definitely agree that extra weight is given to a fighter who comes back from defeat.

    Take Sugar Ray Robinson, 5 times middle weight world champ. He is more highly regarded than Carlos Monzon who reigned for as long as Robinson but never lost a defense. It's ironic that if he had lost and come back, like Ali or Robinson he would have been more highly regarded.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilbo
    I think the most important quality is that they beat the best in their era.

    I definitely agree that extra weight is given to a fighter who comes back from defeat.

    Take Sugar Ray Robinson, 5 times middle weight world champ. He is more highly regarded than Carlos Monzon who reigned for as long as Robinson but never lost a defense. It's ironic that if he had lost and come back, like Ali or Robinson he would have been more highly regarded.
    [click] superb manipulation of stats.

    IMO, the Middleweights and Welterweights were boxings' strongest division. And IMO, SRR was easily boxing's finest 147lber and #2 at Middleweight, that is why in my ratings he is 11 places ahead of Monzon, who I consider Boxing's finest ever 160lber.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a hole in the ground
    Posts
    23,387
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3312
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Britkid
    Quote Originally Posted by bilbo
    I think the most important quality is that they beat the best in their era.

    I definitely agree that extra weight is given to a fighter who comes back from defeat.

    Take Sugar Ray Robinson, 5 times middle weight world champ. He is more highly regarded than Carlos Monzon who reigned for as long as Robinson but never lost a defense. It's ironic that if he had lost and come back, like Ali or Robinson he would have been more highly regarded.
    [click] superb manipulation of stats.

    IMO, the Middleweights and Welterweights were boxings' strongest division. And IMO, SRR was easily boxing's finest 147lber and #2 at Middleweight, that is why in my ratings he is 11 places ahead of Monzon, who I consider Boxing's finest ever 160lber.
    Thanks for the , have one yourself

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Above all else, I look at talent, level of competition, and longevity. How many different weight classes a fighter has won belts in means nothing to me.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,816
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1075
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    Showing up when it counts, especially in clutch time baby!

    Not too big on longevity. Who cares if all your fighting is a bunch of girl scouts.

    But fighting great when your in with a great.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1103
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    longevity and opposition

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,539
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1843
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

    The ability and heart/guts to come back strong after a defeat and go on to dominate your division always impresses me.
    Most of the greats have done this

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Saddo Boxing - Boxing