My top 20 pound-per-pound fighters of all-time

[Joonie73]

1. Ray Robinson
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ray Leonard
4. Harry Greb
5. Eder Jofre
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Hank Armstrong
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Willie Pep
10. Fighting Harada

11. Jimmy Wilde
12. Benny Leonard
13. Sandy Saddler
14. Gene Tunney
15. Salvador Sanchez
16. Roy Jones
17. Marvin Hagler
18. Thomas Hearns
19. Alexis Arguello
20. Michael Spinks

[Remus]

out of interest, where do you rank monzon, chavez and chang.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:
out of interest, where do you rank monzon, chavez and chang. Joonie's list is different. He puts more emphasis on a fighter's peak performance or something to that effect. I don't agree with it but to each their own.

[Rebel]

I'll be posting my list next week. ;)

[Remus]

Originally posted by Rebel:

Joonie's list is different. He puts more emphasis on a fighter's peak performance or something to that effect. I don't agree with it but to each their own. i was just asking a question whacker, not trying to instigate anything. thats not my style. :D

[Joonie73]

I don't have a pound-per-pound list beyond # 20. But if I did, Monzon would be right there behind Spinks, somewhere in the low 20s.

As for Chang, I would have where Marty Mulcahey has him at, which is around #40. Chavez would be in that neighborhood as well.


Originally posted by Remus:
out of interest, where do you rank monzon, chavez and chang.

[Remus]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I don't have a pound-per-pound list beyond # 20. But if I did, Monzon would be right there behind Spinks, somewhere in the low 20s.so in an all time MW ranking you have monzon as 3 or 4 ?

[Joonie73]

Originally posted by Remus:

so in an all time MW ranking you have monzon as 3 or 4 ? I have Monzon #3, behind Greb & Hagler. But in my opinion, Hagler & Monzon are very close & I am willing to be persuaded that Monzon was better, as I admittedly don't know as much about Monzon. In fact, the more I watch Monzon, the more he has been climing relative to Hagler, which is the way it should be when you encounter a fighter you don't know as well & learn new things.

[Joonie73]

Although I have Robinson higher in a pound-per-pound list, I think Monzon was a better middleweight. Now an argument exists that the Robinson that beat LaMotta in their catchweight fights could have beaten anyone at middleweight. But I don't buy that. I think LaMotta is a bit over-rated to begin with & 2 of the fights that Jake lost could have easily gone the other way. You don't become the #1 middleweight of all-time by going evens up with LaMotta in my opinion.

[Remus]

Originally posted by Joonie73:

I have Monzon #3, behind Greb & Hagler. But in my opinion, Hagler & Monzon are very close & I am willing to be persuaded that Monzon was better, as I admittedly don't know as much about Monzon. In fact, the more I watch Monzon, the more he has been climing relative to Hagler, which is the way it should be when you encounter a fighter you don't know as well & learn new things. hmmm, i must say i disagree with your p4p rankings.

i see where you're coming from at MW. although i think monzon is the greatest MW ever. mostly becasue of a who beats who scenario in greb's case though becasue from the 1920's it's hard as hell to appreciate fight footage and substantially analyse opposition.

[Joonie73]

I have a hard time believing that anyone would beat Greb at 160, though there is that issue of "technical backwardness." The thing about the lack of footage is that we do have film of Tunney & Mickey Walker, as well as other greats that Greb beat. They can in some sense substitute for footage of Greb. And considering that Greb arguably fought & beat more great fighters (& often above his size) in history, it's difficult for me to envision anyone his size beating Greb.


Originally posted by Remus:

hmmm, i must say i disagree with your p4p rankings.

i see where you're coming from at MW. although i think monzon is the greatest MW ever. mostly becasue of a who beats who scenario in greb's case though becasue from the 1920's it's hard as hell to appreciate fight footage and substantially analyse opposition.

[ December 02, 2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Remus]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I have a hard time believing that anyone would beat Greb at 160, though there is that issue of "technical backwardness." The thing about the lack of footage is that we do have film of Tunney & Mickey Walker, as well as other greats that Greb beat. They can in some sense substitute for footage of Greb. And considering that Greb arguably fought & beat more great fighters (& often above his size) in history, it's difficult for me to envision anyone his size beating Greb.

And Greb beat both yes, they can in some sense, and i have seen alot of old MW footage becasue that is prob my fave division. i'm not generally a huge fan of the fighters pre say 1940's. in fact i'm loathe to discuss or rank them highly becasue the footage i have seen doesn't REALY impress me.

by tech backwardness, what/who are your referring to exactly ?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:

hmmm, i must say i disagree with your p4p rankings.

i see where you're coming from at MW. although i think monzon is the greatest MW ever. mostly becasue of a who beats who scenario in greb's case though becasue from the 1920's it's hard as hell to appreciate fight footage and substantially analyse opposition. You're not alone. I too rate Monzon at #1 as do many others.

[Joonie73]

I know that a lot of the old-timers will disagree with me on this but when I watch some of the old-timers, I think they tended to brawl & wrestle more & didn't always throw crisp combinations. I am sure you've seen some of Jack Johnson fights & you will know what I mean. When I see the techniques of fighters post-Ray Robinson & today's fighters, I don't see any difference really. I think guys like Ortiz or Jofre can easily dominate today. But sometimes I am not sure if that is the case with some of the 1910s & 1920s guys...


Originally posted by Remus:


by tech backwardness, what/who are your referring to exactly ?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I have a hard time believing that anyone would beat Greb at 160, though there is that issue of "technical backwardness." The thing about the lack of footage is that we do have film of Tunney & Mickey Walker, as well as other greats that Greb beat. They can in some sense substitute for footage of Greb. And considering that Greb arguably fought & beat more great fighters (& often above his size) in history, it's difficult for me to envision anyone his size beating Greb.

I believe Bernard Hopkins turned pro at 175 but squeezed down to middlweight and has been there since. I think he would've been a top 5 light heavyweight had he moved up during the middle part of his career. Even the Hopkins that fought Trinidad could've possibly been top 5 at that weight. Not many fighters can pull that off but today some can. Didn't Toney, a natural middleweight, just defeat Jirov, a cruiser, and Holyfield, a heavyweight? Heck, didn't Thobela win a portion of the 168 pound title after campaigning at lightweight for years?

I judge a fighter based on how dominant he was in his weight class and Monzon and Hagler stand side by side. Couple that with the fact that my ratings focus on modern fighters, and Monzon and Hagler are my #1 and #2 middleweights respectively.

[ December 02, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Valentino]

I rank Greb in my top 10 all time great (I don?t even bother calling those lists P4P, because I?m not ranking base on who beat who).

Monzon is arguably top 12 or at worst top 15.

I don?t think Hagler is even top 3 Middleweight all time great. No with fighters like Greb, Monzon, and Ketchel. An argument could be made for Fitzsimmons and Walker too.

[Remus]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I know that a lot of the old-timers will disagree with me on this but when I watch some of the old-timers, I think they tended to brawl & wrestle more & didn't always throw crisp combinations. I am sure you've seen some of Jack Johnson fights & you will know what I mean. When I see the techniques of fighters post-Ray Robinson & today's fighters, I don't see any difference really. I think guys like Ortiz or Jofre can easily dominate today. But sometimes I am not sure if that is the case with some of the 1910s & 1920s guys...

i completely agree. it was an era with, IMO, limited skills compared to later years when professionalism and athleticism became increasingly more dominant. that in fact improved the fighters themselves.

i look at anyhing from the 20's and prior with considerable skepticism.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Valentino:
I rank Greb in my top 10 all time great (I don?t even bother calling those lists P4P, because I?m not ranking base on who beat who).

Monzon is arguably top 12 or at worst top 15.

I don?t think Hagler is even top 3 Middleweight all time great. No with fighters like Greb, Monzon, and Ketchel. An argument could be made for Fitzsimmons and Walker too. I agree. I don't like using the term p4p that often these days. It's confusing for many.

My list focuses on all-time greatness and I do take p4p into consideration but I emphasize dominance, consistency, and longevity.

I have Monzon top 15.

[ December 02, 2003, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Valentino]

By Brad Rischer

"Harry Greb, reigned as Middleweight champion from 1923 to 1926, and as "American" Light Heavyweight champion in 1922 and 1923. Most record books credit him with 304 professional bouts (although it's believed that he actually fought a hundred or so more) which ranks him as having the third most professional bouts of all time. Greb lost just eight times and was the only man to beat Gene Tunney.

Greb was called "The Human Windmill" due to the constant flurries of punches he threw as well as the fast pace he kept throughout fights. With the exception of Ernest Hemingway, who praised Greb's stamina and considered him one of the greatest fighters ever, the media at the time disliked him immensely, calling him a dirty fighter, a biased subjectivity which has, to this day, cast a shadow of skeptism over Greb's actual ring greatness. Not to say that he didn't resort to headbutts, elbows and thumbs jabbed in the eyes of opponents. Every fighter at that time period did, Greb's was just more highlighted, as sports' writers tend to do even today with somebody they don't like.

Weighing in at 158 pounds at 5 ft. 8in., he often fought men who out-weighed him 40 to 80 pounds. He was famous for saying, "Big guys don't bother me. They get in their own way."

After retiring following his return bout loss to Tiger Flowers in 1926, he went in to have plastic surgery for his nose, and slipped into a coma and died while coming out of anesthesia. It was then that doctors discovered that Harry Greb had fought the majority of his career blind in the right eye and perhaps only half vision in his "good" eye. Which perhaps explains that while living, his only know fear was going to sleep in the dark.

Greb is an inductee of the International Boxing Hall of Fame. "

IMO, this is IMPRESSIVE. I don't care if the man fought in the 1600s.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:

i completely agree. it was an era with, IMO, limited skills compared to later years when professionalism and athleticism became increasingly more dominant. that in fact improved the fighters themselves.

i look at anyhing from the 20's and prior with considerable skepticism. I do the same but for various reasons. I've probably worn them out by now. :D

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Valentino:
By Brad Rischer

"Harry Greb, reigned as Middleweight champion from 1923 to 1926, and as "American" Light Heavyweight champion in 1922 and 1923. Most record books credit him with 304 professional bouts (although it's believed that he actually fought a hundred or so more) which ranks him as having the third most professional bouts of all time. Greb lost just eight times and was the only man to beat Gene Tunney.

Greb was called "The Human Windmill" due to the constant flurries of punches he threw as well as the fast pace he kept throughout fights. With the exception of Ernest Hemingway, who praised Greb's stamina and considered him one of the greatest fighters ever, the media at the time disliked him immensely, calling him a dirty fighter, a biased subjectivity which has, to this day, cast a shadow of skeptism over Greb's actual ring greatness. Not to say that he didn't resort to headbutts, elbows and thumbs jabbed in the eyes of opponents. Every fighter at that time period did, Greb's was just more highlighted, as sports' writers tend to do even today with somebody they don't like.

Weighing in at 158 pounds at 5 ft. 8in., he often fought men who out-weighed him 40 to 80 pounds. He was famous for saying, "Big guys don't bother me. They get in their own way."

After retiring following his return bout loss to Tiger Flowers in 1926, he went in to have plastic surgery for his nose, and slipped into a coma and died while coming out of anesthesia. It was then that doctors discovered that Harry Greb had fought the majority of his career blind in the right eye and perhaps only half vision in his "good" eye. Which perhaps explains that while living, his only know fear was going to sleep in the dark.

Greb is an inductee of the International Boxing Hall of Fame. "

IMO, this is IMPRESSIVE. I don't care if the man fought in the 1600s. Bernard Hopkins could probably beat some of today's heavys if he were allowed to eye gouge and bite also. That's not impressive. ;)

[Valentino]

To tell you more about Grebb?he fought some of the TOP AFRICAN AMERICAN Heavyweights of the time. The same ones that DEMPSEY ducked.
Kid Norfolk been one

Another thing?if not for those fighters that fought in the 1920s (an era in which ?athletism? and ?technique? was still in development), we would have the fighters of today.

The way I look at it?it is like saying that those ?ACEs? that fought in WWI and WWII sucked, because they didn?t posses the technological advantages of today?s pilots.

But when I rank people, I do it within the context of their eras. A person that dominated his era and fought the very best should rank high.

That?s why I give LOT of weight on accomplishments and desire and very little weight on talent.

[Valentino]

Another thing?boxing was the number two sport in America (second only to baseball). Meaning that the best athletes of the time either played baseball or fought (with the few exceptions that did track and field).

Today, boxing is not even in the top 10 (at best ranked around 8 or 9) in America. Meaning that the best athletes play other sports.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Valentino:
Another thing?boxing was the number two sport in America (second only to baseball). Meaning that the best athletes of the time either played baseball or fought (with the few exceptions that did track and field).

Today, boxing is not even in the top 10 (at best ranked around 8 or 9) in America. Meaning that the best athletes play other sports. Not every athlete is meant to be a boxer. There is a big difference between a tennis/golf player and a boxer. smile.gif

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Rebel:

Not every athlete is meant to be a boxer. There is a big difference between a tennis/golf player and a boxer. smile.gif Big difference. You have guys like Tiger Woods and Agassi making millions?while you have guys like Stevie Johnston making nickels.

[Remus]

Originally posted by Rebel:

Not every athlete is meant to be a boxer. There is a big difference between a tennis/golf player and a boxer. smile.gif hmmm, no tino raises a valid point. there ARE many other sports stealing away youth from boxing. in particualr nowadys, the popularity of other combat sports.

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Remus:

hmmm, no tino raises a valid point. there ARE many other sports stealing away youth from boxing. in particualr nowadys, the popularity of other combat sports. Thanks dude.

To put it in perspective?Trinidad was a very good track and field athlete. Roy Jones Jr. plays very good basketball.

What both fighters have in common? They are two of the 5 best fighters of their era. What else they have in common? They fought, because their fathers also fought and had them in gyms (practically forced them) since childhood.

If their parents would have never boxed?I seriously doubt Tito or RJJ would have become professional fighters.

[Remus]

Originally posted by Valentino:
Thanks dude.

To put it in perspective?Trinidad was a very good track and field athlete. Roy Jones Jr. plays very good basketball.

What both fighters have in common? They are two of the 5 best fighters of their era. What else they have in common? They fought, because their fathers also fought and had them in gyms (practically forced them) since childhood.

If their parents would have never boxed?I seriously doubt Tito or RJJ would have become professional fighters. another thing to keep in mind here is not only the popularity of the sports but the socioeconomic groups that are drawn to boxing and these types of sports.

without getting too political, the facts are that lower socioeconomic groups have historically been drawn to boxing. basketball is such a hugely popular sport in the ghetto style areas that it draws alot of talent away from boxing.

so really, the comparison of andre agassi and tiger woods is a flawed analogy becasue these types of guys would arguable never have been boxing prospects anyway.

besides which, at a young age, your body will develop in a way that you choose. for example, take me and my brothers.

my oldest brother is a martial arts specialist and spent many years training in thailand. 3 of which were spent at a shaolin temple. his body is lean but incredibley cut. my youngest brother played rugby from an early age and he is now fuckin HUGE. me, (not now cos i'm older, but prime a few years back), was something in between. of course genetics will play a role in that...size wise, but certainly the type of training you do, (which depends on your sport of choice), will influence your build.

btw: don;t anyone fuckin DARE turn this post into a racial or rich/poor war.

now onto other matters and i raise the issue of chang again, noit for an argument but for a theory i believe is relevant...i firmly believe that due to the very reason tino pointed out, his comp levels may be exxagerated. martial arts and in korea, i believe judo, are the prestige combat arts. boxing really gets the also rans and never coulds mostly. thus their talent pool is depleted.

it could be argued that asia which produces so many good little guys, is not really seeing the best of the best cos their stocks are stolen by more prestigious sports like martial arts.

[Remus]

another thing to jusitfy the stolen by other sports theory is the "be like mike theory". success breeds success cos heros entice the young.

mundine and green and a host of others have rejuvenated the boxing world in australia becasue alot of younger kids can see a hero. particularly mundine with the aboriginal community...young aborigina kids see an aboriginal hero in boxing so they take it up. if choc wasn;t there, they may never have had the hero and bnever got into boxing.

kids wanna be like their heros so as a sport succeeds it brings more young into it. if you have more and more heros in basketball, rugby, NFL or whatever, it draws kids away.

do people get me here ?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:

hmmm, no tino raises a valid point. there ARE many other sports stealing away youth from boxing. in particualr nowadys, the popularity of other combat sports. I do think it's a valid point but I also feel boxing is only for certain types of individuals. It takes some tough individuals to get involved and succeed in it.. Really, who wants get hit, bruise, ache, and get their brains jittered.

[lefthooker]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
1. Ray Robinson
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ray Leonard
4. Harry Greb
5. Eder Jofre
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Hank Armstrong
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Willie Pep
10. Fighting Harada

11. Jimmy Wilde
12. Benny Leonard
13. Sandy Saddler
14. Gene Tunney
15. Salvador Sanchez
16. Roy Jones
17. Marvin Hagler
18. Thomas Hearns
19. Alexis Arguello
20. Michael Spinks Overall a decent list;
without getting too picky, there area few names I would question...
Gene Tunney, Roy Jones and Fighting Harada on a list that excludes JC Chavez?
If Sal Sanchez did enough in his career, didn't Stanley Ketchel too?
These are all great fighters and it is very difficult naming just 20 - it becomes nessesary to exclude so many.
I'm a huge Hagler fan, but could not justify him being on a list that Monzon is not on.
I think you almost have to make a pre-1930 and post-1930 list to be fair to these fighters.
Barney Ross, Canzoneri, Terrible Terry McGovern, Abe Attel,Micky Walker, - none of these rank higher than Fighting Harada?
How about Azhuma Nelson, Pernell, or Gomez from the modern era?
Just some thoughts.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Lefthooker:

Overall a decent list;
without getting too picky, there area few names I would question...
Gene Tunney, Roy Jones and Fighting Harada on a list that excludes JC Chavez?
If Sal Sanchez did enough in his career, didn't Stanley Ketchel too?
These are all great fighters and it is very difficult naming just 20 - it becomes nessesary to exclude so many.
I'm a huge Hagler fan, but could not justify him being on a list that Monzon is not on.
I think you almost have to make a pre-1930 and post-1930 list to be fair to these fighters.
Barney Ross, Canzoneri, Terrible Terry McGovern, Abe Attel,Micky Walker, - none of these rank higher than Fighting Harada?
How about Azhuma Nelson, Pernell, or Gomez from the modern era?
Just some thoughts. I wholeheartedly agree that Fighting Harada should not be ranked that high. On a Modern list, he?d probably crack the top 30. Include Old-Timers and he?s around 35-45. I?ve seen a few bouts where he was supposedly at his best. He was a great little fighter but when I watch him I don?t see an upper echelon great. That level is reserved for fighters like Robinson, Duran, Moore, Ali, Pep, Saddler, and many others. I personally don?t even compare him to great fighters like Chavez, Sanchez, Pernell Whittaker, or Roy Jones Jr.

Harada?s greatness is based on the wins over a past prime Jofre and his success in winning titles at flyweight, bantamweight, and almost featherweight, 3 original 8 weight classes. There is no denying that is impressive but here?s my problem.

When you look at his accomplishments closely, they can be deceiving.

1. At flyweight, he lost to an unknown named Edmundo Esparza, didn?t dominate the division, and he defeated a fighter whom many have claimed was overrated. In fact, he won the title, lost the title (albeit a fight many consider a robbery), and moved up to bantamweight.

2. At bantamweight he got off to a rocky start when he was knocked out by Joe Medel, a good but not great inconsistent fighter. He worked his way back until he landed a shot against the reigning bantamweight champion, the legendary Eder Jofre. He won both fights but many had Jofre winning the first of their two meetings. Now Jofre wasn?t shot for the first fight but he was slightly past his prime. The rematch took place a year after the first fight, Harada won it by a few points, but Jofre was a tad older. Nevertheless, the second fight was a solid win against a great fighter.

In total, Harada defended his bantamweight crown a total of 4 times. One of those defenses was against Joe Medel, the fighter who had previously knocked him out. He was most consistent at this weight and accomplished the core of his work there. This is why I rate him at bantamweight rather than at flyweight where he didn?t dominate his division nor beat any great fighters.

His bantamweight reign would come to an end against Lionel Rose, another good but not great fighter. After that bout he?d go on to lose to an unheralded fighter and just when you thought he was finished, he was robbed of the featherweight crown when he lost to Johnny Famechon in a fight that is often called ?the worst robbery in Asian boxing history.? Harada would get a rematch but was knocked out in 14 rounds.

When you take a look at his accomplishments, there is no denying he was a great fighter, but he didn?t display the high level of consistency and dominance that many all-times displayed throughout their careers.

Now I have a general idea of why Joonie ranks him that high but I?ll wait for Joonie to respond before I go on.

[ December 04, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Joonie73]

Rebel,

We have gone over Harada issue many times at Boxingtalk. So I will just re-post the responses from the posters there.

But I must say that you keep mentioning the same points that have been refuted before & it is tiresome. And you mention things even when it is factually not true. So let me at least briefly address your claims:

1. He did lose to Esparza as a flyweight & it does puzzle me. But it was early in his career. Sanchez lost to Beccera early in his career & some believe should have lost to Escobar as well. But I don't see you harping on them, do I?

2. The Kingpetch "loss" doesn't even deserve a mention. It was one of the worst robberies I have ever seen. Kingpetch was down twice & won at most 5 rounds. Anyone who knows anything about Harada or Kingpetch knows this. Why do you mention? Are you going to hold Roy Jones' loss v. Si-Hun Park in Seoul as well?

3. Medel was Harada's 1st fight as a bantamweight. He was dominating the fight, beating Medel from pillar to pillar. He just got caught by a huge punch (& Medel was a big puncher), it was the 1st time he'd ever been hurt (like Hearns v. Leonard) & didn't know what to do. So instead of holding or running away, he actually became more aggressive. He later learned from this lesson & held or ran when Jofre hurt him. Besides, no shame in losing to Medel. Medel, though inconsistent, as you say, was very good & gave the prime Jofre his toughest fight.

4. "Many" had Jofre winning the 1st fight? What exactly is "many"? Most accounts I have read had Harada winning. We've even distributed the tapes of the fight at Boxingtalk & Delphi & a solid majority thought Harada won. The myth that Jofre was "robbed" in the 1st fight is an impression propagated by a few Western writers.

5. As you yourself acknowledge, the Jofre that Harada beat was still formidable. There are less than a handful of bantamweights who ever lived who would have even a chance of beating the Jofre of Tokyo. One demonstration is that he came back & won a FEATHERWEIGHT TITLE 7 YEARS LATER BY BEATING A BORDERLINE GREAT IN LEGRA IN AN ABSOLUTE ONE-SIDED MATCH AND KNOCKING OUT VICENTE SALDIVAR.



Originally posted by Rebel:

I wholeheartedly agree that Fighting Harada should not be ranked that high. On a Modern list, he?d probably crack the top 30. Include Old-Timers and he?s around 35-45. I?ve seen a few bouts where he was supposedly at his best. He was a great little fighter but when I watch him I don?t see an upper echelon great. That level is reserved for fighters like Robinson, Duran, Moore, Ali, Pep, Saddler, and many others. I personally don?t even compare him to great fighters like Chavez, Sanchez, Pernell Whittaker, or Roy Jones Jr.

Harada?s greatness is based on the wins over a past prime Jofre and his success in winning titles at flyweight, bantamweight, and almost featherweight, 3 original 8 weight classes. There is no denying that is impressive but here?s my problem.

When you look at his accomplishments closely, they can be deceiving.

1. At flyweight, he lost to an unknown named Edmundo Esparza, didn?t dominate the division, and he defeated a fighter whom many have claimed was overrated. In fact, he won the title, lost the title (albeit a fight many consider a robbery), and moved up to bantamweight.

2. At bantamweight he got off to a rocky start when he was knocked out by Joe Medel, a good but not great inconsistent fighter. He worked his way back until he landed a shot against the reigning bantamweight champion, the legendary Eder Jofre. He won both fights but many had Jofre winning the first of their two meetings. Now Jofre wasn?t shot for the first fight but he was slightly past his prime. The rematch took place a year after the first fight, Harada won it by a few points, but Jofre was a tad older. Nevertheless, the second fight was a solid win against a great fighter.

In total, Harada defended his bantamweight crown a total of 4 times. One of those defenses was against Joe Medel, the fighter who had previously knocked him out. He was most consistent at this weight and accomplished the core of his work there. This is why I rate him at bantamweight rather than at flyweight where he didn?t dominate his division nor beat any great fighters.

His bantamweight reign would come to an end against Lionel Rose, another good but not great fighter. After that bout he?d go on to lose to an unheralded fighter and just when you thought he was finished, he was robbed of the featherweight crown when he lost to Johnny Famechon in a fight that is often called ?the worst robbery in Asian boxing history.? Harada would get a rematch but was knocked out in 14 rounds.

When you take a look at his accomplishments, there is no denying he was a great fighter, but he didn?t display the high level of consistency and dominance that many all-times displayed throughout their careers.

Now I have a general idea of why Joonie ranks him that high but I?ll wait for Joonie to respond before I go on.

[Joonie73]

Here is Saldivar's response:

Villa, I have read this entire thread (as well as most of your other posts here) and I think you are deserving of a lot of criticism coming your way. I hope you are not going to accuse me of being part of the "in crowd" here, as I no longer even post here except once in a blue moon because of my clashes with the regulars here (the infamous Monzon-Griffith II episode).

First of all, as DMille said, if you wanted to promote a serious exchange on Harada, why did you title this thread in the way you did? In the context of your thread title, of course people are going to dismiss you as a "know-nothing." Besides, no one overrates Harada. Instead the truth is that Harada is underrated by people in the West who have never seen him and go by what they hear or read in Boxrec. In fact Harada is underrated by even some of the regulars here. In my opinion, 3 of the so called "Big Four" (Joonie, Hawkins, TKO, and Sharkey) at Boxingtalk have him terribly low on their lists. So I am simply puzzled by the title of this thread. And no, putting him around 10-20 in an all time pound per pound is not overrating him.

Your behavior on this board in general has also been less than praiseworthy and I don't understand what your complaint is about. I know these guys well, and despite some of our past clashes, they do not insult people for no reason and they are generally extremely cordial to people who bring something to the table and seek productive discussions. But it seems to me what has happened here is that you came in and made a lot of bombastic claims of having boxing knowledge and was exposed as a fraud, at which point you started throwing various insults to cover your lack of knowledge.

But anyway, I doubt you are really seeking knowledge about Harada or Asian fighters or any fighters for that matter, but here goes (by the way, I am not Asian; and in addition to myself, at least 2 other Anglos, Boswelled and PaulieWanuts, have Harada in their top 20):

I emphasize 2 things when I do pound per pound lists. First, how dominant were they at their original or natural weight? Second, were they successful when they moved up? I also put some emphasis on hypothetical head to heads, although I do not stress it as much as Joonie or other regulars do here.

At his original weight, Harada looked unstoppable. Absolutely awesome. While I agree with Joonie that Kingpetch was overrated, we differ on the extent he is overrated. My view is closer to Boswelled and I consider him a top 11-15 flyweight. And Harada totally destroyed him and shut him out the first time and the second fight was only marginally closer. That to me is impressive. Harada also beat Ebihara at flyweight, another all time great flyweight. Although it is true that it is hard to rank Harada at this weight because he only fought for the title twice (and that's why I don't rank him as high at flyweight as some do here, namely Joonie and Boswelled), I can only think of 3 guys whom I would even give a chance of beating Harada at the weight: Wilde, Perez, and Chang. Wilde and Perez are in my all time pound per pound top 20. Chang is in my top 40 and would have made a run at top 20 if he didn't piss away his talent with his notorious party life.

How successful was Harada moving up? He beat Jofre twice, and no, neither of them were robberies, though I had both fights close. I had Harada winning the 1st by 1 point and the 2nd fight a tie, but if I had to break the tie in the 2nd fight, I would give it to Masahiko as well. To move up and beat the best fighter ever at the new weight twice, what more can you ask?

Now you claim that Jofre was washed up. You obviously have not seen the fights. Yes, he was past his best. But he was still a dominant fighter. Let me tell you what. I would bet that Jofre would beat every other bantamweight who ever lived, except maybe (and I emphasize "maybe") Zarate and McGovern. And Harada also beat a very good Medel.

The clincher of course is Famechon. Harada should have been the first guy to win the flyweight, bantamweight, and featherweight titles. And I doubt it will ever be done in the traditional 8 weights. And Famechon, though not an all time great, was a very good featherweight. To give you an idea, I would pick him to beat Barrera. Wouldn't you be impressed if Morel moved up and throttled Barrera?

Finally, head to head. Harada is similar to Chang in that very few styles troubled him. I have seen him beat big punchers like Jofre and Medel, swarmers like Ebihara, and classy boxers like Famechon. His power wasn't first class but,like Chang, more than adequate for the weight. And the hand speed, combination punching, footwork, defense, chin--they were all top notch. Given that there are very few huge punchers at the flyweight and the bantamweight level, one could almost say that Harada was as complete a fighter as you can get.

You are also doing yourself and your own credibility no favor by comparing Harada to Moorer, Douglas, or Junior Jones. In fact coming from a Lopez fan, your stance is absolutely hilarious.

I think the real question to ask is: "why do some underrate Fighting Harada?"

[Joonie73]

Here is DMille's response:

Hello,

I am also a "regular" on the fourm(s) but I sometimes get super busy with work and am gone for weeks at a time. I don't really like coming into these discussions late but I guess that it can't be avoided.

I have read many of your posts with bemusment and bewilderment.

Number one: Your handle. In case you didn't know, you put the titleholders name first before the fight and the winner's name first after the fight.

Number two: Your subject line shows bias from the start. "Why do some over-rate Harada?" In some of these threads, you have said that you want to learn more about the history of the sport.

IF that is true then wouldn't a more open-minded guy have asked "Why is Harada an all-time great?". A topic opener like that would generate more of a genuine response from the forum at large.

Now I have some things to say on the topic (I am sure that will come as a shock to the other "regulars" around here).

Harada was a fighter that peaked young. He won the WORLD flyweight championship when he was only 19, by a knockOUT I might add - as in ten count.

Given his early record, not many thought he stood a snowball's chance against Kingpetch. He was already struggling with the 112 limit by that time and most will tell you that the RE (in Bangkok) was a homey.

Many will say that Pone was over-rated, but the fact remains that he was a three-time world flyweight champion and his first reign was based on two legit wins over an all-time great. (And IF you start a thread on why Pascual Perez was an all-timer, I will be tempted to hire a hit-man.)

He moved up in weight and won the WORLD bantamweight title at age 22. Many will call the first fight a homer, BUT they won't call it a cake-walk for Jofre. It was a FIGHT.

How many have won both the WORLD fly and bantam titles?

You mentioned Medel. Masahiko rematched and defeated the only guy who had stopped him. How many (before and since) have ducked contenders when they are in similar situations?

Medel may not have a splashy record but he came up the hard way during a golden era for Mexican bantams. He fought most of the top flys and banties of his time.

Again Harada was struggling to make weight. Some fighters move up when they should, others move up too late. He lost the title after his fourth defense and then moved up to feather.

Being robbed of a decision is one thing. Being robbed of a title is another. Being robbed of history is something beyond...

Harada should have been boxing's third three traditional weight class champion after Fitzsimmons and Armstrong.

How many fighters have even fought for titles at 112 AND 118 AND 126? How many fighters in boxing history have even fought for titles in three traditional weight classes? Even with the recent proliferation of title belts?

Some fighter's get jobbed and they come back stronger, some get jobbed and it breaks their spirit. Do you know why? I don't.

Harada lost the rematch with Famechon and he never fought again. He was only 26 years old. His entire career lasted a little less that 10 years. But he did more in those ten than most will ever dream of.

[Joonie73]

Tam Tam's response:

Understand the degree to which the regulars here have distanced themselves from you just over the last week. You've came here with more disrespectul lines then I can seriously care to reel off and now making a thread about why is Harada overated is ludicrous. It really is.

Fighting Harada was a great fighter, an all-time great one. Asia's best ever fighter in fact, and you come in asking "whats so great about him? "who'd he beat?" while discrediting the man's fair win's over Edre Jofre, robbery loss to Johnny Famechon in Australia which just happens to be widley accepted as one of the most disgraceful decisions in the sports history, and a loss to Medel who was a flame thrower, all the while forgetting everything he did.

We jump on you because you seem to misunderstand just how good Harada was. He is in the very same company as Monzon, Arguello, Whitaker, Moore and Chavez. In fact Julio is lucky he gets that sort of ranking from me, because to be honest not many people I respect consider him that close to Harada.

Show some more respect to the forum members in general and perhaps you might not be so annoyed with our responses.

[Joonie73]

Boswelled's response:

This nonsense isn't worth the effort of refuting. The sole reason I'm posting on this thread is to counter this idiots claim that Joonie includes Harada in his top twenty only because he's Asian.

For the record, (1) I have Harada in my top twenty, and (2) I'm not Asian. Now kindly f*ck off.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Rebel,

We have gone over Harada issue many times at Boxingtalk. So I will just re-post the responses from the posters there.

But I must say that you keep mentioning the same points that have been refuted before & it is tiresome. And you mention things even when it is factually not true. So let me at least briefly address your claims:

1. He did lose to Esparza as a flyweight & it does puzzle me. But it was early in his career. Sanchez lost to Beccera early in his career & some believe should have lost to Escobar as well. But I don't see you harping on them, do I?

2. The Kingpetch "loss" doesn't even deserve a mention. It was one of the worst robberies I have ever seen. Kingpetch was down twice & won at most 5 rounds. Anyone who knows anything about Harada or Kingpetch knows this. Why do you mention? Are you going to hold Roy Jones' loss v. Si-Hun Park in Seoul as well?

3. Medel was Harada's 1st fight as a bantamweight. He was dominating the fight, beating Medel from pillar to pillar. He just got caught by a huge punch (& Medel was a big puncher), it was the 1st time he'd ever been hurt (like Hearns v. Leonard) & didn't know what to do. So instead of holding or running away, he actually became more aggressive. He later learned from this lesson & held or ran when Jofre hurt him. Besides, no shame in losing to Medel. Medel, though inconsistent, as you say, was very good & gave the prime Jofre his toughest fight.

4. "Many" had Jofre winning the 1st fight? What exactly is "many"? Most accounts I have read had Harada winning. We've even distributed the tapes of the fight at Boxingtalk & Delphi & a solid majority thought Harada won. The myth that Jofre was "robbed" in the 1st fight is an impression propagated by a few Western writers.

5. As you yourself acknowledge, the Jofre that Harada beat was still formidable. There are less than a handful of bantamweights who ever lived who would have even a chance of beating the Jofre of Tokyo. One demonstration is that he came back & won a FEATHERWEIGHT TITLE 7 YEARS LATER BY BEATING A BORDERLINE GREAT IN LEGRA IN AN ABSOLUTE ONE-SIDED MATCH AND KNOCKING OUT VICENTE SALDIVAR.


1. Sanchez lost a controversial decision to Becerrra in Becerra's hometown of Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico.

2. I did acknowledge the Pone robbery.

3. He was still KOd. That's a fact.

The Jofre that I saw in their second fight looked tired from the beginning. From all accounts, that wasn't the prime Jofre that was dominating bantamweights.

4. I'll have to watch the first fight but like I said, many fighters have the style to upset an all-time great. That doesn't necessarily put them on par with them as all-time greats.

5. I think a prime Zarate or Olivares might've beaten the Jofre of the second fight.

He beat Jose Legra who had already lost to Saldivar years before. I've never heard anyone mention that Legra was a borderline great.

He blew out Saldivar when Saldivar was shot. He'd already been KOd by Shibata.

6. Did you ever watch Harada/Medel 2?

[Joonie73]

I've watched every Harada fight in existence, I believe.


Originally posted by Rebel:

1. Sanchez lost a controversial decision to Becerrra in Becerra's hometown of Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico.

2. I did acknowledge the Pone robbery.

3. He was still KOd. That's a fact.

The Jofre that I saw in their second fight looked tired from the beginning. From all accounts, that wasn't the prime Jofre that was dominating bantamweights.

4. I'll have to watch the first fight but like I said, many fighters have the style to upset an all-time great. That doesn't necessarily put them on par with them as all-time greats.

5. I think a prime Zarate or Olivares might've beaten the Jofre of the second fight.

He beat Jose Legra who had already lost to Saldivar years before. I've never heard anyone mention that Legra was a borderline great.

He blew out Saldivar when Saldivar was shot. He'd already been KOd by Shibata.

6. Did you ever watch Harada/Medel 2?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Here is Saldivar's response:

Villa, I have read this entire thread (as well as most of your other posts here) and I think you are deserving of a lot of criticism coming your way. I hope you are not going to accuse me of being part of the "in crowd" here, as I no longer even post here except once in a blue moon because of my clashes with the regulars here (the infamous Monzon-Griffith II episode).

First of all, as DMille said, if you wanted to promote a serious exchange on Harada, why did you title this thread in the way you did? In the context of your thread title, of course people are going to dismiss you as a "know-nothing." Besides, no one overrates Harada. Instead the truth is that Harada is underrated by people in the West who have never seen him and go by what they hear or read in Boxrec. In fact Harada is underrated by even some of the regulars here. In my opinion, 3 of the so called "Big Four" (Joonie, Hawkins, TKO, and Sharkey) at Boxingtalk have him terribly low on their lists. So I am simply puzzled by the title of this thread. And no, putting him around 10-20 in an all time pound per pound is not overrating him.

Your behavior on this board in general has also been less than praiseworthy and I don't understand what your complaint is about. I know these guys well, and despite some of our past clashes, they do not insult people for no reason and they are generally extremely cordial to people who bring something to the table and seek productive discussions. But it seems to me what has happened here is that you came in and made a lot of bombastic claims of having boxing knowledge and was exposed as a fraud, at which point you started throwing various insults to cover your lack of knowledge.

But anyway, I doubt you are really seeking knowledge about Harada or Asian fighters or any fighters for that matter, but here goes (by the way, I am not Asian; and in addition to myself, at least 2 other Anglos, Boswelled and PaulieWanuts, have Harada in their top 20):

I emphasize 2 things when I do pound per pound lists. First, how dominant were they at their original or natural weight? Second, were they successful when they moved up? I also put some emphasis on hypothetical head to heads, although I do not stress it as much as Joonie or other regulars do here.

At his original weight, Harada looked unstoppable. Absolutely awesome. While I agree with Joonie that Kingpetch was overrated, we differ on the extent he is overrated. My view is closer to Boswelled and I consider him a top 11-15 flyweight. And Harada totally destroyed him and shut him out the first time and the second fight was only marginally closer. That to me is impressive. Harada also beat Ebihara at flyweight, another all time great flyweight. Although it is true that it is hard to rank Harada at this weight because he only fought for the title twice (and that's why I don't rank him as high at flyweight as some do here, namely Joonie and Boswelled), I can only think of 3 guys whom I would even give a chance of beating Harada at the weight: Wilde, Perez, and Chang. Wilde and Perez are in my all time pound per pound top 20. Chang is in my top 40 and would have made a run at top 20 if he didn't piss away his talent with his notorious party life.

How successful was Harada moving up? He beat Jofre twice, and no, neither of them were robberies, though I had both fights close. I had Harada winning the 1st by 1 point and the 2nd fight a tie, but if I had to break the tie in the 2nd fight, I would give it to Masahiko as well. To move up and beat the best fighter ever at the new weight twice, what more can you ask?

Now you claim that Jofre was washed up. You obviously have not seen the fights. Yes, he was past his best. But he was still a dominant fighter. Let me tell you what. I would bet that Jofre would beat every other bantamweight who ever lived, except maybe (and I emphasize "maybe") Zarate and McGovern. And Harada also beat a very good Medel.

The clincher of course is Famechon. Harada should have been the first guy to win the flyweight, bantamweight, and featherweight titles. And I doubt it will ever be done in the traditional 8 weights. And Famechon, though not an all time great, was a very good featherweight. To give you an idea, I would pick him to beat Barrera. Wouldn't you be impressed if Morel moved up and throttled Barrera?

Finally, head to head. Harada is similar to Chang in that very few styles troubled him. I have seen him beat big punchers like Jofre and Medel, swarmers like Ebihara, and classy boxers like Famechon. His power wasn't first class but,like Chang, more than adequate for the weight. And the hand speed, combination punching, footwork, defense, chin--they were all top notch. Given that there are very few huge punchers at the flyweight and the bantamweight level, one could almost say that Harada was as complete a fighter as you can get.

You are also doing yourself and your own credibility no favor by comparing Harada to Moorer, Douglas, or Junior Jones. In fact coming from a Lopez fan, your stance is absolutely hilarious.

I think the real question to ask is: "why do some underrate Fighting Harada?" We already talked about the Ebihara fight. Wasn't that a 6 round fight early in their careers? I wouldn't put too much weight on that win.

Harada never fought a Pernell Whittaker, Roy Jones Jr. type of fighter. He didn't master every style. And would you put a rookie like Ebihara in the same boat as a prime Chavez or Monzon? Those are world-class all-time great skilled boxer/pressure fighters. I think his opponents are being made to be super heroes. Totally unreal.

Finally, the Esparza fight took place 4 months before the first Pone fight. Are you saying he became prime within a few months? graemlins/headscratch.gif

How many flyweight Harada fights exist?

[ December 04, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I've watched every Harada fight in existence, I believe.

Can you list them?

[Joonie73]

The 2 Kingpetch fights & the Ebihara fight.

As for the Esparza fight, I am puzzled myself. There could have been a bad decision or some injury. I have never read anything about it. It just boggles the mind that Harada could lose to a fighter of Esparza's caliber.


Originally posted by Rebel:

We already talked about the Ebihara fight. Wasn't that a 6 round fight early in their careers? I wouldn't put too much weight on that win.

Harada never fought a Pernell Whittaker, Roy Jones Jr. type of fighter. He didn't master every style. And would you put a rookie like Ebihara in the same boat as a prime Chavez or Monzon? Those are world-class all-time great skilled boxer/pressure fighters. I think his opponents are being made into super heroes. Totally unreal.

Finally, the Esparza fight took place 4 months before the first Pone fight. Are you saying he became prime within a few months? graemlins/headscratch.gif

How many flyweight Harada fights exist?

[Joonie73]

Ebihara
Kingpetch I, II
Medel I, II
Jofre, I, II
Rudkin
Caraballo
Rose
Colter
Famechon I, II


Originally posted by Rebel:

Can you list them?

[Joonie73]

There are only 2 Roy Jones & Whitaker fighters, Angel: Roy Jones & Whitaker.


Originally posted by Rebel:

We already talked about the Ebihara fight. Wasn't that a 6 round fight early in their careers? I wouldn't put too much weight on that win.

Harada never fought a Pernell Whittaker, Roy Jones Jr. type of fighter. He didn't master every style. And would you put a rookie like Ebihara in the same boat as a prime Chavez or Monzon? Those are world-class all-time great skilled boxer/pressure fighters. I think his opponents are being made to be super heroes. Totally unreal.

Finally, the Esparza fight took place 4 months before the first Pone fight. Are you saying he became prime within a few months? graemlins/headscratch.gif

How many flyweight Harada fights exist?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
The 2 Kingpetch fights & the Ebihara fight.

As for the Esparza fight, I am puzzled myself. There could have been a bad decision or some injury. I have never read anything about it. It just boggles the mind that Harada could lose to a fighter of Esparza's caliber.

You are basing his greatness as a flyweight on 3 fights? How do we know he wasn't given gifts in the other fights that weren't recorded? Do you see how hard it is to rate fighters when there is practically no footage of them in a weight class? At least with Ray Robinson we can see that he was the Welter Weight King for years and his record reads like a "Who's-who" of the Hall of Fame.

WTF? It's not even possible that Esparza deserved the decision? Let me guess? That would tear down your theory that Harada was some flyweight super hero? :confused: (shakes head)

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[ December 04, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Rebel]

BTW, how about posting your own responses bro. You're often quoting others.

[Joonie73]

Maybe Esparza did deserve the decision. I don't know. It's just a puzzle. And I don't even know where to find information on this, as it was not even a big fight. Maybe I will ask Joe Koizumi, the longtime Ring correspondent in Asia.


Originally posted by Rebel:

You are basing his greatness as a flyweight on 3 fights? How do we know he wasn't given gifts in the other fights that weren't recorded? Do you see how hard it is to rate fighters when there is practically no footage of them in a weight class? At least with Ray Robinson we can see that he was the Welter Weight King for years and his record reads like a "Who's-who" of the Hall of Fame.

WTF? It's not even possible that Esparza deserved the decision? Let me guess? That would tear down your theory that Harada was some flyweight super hero? :confused: (shakes head)

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Joonie73]

My responses to your Harada post were scattered all over & not really in one place. So I copy-pasted Saldivar's & DMille's, as their responses were tighter & in one place.


Originally posted by Rebel:
BTW, how about posting your own responses bro. You're often quoting others.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
There are only 2 Roy Jones & Whitaker fighters, Angel: Roy Jones & Whitaker.

A notch lower, I'd throw in Taylor, Johnson, Curry, and other extremely talented African-American speedsters. The smaller guys are very lucky they don't have to face that breed of fighter. Those are the worst to deal with.

[ December 04, 2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Joonie73]

Taylor wasn't a runner though. He stayed in front of you & slugged with you, just like Mosley. His utilization of his speed was a bit different.


Originally posted by Rebel:

At the lower-level, I'd throw in Taylor, Johnson, Curry, and other African-American speedsters. The smaller guys are very lucky they don't have to fact that breed of fighter. Those are the worst to deal with.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Taylor wasn't a runner though. He stayed in front of you & slugged with you, just like Mosley. His utilization of his speed was a bit different.

His speed and skills were still unreal, particularly that speed.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Maybe Esparza did deserve the decision. I don't know. It's just a puzzle. And I don't even know where to find information on this, as it was not even a big fight. Maybe I will ask Joe Koizumi, the longtime Ring correspondent in Asia.

I just think there is a problem with rating him as some supernatural force at flyweight-bantamweight from 1962-1963 during his supposed "peak" years, when he lost legitamately TWICE, one by KO!

I think he was great but not to the extent that some of you think. We'll leave it at that.

[ December 04, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Valentino]

Joonie73:

You keep bringing those names (posters from Boxingtalk, etc.) in here like if they were God. Well, this is ANOTHER heaven, and in this heaven there are OTHER GODS (e.g. Valentino, Tip, Matos, Ringo, Union Jax, Yori Boy, Rebelz, among others).

Here is what GOD has to say?HARADO IS NOT TOP 20 ALL TIME GREAT.

[neil]

Modesty is one of balki's finer traits.

[Hut*Hut]

Originally posted by Rebel:
I'll be posting my list next week. ;) Come on Rebel lets have it! graemlins/crying.gif

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Hut*Hut:

Come on Rebel lets have it! graemlins/crying.gif My top 30 is almost done bro. I have to finish up the a few more junior divisions before I can look at all the division rankings and properly put together my top 30. It's a freakin science coming up with these ratings. graemlins/lol.gif

[Hut*Hut]

Originally posted by Rebel:

My top 30 is almost done bro. I have to finish up the a few more junior divisions before I can look at all the division rankings and properly put together my top 30. It's a freakin science coming up with these ratings. graemlins/lol.gif I know, I sat down for about 20 minutes and tryed to come up with one, but it was way beyond my capability....I just gave up. Im sure in a year or so I'll be able to offer one up.
graemlins/nod.gif

[Boxing Freak]

I understand Joonie list.He has to have an Asian fighter in there,Its understandable Bias.

[El Gavilan]

I must say, whenever I see a Top 10,20,30, etc. PFP list, I admire people who put a lot of time and effort into analyzing and building a coherent criteria for the rankings. Everytime I do it, I end up changing, shuffling, and re-arranging it because of some sort of mistake I made.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Boxing Freak:
I understand Joonie list.He has to have an Asian fighter in there,Its understandable Bias. Is Tito on yours? tongue1.gif

[Boxing Freak]

Thats why its understandable Bias,I said that because i do the same.


Tito is my #19. tongue1.gif

[Joonie73]

One shouldn't throw the word "bias" so lightly.

In Harada's case, 2 things to consider:

1. Many non-Asians who are familiar with Harada rate him in top 20. Admittedly, my rating of #10 is on the high end, but then I rate a lot of fighters a lot higher than others & vice versa. It has to do with how Harada does on my crtieria & not bias.

2. I can understand if you wanted to throw the "bias" charge at me for rating a Korean fighter too high. But to call me biased because I rate a Japanese fighter too high is absurd. Do you really understand how crazy that accusation is? Koreans and Japanese have no love lost between them & absolutely hate each other; it'd be like Palestinians over-rating Jewish fighters because they are "biased" in favor of Jews. Japan colonized & brutalized Korea for 36 years. An American may think that Koreans & Japanese do not differentiate one another & identify themselves as a common "Asian" stock, but that isn't the case. My mother would let me marry a white person but she has said in the past that she would disown me if I married a Japanese person. This is not an exception but the norm among Koreans of her generation.

If anything, there is a bias against Japanese fighters in Korea & among Koreans. Your bias charge makes absolutely zero sense. You would understand if you lived in Korea or knew anything about Korea and Japan.


Originally posted by Boxing Freak:
I understand Joonie list.He has to have an Asian fighter in there,Its understandable Bias.

[ December 12, 2003, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Joonie73]

Again, I don't think many of you even have an idea of the level of anti-Japanese feelings present among Koreans. It is not an exaggeration to term it "ethnic hatred." And I am not a Korean-American but a Korean national, raised in Korea.

I try to stay free from that kind of stuff & I don't think the traditional anti-Japanese sentiments of Koreans affect how I rate Japanese fighters negatively, but to say that I am biased in favor of Japanese fighters is really laughable.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Again, I don't think many of you even have an idea of the level of anti-Japanese feelings present among Koreans. It is not an exaggeration to term it "ethnic hatred." And I am not a Korean-American but a Korean national, raised in Korea.

I try to stay free from that kind of stuff & I don't think the traditional anti-Japanese sentiments of Koreans affect how I rate Japanese fighters negatively, but to say that I am biased in favor of Japanese fighters is really laughable. I am talking to a Korean buddy on AOL instant messenger and he confirms what you say. Not to say I didnt believe you but it's always good to hear from more than 1 person. smile.gif He used to post here actually.

[ December 12, 2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: VALDOSTA ]

[Joonie73]

Is this Joon Lee?


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I am talking to a Korean buddy on AOL instant messenger and he confirms what you say. Not to say I didnt believe you but it's always good to hear from more than 1 person. smile.gif He used to post here actually.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Is this Joon Lee?

His forum name was Buddah Hat. He is Korean also but is to busy to post here with him being a Lawyer and all graemlins/lol.gif

[Joonie73]

I just saw this post, but come on. Tunney & Loughran are considered top 10 light heavyweight by many people. Some would put Rosenbloom in there too. Greb beating Tunney & Loughran is not equivalent to Toney beating Jirov or Tito beating Joppy.


Originally posted by Rebel:

I believe Bernard Hopkins turned pro at 175 but squeezed down to middlweight and has been there since. I think he would've been a top 5 light heavyweight had he moved up during the middle part of his career. Even the Hopkins that fought Trinidad could've possibly been top 5 at that weight. Not many fighters can pull that off but today some can. Didn't Toney, a natural middleweight, just defeat Jirov, a cruiser, and Holyfield, a heavyweight? Heck, didn't Thobela win a portion of the 168 pound title after campaigning at lightweight for years?

I judge a fighter based on how dominant he was in his weight class and Monzon and Hagler stand side by side. Couple that with the fact that my ratings focus on modern fighters, and Monzon and Hagler are my #1 and #2 middleweights respectively.

[ December 13, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Joonie73]

LOL, I am a lawyer too & I used to be a Buddhist monk.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

His forum name was Buddah Hat. He is Korean also but is to busy to post here with him being a Lawyer and all graemlins/lol.gif

[The Hitman]

i will have to e-mail Joon and get him in here he is registered but never posts.

Hitman

[Joonie73]

You are also implying that Greb wasn't dominant as a middleweight. Nothing could be further from true. Greb was dominant as middleweight & over excellent opposition.

I can understand if you want to say that you don't have enough information on the real old-timers & what not (which is what I do with Benny Leonard & Jimmy Wilde, to name 2 examples), but it isn't right to say that Greb wasn't a dominant middleweight.

As for your "fouling tactics" point, then there is a contradiction here as Saddler (whom you rank high) was a dirty little fighter as well.


Originally posted by Rebel:

I believe Bernard Hopkins turned pro at 175 but squeezed down to middlweight and has been there since. I think he would've been a top 5 light heavyweight had he moved up during the middle part of his career. Even the Hopkins that fought Trinidad could've possibly been top 5 at that weight. Not many fighters can pull that off but today some can. Didn't Toney, a natural middleweight, just defeat Jirov, a cruiser, and Holyfield, a heavyweight? Heck, didn't Thobela win a portion of the 168 pound title after campaigning at lightweight for years?

I judge a fighter based on how dominant he was in his weight class and Monzon and Hagler stand side by side. Couple that with the fact that my ratings focus on modern fighters, and Monzon and Hagler are my #1 and #2 middleweights respectively.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Hitman:
i will have to e-mail Joon and get him in here he is registered but never posts.

Hitman Yeah, I like that guy also.

[Joonie73]

He's a nice kid (though some of his opinions are quite out there). He is trying to get his own forum launched.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

Yeah, I like that guy also.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
He's a nice kid (though some of his opinions are quite out there). He is trying to get his own forum launched.

I didn't know that. I just chatted with him a few times on yahoo chat and he seemed pretty nice. Some people might think that you have opinions that are way out there. Rebel has some, everyone does in all honesty. I actually think Galaxy was a great fighter so there's mine ;)

[Joonie73]

"Great" depends on context or definition. If you think he was wherever Ring magazine rates him, then I cannot agree. Also, if you think that he was "clearly" better than Moon or Watanabe, I cannot agree.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I didn't know that. I just chatted with him a few times on yahoo chat and he seemed pretty nice. Some people might think that you have opinions that are way out there. Rebel has some, everyone does in all honesty. I actually think Galaxy was a great fighter so there's mine ;)

[Joonie73]

I agree that I have some extreme views. But I think you should also consider that what appears to Westerners as "extreme" view is actually the consensus view in Asia when it comes to a lot of Asian fighters. Galaxy is not considered the best junior bantamweight in Asia, Chang is considered next to only Harada among Asian fighers (& many would argue that Chang would beat him head-to-head as a flyweight), etc. But again, I take those consensus view & make it extreme ;)


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I didn't know that. I just chatted with him a few times on yahoo chat and he seemed pretty nice. Some people might think that you have opinions that are way out there. Rebel has some, everyone does in all honesty. I actually think Galaxy was a great fighter so there's mine ;)

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
"Great" depends on context or definition. If you think he was wherever Ring magazine rates him, then I cannot agree. Also, if you think that he was "clearly" better than Moon or Watanabe, I cannot agree.

Well, I haven't seen Moon or Watanabe so I can't say that. You killed 1 of my responses earlier though because I wanted to say if Khasoi's brother beat Moon, why wouldn't Khasoi. Especially considering how easy Kaokor beat him (but you already said why). I have seen both Galaxies (mostly just Khasoi), and think pretty highly of him. He had a lot of flaws but he had real good power, good chin and IMO was a smart fighter. he would hit anything that was available to wear his opponent down.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I agree that I have some extreme views. But I think you should also consider that what appears to Westerners as "extreme" view is actually the consensus view in Asia when it comes to a lot of Asian fighters. Galaxy is not considered the best junior bantamweight in Asia, Chang is considered next to only Harada among Asian fighers (& many would argue that Chang would beat him head-to-head as a flyweight), etc. But again, I take those consensus view & make it extreme ;)

Well I can't argue Asian history. From the past the only fighter I have seen a lot of is Galaxy (for now). I know more about current Asian fighters than the past guys (Yosam,Sahapron,Pong, etc.)

[Joonie73]

Khaosai was a better fighter than Khaokar but that doesn't mean he'd have an easier time with Moon. Stylistically, Khaokar was a tougher match-up for Moon for the following reasons:

Moon's 2 strongest assets were his power (which is arguably most fearsome among any Asian fighters I saw) & his physical strength, in the way he pushed you around. Khaokar negated these advantages because he had one of the best chins I've ever seen & he was also physically much stronger than his brother; so Moon couldn't push him around.

I am not convinced that Khaosai could have weathered Moon's power (in fact, I am sure he couldn't) & I am not sure he matches up strength-wise with Moon either. But it's a close fight & in no way am I confident of a Moon win. But I give him a slight edge, factoring in the competition as well.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

Well, I haven't seen Moon or Watanabe so I can't say that. You killed 1 of my responses earlier though because I wanted to say if Khasoi's brother beat Moon, why wouldn't Khasoi. Especially considering how easy Kaokor beat him (but you already said why). I have seen both Galaxies (mostly just Khasoi), and think pretty highly of him. He had a lot of flaws but he had real good power, good chin and IMO was a smart fighter. he would hit anything that was available to wear his opponent down.

[ December 13, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Joonie73]

Lefthooker,

Thanks for your cordinal response. For some reason I missed your post earlier.

As you realize & mention, coming up with a list of this nature is very difficult & there will always be fighters that some will feel are undeserved included & others undeservedly excluded. Some of the names you mention are close calls & I have myself had trouble distinguishing them. But let me at least briefly touch upon some of the fighters you mentioned.

1. Tunney, Jones & Harada:

I have touched Harada at length elsewhere, many times. To be succinct, he looked unstoppable in his natural weight (& this is pound-per-pound list) & it is possible that he could have beaten anyone who ever lived at flyweight, Wilde & Perez included. Rebel has mentioned the Esparza loss & I am in the process of contacting Japanese experts & trying to find out what really happened. Also, in a pound-per-pound rating, I emphasize success in moving up in weight & Harada should have been the only man to ever win the title as a flyweight, bantamweight & featherweight. The ability to succeed when moving up is shared also by Tunney & Jones; the distinction is that Harada & Tunney did it against legends, whereas Jones did not.

In addition to pound-per-pound criteria, Harada, Tunney & Jones do well in other criteria I emphasize as well when I evaluate greatness. I tend to emphasize longevity less & emphasize peak performance & who-beats-who. That's why I rate Duran as a top 6 welterweight, which I am sure everyone will disagree with. Similarly I think the best Harada, Tunney & Jones were awesome & very difficult for any peer weight fighter from history to beat.

Finally, I emphasize competition; Harada & Tunney had it but Jones did not. But on the same token, Jones' competition was not horrid, methinks. Hopkins was green & Toney was unprepared but they are still quality wins.

2. Chavez:

This is also an issue that I have written a lot at length elsewhere so I am be again brief. Basically, he doesn't fare well on my criteria. I have already said longevity alone doesn't really do it for me; that's why I also don't rank Archie Moore as high as some other people. I thought Chavez in his prime struggled against people that top 20-type of figher should beat more easily. And while his best prime competition was decent, it didn't have any great or even borderline great fighters.

3. Ketchell:

Here may be where a bias does enter. We do tend to over-rate what is familiar. And overall, I tend to rate the real old-timers lower than many (I don't even rank Jack Johnson in the top 10 heavyweight) & Ketchell is one example. There just isn't enough film evidence for me to rank fighters like Ketchell too high. As I have also mentioned to Remus, the technical deficiencies of the old-timers also penalize how I rate them, though that may be unfair.

I think this explanation just about covers all the old-timers you mentioned. Again, if there is a bias on my part, like Rebel's bias, it is against the really old-timers.

4. Monzon v. Hagler:

I rate them about even & I don't have a problem if you rank Monzon higher than Hagler. Hagler is #20 on my list & Monzon is #21.

5. Nelson, Whitaker, Gomez:

I honestly don't think Gomez even deserves a mention in a top 20 all-time discussion. Nelson's case is extremely weak as well; he'd have more of a case if he beat Sanchez or Whitaker.

Whitaker has a stronger case & I do rank him in top 30. Here are my objections to ranking him in top 20, as opposed to top 30:

He never beat a prime true great who was his size or bigger: Nelson was moving up & past prime; Chavez was also past prime.

I also wonder stylistically whether he could beat fast swarmers. I would think Meldrick Taylor would be a toss-up with him & Mosley would be slightly favored because of his body attack & near equal speed.


Originally posted by Lefthooker:

Overall a decent list;
without getting too picky, there area few names I would question...
Gene Tunney, Roy Jones and Fighting Harada on a list that excludes JC Chavez?
If Sal Sanchez did enough in his career, didn't Stanley Ketchel too?
These are all great fighters and it is very difficult naming just 20 - it becomes nessesary to exclude so many.
I'm a huge Hagler fan, but could not justify him being on a list that Monzon is not on.
I think you almost have to make a pre-1930 and post-1930 list to be fair to these fighters.
Barney Ross, Canzoneri, Terrible Terry McGovern, Abe Attel,Micky Walker, - none of these rank higher than Fighting Harada?
How about Azhuma Nelson, Pernell, or Gomez from the modern era?
Just some thoughts.

[ December 13, 2003, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Joonie73]

The same qualities apply to Moon as well. I think he had slightly better power, slightly better chin & had a much better hand & foot speed (Moon was a sprint champion, though he appears lumbering around the ring).


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

Well, I haven't seen Moon or Watanabe so I can't say that. You killed 1 of my responses earlier though because I wanted to say if Khasoi's brother beat Moon, why wouldn't Khasoi. Especially considering how easy Kaokor beat him (but you already said why). I have seen both Galaxies (mostly just Khasoi), and think pretty highly of him. He had a lot of flaws but he had real good power, good chin and IMO was a smart fighter. he would hit anything that was available to wear his opponent down.

[Joonie73]

Moon was an exciting fighter; his 1st fight with Konadu may be the best fight in the division's history in terms of competitiveness & overall action. I would highly recommend that you get it. The 2nd fight is a one-way beatdown & not really worth it. The 1st Khaokar fight was also a marvelous slug-fest; & again, the 2nd fight is not worth watching it because of its one-sidedness.

[ December 13, 2003, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Moon was an exciting fighter; his 1st fight with Konadu may be the best fight in the division's history in terms of competitiveness & overall action. I would highly recommend that you get it. The 2nd fight is a one-way beatdown & not really worth it. The 1st Khaokar fight was also a marvelous slug-fest; & again, the 2nd fight is not worth watching it because of its one-sidedness. I probably will get a few of his fights. I am getting some Chang fights first.

[Joonie73]

Which fights are you getting? As I told Rebel, it would be misleading if you get fights from his past prime fights, as it would be misleading to judge Tyson by the Lewis fight & Benitez by his Moore fight, to mention 2 other peer fighters who burnt out quickly.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I probably will get a few of his fights. I am getting some Chang fights first.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Which fights are you getting? As I told Rebel, it would be misleading if you get fights from his past prime fights, as it would be misleading to judge Tyson by the Lewis fight & Benitez by his Moore fight, to mention 2 other peer fighters who burnt out quickly.

I'll have to find the list I have. Some are past prime but others arent. I think it's good to have past prime fights of a guy because it shows the difference in him. You can compare.

[ December 13, 2003, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: VALDOSTA ]

[Joonie73]

True that. The difference in, say, Chang of the Lopez, Ursua, or Zapata fights v. Chang of the Chiquita, Kittikasem & Ohashi II fights is stunning.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I'll have to find the list I have. Some are past prime but others arent. I think it's good to have past prime fights of a guy because it shows the difference in him. You can compare the difference.

[Valdosta]

Chang, Jung Koo 152, 297 Ohashi, Hideyuki
Chang, Jung-Koo 789 Abella, Tito
Chang, Jung-Koo 298 Chitalada, Sot 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 789 Garcia, Agusin 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 617 Gonzalez, Humberto 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 788 Lopez, Alfonso 10
Chang, Jung-Koo 298 Ohashi, Hideyuki 5
Chang, Jung-Koo 360 Torres, German 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 784 Pinto, Efren 5
Chang, Jung-Koo 788 Velasco, Armando 10
Chang, Jung-Koo 788 Zapata, Hilario 15

I only know where to get a few more are at, maybe 4-5 fights more.

[ December 13, 2003, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: VALDOSTA ]

[Joonie73]

There are 2 Chitalada fights & 3 Torres fights; which ones are you getting?

Also, the Alfonso Lopez fight ended early (this may be the best Chang); it didn't go the distance.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:
Chang, Jung Koo 152, 297 Ohashi, Hideyuki
Chang, Jung-Koo 789 Abella, Tito
Chang, Jung-Koo 298 Chitalada, Sot 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 789 Garcia, Agusin 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 617 Gonzalez, Humberto 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 788 Lopez, Alfonso 10
Chang, Jung-Koo 298 Ohashi, Hideyuki 5
Chang, Jung-Koo 360 Torres, German 12
Chang, Jung-Koo 784 Pinto, Efren 5
Chang, Jung-Koo 788 Velasco, Armando 10
Chang, Jung-Koo 788 Zapata, Hilario 15

I only know where to get a few more are at, maybe 4-5 fights more.

[Joonie73]

By the way, you are getting that many fights of a guy you heard of for the 1st time?

You sure are a boxing junkee graemlins/bow.gif

[Valdosta]

The 2nd Chitalda and 2nd Torres fight

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
By the way, you are getting that many fights of a guy you heard of for the 1st time?

You sure are a boxing junkee graemlins/bow.gif I heard of him before just never saw him. Admittedly I am a lot less limited in fights from the 1980's and back but I can discuss ANY current topic (any fighters from anywhere in the world).

[Joonie73]

2nd Torres fight is Chang's worst prime performance. I will send you 1st, which is arguably his best performance. The 3rd fight was also one-sided, though I don't have it at the moment.

I also have the 1st Chitalada fight; I can send that to you as well.

[Joonie73]

If you are interested, I can recommend you a number of great Asian fights that still exists (too bad Soo-Hwan Hong v. Zamora II, Hyun-Chi Kim v. Vilaflor, Chan-Hee Park v. Canto & Kang-Il Suh v. Elorde no longer exists).

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
2nd Torres fight is Chang's worst prime performance. I will send you 1st, which is arguably his best performance. The 3rd fight was also one-sided, though I don't have it at the moment.

I also have the 1st Chitalada fight; I can send that to you as well. I know he is past prime in the Chitalda fight (the 2nd one), but I always like to see controversial fights to decide if they are really controversial. I might take you up on your offer after I eventually get what I ordered from somewhere else. As long as the quality is good I have no problem paying a decent price.

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
If you are interested, I can recommend you a number of great Asian fights that still exists (too bad Soo-Hwan Hong v. Zamora II, Hyun-Chi Kim v. Vilaflor, Chan-Hee Park v. Canto & Kang-Il Suh v. Elorde no longer exists). Sure, you can list them in this thread if you want or private message them to me. Thanks.

[Joonie73]

Whether you heard of him before or later, it is impressive nevertheless when someone actually goes out of his way to actually try to learn 1st hand.

But your list leaves off virtually all of his best prime performances (Ursua, Zapata II, Torres I, III, Chitalada I, Tokashiki). I can get them to you if you want, though there is a logistics problem that I need to solve 1st regarding these fights.

Kittikasem is also a good one, though it is way past prime.


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I heard of him before just never saw him. Admittedly I am a lot less limited in fights from the 1980's and back but I can discuss ANY current topic (any fighters from anywhere in the world).

[ December 13, 2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Valdosta]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Whether you heard of him before or later, it is impressive nevertheless when someone actually goes out of his way to actually try to learn 1st hand.

But your list leaves off virtually all of his best prime performances (Ursua, Zapata II, Torres I, Chitalada I, III, Tokashiki). I can get them to you if you want, though there is a logistics problem that I need to solve 1st regarding these fights.

Kittikasem is also a good one, though it is way past prime.

I know where to get his 2nd Zepata fight but not the others. I am not Mexican but Ricardo Lopez is probably my favorite all time fighter. When someone said they thought Chang would beat him (actually you and a few others at a different forum), I decided he must be worth watching.

[The Hitman]

Joonie, maybe you can help answer this question.

i saw Luisito Espinosa vs. Khaokor Galaxy and its the weirdest fight i have ever seen. The fight is going along as normal, then all of a sudden in the first round Galaxy just falls down and is counted out. its amazing... it looks like galaxy just faints.

espinosa landed a good double left hook about TEN seconds prior to galaxy falling down- that's the only significant punch that was landed before the "KO."

do you know what happened to galaxy in that match?were there any interviews or questionings that followed that result?

Hitman

[Joonie73]

I see; so I must not be the only one smile.gif Actually, among people in this forum alone, Tam & DMille have both said CHang would beat Lopez, though both see a close fight. And Dmille is not only not Korean, he doesn't even like Koreans graemlins/boxing.gif


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

I know where to get his 2nd Zepata fight but not the others. I am not Mexican but Ricardo Lopez is probably my favorite all time fighter. When someone said they thought Chang would beat him (actually you and a few others at a different forum), I decided he must be worth watching.

[ December 13, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[The Hitman]

Originally posted by VALDOSTA:

Sure, you can list them in this thread if you want or private message them to me. Thanks. list them here please :D

Hitman

[Joonie73]

I think everyone believes Khaokar took a dive; he never fought again. Not only did Khaokar wasn't hit, but he also had one of the best chins I have ever seen! He took Sung-Kil Moon's bombs repeatedly without even wobbling that much.

But if you are going to take a dive, why make it so obvious? It was one of the strangest things I have ever seen in terms of a knockout, right up there with Rafael Orono clutching his belly & rolling around in the 1st Chul-Ho Kim fight.


Originally posted by Hitman:
Joonie, maybe you can help answer this question.

i saw Luisito Espinosa vs. Khaokor Galaxy and its the weirdest fight i have ever seen. The fight is going along as normal, then all of a sudden in the first round Galaxy just falls down and is counted out. its amazing... it looks like galaxy just faints.

espinosa landed a good double left hook about TEN seconds prior to galaxy falling down- that's the only significant punch that was landed before the "KO."

do you know what happened to galaxy in that match?were there any interviews or questionings that followed that result?

Hitman

[Joonie73]

2 of the strangest "knockouts" I have ever seen:

Chul-Ho Kim v. Rafael Orono I:

Orono is dominating & beating the crap out of Kim. Then Kim lands a harmess body blow & Orono runs to the corner, clutches his belly & rolls around as if he is in labor. Even the Korean announcers are like WTF? And I am also like WTF?

It turns out that Orono just had a serious intestine surgery of sorts.

Kyung-Min Nah v. I forget who:

Kyung-Min Nah is dominating & then suddenly in the middle of the fight, he runs out of the ring & sprints toward the dressing room. Again, WTF?

Well, he had diarrhea.

Still, officially it was a KO loss graemlins/lol.gif


Originally posted by Hitman:
Joonie, maybe you can help answer this question.

i saw Luisito Espinosa vs. Khaokor Galaxy and its the weirdest fight i have ever seen. The fight is going along as normal, then all of a sudden in the first round Galaxy just falls down and is counted out. its amazing... it looks like galaxy just faints.

espinosa landed a good double left hook about TEN seconds prior to galaxy falling down- that's the only significant punch that was landed before the "KO."

do you know what happened to galaxy in that match?were there any interviews or questionings that followed that result?

Hitman

[Valdosta]

Quick question, why did Moon have so few fights?? :confused:

[Joonie73]

He had a long & storied amateur career & didn't turn pro until he was around 25 (Boxrec record is about 2 years off).


Originally posted by VALDOSTA:
Quick question, why did Moon have so few fights?? :confused:

[ December 13, 2003, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[TIP]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Again, I don't think many of you even have an idea of the level of anti-Japanese feelings present among Koreans. It is not an exaggeration to term it "ethnic hatred." And I am not a Korean-American but a Korean national, raised in Korea.

I try to stay free from that kind of stuff & I don't think the traditional anti-Japanese sentiments of Koreans affect how I rate Japanese fighters negatively, but to say that I am biased in favor of Japanese fighters is really laughable. Joonie is absolutley correct regarding Korean's feelings toward the Japanese. TIP

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I just saw this post, but come on. Tunney & Loughran are considered top 10 light heavyweight by many people. Some would put Rosenbloom in there too. Greb beating Tunney & Loughran is not equivalent to Toney beating Jirov or Tito beating Joppy.

I wasn't referring to top 5 all-time bro. Top 5 in the division. LOL

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
You are also implying that Greb wasn't dominant as a middleweight. Nothing could be further from true. Greb was dominant as middleweight & over excellent opposition.

I can understand if you want to say that you don't have enough information on the real old-timers & what not (which is what I do with Benny Leonard & Jimmy Wilde, to name 2 examples), but it isn't right to say that Greb wasn't a dominant middleweight.

As for your "fouling tactics" point, then there is a contradiction here as Saddler (whom you rank high) was a dirty little fighter as well.

Those posts didn't include fighters pre-1930s. If I include Greb, which I do on my Non-Modern list, I have him at #1. graemlins/thumb.gif

[The Hitman]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I think everyone believes Khaokar took a dive; he never fought again. Not only did Khaokar wasn't hit, but he also had one of the best chins I have ever seen! He took Sung-Kil Moon's bombs repeatedly without even wobbling that much.

But if you are going to take a dive, why make it so obvious? It was one of the strangest things I have ever seen in terms of a knockout, right up there with Rafael Orono clutching his belly & rolling around in the 1st Chul-Ho Kim fight.

Thanks man. I agree tho if you are going to take a dive why do it in such an obvious manner? espinosa did hit him with at least one solid combo why not fall down then? pretty crazy stuff

Hitman

[dmille]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
And Dmille is not only not Korean, he doesn't even like KoreansI am equal opportunity. I hate everybody.

Agree with your comments about anti-Japanese feelings amongst the Koreans. But they have earned it. They still don't accept their war crimes. And the Japanese I have met, once you get their guards down with some booze are some of the most racist folks going.

They hate whites, blacks, arabs, latinos and even other asians. They still buy into all that shit about their supposed racial purity and superiority. They would fit right in at a klan or nazi rally.

[Joonie73]

I realize that. But you were trying to downplay what Greb did by mentioning that Toney, Tito, et al. beat bigger men. And the comparisons are imperfect.


Originally posted by Rebel:

I wasn't referring to top 5 all-time bro. Top 5 in the division. LOL

[Yori Boy]

Originally posted by TIP:

Joonie is absolutley correct regarding Korean's feelings toward the Japanese. TIP Yep, if you really want a Japanese person to hate you, don't give them the mercy round in Streetfighter 2. They totally lose it! grayupset.gif

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
I realize that. But you were trying to downplay what Greb did by mentioning that Toney, Tito, et al. beat bigger men. And the comparisons are imperfect.

That's crazy. Where did post that? :confused: