View Single Post
Old 10-16-2012, 07:28 AM   #15
East Side Guru
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 7,122
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
lower achievements aren't ignored, they ADD to greatness, higher weight successes do the same and in fact more to a fighters legacy - but fighters should only be ranked at 1 division, and SRR was a MW, Amstrong had most of his fights at WW too, but I agree with you that he was a small welter, but a WW none-the-less.

and this reality should stand for ALL fighters!
I do not see the reason why that should be.

Trying to pick what division they should be ranked in is difficult enough and would create a problem in itself between differing opinions. Should Robinson be rated as a welterweight or a middleweight? I certainly don't see any sense in preferring his middleweight work to his welterweight work. He was a welterweight between ages 21-29, which most agree are usually a boxer's prime, and a middleweight between 30 to 45. He is also generally seen as the greatest welterweight of all time, while only a top 5 middleweight at best in most people's rankings.

When a fighter put in work in separate weight divisions, those achievements should be acknowledged. Beating a welterweight while fighting as a welterweight shouldn't count as middleweight achievements. They should count as welterweight achievements. It's just far more simple.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote