Floyd's ATG Status by Weight Class!

I agree with this and I have DLH in my 80's region.

 

I don't think DLH legacy can be effected anymore by losses. But thats my opinion.

If Hatton wins by KO, he skyrockets. PBF is prime, Hatton is coming up, and PBF has never come close to being KO'd.

 

At 130 he was on his way to being one of the best of all time. At 135, he did well enough, but not great. At 140, he didn't get the real title. Not his fault really, but I am not rating who's fault something is. 147 he got the title, but that Judah win doesn't look so great now and Baldomir just lost again (wasn't a great win, a good one, to begin with). DLH was a good win...but we know that was not prime.

 

DLH fought more big fights. And I only rate what's in the record book. I remove who I think won from the equation. PBF has beaten MAYBE 2 ATG, probably only one and 4 HoF.

And if we are just going by titles, DLH still has more. Trinidad based on what is recorded should be pretty high, but I have DLH over him.

 

And I seriously hold it against him for not opening up on DLH, everytime he did throw a combination here and there, especially to the body, DLH was clueless and buzzed a few times, he should have capitalised and really blown him out of there Calzaghe-Lacy style, but instead he did just enough to win, I find that hard to respect in such a showcase fight for boxing.

 

But you have to take some ridiculous things into the equation, such as Whitaker/Chavez, nobody thought Whitaker did not win. This should be looked upon as a victory.

How about Sven Ottke's career? At least 4 of his title wins were BRUTAL robbery victories, not just "unfair hometown decisions", I mean where Sven barely got 3 rounds and was given a 118-110 type of victory... this can't be counted as legit.

 

WHy don't you answer me then? And don't give me the "Stay on topic" cop out. You're insult posts have NOTHING to ds with the topic now do they. Plain and simple you are chicken**** to answer because you know you'll come off as a total hypocrite from what you said.

 

I had him losing to Pernell and Ike on top of it. I also had the Trinidad bout a draw, I don't understand why people thought it was a DLH shutout.

Add the Sturm bout loss, give him Mosely 2(I thought he edged it) and then the draw or close win victory for him against Trinidad with the losses to Pernell and Ike Quartey and his record is good, but not top 50 material, or even top 75 material for that matter.

 

If I start to do that, then there is nothing to stop DLH fans who truly feel that DLH beat PBF and cried robbery from ranking it as a win. This can be done too often. It's too subjective. And then it becomes maddingly inconsistant.

 

A draw against Chavez does wonders for Whitaker. I take H2H talent into account in a small measure, and that would include my subjectivity on how good they did in fights, meaning I would take my viewpoint, not the judges.

But no, I don't change the record books. Where would I draw the line?

 

But you have to understand KG, I am not just being subjective from an anti-Ottke standpoint, but these fighters whom he barely won 3 rounds against now have black marks on their records of fights that they WON.

There was no way to justify an Ottke victory in those bouts, so the books in that scenerio have to be taken into consideration when he barely gets 3 rounds and then is given a 10-2 victory on paper, that's utter bull****.

Then for those fighters to have on their official records a loss to the guy....

I am not talking about close DLH fights, I am talking about total robberies.

 

Which I understand. But not 2 days ago, a german poster was talking about this and believes Ottke won each and every one of those fights. I don't rank Ottke very high because of his caliber of opposition AND his ability, which I do take into account how he looked in those fights despite what the record books show.

 

Yes they are my rankings, and in my rankings, I use official record books. You think I like counting Jones loss to Griffin?

Where you want to draw the line allows me to be biased whenever I choose. Even if I am justified. I cannot argue that and I deal in logic almost exclusively, except for with women:deal

 

Ottke definitley and I mean no way in hell defeated Reid, Mitchell, G. Johnson or Brewer the first time around...

Then on top of it... he was given "hometown decision" type unfair scorings, and this differs from the the total, all out robberies listed above that should have been revoked and the judges stripped of their licenses, but on...

Brewer 2, Starie & Branco.

So 4 definite losses and 3 could have been losses, let's round it out to about 5 losses and 2 draws, his record is pretty **** then and should be looked upon that way, because it's not fair and this has nothing to do much with subjectivity as these are UNIVERSAL opinions from those who had lived through Sven Ottke.

This is not Taylor's close decision wins on Hopkins and the close draw to Wright, these were all out robberies where Ottke barely got 3 rounds at best, maybe 4 against Mitchell.

 

I decide how far back he gets knocked right? I also decide how far up he moves for a win.

Yes I hear what you're saying. But I value consistancy. It is my way. I hate inconsistancy, so I limit subjectivity.