Floyd Sr: "All they’re going to see is that Ricky Hatton was a drug addict"

Eddie Mustafa Muhammd
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Larry Holmes x2
Gerry Cooney

Is much, much better than anything Hatton has done. Other than Tszyu, Hatton's resume is pretty weaksauce.

 

No because anyone with any boxing knowledge would know that Tarvers accomplishments and level of competition are far superiorsmooch

 

I don't get the comparison.

It's not overrating Spinks to put him above Hatton...

 

behave yourself now

 

Equally, who's better: IBO Middle champ, and gatekeeper extraordinare, Avantdil Khurtsidze, or Darren ****ing Barker?

Your logic is flawed.

 

Dont forget Murray Sutherland and Marvin Johnson:deal

 

yeah i was gonna point him out but couldn't be bothered

 

Yeah, the IBO title is such a credible 'world' title. That's why out of 17 divisions, there's only 8 champions currently. And such recognisable names too, I mean who doesn't know of 'world' champions like Avtandil Khurtsidze, Gideon Buthelezi and Thomas Oosthuizen?

Anyway, that wasn't the point I was picking out of the quote I selected. The fact that you said 'know your belts better', then followed it up by saying 'most British title belts are worthless' and 'the belt Limond won was a British title' is what amused me.

 

That makes zero sense Michael Moorer was a champion in the weight class......the has to be the worst comparison I have ever seen :nut My comparison of Hatton to Spinks to Moorer is valid due to similar accomplishments.....yours is just stupid :rofl MicHael Moorer was also a 2 time heavyweight champ, and it could be argued he was more accomplished as a fighter then Spinks....you people are out of your mind here with your overrating of Michael Spinks.

 

STOP USING ****ING BOXREC TO ANALYSE!!!!!!

You list Qawis numbers like they ****ing mean something.

The first fight is not controversial, it's a close competitive fight due to Holmes probably taking it lightly (but Spinks still had to do the job. Compare it to a win over a mere srap holder in Collazo, and the nature of the win, and you lose all credibility). The second fight with Holmes is. Fact is, Spinks was a genuine two-weight World champion without the benefit of a Cruiserweight division, and beat a genuine ATG Heavyweight who was, at the time undefeated. If he lost the second fight with Holmes (which I think he did) that is hardly a blemish. In fact, being a greater fighter than Floyd Mayweather IMO, I would say losing to Holmes (on a decision no less) is no shame whatsoever.

The same Holmes by the way who went on to be a useful fighter even after Spinks had lost to Tyson.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izY9RHhc9Gw[/ame]

Spinks also stopped a big contender in Cooney, which in itself is certainly a better win than say, Maussa.

You really haven't got a clue.

Or maybe you have? For example: why don't you enlighten me on Matthew Saad Muhammads legacy as a 175lber?

 

In good company with the IBRO (#7 LH), Cox's Corner (#5 LH), Ring Magazine (#41 AT from 1922-2002).

 

No what makes zero sense is the fact that you compare the 175 pound legacies of Moorer and Spinks just because they had a similar level of domination over a completely different class of opponents. Moorer deserves to be in the hof imo, but it is mostly due to his overall accomplishments at heavyweight, and I actually made a thread about it:

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284432[/url]

It largely isnt due to his 175 pound resume, even though I did give him some credit for what he did achieve at the weight, his level of competiton isnt great

And Spinks was a more accomplished fighter than Moorer overall, just to be clear.

 

There's a difference between close and controversial.

Bear in mind Holmes is a top 5 Heavy, a bit better than Hatton's achievements at WW.

 

But Spinks' era and level of opposition was much higher, how does that make no sense?!?!?

You are overrating Moorer immensely. You're just too stupid to realise.