Is Shane Mosley an ATG

You can't compare his lightweight career to those of sweet pea whitaker and roberto duran ... he's not an atg at lightweight ...

willie pep
henry armstrong

are others that had better careers at lightweight ...

 

I'd definitely have him in the top 100. I can't think of 10 lightweights that were better than him, for starters.

 

He didn't fare well at welterweight or super welterweight ... he's 9-3 at WW w/ one championship ... and 3-2 at SWW w/ one championship ... his best notable victory at both weight classes are DLH.

Lightweight he had no notable victories even though he had a great run and was knocking guys out ...

for his accomplishments -- I do say that he's a sure shot H.O.F'r

 

Im not sure. Can you be an ATG without avenging your losses? Has it been done before?

 

If Mosley didnt fare well at WW then DLH hasnt either, so why the case to fight DLH AGAIN for PBf?? Shanes at WW, oscar's 154:hey

Lightweight? He was the MAN! I must correct myself, his KO ratio wasnt 100% but just one fight shy as holliday survived. At the time? The world thought Oscar KING. The only true LW fight out was stevie johnston. They dragged their feet and SSM went after the biggest PRIZE AND WON. He fought DLH just 3 fights after his last LW fight.

Mosley has great skill and proved that. He fought like a Champion should!! SEEKING the toughest challenges. If DLH is in your top 100 ATG? Then SSM has to be AS WELL. :yep

 

I'm a bigger fan than Mosely but as it stands right now he is lower than DLH on that list.

And we all know what a HOFmer is but I don't think we are all in agreement as to what a true ATG is.

Should the list be narrowed to the 100 best of all time, or 200 best, etc.

 

It baffles me how some feel DLH is better:? SSM has too deserve credit for his head to head wins AND fighting the best opp. Especially the challenges DLH didnt face.

 

Yes, but of the challenges DLH DID face, including Mosley, Whitaker, Hopkins, Mayweather, Trinidad, and a slew of other champions, he faced better competition than Mosley. And he has more big wins than Mosley IMO. You can look at who he didn't fight, but you also have to look at who he did fight (and beat)

 

DLH faced and beat better opposition. Mosley fought (and lost) to some guys that the Fishnet didn't face (Wright, Forrest, Cotto). What about DLH's quality opponents who Mosley never faced? Tito, Hopkins, Quartey, Whitaker, etc...

 

Shane is very much an ATG.

 

I look at it like this:

I don't care if Shane is an all time great, but he's always been a very good fighter, very entertaining, with really big balls.

And as far as his wins over Oscar are concerned, I think they are actually way underrated. Sure both were close, but as per usual, Shane won simply by fighting HARDER than Oscar. This is an accomplishment considering Shane is a pretty small dude.

Oh but my main point is, regardless of his status in terms of ATGness, he's definitely an all time FAVORITE of many people in my generation. If you first got into boxing during Shane Mosley's lightweight run, I seriously think its impossible not to be a huge fan of his.

He's such a favorite that even during his losses I never felt bad once. Usually when my favorite fighters lose I just feel terrible and really sorry for them, but when Shane fouht Forrest and Wright both times I still loved the hell out of him.

And also in terms of saying "His losses add to his greatness even though they were of course losses", his fight with Cotto should TOTALLY be included in that conversation. That fight was a coin flip.. personally I think it was a win for Mosley by one round..... but at the very least many people think it should have been a tie. Shane landed the EXACT same number of punches as Cotto, and more of those were power shots than Cotto's (as Cotto did weill with the jab that night). And Shane is definitely faded in terms of his skills, speed, power, etc etc! Cotto on the other hand IS in his prime.

Let me ask a question: Would anyone agree with saying that if Shane had fought Cotto when Shane was where he was at when he first fought Oscar, he would have easily won a decision? I definitely think he would have, and honestly I think he could have possibly stopped Cotto as Cotto has been hurt several times in his career, and Shane IS a puncher but was much faster and more accurate with his punches say, 8 years ago.

Oh and more about punch stats from the Cotto-Mosley fight: Shane's power punches were also landed at a much higher connect rate (50%). To me that implies that in terms of power punches Mosley basically had his way with Cotto. And for the whole fight Shane even THREW over 100 more punches than Cotto. Busier should count for something, right??

I saw the decision in that fight not as the judges judging the fight for any kind of clear winner, but as the judges picking the future big money fighter on his way UP, instead of the fighter on his way down who is old by boxing standards, and has made it very clear that he doens't intend on fighting more than 2 more times (or possibly 3).

It almost reminds me of the Hopkins-Taylor I situation!

I love Cotto too, but fights like that make me hate the ten point must system..