If Roy Jones KOs Tito then Beats Winner of......

From 1997-2001, Shane Mosley was a f*cking Legend.

Hill never enjoyed that kind of run.

Mosley then went on to lose to Vernon and Winky.
No shame there as stylistically, welterweight Vernon Forrest gives most welters in history nightmares and Winky is a natural jr middle/middle, Shane is a natural 135-147 guy.

 

It could be argued that he lost to Oscar the 2nd fight. Also he never cleaned up the LW divison he never unifiyed. He jumped 140 all together.

 

It can absolutely be argued that DLH won the rematch.

However, that fight doesn't fall between the timeframes I had given you.

Shane's Legend was already established. Everything else has been gravy.

Thanks for the response.

 

Easy to say that in hindsight, but at the time everyone was picking Tito to win.

If Monzon gets credit for beating Griffith and Napoles, why should Hopkins not get credit for beating Tito and DLH?

 

He should get credit for the Tito win I will give you. But Tito is not an ATG middleweight which is your criteria. He is and ATG WW and LMW. However, that is a good win.

Oscar however, he does not get any credit for because he was a crap crap middleweight. He freaking "lost" to Felix Strum

 

I'd have him top 5 if he beat Trinidad and Calzaghe

 

Im a bit distracted didnt read the timeframe.

It still stands however that he never unified his divison in either of them and the only thing during that period that he did that was significantly better than what Hill did was to beat Oscar.

 

Tito might be the Greatest Jr Middleweight of All Time, and Hopkins dominated him.

 

I said no such thing that to be an ATG, you had to defeat great fighters from the same division.

Again, if Monzon gets credit for beating Napoles and Griffith. And if Marciano gets credit for beating Moore and Charles. Then Hopkins deserves to be credited for his 2 wins.

 

I do not give Marciano that much credit. That however is beside the point.

Tito would be lucky to crack top 50 MW of all time so Hopkins beating him at MW is not as good as say: Jones beating Hopkins at MW or Toney at SMW.

I would also argue that Hill is a better fighter at 175 than Tito ever was at 160.

 

if rjj did pull that off 10 ten for sure

 

Then what the hell is your point? That Hill is an ATG? What elite fighters has he ever beaten?

 

That is my point. The criteria should not be based upon one win against an ATG. Or hell Tarver is an ATG, which clearly he is not.

Hill is an ATG because he had 20 LHW title defences and won world titles in 2 weight class's.

What about Hopkins then? Hopkins may have defeated an ATG's in Tito and Oscar. But Oscar is a **** **** **** MW. Tito was never a great MW. So beating Tito att MW for a fighter is not the same as beating a LMW or WW Tito for example. Howver it is a good win.

 

The criteria ISN'T based upon one win against an ATG. It's based on being the best among all the fighters in boxing for an extended period of time, and in order to prove that you're one of the best fighters you have to fight the best.

Just because he won two ABC belts in 2 divisions while defending it against stiffs doesn't mean he's an all-time great.

Hopkins deserves his credit because Tito and Oscar were both excellent fighters at 154 (see Griffith, Emile and Napoles, Jose).

 

Yeah but 154 was as far as Oscar could go, he is a crap MW. As I said Tito is a good win.

Mosley beat the best during his LW reign? Despite the fact he never unified?