One thing that Pacquiao has over Mayweather when it comes to ATG standing...

The alternative is just your opinion. I can only give my opinion. But I have the comfort of knowing that the majority of informed people would agree with my opinion that Trinidad was Hopkins's best performance, and that Oscar 1 was Shane's best. Therefore, it is of course more likely that my opinion is correct and yours is incorrect, as far as such things can be determined in boxing.

I have Bernard Hopkins's career set and have seen every single one of his world title fights, and a good few of his pre-world title fights. Never did he look more complete than around the turn of the century, culminating in the Tito win. Around '97, he may have been more explosive, more aggressive, and more exciting, but he was not better.

Our difference seems to be that you isolate a fighter's prime to a single fight, whereas I view it as a period of time and a sequence of fights. Once again though, I am bolstered by the fact that the vast majority would concur with me over you I believe. Marquez may not have looked as good in the second Pac fight as he did against Peden in '02 (I think he did, but that's JMO), but you can pick out any single fight of a fighter's career and say he looked better in another single fight. Ultimately, Marquez was still on an upward trajectory as a fighter when he met Pac in '08, and after this he received the greatest p4p recognition of his career when he was moved above Joe Calzaghe. That undoubtedly suggests he was still prime, even if you nitpick and say he was not absolute peak.

 

You think that any of these things is anywhere near as likely as Miguel Cotto reaching the HOF??? atsch

You're embarrassing yourself here.

Cotto is a 2-weight world champion going for a 3rd weight title. I said in a post to another guy on this thread that I don't think Cotto will make the HOF, but to write it off completely doesn't make sense. It is eminently possible, while he is still active, that he could build on his achievements and do enough.

 

Yawn. Not even a good insult, a rather lame and boring one, which is usually an admission of defeat on here. I'll move on to your next point.

After the Tito fight, Hopkins said to Larry Merchant in his interview something like "People don't know me for defence, but I've proved I can defend". You see, Hopkins was a more aggressive and explosive fighter in the mid 90s, but he wasn't better. He matured with age, learned his trade, became a far more cerebral and skilled fighter. Hopkins of the mid 90s did not have the same developed, sophisticated defence that he had by 2000. He looked explosive blowing away guys like Joe Lipsey and Steve Frank sure, but if you look at the 2nd Echols fight, the Holmes fight, the Trinidad fight, what Hopkins had lost in punching venom he had more than made up for in ring IQ, defence, and all-round skills and quality.

Bernard Hopkins was prime in his mid 30s, Marquez was prime around his mid 30s too.

I think you confuse physical peak, with boxing prime. Many fighters get better with age. I'd argue that Joe Calzaghe was better at the age of 34-35 when he was beating Jeff Lacy and Mikkel Kessler than he was at his physical prime when he was going life and death with Robin Reid. Calzaghe was a far smarter and more complete fighter in his early-mid 30s IMO.

Marquez turned in a brilliant performance vs Pac second time out, had been on a solid winning run for 2 years, had shot up the p4p rankings, and then was elevated further afterwards when he became the 1st man to stop a very tricky, tough and seasoned opponent at a weight not exactly his natural.


Reg, you were reaching when you came out with the rather stupid comment about Oscar in 2007 being prime if Marquez was in 2008, and you have been reaching ever since. But even if you refuse to acknowledge Marquez in spite of the argument which has continually beaten you, you have already acknowledged Barrera, so you have already concurred with the wider point of this thread anyway! :good