Quote Originally Posted by hitmandonny View Post
Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
This is basically replying to a number of posts on the subject rather than this one particularly.

On comparing SRL & Hearns to SRR, I can see them as comparable, but SRR was greater.

SRL managed 40 fights in his career, whilst SRR didn't lose his 1st fight till his 41st fight against Jake LaMotta, a guaranteed HoFer, similar in context to SRL losing to Duran by fighting his fight. Both obviously won the rematches by adapting & by being better technical fighters.

At welterweight, SRR beat some of the all-time greats at the weight like LaMotta, Zivic, Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, as did SRL & Hearns, however, SRR fought 100 fights at the weight & was only bested that once by LaMotta.

You've also mentioned the Turpin fight, but he fought that having fought just 9 days previously in Italy. Can you say with certainty that SRL & Hearns would not have lost under similar circumstances. The fact he lost so little in his prime (5 times in the first 20 years of his career) despite fighting so regularly is a testament to his greatness. If we give their careers even 75% the longevity they were beaten by a similar level of fighter despite having considerably greater preparation time.

& whilst they were KO'd by Camacho & Barkley, the only KO loss of SRR's career was at LHW to Joey Maxim when he retired from heat exhaustion in a fight he was winning.

I'm not trying to underplay SRL & Hearns, I have SRL comfortably in my all-time Top 10, maybe at 5, whilst Hearns is definitely Top 20.

I just think SRR WAS greater, & even Leonard acknowledged that. I'll try dig up a link to the quote, but I believe he said 'They always tried to compare me to Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there is no comparisom.'
There are many strong points in your arguement Jaz and I liek how you put it together, but essentially my doubts are summarised in two points.

The first is the era. Fighters a were a lot less articulate in terms of boxing skill and conditioing was primitive and ineffectual.
I would expect SRL and Tommy to scythe through most of SRR's competition, with the exception of Gavilan, La Motta, HurricaneHank and perhaps Basilio/Fulmer. Fighting at the time was just that and SRR's concept of boxing was radical and new. Fighters didn't know how to deal with it. SRL and Tommy wer by far more equiped to deal with SRR's skill.

The second is the lack of evidence. I can't put blind faith in any fighter, particularly in an era notorious for fixed fights and jobbers.


Remeber Mike Tyson stated after he fought Holmes that he wouldn't have stood a chance against a Prime Larry. Few rate larry above Tyson, so SRL like many writers and fans may have been nostalgic.

Have to disagree with your last comment, i can't see how anyone don't rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson. He dominated the division for years and made 20 title defenses, aswell as having a good career past 40+.

Mike Tyson dominated only briefly and after he was beaten, he hardly done anything and was embarrassed numerous times. Prime Larry Holmes would beat Mike Tyson no doubt in my mind.