Hill vs Maske - did it really begin a new lineage?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, May 17, 2011.


Page 1 of 2
  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'd always assumed this was the case and that consequently the lhw championship had taken into obscurity by DM.

    However considering that in 1996 - before hill and maske actually fought - Jones had had 2 fights at lightheavyweight (vs top 5 ranked opposition in Sosa and McCallum) and was the current P4P number 1 whilst campaigning at the weight, surely there must be a valid dispute to the claims of hill/maske being for the new championship?

    By my reckoning the actual clear lineage at LHW, since Spinks vacated, doesn't begin until Jones fought Tarver in 2003.

    The way I see it Hill/Maske can not be considered 1/2 when Jones was the P4P number 1 and had beaten 2 top 5 opponents at the weight prior to their fight.

    Thoughts?
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #1
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,146
    Oct 22, 2006
    I got so bad I heard Larry had to chop off and hollow out a false leg to make weight in title defences, before vacating...:good

    Seriously, Jones was not interested for what ever reason in fighting Maske (a fight, I am sure he would of won, be it in the USA, Germany or Timbuktu), Hill was willing to go to Germany, and was a top fighter in the division, so I think the general consensus was Maske was going to be our new Light Heavyweight champ; and then Quicksilver put in a career best performance...
     
    TBooze, May 17, 2011
    TBooze, May 17, 2011
    #2
  3. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Yes it was. They were number one and two when they fought. That´s all there is to it.
     
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    #3
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    :patsch meant spinks lmao

    i'm not denying they were top fighters. I'm questioning whether Jones had overtaken atleast 1 of them when he entered the division and beat 2 top 5 opponents whilst being #1 p4p. surely that is enough of a dispute to prevent a clear claim being made by Hill/Maske
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #4
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    i'm not convinced they were.
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #5
  6. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    535
    Feb 17, 2010
    P4P number one means nothing here.Discard it from any consideration.
     
    lora, May 17, 2011
    lora, May 17, 2011
    #6
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    So, it´s you who defines lineage then?

    Both Hill and Maske did more than Jones beforel. Yeah, Jones was p4p no1. So? Does this mean he automatically get´s a higher ranking? Nope. He probably was Top5, no argument from me. When you beat two Top5 opponents you should be ranked there. But neither Sosa nor 40-year old McCallum are the ones you get you a Top2 ranking. Sorry. Not when two relativly long-time champs are around who beat numerous contenders. Btw. according to Ring Magazine McCallum wasn´t Top5: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Light_Heavyweight--1990s
    and the McCallum fight happened one day before Hill-Maske. You think that makes a difference?


    The guys over there seem to see it similar:
    http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/lheavy.htm
     
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    #7
  8. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,146
    Oct 22, 2006
    The night before Hill and Maske fought; Jones met McCallum. Thus, I think it has to be given in good faith the two best 175ers (at the time of their fight contract being signed), were meeting, in Hill and Maske.

    Jones had fought arguably once at 175 at the time, and although he made an excellent start and clearly made a strong case for possibly being the best fighter in the division, he moved up too late to stop the winner of Hill/Maske being declared champ.
     
    TBooze, May 17, 2011
    TBooze, May 17, 2011
    #8
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    well he had beaten sosa who clearly drops out of the top 5 at that point.

    and of course it makes a difference! hill and maske were not the top 2 fighters when you consider there was an unbeaten p4p number 1 coming off 2 top class victories.

    had the fight been made just a few weeks later (Hill - Maske) I'm sure the current rankings would back me up here.

    the guys at CBZ also had Mosley as a lineal champ :patsch

    history shows a new champ occurs when 1 fights 2.
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #9
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    completely agree, but things changed when Jones made his move permanent and beat McCallum.

    I now understand why the Ring didn't award the title.
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #10
  11. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    So, if Jones-McCallum would have happened at the same day it would make a difference? Sorry but rankings are not updatet every day. Never were, never will. At the time they fought Hill and Maske were two and one.
     
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    #11
  12. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,146
    Oct 22, 2006
    I do not think The Ring award belts then. The only person (other than fighter of the year) I knew who gained a Ring belt at the time was Whitaker.

    When Farhood, pissed that Whitaker did not have his WBC belt for a photo shoot (despite being a champ for the organization on and off for six years at the time, Suleiman and co still had not given Whitaker a belt), gave him a Ring belt proclaiming him pound for pound King, to wear for the Vazquez fight in 95.
     
    TBooze, May 17, 2011
    TBooze, May 17, 2011
    #12
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    If Hopkins beats Pascal saturday night will he not become the number 1 until 3 weeks after?
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #13
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,182
    20,845
    Sep 15, 2009
    i think there is a very fair dispute considering the circumstances
     
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    lufcrazy, May 17, 2011
    #14
  15. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Hopkins is already number one. :tong

    The only dispuite comes from Jones fanatics who can´t accept the facts.

    The ring didn´t give out belts in the 1990s, started it again in 2002. Goal was to clean up the mess multiple belt organisations brought onto boxing. They invented a policy how to award their belts. This started in 2002. Thus is not relevant here.
     
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    bodhi, May 17, 2011
    #15
Page 1 of 2