should fighters who duck others be all time greats

[a4mrmarine]

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.

[raleights]

In that case we can only draw one conclusion

John Ruiz Sucks Llama Dick

[Bx730NY]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[SimonH]

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.

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.

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:

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'

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

[TitoFan]

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.

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."

[DaxxKahn]

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....