Who is the most underated fighter on this forum

[quintonjacksonfan]

We all know the great Hall Of Famer Mike McCallum is underated by the

general public but everyone on this fourm knows how great he is

My question is what boxers do you feel don't get the proper

respect on this message board

[McGrain]

I honestly think that every great fighter has at least one cheer-leader on this board. But Sugar Ray Leonard maybe - maybe the Klits.

And i'm the only guy (apart from maybe TBooze) who rates Burley high enough :deal

[GazOC]

Leonard IMHO.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Leonard
Foreman
Tyson
Wilde
Conteh :p
Page :hey

[mr. magoo]

Mike Mccallum's pretty underrated on this forum. In fact, I don't know if I've ever seen a thread devoted to him..

[McGrain]

Leonard
Foreman
Tyson
Wilde
Conteh :p
Page :hey

"Heavy bag with eyeballs".

[heerko koois]

Rudy Koopmans ...nobody ever does mention him ..:|

[duran77]

Leonard, no one ever really mentions the guy to talk greatness. He was good for sure.

[unitas]

buck smith.

[Robbi]

Leonard, Norris, De La Hoya, Curry.

[jhar26]

Felix Trinidad. If he had retired after the Joppy fight we would now be discussing his ATG-ness.

[JohnThomas1]

Page :hey

I think i lurve you!!!!

SRL was a great choice for this particular forum, can't agree with others saying McCallum, he gets oodles of milage in here.

[UpWithEvil]

I'm surprised by the repeated mention of Sugar Ray Leonard, I'd always assumed he was well-regarded by most on the board.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm surprised by the repeated mention of Sugar Ray Leonard, I'd always assumed he was well-regarded by most on the board.

Factor in the haters and detractors and he's very underrated in here. Between latter fight negotiations and the fact that he's beaten one of most everyones faves and he doesn't go real well.

[UpWithEvil]

Factor in the haters and detractors and he's very underrated in here.

Well I know there are a handful of vocal trolls who like to lump Leonard in with such mediocrities as Joe Louis, but I didn't think anyone took them seriously.

[Manassa]

The multiple mentions of Ray Leonard proves he isn't the most underrated. Not by a long shot. A really underrated fighter would be someone like Frankie Genaro, Sammy Mandell or Fidel LaBarba.

[mr. magoo]

JohnThomas1] can't agree with others saying McCallum, he gets oodles of milage in here.



I'm not so sure that I've made that same observation myself. Frankly, I think McCallum is rarely talked about here, and in fact was underrated even during his time. Mike was a tremendously talented fighter, who had the misfortune of lurking in the shadows of Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard. Later, he would be overshadowed by Toney, Nunn and Jones Jr.

[Jupiter1610]

Leonard certainly does not get mentioned enough on this forum. Tyson also gets overlooked or is not given enough respect. Granted, after his return from prison his career ranged from medicore to pitiful but people forget how dominate he was during his prime. His impact on the sport during the 1980s was immense. From what I have been gathering Maxie Rosenbloom. He is almost never mentioned here, other than the occassional sarcastic comment regarding his lack of power. However his record is impressive.

[McGrain]

The multiple mentions of Ray Leonard proves he isn't the most underrated. Not by a long shot. A really underrated fighter would be someone like Frankie Genaro, Sammy Mandell or Fidel LaBarba.

You're logic is a bit squint, no? To say that the guy most guys think is underated is not true because they think that only holds water if the guys who think that have squint thinking themselves. If they can't make a proper appraiseal of the board.

Of course, that doesn't mean your shouts don't make sense.

[Manassa]

You're logic is a bit squint, no? To say that the guy most guys think is underated is not true because they think that only holds water if the guys who think that have squint thinking themselves. If they can't make a proper appraiseal of the board.

Of course, that doesn't mean your shouts don't make sense.

Ray Leonard is nowhere near the most underrated because, although he has critics, he also has people to defend him - plenty of them. At least he's getting recognition. When do you ever hear Frankie Genaro mentioned?

[McGrain]

Ray Leonard is nowhere near the most underrated because, although he has critics, he also has people to defend him - plenty of them. At least he's getting recognition. When do you ever hear Frankie Genaro mentioned?

Unless it's you Manassa - then not at all.

So let's say he's underrepresented - Sugar could still be the most underated.

[Robbi]

:yep :good

Curry was rated as pound for pound the best fighter on the planet during the mid 80's. His whole style and technique was sublime on the eye. Coming back from adversity was a weakness, as he was as good as finished after his career setback defeats to Honeyghan and McCallum.

Personal pride was Curry's downfall as he openly admitted to his manager and team that being one of only two undisputed champions in boxing at the time meant so much to him, the other of course being Hagler. He simply hung around at welterweight for too long battling the scales, and payed the price for doing so.

Curry was battling with the scales for much longer than people think, rumour has it as far back as 1982.

[salsanchezfan]

You know, I've heard all these names mentioned here on this forum. The real underrated guys haven't been mentioned at all, or only in passing, the ilk of which Manassa has mentioned.


Guys like Don Jordan, Beau Jack, Mando Ramos, Sugar Ramos, Art Hafey, Rodolfo Gonzalez, John Henry Lewis, Vito Antuofermo, etc. etc.......

[Primadonna Kool]

Mike Tyson is one of the most overrated.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You know, I've heard all these names mentioned here on this forum. The real underrated guys haven't been mentioned at all, or only in passing, the ilk of which Manassa has mentioned.


Guys like Don Jordan, Beau Jack, Mando Ramos, Sugar Ramos, Art Hafey, Rodolfo Gonzalez, John Henry Lewis, Vito Antuofermo, etc. etc.......



But we'd be here all day if we counted those guys and the likes of Eddie Perkins, Antonio Esparragoza, Kevin Finnegan, ad infinitum.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Don't understand the call for Antuofermo being underrated. He was undisputed middleweight champion...a huge over-achievement if you ask me.

[salsanchezfan]

But we'd be here all day if we counted those guys and the likes of Eddie Perkins, Antonio Esparragoza, Kevin Finnegan, ad infinitum.


..........And wouldn't that be great.

[My dinner with Conteh]

..........And wouldn't that be great.


Ha ha, yeah, come to think of it, it would. But only if we concentrated on a few names. What would happen is that each poster will just throw out four or five names and that'd be it.

Ok, we'll start with one- Vito Antuofermo.

[salsanchezfan]

Ha ha, yeah, come to think of it, it would. But only if we concentrated on a few names. What would happen is that each poster will just throw out four or five names and that'd be it.

Ok, we'll start with one- Vito Antuofermo.


.........All right........

Vito gets underrated here insideously. All anyone has to say about him is that he had bad eyebrows and was a plodding mauler, there to be hit.

For a guy with so little skills, his track record is pretty good. Wins against Briscoe, Dagge, Griffith, Moyer, and Cyclone Hart are nothing to sneeze at, yet he's poo-pooed here as the guy someody beat. Patently unfair.

[My dinner with Conteh]

.........All right........

Vito gets underrated here insideously. All anyone has to say about him is that he had bad eyebrows and was a plodding mauler, there to be hit.

For a guy with so little skills, his track record is pretty good. Wins against Briscoe, Dagge, Griffith, Moyer, and Cyclone Hart are nothing to sneeze at, yet he's poo-pooed here as the guy someody beat. Patently unfair.


He does have some good names on his CV, the Hagler draw being the highlight. But Benny and Emile were a bit faded and most of the half decent fighters Hart fought beat him. The Dagge away win was impressive- but in turn Vito was mashed by Hope, outclassed in the Minter rematch. I think he did well enough by becoming champ, without going overboard.

[Thinman]

Esteban de Jesus.
Hector Camacho.
J.L. Ramirez

[Seamus]

Ok, I think Leonard was one hell of a fighter, combing skill and grit, but he is hardly under-rated. Everyone with a skull on his shoulders knows he was a great fighter.

Julio Cesar Vasquezzis my example of an under-rated fighter. I watched fifth row and center as he pounded Winky Wright to the floor over and over again. I also thought the Sweat Pea fight was a sham, as JC was leading according to my and Gil Clancy's card going into the 10th but somehow powerpuching and ring generalship didn't count by the wide margin for the pitty-pat artist Whitaker. If JCV had faced Terry Norris- prime for prime as they both coincided- he would have put him through the canvas.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm not so sure that I've made that same observation myself. Frankly, I think McCallum is rarely talked about here, and in fact was underrated even during his time. Mike was a tremendously talented fighter, who had the misfortune of lurking in the shadows of Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard. Later, he would be overshadowed by Toney, Nunn and Jones Jr.

Well every time i see his name mentioned i see underrated in the post as well. Like Burley, he's in danger of moving into the overrated category. I think he's a great fighter, and a great technician, but he's no better than his present reputation.

[Luigi1985]

Rocky Marciano
James J. Jeffries
Jose Angel Napoles
Freddie Dawson
Young Corbett III
Freddie Miller
Maxie Rosenbloom
Duilio Loi
Tony Canzoneri
Harry Wills
Pancho Villa
Charles Burley

[mcvey]

We all know the great Hall Of Famer Mike McCallum is underated by the

general public but everyone on this fourm knows how great he is

My question is what boxers do you feel don't get the proper

respect on this message board
In no order,Benny Lynch
Peter Kane
Billy Petrolle
Jack Dillon
George Lavigne
Jack Britton
Jack Delaney
Pete Herman
Khaosai Galaxy
Miguel Canto
Bud Taylor
Owan Moran

[sweet_scientist]

Packey McFarland
Owen Moran
Willie Ritchie
Mike Gibbons
Billy Graham
Lew Jenkins
Rocky Kansas
Wes Ramey

[TBooze]

Ray Robinson; he was that good, that to do him justice and give him his proper place in history I would say one fifth of all threads in this forum should be about him!;)

[ThePlugInBabies]

jimmy 'mighty atom' wilde doesn't get his props enough on here, or anywhere come to think of it. i suppose it's mainly due to him coming from the lower weight classes.

[Beebs]

Foreman, Lewis, Tunney, Sharkey, Sullivan, Carnera (in that he was not a bum), same for Galento.

The other weight divisions have too many for me to think of.

[Robbi]

I never ever understood the SRL hate in the Classic Section. Probably a top 10 ATG.

Anyone who disagrees with someones opinion of Leonard being rated in a top 10 "pound for pound" list needs medical attention asap.

Never forget his win over Lalonde. He looked like a midget in there that night, and his finishing was as good as you'll ever see. Height disadvantge, weight as well, and was dropped and dazed by a clubbing overhand right.

[Manassa]

Anyone who disagrees with someones opinion of Leonard being rated in a top 10 "pound for pound" list needs medical attention asap.

Errr... No, they don't.

[Manassa]

How come? Achilles argument for him being the greatest ever due to his wins is kinda lame, but being a top 10 due to his wins and performance makes sense. Beating the best LW, one of the best JWW's, arguably the best JMW, and arguably the best MW, while winning titles at 168 as well, is top notch stuff. His best wins are among the best in boxing history, if not the best. Hagler, Hearns, Duran X2, Benitez, are amazing wins. Not to mention his obvious skill and flair in the ring.

You don't have to outline his career for me, I've got it all down. I haven't got a problem with someone rating Leonard #10 or, at a push, #9, but unquestionably top ten? Medical attention if not? Not a chance.

[Robbi]

You don't have to outline his career for me, I've got it all down. I haven't got a problem with someone rating Leonard #10 or, at a push, #9, but unquestionably top ten? Medical attention if not? Not a chance.

What I mean't was Leonard's credentials are worthy of a top 10 placing, along with maybe 20 others. Someone else may well have not have him in their top 10, but surely they can look at a different persons opinion and say "he may not be in my top 10, but I aint going to grumble".

[Manassa]

What I mean't was Leonard's credentials are worthy of a top 10 placing, along with maybe 20 others. Someone else may well have not have him in their top 10, but surely they can look at a different persons opinion and say "he may not be in my top 10, but I aint going to grumble".

I can do that. But you said anyone who disagrees with them needs medical attention. I disagree with them, it's just not worth the effort getting into a debate about because Leonard's placement is valid. Anyway, here's my list:

Disclaimer - ratings are based largely on accomplishments and are done using a time-for-time scale. For example, you might think Benny Leonard beating Lew Tendler twice is not as good as Shane Mosley beating Oscar De La Hoya twice, but for their time they were equal. For their time, Tendler was roughly De La Hoya's equivalent.

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Archie Moore
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

[Robbi]

I can do that. But you said anyone who disagrees with them needs medical attention. I disagree with them, it's just not worth the effort getting into a debate about because Leonard's placement is valid. Anyway, here's my list:

Disclaimer - ratings are based largely on accomplishments and are done using a time-for-time scale. For example, you might think Benny Leonard beating Lew Tendler twice is not as good as Shane Mosley beating Oscar De La Hoya twice, but for their time they were equal. For their time, Tendler was roughly De La Hoya's equivalent.

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Archie Moore
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

I made it sound as if Leonard should be on everyones top 10 "pound for pound" list. Maybe I went slightly overboard with my words. Now you know what I meant. Your list devotes itself purely to the old timers, apart from Duran. Great list, and all worthy of a mention. No question.

Regarding my list, I'll go with a top 5.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Roberto Duran
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Willie Pep

The Ring "The 80 best fighters of the last 80 years" top 10 list.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

[Manassa]

Can I ask where abouts Ezzard Charles would feature if your list was extended?

As a sidenote; my list consists mostly of old timers because they had more fights back then and therefore beat more contenders/champions. They had more room to create a legacy, more bouts in which to achieve. You wouldn't catch anyone racking up a record like Greb's nowadays.

[Manassa]

I'd say ALi had a better career than Archie Moore. Moore fought a lot and had a lot of KO's. Excellent list of fighters fought no doubt, but when it comes down to it, he lost most of his biggest fights, unlike Ali, which is why I don't see your dislike for Ali. Charles rates #8 for me BTW.

Dislike? I dislike Ali's fans, or rather, the fanatical ones which seem to be all too common.

Moore can be somewhat excused for losing some of his bigger fights because he was fighting better opponents. Charles in a pound-for-pound sense was well ahead of any Joe Fraziers, Sonny Listons or George Foremans, for example. Also, Rocky Marciano or Floyd Patterson, facing a naturally light heavyweight/small heavyweight Moore, would have been more of a challenge than what most of Ali's opponents could offer. Wins over such fighters as Harold Johnson - about on Frazier's level - and Jimmy Bivins - Patterson level (relative to Ali)? - catapult Moore into the elite. Holman Williams, Joey Maxim, Jack Chase, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall, the top names are all there, as well as some solid ones from the weight class above. I genuinely think Moore deserves to be rated above Ali, who falls at about #12. If you examined them win-for-win I think Moore would lead the way. Loss-for-loss, Ali would be in front, but you have to consider the very different times and locations in which the two fought; Ali, the Olympic champion, was a protected golden boy in comparison to the rough n' ready Moore of the '30s and '40s.

[Robbi]

Can I ask where abouts Ezzard Charles would feature if your list was extended?

As a sidenote; my list consists mostly of old timers because they had more fights back then and therefore beat more contenders/champions.

I'm in agreement with your opinion about old timers. Its so hard to knock them when comparing their statistics and quantity of fights they had against the modern era greats. Robinson was 120-1 when he stepped into the ring to challenge Lamotta for the middleweight title in 1951, with the previous loss at the hands of Lamotta 8 years earlier. As you probably know. Then went on to win the middleweight title 5 times. Willie Pep was another who had a crazy unbeaten streak over a lengthy span of time.

Ezzard Charles would not make my top 10. He was a great light-heayweight, its a shame he never won the title at that weight. His longevity as heavyweight champion was brief, and his two failed attempts to regain the title against Marciano were good efforts, but overall not good enough for elite status in my eyes.

[Manassa]

I'm in agreement with your opinion about old timers. Its so hard to knock them when comparing their statistics and quantity of fights they had against the modern era greats. Robinson was 120-1 when he stepped into the ring to challenge Lamotta for the middleweight title in 1951, with the previous loss at the hands of Lamotta 8 years earlier. As you probably know. Then went on to win the middleweight title 5 times. Willie Pep was another who had a crazy unbeaten streak over a lengthy span of time.

Ezzard Charles would not make my top 10. He was a great light-heayweight, its a shame he never won the title at that weight. His longevity as heavyweight champion was brief, and his two failed attempts to regain the title against Marciano were good efforts, but overall not good enough for elite status in my eyes.

What about this though?

Charley Burley x2
Lloyd Marshall x2
Joey Maxim x5
Archie Moore x3
Teddy Yarosz
Jersey Joe Walcott x2
Jimmy Bivins x4

These are all Hall of Fame level fighters. Throw in the other various contenders, many of whom had a weight advantage over Charles, and there lie a resume more impressive than Muhammad Ali's - in my opinion. Beating Archie Moore, a genuine boxing legend, three times in his prime, has to be the best set of wins in boxing history. The rest is just icing.

Many will comment on Charles' losses. My argument against that is that fighters change. Charles was thrashed by Bivins and Marshall, but after he joined the army and became bigger, stronger and more importantly; mentally focused, he returned the favour multiple times over. Check out Charles' streak from '46 to '49, it's one of the better ones throughout history. He only lost to Walcott after he became dissinterested and unconfident as he didn't receive the respect he deserved. Charles was a fighter like Henry Armstrong - not that great at the start of his career, not that great at the end of it, but fantastic in the middle.

[Robbi]

Dislike? I dislike Ali's fans, or rather, the fanatical ones which seem to be all too common.

Moore can be somewhat excused for losing some of his bigger fights because he was fighting better opponents. Charles in a pound-for-pound sense was well ahead of any Joe Fraziers, Sonny Listons or George Foremans, for example. Also, Rocky Marciano or Floyd Patterson, facing a naturally light heavyweight/small heavyweight Moore, would have been more of a challenge than what most of Ali's opponents could offer. Wins over such fighters as Harold Johnson - about on Frazier's level - and Jimmy Bivins - Patterson level (relative to Ali)? - catapult Moore into the elite. Holman Williams, Joey Maxim, Jack Chase, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall, the top names are all there, as well as some solid ones from the weight class above. I genuinely think Moore deserves to be rated above Ali, who falls at about #12. If you examined them win-for-win I think Moore would lead the way. Loss-for-loss, Ali would be in front, but you have to consider the very different times and locations in which the two fought; Ali, the Olympic champion, was a protected golden boy in comparison to the rough n' ready Moore of the '30s and '40s.

If you don't mind he asking, how highly do you rate Pernell Whitaker?. Not necessarily ranking him on a "pound for pound" list, but his skills and achivements against fellow modern greats of the last 30 years.

Personally he's on par with the most skillful boxers I have ever seen bar none. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali, Leonard, etc. I'll go one further, he's the best boxer I have ever seen for being effective on the backfoot.

[Manassa]

If you don't mind he asking, how highly do you rate Pernell Whitaker?. Not necessarily ranking him on a "pound for pound" list, but his skills and achivements against fellow modern greats of the last 30 years.

Personally he's on par with the most skillful boxers I have ever seen bar none. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali, Leonard, etc. I'll go one further, he's the best boxer I have ever seen for being effective on the backfoot.

I think Whitaker is one of the four best lightweights in history - now considering the talent in that division, that's saying a lot. Roberto Duran, Ike Williams and Carlos Ortiz are the three others members, in no order (Duran beats Whitaker, Williams beats Duran, Whitaker beats Williams, Ortiz versus any of them is a toss up).

I've not seen fighters much slicker than Whitaker. Benitez perhaps, maybe Locche, but Locche didn't have Whitaker's offense (underrated, especially to the body) to match. I don't like him much but I have to admire his talent. I think Pep was more dynamic, Duran, Charles and Robinson more rounded, but Whitaker probably belongs in that same class.

[Robbi]

I think Whitaker is one of the four best lightweights in history - now considering the talent in that division, that's saying a lot. Roberto Duran, Ike Williams and Carlos Ortiz are the three others members, in no order (Duran beats Whitaker, Williams beats Duran, Whitaker beats Williams, Ortiz versus any of them is a toss up).

I've not seen fighters much slicker than Whitaker. Benitez perhaps, maybe Locche, but Locche didn't have Whitaker's offense (underrated, especially to the body) to match. I don't like him much but I have to admire his talent. I think Pep was more dynamic, Duran, Charles and Robinson more rounded, but Whitaker probably belongs in that same class.

Whitaker against Duran must be one of the most talked about mythical fights in history, along with Louis v Ali and Robinson v Hagler.

Duran happens to be my favourite fighter of all time. I'd pick Whitaker to hand Duran a defeat via decision. Look at Duran's first title fight against Buchanan, then fast forward 6 years to his unification rubber match with De Jesus, and you see a totally different fighter style wise. He was a constant aggressive machine during the early 70's, never paced himself well, and was wild with his punches. Maybe a better way to sum him up: Very rushed and untidy. Brown and Arcel made him more refined as the years ticked along during the 70's. He became more economical with his punches, combined better boxing ability from long range, and his defense was vastly improved.

Some people seem to forget this about Duran, he had many non-title fights between his defenses. Maybe as much as 20 non-title fights over his 7 year reign.

The Duran of the early 70's losses easily to Whitaker, however the primely oiled all round fighting beast of the late 70's gives Whitaker a serious headache. Whitaker's movement, effective backfoot boxing, and well balanced percentage of offense and defense is too much for Duran.

[Robbi]

Just checked the exact number of non-title fights during Duran's reign as lightweight champion, 23 non-title fights.

[Manassa]

I don't think Whitaker beats Duran at all; Duran was no Chavez. Chavez was one dimensional in comparison to Duran, and too clean and tidy - easy to predict. Duran shopped and swapped his punches, mixed them up, feinted a fighter into knots and suffocated them up close. Chavez was a technically sound fighter, bobbing, weaving, punches tight, but all this was easy for Whitaker to read. Chavez lacked that same genius Duran had, that ability to find angles and innovate, to invent. Movers might have given Duran trouble, but Whitaker wasn't a mover - he stood still for far too long to defeat Duran, who outguns him at most ranges.

[Robbi]

I don't think Whitaker beats Duran at all; Duran was no Chavez. Chavez was one dimensional in comparison to Duran, and too clean and tidy - easy to predict. Duran shopped and swapped his punches, mixed them up, feinted a fighter into knots and suffocated them up close. Chavez was a technically sound fighter, bobbing, weaving, punches tight, but all this was easy for Whitaker to read. Chavez lacked that same genius Duran had, that ability to find angles and innovate, to invent. Movers might have given Duran trouble, but Whitaker wasn't a mover - he stood still for far too long to defeat Duran, who outguns him at most ranges.

Whitaker sure was a mover. During some fights at lightweight he'd stand in there, but for the most part he'd move and create angles behind the jab. His movement declined after moving up to welterweight, as he became more flat-footed. Watch his fight with Nelson, and a similar type of approach against Duran gives him the win. Although I confess, Nelson and Duran ain't the same.

I agree, Chavez is too measured stylewise when compared to Duran, who got off more freely with his punches. No question Duran slipped punches better than Chavez, and closed the distance quicker.

[Manassa]

Whitaker sure was a mover. During some fights at lightweight he'd stand in there, but for the most part he'd move and create angles behind the jab. His movement declined after moving up to welterweight, as he became more flat-footed. Watch his fight with Nelson, and a similar type of approach against Duran gives him the win. Although I confess, Nelson and Duran ain't the same.

I agree, Chavez is too measured stylewise when compared to Duran, who got off more freely with his punches. No question Duran slipped punches better than Chavez, and closed the distance quicker.

You're right in that Whitaker did move; he didn't have cement boots. But he didn't move like Ray Leonard or run like Lou Bizzarro. Compared to them he was relatively stationary, keeping his distance and jabbing but not using a whole lot of ring space. That's fine, it worked great for him, but it's one of the reasons why I think Duran would catch up to him. And in all seriousness, I'm not even sure Whitaker would have the better of it from the outside, I mean, look at Duran against Leonard in their first fight. Long range, Duran was there all the way. He was really quick back then. I remember one of the commentators saying 'look at Leonard's speed' and then the other one said 'yea, but look at Duran's!'

[Robbi]

You're right in that Whitaker did move; he didn't have cement boots. But he didn't move like Ray Leonard or run like Lou Bizzarro. Compared to them he was relatively stationary, keeping his distance and jabbing but not using a whole lot of ring space. That's fine, it worked great for him, but it's one of the reasons why I think Duran would catch up to him. And in all seriousness, I'm not even sure Whitaker would have the better of it from the outside, I mean, look at Duran against Leonard in their first fight. Long range, Duran was there all the way. He was really quick back then. I remember one of the commentators saying 'look at Leonard's speed' and then the other one said 'yea, but look at Duran's!'

Watch Whitaker v Ramirez I and you'll see him use ring space. He exclusively used the jab that night, but not much variation. On his bicycle for the entire fight and scoring effectively at the same time, with the jab. One of the worst decisions in boxing history. His constant movement while back pedaling poking out the jab cost him dearly. But he made Ramirez miss all night long.

Also against Nelson he moved relentlessly, sometimes backwards in a straight line, and also to the side. Compared to his fight first fight with Ramirez, he showed more weapons in this fight. He varied his work, with many more left hand power punches. He went downstairs more often, and would stand and get off with authority, then slide away again.

Whitaker has the style to fight the same kind of fight at lightweight as Leonard did during his rematch with Duran. It must be said, Duran would be in better shape than he was that night, and would be sharper all round. I still think Whitaker beats him.

When I match fighters head to head in a match up, I try to focus soley on what they did in each division we are matching them at, rather looking at their strategy and performances in other divisions. Although sometimes its hard not to look at a fighters activity elsewhere.

[Holmes' Jab]

Sugar Ray Leonard. The hateful bile spouted on these forums in the direction of this guy is unbelievable (it's mostly down to petty personal 'issues' perople seem to have, causing 'em to under-rate the guy).

He should be judged on the grounds that he was a truely great fighter, nothing else. :good

[Manassa]

Watch Whitaker v Ramirez I and you'll see him use ring space. He exclusively used the jab that night, but not much variation. On his bicycle for the entire fight and scoring effectively at the same time, with the jab. One of the worst decisions in boxing history. His constant movement while back pedaling poking out the jab cost him dearly. But he made Ramirez miss all night long.

Also against Nelson he moved relentlessly, sometimes backwards in a straight line, and also to the side. Compared to his fight first fight with Ramirez, he showed more weapons in this fight. He varied his work, with many more left hand power punches. He went downstairs more often, and would stand and get off with authority, then slide away again.

Whitaker has the style to fight the same kind of fight at lightweight as Leonard did during his rematch with Duran. It must be said, Duran would be in better shape than he was that night, and would be sharper all round. I still think Whitaker beats him.

When I match fighters head to head in a match up, I try to focus soley on what they did in each division we are matching them at, rather looking at their strategy and performances in other divisions. Although sometimes its hard not too look at a fighters activity elsewhere.

Whitaker boxed excellently against Nelson and Ramirez, and Chavez, but here is my gripe:

Whitaker has the style to fight the same kind of fight at lightweight as Leonard did during his rematch with Duran.

I don't think he did. Whitaker was quick, but Leonard had that extreme top-five-all-time speed, both of hand and foot. He was a dancer in the Ali mould, a spearing, rangy fighter - at least when he boxed Duran in that fateful rematch. Whitaker could move, but not in the same way. He slid like a snake and occasionally ran or hopped back out of distance, but he didn't dance and glide like Leonard. His jab was a piston, rather than a whip and he wasn't as rangy either. These aren't necessarily bad things regarding Whitaker in general as a fighter because he was better than Leonard in other areas, but he lacked the tools needed to beat Duran, who would be all over him like a rash. Even if he only got close occasionally, as I said before - I'm not even sure Whitaker would have the best of it on the outside. Duran was quick and clever. Of course, I would never assume Duran would have his way completely with Whitaker on the inside as the latter was a quality fighter at that range too, but Duran would be the dominant force - too much of a strength-power-skill balance for Whitaker to handle. The decision would be close, but Duran wins.

[Manassa]

Sugar Ray Leonard. The hateful bile spouted on these forums in the direction of this guy is unbelievable (it's mostly down to petty personal 'issues' perople seem to have, causing 'em to under-rate the guy).

He should be judged on the grounds that he was a truely great fighter, nothing else. :good

Seriously though, who is underrating Leonard? Rooster and Hank, both of whom are ridiculed. It's not a big deal.

[McGrain]

Seriously though, who is underrating Leonard? Rooster and Hank, both of whom are ridiculed. It's not a big deal.

I think the point is; people are suspicios of Leonard (i feel that way) and dislike him (for whatever reason). This leads them to place him lower than he ought to be in a very general sense (but not me chum).

[Manassa]

Well I can't remember anyone underrating Leonard, but then again I haven't been here much for three weeks.

[Vantage_West]

Felix Trinidad. If he had retired after the Joppy fight we would now be discussing his ATG-ness.when he was at middlewieght he lost everything that got him there speed combo's jab he was only a left hooker...a real shame

[sweet_scientist]

Ok, I think Leonard was one hell of a fighter, combing skill and grit, but he is hardly under-rated. Everyone with a skull on his shoulders knows he was a great fighter.

Julio Cesar Vasquezzis my example of an under-rated fighter. I watched fifth row and center as he pounded Winky Wright to the floor over and over again. I also thought the Sweat Pea fight was a sham, as JC was leading according to my and Gil Clancy's card going into the 10th but somehow powerpuching and ring generalship didn't count by the wide margin for the pitty-pat artist Whitaker. If JCV had faced Terry Norris- prime for prime as they both coincided- he would have put him through the canvas.

So do you think Vasquez won that fight?

How about mentioning how Gil Clancy had Whitaker winning the fight even WITHOUT the two points that were deducted from Vasquez for hitting behind the head?

[Robbi]

Whitaker boxed excellently against Nelson and Ramirez, and Chavez, but here is my gripe:



I don't think he did. Whitaker was quick, but Leonard had that extreme top-five-all-time speed, both of hand and foot. He was a dancer in the Ali mould, a spearing, rangy fighter - at least when he boxed Duran in that fateful rematch. Whitaker could move, but not in the same way. He slid like a snake and occasionally ran or hopped back out of distance, but he didn't dance and glide like Leonard. His jab was a piston, rather than a whip and he wasn't as rangy either. These aren't necessarily bad things regarding Whitaker in general as a fighter because he was better than Leonard in other areas, but he lacked the tools needed to beat Duran, who would be all over him like a rash. Even if he only got close occasionally, as I said before - I'm not even sure Whitaker would have the best of it on the outside. Duran was quick and clever. Of course, I would never assume Duran would have his way completely with Whitaker on the inside as the latter was a quality fighter at that range too, but Duran would be the dominant force - too much of a strength-power-skill balance for Whitaker to handle. The decision would be close, but Duran wins.

Maybe you need to re-watch Whitaker against Ramirez I. Whitaker's movement was constant, and in a similar manner to Leonard's against Duran. If you watch Leonard against Duran in New Orleans, his punch out-put was not very high. He threw about 10-15 jabs maximum during each round, spanked Duran with a right hand lead, and kept his distance. Very seldom did Leonard throw 3-4 punch combinations. Leonard's balance throughout the fight was much more defensive than offensive. He boxed a smart fight and made Duran miss, then made him pay, but not very busy.

Whitaker has the style to move like Leonard and keep things cute, he'd have a higher jab out-put as well. Especially going on the evidence of Whitaker's jab activity against Ramirez during their first fight when he fought in a similar fashion to Leonard in New Orleans.

But its the Nelson fight which impresses me most in my arguement. He revealed much more weapons combined with superb ring generalship. Ramirez I was a jab exclusive show.

Leonard was never as effective as Whitaker while going backwards. If you watch Leonard's rematch with Duran, he moves constantly and boxes, but he steps in with punches. He's stationary when letting power punches go, and while circling and moving he's getting off with the jab. Whitaker could do all that, but he could also box effectively while moving backwards at the same time. Mind, I don't mean side to side movement while scoring with the jab, I mean going backwards.

[Manassa]

You talk about workrate - Whitaker's higher output would not necessarily bode well for him. It means he would be more stationary and offering Duran more chances to counter punch. Leonard, by only throwing the occasional punch and concentrating more on defending himself he was not letting Duran do what he wanted to do, and that was dish out the damage. Again; Whitaker was slower than Leonard; speed was a big factor in the Duran rematch.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. The peak lightweight Duran of around '78 was a far better fighter than the drained version who quit against Leonard. But I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

[Robbi]

You talk about workrate - Whitaker's higher output would not necessarily bode well for him. It means he would be more stationary and offering Duran more chances to counter punch. Leonard, by only throwing the occasional punch and concentrating more on defending himself he was not letting Duran do what he wanted to do, and that was dish out the damage. Again; Whitaker was slower than Leonard; speed was a big factor in the Duran rematch.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. The peak lightweight Duran of around '78 was a far better fighter than the drained version who quit against Leonard. But I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

I think you missed my point entirely, or simply not taking my points into consideration. Whitaker was clearly much more effective than Leonard while moving away from an opponent. Whitaker could score while on the move backwards with the jab as his opponent is advancing. Leonard on the otherhand never done this against Duran, and when he was authorative with his work it was by stepping in with power punches. And when boxing effectively and scoring, he was moving side-to-side, not going backwards.

"It means he would be more stationary and offering Duran more chanes to counter punch". Whitaker's high workrate would bolde well for him. His high workrate doesn't just means standing and exchanging and becoming a stationary target, encouraging Duran's counter punching and heavy weaponry. I mean high punch output mainly in terms on jab activity, as I explained with his performance against Ramirez, when he was constantly on the move at distance, in a similar fashion to Leonard.

The peak Duran of the late 70's was a far better version than the one who quit against Leonard. I beat you to that one, as I stated this a couple posts ago. This is Duran v Whitaker at lightweight anyway, not welterweight. Im using his showing in the rematch with Leoanrd as a guage.

[Manassa]

I'll reply in a while.

[Robbi]

I'll reply in a while.

We both make valid points. One thing is written in stone, Whitaker beats Duran at lightweight in my eyes, and roles reversed with yourself.

[Minotauro]

The Barbados Demon Joe Walcott the guys achievements are amazing and yet I rarely see him mentioned when ppl talk about the "greats". Nat Fleischer described him as the greatest welterweight ever and he was the idol of Jersey Joe Walcott who regards him as the greatest pound 4-pound fighter alongside Ray Robinson.

[Manassa]

I think you missed my point entirely, or simply not taking my points into consideration. Whitaker was clearly much more effective than Leonard while moving away from an opponent. Whitaker could score while on the move backwards with the jab as his opponent is advancing. Leonard on the otherhand never done this against Duran, and when he was authorative with his work it was by stepping in with power punches. And when boxing effectively and scoring, he was moving side-to-side, not going backwards.

"It means he would be more stationary and offering Duran more chanes to counter punch". Whitaker's high workrate would bolde well for him. His high workrate doesn't just means standing and exchanging and becoming a stationary target, encouraging Duran's counter punching and heavy weaponry. I mean high punch output mainly in terms on jab activity, as I explained with his performance against Ramirez, when he was constantly on the move at distance, in a similar fashion to Leonard.

The peak Duran of the late 70's was a far better version than the one who quit against Leonard. I beat you to that one, as I stated this a couple posts ago. This is Duran v Whitaker at lightweight anyway, not welterweight. Im using his showing in the rematch with Leoanrd as a guage.

You addressed everything except the speed factor. Leonard was faster with both hands and feet than Whitaker, and was more mobile, even though you think Whitaker could match him there.

[Robbi]

You addressed everything except the speed factor. Leonard was faster with both hands and feet than Whitaker, and was more mobile, even though you think Whitaker could match him there.

Leonard was quicker than Whitaker with his hands, but never had the same variety regarding defense. Whitaker was just as quick with his movement at lightweight, although you could argue either way.

Duran at lightweight never faced anyone quite like Whitaker. Buchanan and De Jesus were decent operators, but not anywhere near Whitaker's ballpark.

I will freely admit, Whitaker never shared a ring with an opponent of Duran's calibre either.

[Mantequilla]

IMO the best pure boxers will almost always lose to the cream of the boxer-punchers.

It's simply an inherently inferior and less efficient and balanced way of fighting, even though pure-boxers are some of my favourite fighters.

Nicolino Locche for example is a great example of a defensive specialist with almost nothing else going for him.Whitaker not quite as one dimensional as that of course, but he doesn't compare to the truly great boxer-punchers, especially if the boxer-puncher has a steady jab(which admittedly Duran did not).

For instance for all their undoubted flair, someone like Whitaker or Canto will rarely ever outbox one of the Sugar Ray's or a Harold Johnson, masao ohba or John Conteh type fighter.They don't have the offense for it and if the jab is equalled or taken away like Leonard did with Benitez then that's it.THe superior variety of leads that the boxer puncher has(with more aggressive mindset in place to use them)inevitably carries the day.

A good example of how Duran vs Whitaker would play out imo is the first Hilario Zapata vs Jung-Koo Chang fight where Hilario gets a gift decision ina tough fight.Very similar styles at play there.

I could see Whitaker beating Duran perhaps once, but over a series of fights i'm fairly certain he doesn't have enough depth to his game to win.The master box-puncher would prevail, albeit not easily

[Manassa]

I think I agree with Robbi because it comes down to what you were arguing Manassa, I don't think Duran does as well as you say from the outside. I think in the inside it's close but advantage Duran, on the outside it's close but advantage Whitaker. Close call, but I doubt most of this fight would be taking place on the inside, so I'd give a slight advantage to Whitaker again.

This matchup has taken so many turns with me. At first I thought surely Whitaker outboxes him like he did Chavez. After watching more Duran I realized he was nothing like Chavez and honestly turned my opinion to Duran and admitted that he would win. After more revue, I had them stalemated again, and now I go slightly back to Whitaker. Close call for sure.

No need for a return argument from me then, I'll simply wait until next month when you lean towards Duran :good

[sweet_scientist]

IMO the best pure boxers will almost always lose to the cream of the boxer-punchers.

It's simply an inherently inferior and less efficient and balanced way of fighting, even though pure-boxers are some of my favourite fighters.

Nicolino Locche for example is a great example of a defensive specialist with almost nothing else going for him.Whitaker not quite as one dimensional as that of course, but he doesn't compare to the truly great boxer-punchers, especially if the boxer-puncher has a steady jab(which admittedly Duran did not).

For instance for all their undoubted flair, someone like Whitaker or Canto will rarely ever outbox one of the Sugar Ray's or a Harold Johnson, masao ohba or John Conteh type fighter.They don't have the offense for it and if the jab is equalled or taken away like Leonard did with Benitez then that's it.THe superior variety of leads that the boxer puncher has(with more aggressive mindset in place to use them)inevitably carries the day.

A good example of how Duran vs Whitaker would play out imo is the first Hilario Zapata vs Jung-Koo Chang fight where Hilario gets a gift decision ina tough fight.Very similar styles at play there.

I could see Whitaker beating Duran perhaps once, but over a series of fights i'm fairly certain he doesn't have enough depth to his game to win.The master box-puncher would prevail, albeit not easily
This is a very good post. Whilst I think it's better to deal with each match up on its own terms, as a general point of view I think you are correct.

I was thinking of Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler as well when reading your post. IMO it didn't matter when Pep fought Saddler, it would always be a nightmare for Pep to beat him.

Whitaker might pull off one masterpiece in a series with Duran where he outboxes him and wins a decision, but most likely he will find himself being overwhelmed and dropping 9-6 type decisions.

[sweet_scientist]

What makes you think he gets overwhelmed? Really. I don't see that at all. Whitaker was always cool with any type of fighter, and it's not like Duran was pure 100% pressure swarmer. He was a boxer as well, and he couldn't outbox Pea. He would rely on his versatility, as Pea was great against pressure fighters and very hard to outbox. Duran would have to mix it up and win a decision over Pea. A win for Duran would likely come as a result of a KD or two, as Whitaker was not exactly un-knockdownable. Otherwise, I see Whitaker taking the decision close.
Given Duran's workrate (which will match Whitaker's) and power (which surpasses Whitaker's), Whitaker will face a hard time doing enough to get a points win.

I think the disparity in power (in Duran's favour) will override the disparity in defense (in Whitaker's favour).

Given Whitaker's style of fighting I think he will have a hard time keeping Duran off him for the same reasons Mantequilla mentioned.

I don't think you can bring up any of Whitaker's opponents and say they did what Duran would do so as to give us an insight into how Whitaker would fair with Duran.

Azumah Nelson had a high workrate, and good power, but he didn't have Duran's infighting skills, nor his defense.

Chavez had good overall skills and power, but he didn't have Duran's speed or his workrate. His defense was a step below Duran's as well.