ESB's 2012 "Fighter Of The Year"

It would be similar if Sergio and Barker had a rematch, Sergio pummeled him and knocking him spinning, hence ending Barker's 1st ballot career. It'd be even more similar if Barker was top 10 ranked, as Morales was. My point is, prior to Garcia 2, Morales had fought 3 times at top ten level at 140, and did alright each time. Garcia won well in their first fight, it's not a knock against him that Morales was still able.

What's Macklin's best win anyway, officially?

 

Hall of Fame credentials matter little if the fighter is well past it, unless of course one is following Danny Green logic.

Of course we must keep in mind Morales' promoter and who was rating him as top 10.

I count two. Surely you're not considering Cano as top 10 at 140? I also didn't have Garcia 1 as particularly close.

So do only official results matter or not? I mean if they're the only thing that matters, why would Morales get any type of boost from Cano, who officially lost against Malignaggi while also cheating on the scales? Likewise, why would Khan be the most impressive win from either of their resumes when he was coming off an official loss? What's Morales' best win at 140 anyway, officially?

 

Cano is top tennish, better than anyone Barker had ever fought prior, probably better than Barker. Morales did a lot better vs Cano than welter champ Paulie did, that's worth something.

I'm not saying only official results matter, far from it. I'm saying when you're embarassed to answer that simple question straight, it's not half a FOTY campaign.

 

No I'm saying Morales was overrated by them.

Absolutely not, especially not at 140, especially not when Morales fought him.

The guy Paulie fought was two classes above the guy Morales fought. The relevance of this comparison is completely minor.

All of this Morales/Barker talk of course is distracting from my original point more generally: justifying a fight initially perceived as a mismatch as an impressive win on the basis of the overmatched opponent's performance in that very fight alone is circular. It likewise opens the door to cherrypicking: fighter X's opponent proved he belonged at world level and was underrated by doing well in defeat, therefore making a high quality win for X; fighter Y proved he was overrated by struggling with his overmatched opponent.

You should be even more embarrassed to answer the equivalent question for Morales at 140 but I guess laughably rating Cano as a top 10 level win allows you to avoid that particular problem.

 

:rofl

what foreman did at 45 was amazing

42 year old beating up on a WBO cruiserweight belt holder is a nice feat, but not so amazing

 

You're being a stickler: before Garcia 1 Morales had a close loss to Maidana who was top 5, and a dominant win vs Cano, who I admit wasn't top 10, maybe top 15, Barker territory. He's shown since he's legit, moreso than Barker or Lee. If you strongly disagree that's a top 10 resume, I dunno, take it up with the Ring. While you're at it, ask why Martin Murray is ranked top 10.

Also since we're being pedantic about top 10 and such, neither Rubio nor Lee were top 10 when Chavez beat them. That would mean the other half of Sergio's FOTY only has a gift decision against bogus Zbik, as top 10 goes.

 

You're the one who brought up Ring ratings in this thread to prop up Morales and in turn Garcia. I'm not being a stickler about Ring ratings; I'm being a stickler about the absurd idea that Cano was a top-level win for Morales (and I had Cano winning 4 rounds at the time of the stoppage, so I'd also hesitate to describe it as dominant for Morales either). Cano was never regarded as anywhere near top 10 at 140 by anyone, not even the magazine owned by the promotional company that happens to promote Morales, not even the Mexican-based sanctioning body which wanted to give Morales the belt. Glad he's now extremely legit though for taking a controversial loss at 147 against an undersized trinket holder while not even making weight.

 

In my first post I acknowledged Morales was not a legit top 10 IMO. 140 was a pretty strong weightclass. If it was 160 im 2011, he's in no problem, Chavez was for lesser efforts. Macklin's "win" vs Sturm is slighly better than Morales' loss vs Maidana, his second best is worse than Cano (and please spare me Asikainen).

OK now that you discounted Morales' Ring ranking, I hope you don't start calling Murray a worthy opponent based on the same.

Anyway, beating a guy with 0 clear top 10 wins + midlevel contender <> FOTY no matter how weak the year.

 

JMM

probably for the 4th tam running


Ward deserves a mention too

 

But you followed that up with the absurd statement that he had been in with 3 top 10 level opponents, a position I'm glad to see you've recanted. You also continued to bring up the top 10 ranking as if it still had some argumentative force.

Zbik > Cano in 2011 and I hate Zbik and think his Ring rating was absurd.

Spare me Cano at 140.

I've already said that fight is only acceptable due to the surgery and because of the smaller pot for a fight in Argentina. The sad thing of course is I don't have to rely on Ring ratings to make the case that Martinez is once again still likely taking on a better opponent than the other middleweight beltholders given Geale-Mundine, Quillin-Taylor, and potentially Golovkin-Rubio or Vera (and no you don't need to now lecture me about P4P fighters and higher standards, just making an observation about the state of the division).

I of course never made that claim, merely argued that Garcia hadn't done more, a position I still hold.

 

It has to be Garcia.

He pulled magic out of a bottle not once, but twice, and he seems like a decent guy as well.

A close second, for me, is Golovkin. Not because his win was surprising, but because he was so devastatingly in control of that fight, and so deadly in finishing it. Plus, that fight really brought him to the attention of the international fans. (read: Americans who are too lazy to look past their own shores.)

 

Andre Ward. No doubt.

 

OK we're almost eye to eye. Khan is obviously a way better win than JCC or Macklin, esp given the odds. Garcia needed very little extra to match those 2, and even Morales 1 would have been enough. Morales 2 also counts some, the odds were closer than Martinez Macklin. Cano went on to win an interim belt at 140 against undefeated prospect, not any worse than Zbik beating Spada for one.

 

I nominate Manny Pacquiao. He lost his last two fights but he believes in God. He's an honest father who denounces the use of drugs and serves an honorary role in God's war versus homosexuals. Thanks for a great year Manny, you've got my vote :good

This content is protected

 

If you're using odds as the criterion, there's no one Martinez could have fought at middleweight this year against whom he'd be an underdog. Pacquiao was a favorite over Bradley but I wouldn't argue that win was automatically less impressive than Garcia's over Khan just because Garcia wasn't recognized as the top guy in his division.

Obviously that situation isn't parallel to this one since most had Khan more highly rated than Chavez. I would note however that Chavez was coming off the best performance of his career, while Khan was coming off a performance in which even if you think he was treated unfairly on the cards, he still didn't look as good as many had thought. I'd give the edge to the Khan win but I don't think it was leaps and bounds better.

Completely disagree here. At the risk of going back down the ratings rabbit hole, two top 3-7 division wins isn't necessarily weaker than one top 3 and one top 10, especially since the talent pool isn't as significantly deeper at 140 than 160 as it was in the past.

I believe they were around the same.