During their whole careers from start to finish...these boxers have been the most...

Absolutely pathetic list btw. Valero is only starting at world class level. Bradley has only fought a few top ten contenders. Froch has had three world title fights and hardly 'dominated' any of Pascal, Taylor or Dirrell. Hopkins hasn't been dominant throughout his career from start to finish, as five losses demonstrate.

 

tffp: say what u like about froch but judging by your boy kesslers last performance the cobras gunna go to town on him! and nallege the only thing you've forgotten is your suicide pact!

 

'roy jones was dominant at 168 and 175' hahaha he fought about 5 times at 168 against the likes of vinnie pazienza a WW lol who did he beat at 175? tarver ,johnson and a shot mccallum! michalkewski and calzaghe were the boys to beat at those weights!

 

:-verysad:nono

Try referring to boxrec before posting non-sense you dumb**** :rofl

 

varg if i want any **** out of you i will squeeze your head! now go fart pea's at the moon sugar tits whilst i refer to boxrec in order to confirm everything i said.

 

Wouldn't be better to look at their careers after they have retired? Hopkins hasn't exactly been dominate in the LHW division and Floyd has yet to face a decent WW

 

Everybody is interpreting this their own way. The guys I mentioned get the tip of the cap because they have taken chances, often if not always, and been in every fight they've ever contested. That's the only realistic definition of any sort of dominance in a sport like boxing. Otherwise nobody has ever dominated anything.

 

Floyd: Lost to Castillo
Valero: Hasn't fought anyone yet
Abraham: Hasn't fought much good comp yet
Dawson: Lost to Glen Johnson
Vitali: Would have lost to Lewis if fight had continued. Still, very dominant
Bradley: Same as Abraham (though Bradley does look excellent so far)
Hopkins: Agreed. Only Jones has convincingly beaten him in a long career
Froch: Brilliant against Pascal, good against Taylor, dodgy against Dirrell, you can't include him in this list yet
Calderon: Hasn't fought much good comp, doesn't look great


Shite list, shite thread.

 

I would remove Valero, Dawson, Bradley, Abraham, and Froch because they haven't exactly fought enough people to be considered 'the most dominant'

I'll give you Floyd, Vitali, and Hopkins if you're just talking about active fighters in this era. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with Calderon, because i admit i don't know a damn thing about him.

I will not dignify this list by adding names to it, because it's an awful list and your thesis is extremely weak. Allow me to paraphrase you:

During their whole careers--and by whole, I mean WHOLE. Like, not only a part of their career, the whole thing--these guys who box have been the most dominant guys who box during their WHOLE CAREERS. Did I mention I'm talking about their whole careers? Did I remember to say it three times for redundancy's sake? I did? Good.

A better way of saying it would be: I have a list of current boxers who have dominated their respective divisions. I daresay they are the most dominant.

 

If Vitali isn't dominant, who is? He has the highest ratio of won rounds to lost rounds in boxing history. Losses caused by injuries make less of a dent in a fighter's dominance than clear beatings.

 

felix trinidad