Rank the following fighters

No, but if they did and lost big I couldn't completely ignore it. I understand fighters wanting to challenge themselves and make more money. (usually it's about the money) If they want bigger dollars for fighting bigger guys their performance and results are fully open to be judged. If they fought for the big dollars, fans paid those big dollars naïve or otherwise.

It's still a fight, a professional contest and not a spectacle like dancing with the stars.

 

I agree. At the same time the win against Leonard is by far his most well known and talked about achievement. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but what if he lost badly?

Can we look it at the same way as Foster-Frazier, Naploes-Monzon among others?

 

hanzy likes black butts

 

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread about FLoyd's legacy. His best weight was super-feather and thus too big a deal is being made of him not being as good a welterweight as Leonard or Hearns. Yes, Floyd has chosen to fight as a welterweight but by same standards, that shouldn't count AGAINST him.

And btw. this only means when we rank him in all-time sense. Now he is judged as a welter, and IMO he isn't the p4p #1 anymore (Ward and possibly Rigo are above him)

 

Ezzard Charles>Bob Foster by quite allot.

But Foster's number one on this list. I actually find it really hard to separate Tyson, Pryor and Gomez.

1) Foster
2) Tyson
2) Pryor
2) Gomez
5) Norris.

 

ok gomez is last on his list

 

I'd rank Charles ahead of Foster but not by 'quite a lot'.

MTF

 

I fear our differences are irreconcilable on this one, Feebes. IRRECONCILABLE!!

 

Ye troublemakin' bawbag!

MTF :fightme:

 

ezzard charles name doesnt even register when we are speaking on the greatest Cincinnati fighters ever like broner and such

 

Charles would eat Broner's asshole alive and Broner would like it.

 

Tim Austin is probably better than Broner

 

Oh Oh Oh mah gawwwwwwwwwwd

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-caRe3BOJEc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

There's no probably about it.

Broner is no more than a decent/average fighter at 140, and above.

At 135, he was good. Had he stayed at 135, and faced Crawford, TC would have beaten the shit outta him.

 

Great ANALysis

 

If Broner keeps going the way he is, he is going to need DIALYSIS.

 

I think he'd get knocked out and wake up with a BONER

 

Orlin Norris has as much claim to be in this conversation as Terry does. None.

 

In a historical p4p ranking, yes I think that it should be held against them.

 

But...didn't you know..."PFP IS ALL ABOUT RECENCY"

 

In the ring, I'd be hesitant to put money on any light heavy against Bob Foster... Ezzard Charles has maybe the best resume of anyone in any weight class but Bob Foster simply had the misfortune of ruling a mediocre division... In the ring, I don't believe there's any 175 fighter that is "> by a lot" against him

 

I think that's ridiculous... Tommy Hearns won titles from 147-175 and at 160 he couldn't last 3 rounds against Hagler... Doesn't Hagler steamrolling him in 8 minutes count more than Hearns beating Andries and Hill if we are comparing Hagler/Hearns head to head?

 

You're arguing against a claim I never made. I said that it count for something, not that it was the only or the most important criteria to judge a fighter ranking on.

Btw, I think that Hearns rank higher all time than Hagler

 

Yeah but Tommy broke his hand that night and got a massage before the fight. SO THERE.

 

I think it's crazy to rank tommy over Marvin

 

Myself, i think that the only way to put hagler over hearns, is to gives too much importance on the result of their match. Hearns performance against common opponents tend to be way better, and he has a better resume than Hagler. Not to mention that most of Hagler best victory are against smaller fighters.

 

At WORST, Foster has a puncher's chance against any lightheavy in history. At best, he'd be favored head-to-head against all of them.

Considering REED and I are the two biggest RJ fans on this forum, it takes A LOT for me to admit that a fighter beats Roy in his prime. But Foster is one of the few guys I'd take to beat a prime Jones. I just can't see Roy handling Foster's power too well.

Jones was a much GREATER fighter than Foster. Going beyond that, I'd say he was better than Foster in general. But head-to-head, I'd pick Foster to KO him.

 

That said Tommy was 2 rounds from beating Ray Leonard, and drew with him later. Marvin lost to Ray and needed 15 to deal with Duran. Tommy wasted him in two.

Basically, Hagler vs Hearns comes down to, well, Hagler vs Hearns...........and as much sense as it makes to decide a PFP contest on the result of a fight between both men, it also means we would have to eschew their records and performances vs other common opponents.

Hagler needing 15 rounds to dispatch of Duran who was now a further weight division removed from his original 135 does seem a little iffy when juxtaposed against Hearns annihilation of Duran at 154

I would say that Haglers staying at 160 all his career should not detract from his pfp status relative to Hearns, anymore than Hearns losing to Hagler should detract from his pfp status relative to Hagler.

Ultimately....who do you prefer, thats what it boils down to. I am not sure Marvin could have won a fight at 175 to save his life...and I think Hearns could have beaten him at 175.

 

Don't ever let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking again. :ant:What's wrong with you!

 

Hearns > Hagler all time. Hagler loses a close fight and gets all bitch and quits. Hearns had bigger balls.