Greater/Better: Tszyu or Hamed

It's worth noting, I think, that the IBF's formation came soon after allegations of corruption were being made about the WBA and its then-president Gilberto Mendoza. I can't remember whether the IBF was [quite ironically] being viewed as an antidote to these types of accusations, but nevertheless, I seem to recall that air of moral high ground about the affair.

The WBO was spawned from a petty squabble over rules - a somewhat less heroic foundation story, perhaps - and I can't help but think this did not place them in good stead from the outset.

In any event - outwardly, a governing body is only as credible as the level and recognition of its competition. Larry Holmes effectively defecting from the WBC to the IBF immediately gave them a level of repute and seeded the IBF as part of a Lineal Legacy. Hagler followed suit; not by defecting but by adding the IBF strap to his WBA and WBC belts in his contest with Scypion, who was highly ranked by both of the already established bodies.

Two glamor divisions then were very firmly established by the IBF within months of incorporation. Other names, like Curry, who fought Starling (so, the Ring's #1 and #2) for IBF welterweight honors and Pryor, who probably was given a touch to acquire the title, but whose tear-ups with Arguello would still be fresh in the memory, added further gravitas.

Given just these circumstances alone, it's difficult to see how the IBF's legitimacy could be denied.


Flash-forward to 1988 and the formation of the WBO, the initial name-recognition factor fell pretty much to Hearns, which was in the Super Middleweight class. Continuing to use the 168 division as an example, it would soon begin to reflect something akin to a sub-organization on the Commonwealth/European/International Championship level until Calzaghe (with the help of Lacy and Kessler) finally broke out of the mold.

The WBO's inaugural heavyweight and middleweight holders were Damiani and DeWitt, respectively. These divisions, too, took the long and winding road, with the K brothers really bringing attention to the WBO heavyweight strap in the early '00s while Sturm, OdlH and Hopkins did the same for the WBO at middleweight.

One need only look at the players involved across a decade of IBF and WBO title fights, and the different levels of consistency in quality become fairly apparent. The WBO's portfolio took a long time to mature, as its history bears out, and its validity suffered as a result.

 

The WBA and WBC were definitely not clean, just older establishment by then, but Lee was already a noted shady character that broke away after losing a presidential bid. It was just opportunism and politicking, rotten from the start regardless of what was said to the reasoning imo.

Yeah, the IBF giving bunch their belts to already famous, recognised champs was a smart move, and Holmes deciding to represent them for his own politicking reasons was probably the major early step towards acceptance. But their own rankings system and matchmaking practices were at least as bad and led to a level of quality that was little different when they didn't have an already existing high-profile fighter like Holmes, Hagler or Curry to drape their title over...their ratings and mandatories were often a joke, one that we long know was literally corrupt all the way. Anyway, I don't argue that if we compared the IBF vs WBO champs over the first decade or so of their existence that the WBO would look the stronger, or that the WBO wasn't viewed in an even lower light by many, just that there really wasn't much difference between the two in overall quality of practice, which was easy to see during in divisions where they had no already existing big name champ to offer their belt to early on, particularly lightweight and below.

A guy like Tszyu as pure IBF splinter champ had no guarantee of being forced to take on a higher standard of opponent through superior systemic rigour than the WBO champs of the time. A lot of it was down to chance regarding the strength of the division at the time, especially if there were domestic rivals, or how adventurous the management of fighters themselves would be.

 

^Yet more evidence that you do not even read my posts properly.^

I initially called you out for bias, which is obvious and proven and something you don't wish to acknowledge. Instead you project your own bias onto others (as was apparent as early as post #44)

I've since accommodated your pivoting away from the original point and pushy demands for 'specifics' on an argument I never made and, by doing so, have reduced you to making dull, uninformed comments such as "

This content is protected

". That really is the extent of your analysis. That and your fixation on Phillips - which is a predictably lame obsession on your part.

Referring to the 140 division as a "

This content is protected

" (some more top-notch analysis), you then in the same paragraph claim Tzsyu missed Randall, Whitaker, De La Hoya, and Mayweather. Just another case of you simply pulling nonsense from your ass. I trust you can see the paradox you create here? (rhetorical)

Same as with your pointless rant about Espinosa. Not only did you not recall I had mentioned him previously as a fight Hamed failed to secure - making a big deal about me suddenly introducing his name - but you also go off on one about Espinosa's losses, none of which occurred during the relevant period in time. I pointed out your errors in my previous post and surprise, surprise, you simply don't acknowledge them in your response.

Your extremely tedious pattern of non-debate is, whenever you can't or don't want to respond to 'the specifics' provided or corrections made - which is almost always - you introduce new/reworked arguments or shift focus without engaging with the original assertions and this cycle is both pointless and a waste of my time.

To use a boxing analogy, your debating technique is about as correct as Hamed's boxing - without the reflexes, speed, and power to bail you out.


So, once again and for the final time, I view Tzsyu as having been better and greater than Hamed, and I have given my reasons for why I believe this to be the case.

And, per my previous post, you've not adequately dealt with any of the reasoning presented and this doesn't look set to change any time soon.

Thus, I've said all I am going to on the matter.


Good Day - and happy fact-checking.

 

You don’t know how to write concise posts so I generally don’t bother reading them word for word. Same thing with Loudon.

Are you suggesting that Tszyu receive credit for fighting in a tough division when he failed to fight Randall, Chavez+pulse, Oscar, Whitaker, Mayweather, and Mosley (yes it could’ve happened)? I’d think a division headlined by Judah and and Mitchell with a shredded knee when Kostya had his best year does qualify as a dumpster fire.

Still waiting to hear why Hurtado, one legged Mitchell and a guy named Rodriguez compare to Naz’s scalps.

 

So why did Tszyu miss all those guys? Seems he should have faced Mayweather and DeLaHoya

 

Tszyu by a one punch KO. If they fought 10 times, 10 KO wins by KT.

 

Phillips looked like he out weight Tszyu by 15 pounds.

 

Hamed was better at promoting himself than he was a fighter.

 

Agree with pretty much all of that - particularly, on there being "no guarantee" of a higher standard. And I'd agree that there wasn't much difference in the quality of practice.

I'd also echo your point touching on the role of management (as well as the fighters themselves) and their risk appetite. There must be availability and willingness, with the governing bodies and commissions being the enablers they should be.

The above can view are perhaps exemplified, firstly, by the IBF title run of Canizales who, as brilliant as he was, effectively coasted through a litany of mandatory challengers and modest opposition. How much of that was a lack of desire on the part of Team Canizales or on constraints applied by the IBF, I don't know. But, either way, he wasn't being pushed to fight a higher standard.

On the other hand - and using Tszyu again as the example - after losing the IBF title and coming back to win the WBC strap, he made himself available and was willing to attempt unification and become undisputed. Same goes for Mitchell (WBA) and Judah (IBF) but any of these major sanctioning bodies could have so easily chosen not to enable such a venture, scupper the unification and ultimately Tszyu's path. Fortunately, they collaborated to make it happen.


So, getting back to the WBO, their problem was more one of perception and image - generated by the lack of acceptance and official recognition. This was, in turn, perpetuated by the negative upshot of exclusion making them unattractive to the top flight players who would in the main gravitate towards the major titles.

Not that I have looked at it in any real detail, but this state of affairs at the time might have, conversely, created a pathway for the lower-tier from where an opportunity to compete for a 'World Championship' could now be seen.

 

Kostya did exactly the same. He's long credited that loss as the turning point in his career. He became a "professional athlete" after that.

 

Stop talking Chinese to him!

 

Very interesting. Where did you come across that?

 

He's listed as rehydrating to 157 at basementgymboxing I think