Who has the best most impressive win over Hopkins

Read PP's post. He explains it perfectly. You seem to be trying to retreat from it now, but to say a boxer is "in trouble" means he is getting hit cleanly frequently, probably getting hurt, under some real pressure, etc. When I hear a commentator saying "in trouble", I consider it to mean "in danger of getting dropped if things continue this way" effectively. To suggest this is what would've happened to Hopkins if he hadn't took a breather is crazy. He'd have become less active and would've got easily outflurried and outworked, and lost the rounds. How is Calzaghe going to land on him enough and land on him hard enough to put him in trouble though? And do yourself the credit of not trying to pretend that isn't what the phrase "in trouble" means in a boxing sense.

 

well then it's a semantical argument isn't, cba with those.


Well it depends what happens between then but by and large I do yes. When Ottke beat Brewer in the rematch I had him as number 1 SMW. He lost this claim to Mitchell who lost his claim to Calzaghe who retained it until he left the division. I go through each division in some detail using this logic, I've been doing it for about 18 months now. I put up my preliminary works on this site to gauge reactions and criticisms and since then I've been going through tweaking my results.

For example this is how I see the HW division in the late 70's:

George Foreman Jan 1973 Oct 1974
Muhammad Ali Oct 1974 Apr 1976
Jimmy Young Apr 1976 Nov 1977
Ken Norton Nov 1977 Jun 1978
Larry Holmes Jun 1978 Sep 1985

your pac-floyd logic is flawed because, as you just said, he'd obliterated oscar and hatton then cotto and clottey. p4p achievements like that are incredibly rare.

I'll probably never watch it.

jeezus we were originally talking about unifying. it's political he didn't unify them alll. of course unifying and defending is better than unifying

I know that, for me it is a main one, along with resume :good

 

eugh.

I agree with PP 100%. if I knew it'd cause this much bother I wouldn't have used the word atsch

 

Fair response.

But what would your response be to the specific hypothetical I outlined...


I agree we should place importance on our own cards, but I think it's dangerous to start rewriting history on the basis of them. For example, you are choosing not to recognize Ottke as a champion from 98-04 because you scored against him during that run. Where does this approach end? If a guy wins a world title in 1997, holds it until 2008, but you score a fight against him in 1999, are you refusing to recognize his title fights 99-08? If he unifies between 99 and 08, do you refuse to recognize him as a unified champion? Do you view him as a world champion for the title he won after 99, but not as a unified champion at all? What happens if he then becomes the undisputed champion in 06 after picking up the other 2 belts? The boxing world would recognize him as the undisputed champion, but you would keep considering him as only a unified champion because of a fight that happened 7 years ago? And do you then devise a 'Lufcrazy' parallel universe where the guy that beat him in 99 is a reigning champion then? If that loses in 02, do you then consider his conqueror the world champion? Does that title then have a new, different history to the reality in your mind/personal records?

 

Well, it's quite a statement to make, no?! Hopkins has barely ever been in trouble in his entire career, so to speculate that a very light-punching fighter would have put him in trouble when in reality he didn't, this is a bit of a reach and is always going to provoke disagreement.

 

ok the situation you describe is simil;ar to the 90's Hw's.

I scored the Holy-bowe 2 fight in favour of Bowe hence I had him retaining his belts. in 96 when Tyson unified with Bruno and Seldon, he "usurped" Bowe's claim.

I'm not a believer in lineage basically, just because someone beat someone doesn't mean they automatically belong at the top of the division unitl they lose. when Jones unified with Johnson he "usurped" DM's position at the top for me. I scored Taylor-Winky in favour of Taylor, but the moment Pavlick knocked out Taylor he was my choice for number 1 MW.

you're right in calling it a "lufcrazy parallel universe championship" because that is exactly the point, it's representative of how I personally see the sport. Just because 3 men screwed Martinez out of victory with Cintron, did that stop him being the best LMW in the world? not imo it didn't.

 

from here on in, I'm banning the word "trouble" in any future debate between ourselves.

it causes too much of the word I've just banned :good

 

But surely the "lufcrazy parallel universe championship" could only work if you'd seen every fight in history? Say you haven't seen a fight such as Azumah Nelson vs Mario Martinez. So you judge Nelson's whole career on the basis of the fights you have seen, and spend years making posts about him, including him in lists, etc. Then you see AN vs MM, and score it for MM. Do you then get a huge sheet of paper out, and work out exactly how this chain-reaction affects boxing thereafter? "So Martinez was the champ instead, he then lost to..." Does Nelson then plummet in your rankings because all his fights after that are non-title fights? And if you consider achievement so high, surely Nelson's place in history is DECIMATED then, as the number of title fights he participated in and won fall dramatically?

This system seriously would take over your entire life, if you were to do it fairly and comprehensively! You'd need to somehow track down all of Mario Martinez's fights to see who became the champion after him, and on and on and on... This could affect many fighters, title reigns, title fights, etc etc etc... :nut

 

Do you agree or disagree with this definition of the phrase "in trouble" in a boxing sense?


to say a boxer is "in trouble" means he is getting hit cleanly frequently, probably getting hurt, under some real pressure, etc. When I hear a commentator saying "in trouble", I consider it to mean "in danger of getting dropped if things continue this way" effectively.

 

the official results serve as the default position. So all I can do is add to my ever growing picture. in that particular instance it wouldn't because title fights aren't a huge achievement to me, I'm more bothered about who the number 1 is, who they fought whilst there and intangibles such as comebacks, unifications, clearing out a division, reputation etc.


It doesn't take over my life because, well I have a life. If I come across a fight I haven't been able to see and reports indicate it's controversial I'd consider it a draw. If it's a fight I can see then I score it myself. It does affect a lot of fights though hence a lot of fighter's.

If someone is definitely the number 1 fighter and a guy deserves to beat him on my scorecard, that guy would become the number 1 fighter whether the judges agreed or not, like today Pacquaio is the number 1 WW (only because Floyd is the division above and Marquez is the division below) because I had him beating Bradley. the opinions of 3 men at ringside mean nothing to me once I've seen a fight myself.

 

:nono

 

Honestly Luf, I like you as a poster, but your posts and theories are Swiss cheese style full of holes. So you value achievement highly, but it doesn't matter how many world title defences someone successfully made? That makes absolutely zero sense. I don't value achievement as highly as you, yet obviously I take into consideration how many title defences someone made when considering their claim to greatness. I'm getting a little bored of this as it seems very like you are just saying anything to justify a pretty silly post a few pages ago.

To say that a guy who was a world champion for 2 years in Calzaghe's division was a greater rival than a guy who was world champion for 6 years in Calzaghe's division was silly.

I mean, Ottke fought Mitchell in '03, so even if he lost that fight on your card, he was still a champion concurrently with Calzaghe for 5 years, which is more than double the two years that Lacy was champion anyway.

Full of holes. Later.

 

More holes in rash earlier statements being skirted over... :-(

 

By the way Luf, I'm not going to reply on this topic again, this has all got a bit pointless and long-winded now. You're a good poster, see you around. :good

 

a world title is just a statement of intent. it's a man saying "I'm the best in the division". if there's 4 title holders in a division then the other 3 can make as many as they want but if they aren't the best it means very little to me, correct.

I never said he was a greater rival you ninny. I said it'd be great if he beat ottke and beyer, the fights didn't come off and he beat the men who beat them so I can live with it.

to be honest I'm not really arsed how it seems to you, the whole crux of the issue is whether or not Joe achieved greatness as a SMW and my argument was he did because he unified all the titles. Would it have been better to defend them? Ofcourse it would.

"
Originally Posted by lufcrazy
his level is his level. the only thing that makes JoeC great is his domination of the SMW division down the stretch. Had he fought in any other division I'm not sure how his career would have panned out."

The issue you have is you're in the general forum fanboy mode and all you're thinking is joe fans v hopkins fans. I'm not even a fan of calzaghe's, I just scored this fight for him and think he reached greatness in the SMW division.

The whole debate is moot anyways because neither of us see this as the most impressive victory over Hopkins :tired