mark johnson :why is he in the HOF ?

[lufcrazy]

it always amazed me seeing him inducted.

Like most posters (I can only assume) my knowledge of the lower weights comes recently because first I was into HW, MW and WW.

So he was one of the first "names" I knew from them divisions and the more I looked into the lower weights, the more I came across names who literally shit all over his entire career. Probably bias and name value as well as a bit of arrogance that the american claimant was better than the asian claimants.

[Flea Man]

Too Sharp listed in Boxing Monthly's top flyweights of the past 50/60 years

[PowerPuncher]

I don't care if his resume is sh1t, he's little Pernell for me and

Originally Posted by lora

More likely, but less "McCallum\Burley'esque rule of cool" simply that there were a helluva lot of vested interests from various involved parties that make unifications and meaningful fights always difficult in the modern boxing environment.Arguably none more so than the lower-weights until this past decade as they were among the most glob

THIS...transcontinental bouts even for world titles are very hard to make, especially when, 1) they don't make much more 'per defence' and 2) the 'world title' is a marketing capital no one wants to lose. In terms of making it a bigger fight, it usually doesn't quite translate unless both sets of fans are familiar with the fighter from the other continent

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I don't care if his resume is sh1t, he's little Pernell for me and



THIS...transcontinental bouts even for world titles are very hard to make, especially when, 1) they don't make much more 'per defence' and 2) the 'world title' is a marketing capital no one wants to lose. In terms of making it a bigger fight, it usually doesn't quite translate unless both sets of fans are familiar with the fighter from the other continent

But that doesn't mean Johnson should be recognised as the best flyweight of that time, even if I think he'd have a very good chance at beating the top guys. Where do you stand on that? I don't think Morel was the no.1 either.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

But that doesn't mean Johnson should be recognised as the best flyweight of that time, even if I think he'd have a very good chance at beating the top guys. Where do you stand on that? I don't think Morel was the no.1 either.

My knowledge below 122 is pretty poor and I'm no authority on flyweight, so in terms of details I can't comment, but just watching MJ I see something very special. Was he the best of his time, well if they didn't fight we'll never know, was SRR the best of his time above Burley? We'll never know.

People have compared him to Hamed, saying the latter achieved more, which may well be the case, I rate Hamed highly as you know, but MJ as a boxer just looks better to me, although Hamed's power is ofcourse the X Factor and he should make the Hall too

Still if you're criticising Too Sharp for not unifying you can criticise all manner of HOFamer's (half or more?) from all eras for not facing the best in their division. The standard isn't that high, most boxers missed fights get overlooked and the 20s and 30s seem to have fringe contenders making the Hall. Not a high standard at all, I see the reaction as here more of it being his straight election

[lora]

I think it's the fact Johnson got in so quickly that surprises rather than him getting in at all.He would have been fine as an eventual induction down the line, considering his talent and being the best Fly of the 90s along with Arbachakov.

Same with Carbajal etc but to get in so quickly just stretches things too far considering how many other fighters have been waiting decades.

[frankenfrank]

Not sure that i would have taken him over Lopez , not sure about de contrary either .

Lopez , Orlando Canizales , Marc Johnson , RJJ all paper chumps whose resume means nothing .

IBF hypejobs .

Zarate's and Lopez' "reigns" @ de WBC were a disgrace also .

But Zarate at least fought Zamora .. and cheated against him

[aduriz]

Originally Posted by kmac

johnson was a hell of a fighter. he was ranked in the top 10 lb for lb for close to 5 years. in '99 he was ranked as the #5 lb for lb fighter in the world by the ring. he was only behind de la hoya, jones, holyfield and tito. good company. the division wasn't very deep but it wasn't for ricardo lopez either. both guys deserve to be in the hall, no question. johnson being a southpaw along with his very high skill level make him a tough h2h matchup for anyone who's ever fought at flyweight.

which is completely BS IMO . how can you be rated higher than the legitimate champion who's fighting in the flyweight's major leagues ( asia ) ?

that's the equivalent of a european welterweight beltholder who's rated so highly despite not facing anyone beyond continental level ....

[aduriz]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I don't care if his resume is sh1t, he's little Pernell for me and



THIS...transcontinental bouts even for world titles are very hard to make, especially when, 1) they don't make much more 'per defence' and 2) the 'world title' is a marketing capital no one wants to lose. In terms of making it a bigger fight, it usually doesn't quite translate unless both sets of fans are familiar with the fighter from the other continent

he could've fought in japan against arbachakov for the lineal championship :
his IBF title won't be on the line
japan offers the best paydays for flyweights ( 200 k to 300 k for foreign champions )

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

My knowledge below 122 is pretty poor and I'm no authority on flyweight, so in terms of details I can't comment, but just watching MJ I see something very special. Was he the best of his time, well if they didn't fight we'll never know, was SRR the best of his time above Burley? We'll never know.

People have compared him to Hamed, saying the latter achieved more, which may well be the case, I rate Hamed highly as you know, but MJ as a boxer just looks better to me, although Hamed's power is ofcourse the X Factor and he should make the Hall too

Still if you're criticising Too Sharp for not unifying you can criticise all manner of HOFamer's (half or more?) from all eras for not facing the best in their division. The standard isn't that high, most boxers missed fights get overlooked and the 20s and 30s seem to have fringe contenders making the Hall. Not a high standard at all, I see the reaction as here more of it being his straight election

It's not the lack of unifications that winds me up, it's the lack of quality opposition (at fly anyway)

[kmac]

Originally Posted by aduriz

which is completely BS IMO . how can you be rated higher than the legitimate champion who's fighting in the flyweight's major leagues ( asia ) ?

that's the equivalent of a european welterweight beltholder who's rated so highly despite not facing anyone beyond continental level ....

i like the revisionist history here. the writers and other fighters of the time knew how good johnson was. that's why he was considered a top 5 fighter for a while. johnson was clearly considered a level above the other flyweights at that time.

[LittleRed]

One could argue that this is not revisionism, but rather the prevailing opinion back then was western bias. And even if we accept that he was a level above (and I agree that he looks brilliant on film) does that rank him over guys with comparable resumes like Arbachakov.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by kmac

i like the revisionist history here. the writers and other fighters of the time knew how good johnson was. that's why he was considered a top 5 fighter for a while. johnson was clearly considered a level above the other flyweights at that time.

He didn't fight anyone in the top 3! Think for yourself and look at the evidence. The magazines were biased.

How the **** can you be in the top 5 P4P if you're not the no.1 in your division?!

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

One could argue that this is not revisionism, but rather the prevailing opinion back then was western bias. And even if we accept that he was a level above (and I agree that he looks brilliant on film) does that rank him over guys with comparable resumes like Arbachakov.

Nice work. For me, I could understand if Johnson had beaten a few top class opponents at fly.

Put it this way; the ONLY notable victory boxing mo thy has listed for him in their recent issue was against Montiel....at super fly

[kmac]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

One could argue that this is not revisionism, but rather the prevailing opinion back then was western bias. And even if we accept that he was a level above (and I agree that he looks brilliant on film) does that rank him over guys with comparable resumes like Arbachakov.

so it's the magazines that are biased and not you guys. thanks for clearing that up.