Ring Mag: 10 Greatest Living Fighters

First topic message reminder :

Ring Mag came up with a new list:

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/431305-living-legends-who-is-the-greatest-fighter-alive

10. Larry Holmes
9. Manny Pacquiao
8. Jake LaMotta
7. Floyd Mayweather
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Marvin Hagler
4. Evander Holyfield
3. Pernell Whitaker

They haven't published 1 and 2 yet - any ideas?

Ray Leonard and Duran?

The weight classes now have been shifted, which would be fine if you could still have defined weight clasees. But its been muddied completely. As long as you make the weight you can fight as anything you want come fight night. 5, 10, 14, 20 lbs heavier. 2 or 3 or 4 weight classes ahead. There is no consistency.

Jones was really a career 170-185lber. That was his fighting weight range. For someone to of that fighting range to be able to add a few pounds and step up and outpoint heavyweight like Ruiz is not actually that exceptional in my book. I think less than great boxers could do it and have done it. It happens regularly now in boxing now that relatively ordinary fighters (in the grand schem of things) can start become 2,3,4 weight world champions and so on in the right circumstances.

If you take Jones as a roughly 175-185lb fighter with the ability to get down hit lighter divisional limits early in his career whilst also being able to beat Ruiz later in his career, actually to me it doesnt neccessarily take a great fighter to that (depending on the circumstances). To do it in the manner Jones did it, is a different story though - I dont think his talent would be disputed. I think the reason it doesnt happen that often is because what is the incentive for a 185lb fighter to fight fight 2nd rate heavyweights when they can either fight 1st rate light heavyweights or 2nd rate light heavyweights? Not that they cant win against Ruiz standard heavyweights. Fighters like Spinks and Moorer opted to make a run at heavyweight to actually take on the top dogs so they added the extra poundage. Im sure if they wanted to pop up and take on a John Ruiz weighing in at 195lbs or whatever it was Jones weighed then they could have done so. A lot have them been splattered trying their luck at heavyweight but so would Jones if he had opted to try and take on quality heavyweights I am pretty sure.

To put it another angle on it, what standard of a light heavyweghit do you think it would take to beat Ruiz? Lets say, like Jones, their standard career weight is around 180-185lbs and they opt to put on an additional 10 pounds to take on Ruiz.

The money's at heavy though, I think there's plenty of dollar reasons why moorer opted against being a career cruiser... And Both spinks and moorer had the frame to carry the weight. 

I understand your point that some boil and rehydrate more than others... Not always an advantage as the draining process effects some worse than others. No arguments the waters are muddied.  My point was in absolute weight terms, the 175-185lb 'light heavy' now gives more away to an average heavy than was the case in the good old days. On the flip side, the available 'supplements' can help guys add some bulk now. Average guys might be multiweight world champions now, but they're not giving two stone away when they move up.

To answer your question, I don't doubt that there are light heavies in history who could have eaten a few pies given away 2 stone to John Ruiz and done a number on him.  i named a few already, but I don't think it's an extensive list.

I look at someone like John conteh, great boxer started at heavy and dropped to light heavy in the days before cruiser. Here's a guy with the frame in principle to do it as he boiled down to 175. He might have done it... I was a big fan...  but I can just see him getting muscled and wrestled out of it late on.

The money might be better at heavyweight, which is why some of the top light heavyweights have given it a crack. But thats actually making the decision to campaign at heavyweight which isnt really what Jones opted to do. He could have had big money fights against faded versions of Tyson and Holyfield which would have been serious money but he opted to jump back down to rather than risk getting splattered. Which in hindsight didnt really change much other than he ended up getting splattered for a lot less money and is still getting splattered to this day.

Im not a big subscriber to the heavyweight evolution of bigger as better. There were surely big men (and fat men) around in every generation. I think they just got weeded out early in boxing and couldnt cut it because there were better smaller heavyweights around (Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis smashed a few of them out spectacularly back in the day for instance). Nowadays there is major drain on what I think are the optimum weight range athletes going into boxing so you are left with big unathletic or not hugely talented leftovers in the heavyweight division (Ruiz was one of these!).

In terms of the example, against someone like Ruiz who was pretty slow and flat footed I think it woud actually be beneficial for a light heavyweight to stay pretty light and out manoever him like Jones did.

Boxing News has produced a list, also:

1. SRL
2. Roberto Duran
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Larry Holmes
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Thomas Hearns
9. George Foreman
10. Lennox Lewis

What a poor poor list

Frankly quite embarrassing.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What a poor poor list

Frankly quite embarrassing.

I know, hard to believe Gavin Rees hasn't made that list.

or Bradley Pryce FFS!!!!!!!!

DAVE667 wrote:or Bradley Pryce FFS!!!!!!!!

Typical Boxing News anti-Welsh agenda.

Lennox Lewis has so they are probably both Top 20.

Michael Spinks must have died..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Michael Spinks must have died..

He died of shock when he saw the list. I think we were all taken aback... No la motta

hazharrison wrote:Boxing News has produced a list, also:

1. SRL
2. Roberto Duran
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Larry Holmes
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Thomas Hearns
9. George Foreman
10. Lennox Lewis

Not a good list, but I agree with the top two, only reverse the order.

That's a blanket statement......

Explain it...Why is Duran higher than Leonard ??

Fought for far longer. Dominated LW and is possibly the best ever at the weight. Granted you could say the same for Ray in WW.

Beat him the first time, when Ray was undefeated. Enjoyed watching him more, so I'm a bit biased.

Did Ray even have a third of the fights Duran had?

It's my opinion and many share it, many don't.

Duran was a champ for around ten years, then stepped up to beat boxing golden boy at WW. Did he have near 80 fights around then, with only 1 loss??

You should know if he had only one loss...

You've just made a clear statement that Duran belongs higher..

I do know. Just 80 sounded better than 71 wins.

You could say Sugar Ray was more talented(more talented than any living fighter for me,) but you could say Duran was the better fighter, dominated a division much more than Ray in terms of longevity and number of challenges, more successful in fights above his natural weight, if Ray had as many fights as Duran he'd probably have just as many losses you could surmise you don't really expect to get knocked out by Camacho whatever stage of your career all opinions though it's what you like at the end of the day both great great boxers

Great post!

Ko15 Benitez............Legend and in his prime.......
Ko14 Hearns............Legend and in his prime.......
W12 Hagler..............Pound for pound number 1 at the time...
ko 8 Duran...............Pound for pound number 1 at the time...

Not sure any fighter in history can beat these four wins as a collection...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ko15 Benitez............Legend and in his prime.......
Ko14 Hearns............Legend and in his prime.......
W12 Hagler..............Pound for pound number 1 at the time...
ko 8 Duran...............Pound for pound number 1 at the time...

Not sure any fighter in history can beat these four wins as a collection...

Hagler, debatable.

Duran smaller man and he beat him in the first fight.

Hearns is one of the greatest wins ever.

Ray has the bigger wins, but that isn't the only criteria.

I pick both guys to beat Floyd and Manny. Floyd gives them both a very tough fight though.

I'd personally have Leonard higher, but you could easily argue that Duran's win over Leonard eclipses any of Leonard's wins.

I think with Duran it all depends on two things. First, at which point you think he was far enough past his peak to start mitigating for some of the disappointing losses he had post-Leonard II. Secondly, how much ratio leeway you’re prepared to give when you compare his highs and lows after that point.

If you think it’s a black and white matter (eg. ‘If he can take credit for beating Moore, Barkley and pushing Hagler close then he can and should also take a kicking to the same degree for Benitez, Hearns and Laing’) then you’ll probably always put him behind Leonard. If you think that, while he deserves criticism for those defeats, he deserves proportionally more praise for the highs, as he was already defying weight / father time to get there and so was already disadvantaged in every fight in some way win or lose, then you’re likely to have him just in front.

Duran’s mercurial form post-Leonard II makes it difficult. When Roy Jones hit his sudden decline it was never reversed and it soon became pretty clear that, post-Tarver II, he was basically finished. Likewise Ezzard Charles after Walcott turned the tables on him. Even in Leonard’s case, anything after Hagler is pretty much inadmissible in the grand scheme of things and every fight after that one suggested a fighter in irreversible decline. In those cases it’s easy – and pretty much correct – to say that the humbling losses they took in the back stretch of their careers don’t impact on their standing too much.

But Duran seemed to hit these declines periodically and then arrest them out of the blue before repeating the process. Quits against Leonard, loses to Benitez and then humiliated against Laing, but comes back to hammer Moore and perform very admirably against all odds in the Hagler fight. Gets crushed by Hearns, conspires to lose to Sims, but then rebounds with an improbable win over Barkley in one of the all-time great Middleweight title fights. Makes it hard to say with conviction how much slack he should be cut for those losses.

Anyway, I’ve always gone back and forth on the Leonard-Duran thing. Recently I’ve sided with Leonard but today, for whatever reason, my inclination is to go back towards Duran.

He beat a collection of world titlists so varied that the smallest of them won titles at Featherweight, while the biggest took straps all the way up to Light-Heavyweight. He was beating a top class future world champion, Marcel, weighing 130 lb in 1970, and then still beating a former champion, Castro, weighing 168 lb in 1997! He is a very, very rare case of someone very possibly (Benny Leonard and Whitaker have a claim) being the greatest ever in one of the original weight divisions, but who actually had his greatest moment and win in the next one up, which was perhaps the greatest result in boxing history.

But as I said, it’s super-close.

excellent summary chris... in so much as a chris post can be a summary!

It probably hinges on the emphasis given to montreal. Duran had been at welter for a while so was mature at the weight, but however much a 'smaller' man he was its still the standout win for either of them. Of course, it maybe also equates to how much credence you give to leonard avenging it and whether you buy the 'leonard fought the wrong fight in montreal' argument and the 'duran was partied out for 'no mas'.

Leonard had more other great wins in a much shorter career. Really its personal preference, i can see why anyone's given criteria would favour one over the other.

Duran's resume was deeper. Leonard's career only amounted to 40 fights - possibly the fewest of any All Time Great?

Leonard, though, has those gigantic performances against Hearns, Benitez and Hagler (though the latter was contentious, it was still a miraculous performance). He not only beat Hearns and Benitez, he beat them at their own game.

Duran dominated a division. He's generally regarded as the greatest lightweight champion in history. He then beat a prime Leonard above his best weight (the only man to do so in Leonard's prime) and showed flashes of his old genius against Hagler, Barkley and Moore way above his best weight (back when a lightweight beating a middleweight was just that - before potions and IVs muddied the water and made it a less monumentous task than it is these days).

Didn't beat Barkley in a million years......Poor old Barkley needed to knock him out to beat a hispanic legend for the WBC belt....

I had it by three including the knockdown...Typical Duran fanboy bollox where you give him any round that's close..

The Hearns fight alone keeps him from being above Leonard.......or Top 10 in my opinion..

Gil Clancy "We are talking about a world class fighter that.....

"Tried to out jab a guy 6 inches taller who had the best jab in the sport."

"Kept circling into the biggest right hand in the sport"

"Tried to win on the outside when he could only ever win on the inside"

Fought like the village idiot....

No....Not in my top ten because of Hearns and your esteemed Reg Gutteridge agreed (for what it is worth) when SKY did a Top 10 program with Mcguigan and others some time ago....He was as embarrassed for Duran as I was..

Overrated because of Leonard 1....A fight that could have gone either way.....Great win that it was...

Every top class boxer that "boxed him".....Beat him.

Number 11 on my ATG list..

In the old days they used to prize longevity very highly when assessing a fighter's standing and when the win column is similar then you could say the longevity swings it for Duran because is Ray's win column in fact that much better than Duran's when you examine them closely?

Duran definitely beat Barkley imo by the way

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't beat Barkley in a million years......Poor old Barkley needed to knock him out to beat a hispanic legend for the WBC belt....

I had it by three including the knockdown...Typical Duran fanboy bollox where you give him any round that's close..

The Hearns fight alone keeps him from being above Leonard.......or Top 10 in my opinion..

Gil Clancy "We are talking about a world class fighter that.....

"Tried to out jab a guy 6 inches taller who had the best jab in the sport."

"Kept circling into the biggest right hand in the sport"

"Tried to win on the outside when he could only ever win on the inside"

Fought like the village idiot....

No....Not in my top ten because of Hearns and your esteemed Reg Gutteridge agreed  (for what it is worth) when SKY did a Top 10 program with Mcguigan and others some time ago....He was as embarrassed for Duran as I was..

Overrated because of Leonard 1....A fight that could have gone either way.....Great win that it was...

Every top class boxer that "boxed him".....Beat him.

Number 11 on my ATG list..

Not everything is so black and white.

The Benitez v Duran fight was embarrassing too.....Most observers had him losing 12-3 or worse.....

Schooling......Nearly threw the toys out at the end like Leonard 2... if memory serves.......

Not black and white at all Adam.....

Just focusing on areas fanboys tend to overlook..

A common occurrence with Duran.....

Come on, Truss. If, as you say above, it’s ‘Leonard W 12 Hagler’ without any footnote or caveat then it’s also ‘Duran W 15 Leonard’ and ‘Duran W 12 Barkley’ without them. Fair’s fair.

Ironically, if you ask me (which nobody did!) then out of the three of them it’s the Leonard-Hagler decision which was the most debatable and the closest fight. I have scored Duran-Barkley a couple of times and on both occasions I had Duran winning by a point or two. One of the cards was definitely too generous in his favour but I don’t see how you can say it was a highway job or that anyone who scored it for Duran did so out of pure favouritism. There’s nothing to support that.

As for the first Leonard-Duran fight, fantastic and highly competitive though it was, I still don’t think I’ve spoken to any serious fan who had it anything other than a relatively close but still definite win for Duran. Aside from Sports Illustrated who had it a draw on the night, I likewise can’t recall seeing any publications of the day who disagreed with the verdict, either.

Leonard-Hagler, on the other hand…

Barkley v Duran wasn't even close...............8-4 with a 10-8.....

Don't even try to compare the two fights....

Ko had Leonard 118-111 Hagler.............

Ko had Barkley 115-112 Duran....

It's only ko magazine but it is very revealing margin wise.......

For Duran to win you'd have to give him rounds that he lost by a small margin....For Hagler to win you'd have to do the same....

Leonard vs Hagler was not that wide. Come on Truss.

Leonard stole enough rounds to win, but it was close.

Least Duran gave Leonard a rematch.

Anyway we've had this argument about a thousand times so let's agree to disagree..

Duran is a great fighter no question.......and 11th on my list is top class considering what is before and after...

As you know I think he get free rides other fighters don't....Bit like Golovkin is getting at the moment...

Certainly have him second in the fab four though...

Hearns should/could of been the best of the bunch. He was a freak at 147-160.

Duran won the Barkley fight - not just by winning more rounds but morally, he was the worthy victor. Barkley fought a near perfect fight but Duran was just great that night. A flashback to what he'd once been at lightweight. Was it close? Yes, without a doubt - Barkley's finest performance during his career purple patch.

AP had it to Barkley 115-114.
LA Times had it 115-112.

There's a reason Truss constantly rubbishes Duran and Golovkin and it's related to their passports, not their fight records.

If truth be told, Duran was never the same after the Leonard fight. Yes, there were flashes of the old Duran but he was never THAT Duran again.

His lightweight reign and his deeper resume topped off with the Leonard win swing it for him.

Leonard was an amazing fighter - one of the best big stage performers ever (perhaps THE greatest) but his lack of fights hurts him (to a degree).

He seems to only rate American fighters and Khan.

\"TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ko had Leonard 118-111 Hagler.............

Ko had Barkley 115-112 Duran....

It's only ko magazine but it is very revealing margin wise.......

It's revealing that they scored both fights poorly, no way did Leonard or Barkley win by that much if at all.

I think why it's so hard to score SRL v Hagler is that Hagler just scraped the rounds he won were as SRL won his rounds much clearer. So over the course of the fight SRL was the better fighter but didn't, in some people's eyes, win more rounds.

Personally I had Leonard by two rounds but if you switch a round I scored to SRL to Hagler then it's a draw so there really was very little in it.

Also the fact Leonard had been out of the ring for 3 years and fought Hagler at his 'own' weight makes the performance even more remarkable.

reading this thread, it sounds like some people are itching for a leonard hagler debate. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

hazharrison wrote:

There's a reason Truss constantly rubbishes Duran and Golovkin and it's related to their passports, .

He's american, they're generally jealous of anyone with a passport... those that know what one is.

Frampton v Quigg....Leonard v Hagler......Outsmarted by better fighters...

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

There's a reason Truss constantly rubbishes Duran and Golovkin and it's related to their passports, .

He's american, they're generally jealous of anyone with a passport... those that know what one is.

GGG is my number 1 P4P... Just find it amusing he's not fought anyone and those that have are cowards...

Look it's only my opinion....

Duran is 11 on my list....Pretty good.

Pedro147 wrote:I think why it's so hard to score SRL v Hagler is that Hagler just scraped the rounds he won were as SRL won his rounds much clearer. So over the course of the fight SRL was the better fighter but didn't, in some people's eyes, win more rounds.

Personally I had Leonard by two rounds but if you switch a round I scored to SRL to Hagler then it's a draw so there really was very little in it.

Also the fact Leonard had been out of the ring for 3 years and fought Hagler at his 'own' weight makes the performance even more remarkable.

We're pretty close on our scoring of the Hagler Leonard fight except I had it the reverse of your scorecard. I had it 7-5 Hagler, and if I had given one more round to Leonard I would have had it a draw.

Anyways, when comparing Duran to Leonard I always have Duran on top. His lightweight record is the decider for me. Apart from one Dejesus fight, Duran at lightweight was flawless. Everything that he achieved over lightweight was extra icing on the cake.

milkyboy wrote:reading this thread, it sounds like some people are itching for a leonard hagler debate. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Go ahead, I know you're itching to pull out all your old stuff.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

There's a reason Truss constantly rubbishes Duran and Golovkin and it's related to their passports, .

He's american, they're generally jealous of anyone with a passport... those that know what one is.

GGG is my number 1 P4P...  Just find it amusing he's not fought anyone and those that have are cowards...

Look it's only my opinion....

Duran is 11 on my list....Pretty good.

I'm aware of that truss, I was ripping the fact that your countrymen don't travel, not your preference for US fighters.

I'm sure GGG would fight anyone, but people want big dollars for what could be their last meaningful fight, and his handlers are happy taking the lion share of the purse against patsies. Can't blame him or them for that, when you hear him speak (well, read translations) he's acutely aware that boxing is a business and that its a game played out by promoters and managers for maximising wealth, and the fighters largely do as they're told. Other than a spat with ward I haven't heard him bad mouth potential opponents for ducking. He's a victim of circumstance by being both very good and a wrecking ball, but I'm sure they could have secured a better resume if that had been their goal rather than dollars. No blame attached, its just how the game is.

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:reading this thread, it sounds like some people are itching for a leonard hagler debate. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Go ahead, I know you're itching to pull out all your old stuff.

I've been admirably resisting all temptation fella....




... so far

Milky's just itching to dish out a silent beating.

well i am a winker

Getting away from Duran Leonard for a second, I'm glad to see that Larry Holmes is now rated over George Foreman.

I remember after Foreman beat Moorer he was being rated over Holmes which I never agreed with. True, Foreman beating Moorer was a fantastic win, and a great story. He also had a great win over Frazier on his record, but I always felt that Holmes was the better fighter and his record as heavyweight champ for seven years put him ahead of Big George on a heavyweight all time list.