mark johnson :why is he in the HOF ? - Page 4

kmac · 10-28-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flea Man

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

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

how can you be #1 at 112 if you hadn't beat mark johnson? with that said, the ring moved johnson up to #5 lb for lb after he moved up and won a belt at 115.

lora · 10-28-2012, 02:31 PM

The ring often gave high placings to titlists they were familiar enough with in the hope of forcing unifications.ie Esparragoza got a higher placing than his wins may have merited in the hope of forcing featherweight unification.

It's not like Johnson wasn't one of the best around sub-bantam by the late 90s.A lot of the talent had gone and he was one of the last remnants of it still active.It's certainly arguable to argue he deserved to place so high considering who he had beaten though.Most likely a few of the staff at the mag rated him highly and wanted to get him exposure and bigger fights.

Nothing wrong with that but they were always more likely to do it for someone they had more familiarity with than possibly equally deserving or acomplished fighters they hadn't seen as much of.

It's not like people don't dig Johnson here(most of the posters saying they don't think he shouldhave got in so quickly are still saying they thought he was an excellent talent) or are being biased against him.I think it's just being seen as a bit flimsy to have a ring top ten p4p rating for a few years as one of your main points(or some vague assertations that everyone ducked him) as to why he should have been a first time inductee.That's more the kind of thing you point to if he still hadn't been inducted in 60 years time.

LittleRed · 10-28-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmac

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

That's fantastic reading comprehension there. Your argument (the one that follows) is fallacious because you are defining Johnson as the number one flyweight by saying he is the number one flyweight and for anyone else to be number one they have to have beaten Johnson.

aduriz · 10-28-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmac

how can you be #1 at 112 if you hadn't beat mark johnson? with that said, the ring moved johnson up to #5 lb for lb after he moved up and won a belt at 115.

how can you be number 1 if you're not the legitimate lineal champion ,and you're not fighting the top contenders of your weight class ? and on top of that, you're fighting in what is basically the minor leagues of the sub-featherweight divisions ( USA )

east asia produced 35 flyweight world champions in the last 20 years .
mark johnson faced 0 asian fighters during his flyweight reign , and beat no title holders at 112 ( former or future ) . and you don't see a problem with that ? frankly it's mind boggling that some respected websites and magazines rated him as one of the best flyweights of ALL TIME ...

and yep , the ring magazine can't be biased . we're talking about the same ring magazine that fabricated records for don king boxers back in the 70's , right ?

Flea Man · 10-28-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmac

how can you be #1 at 112 if you hadn't beat mark johnson? with that said, the ring moved johnson up to #5 lb for lb after he moved up and won a belt at 115.

Um...your first sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Momus · 10-29-2012, 09:45 AM

Johnson was one of my favourite fighters of the era, but when you break down his resume it doesn't exactly scream first ballot hall of famer.

Johnson's induction has to be based on a subjective opinion of how good he was, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. When doing the latter there are numerous fighters who have better resumes on paper, but have yet to be enshrined.

Johnson looked the part of a great fighter, and on ability in my opinion probably was. However, there isn't any career defining win or achievement you can point to that confirms this and separates him from the crowd of other title claimants. As a result, his induction is always open to question.

LittleRed · 10-29-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Momus

Johnson was one of my favourite fighters of the era, but when you break down his resume it doesn't exactly scream first ballot hall of famer.

Johnson's induction has to be based on a subjective opinion of how good he was, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. When doing the latter there are numerous fighters who have better resumes on paper, but have yet to be enshrined.

Johnson looked the part of a great fighter, and on ability in my opinion probably was. However, there isn't any career defining win or achievement you can point to that confirms this and separates him from the crowd of other title claimants. As a result, his induction is always open to question.

I think this is on the nose. And throw in the added.achievement of being the first to do something and you can see why he had so much attention.

Flea Man · 10-29-2012, 11:32 AM

If he was actually the first African-American flyweight champ' I'd understand.

But first titlist means NOTHING. Not just the 90s perceptions either, we're seeing fighters rated for defending meaningless trinkets now more than ever.

Again, a big fan of Too Sharp. But him getting in BM's flyweight feature broke my heart. I was told beforehand it was coming out...shame I wasn't asked to proof read it as well.

Vysotsky · 10-29-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aduriz

how can you be number 1 if you're not the legitimate lineal champion ,and you're not fighting the top contenders of your weight class ? and on top of that, you're fighting in what is basically the minor leagues of the sub-featherweight divisions ( USA )

east asia produced 35 flyweight world champions in the last 20 years .
mark johnson faced 0 asian fighters during his flyweight reign , and beat no title holders at 112 ( former or future ) . and you don't see a problem with that ? frankly it's mind boggling that some respected websites and magazines rated him as one of the best flyweights of ALL TIME ...

and yep , the ring magazine can't be biased . we're talking about the same ring magazine that fabricated records for don king boxers back in the 70's , right ?

Mark and Floyd know to avoid the Asians and manufacture a pretty looking record devoid of substance.

kmac · 10-29-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aduriz

how can you be number 1 if you're not the legitimate lineal champion ,and you're not fighting the top contenders of your weight class ? and on top of that, you're fighting in what is basically the minor leagues of the sub-featherweight divisions ( USA )

east asia produced 35 flyweight world champions in the last 20 years .
mark johnson faced 0 asian fighters during his flyweight reign , and beat no title holders at 112 ( former or future ) . and you don't see a problem with that ? frankly it's mind boggling that some respected websites and magazines rated him as one of the best flyweights of ALL TIME ...

and yep , the ring magazine can't be biased . we're talking about the same ring magazine that fabricated records for don king boxers back in the 70's , right ?

lineal champ is a nice title to have but it doesn't mean you're the best in your division. (see erdei) you make a point with him facing no asians but that doesn't mean he didn't deserve the respect he got. you need to go back and watch some of his old fights to see why people thought that way.

kmac · 10-29-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vysotsky

Mark and Floyd know to avoid the Asians and manufacture a pretty looking record devoid of substance.

calzaghe got his feelings hurt that you left him out of your post above.

Flea Man · 10-30-2012, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmac

lineal champ is a nice title to have but it doesn't mean you're the best in your division. (see erdei) you make a point with him facing no asians but that doesn't mean he didn't deserve the respect he got. you need to go back and watch some of his old fights to see why people thought that way.

Surely everyone in this thread has watched all of his fights that are available?!

How many of Arbachakov, Sasakuls, Megdoens, Pongsaklek's fights have you watched? Fact is, Johnson was not the best flyweight in the World. Obviously you're a fan of his (as am I) but with all the evidence surely you can't think he beat a sufficient calibre of fighter to reach the pinnacle of the division?

SugarShane_24 · 10-30-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmac

calzaghe got his feelings hurt that you left him out of your post above.

I don't think there's too much Asians weighing 168 that's a factor so it's okay.

Flea Man · 10-30-2012, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SugarShane_24

I don't think there's too much Asians weighing 168 that's a factor so it's okay.

Calzaghe avoided the already retired super middleweight legends Baek and Park.

SugarShane_24 · 10-30-2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Calzaghe avoided the already retired super middleweight legends Baek and Park.

If not for those two, Ceferino Garcia would still be the heaviest Asian to win a world title.

10-28-2012, 02:31 PM	#47
lora Fighting Zapata East Side Guru Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 5,451 vCash: 500	Re: mark johnson :why is he in the HOF ? The ring often gave high placings to titlists they were familiar enough with in the hope of forcing unifications.ie Esparragoza got a higher placing than his wins may have merited in the hope of forcing featherweight unification. It's not like Johnson wasn't one of the best around sub-bantam by the late 90s.A lot of the talent had gone and he was one of the last remnants of it still active.It's certainly arguable to argue he deserved to place so high considering who he had beaten though.Most likely a few of the staff at the mag rated him highly and wanted to get him exposure and bigger fights. Nothing wrong with that but they were always more likely to do it for someone they had more familiarity with than possibly equally deserving or acomplished fighters they hadn't seen as much of. It's not like people don't dig Johnson here(most of the posters saying they don't think he shouldhave got in so quickly are still saying they thought he was an excellent talent) or are being biased against him.I think it's just being seen as a bit flimsy to have a ring top ten p4p rating for a few years as one of your main points(or some vague assertations that everyone ducked him) as to why he should have been a first time inductee.That's more the kind of thing you point to if he still hadn't been inducted in 60 years time.
Top

10-29-2012, 09:45 AM	#51
Momus Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 709 vCash: 500	Re: mark johnson :why is he in the HOF ? Johnson was one of my favourite fighters of the era, but when you break down his resume it doesn't exactly scream first ballot hall of famer. Johnson's induction has to be based on a subjective opinion of how good he was, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. When doing the latter there are numerous fighters who have better resumes on paper, but have yet to be enshrined. Johnson looked the part of a great fighter, and on ability in my opinion probably was. However, there isn't any career defining win or achievement you can point to that confirms this and separates him from the crowd of other title claimants. As a result, his induction is always open to question.
Top

10-29-2012, 11:32 AM	#53
Flea Man มวยสากล East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: @ferociousflea Posts: 44,057 vCash: 75	Re: mark johnson :why is he in the HOF ? If he was actually the first African-American flyweight champ' I'd understand. But first titlist means NOTHING. Not just the 90s perceptions either, we're seeing fighters rated for defending meaningless trinkets now more than ever. Again, a big fan of Too Sharp. But him getting in BM's flyweight feature broke my heart. I was told beforehand it was coming out...shame I wasn't asked to proof read it as well.
Top