Kostya Tszyu HOF????

:happy:happy:happy

I fundamentally disagree with you here, but that's a pretty funny post.

 

I haven't done anything but point out Judah was in his prime, because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who knows anything about these guys that Johnson and Vasquez were done by the time Hamed feasted on them, whereas Judah had a lot of ability and was undefeated. There's no point in going to any great lengths to refute an argument like yours, when we are on the Classic Forum and I know the average poster on here already knows fine well that you're talking **** and that Tszyu-Judah was very obviously a much, much better win than Hamed-Johnson or Hamed-Vasquez.

Maybe if we were on the General, I'd expend a little more effort, but on here there's really no need. :good

 

:happy:happy:happy

That Siberian sledgehammer of doom which snaps ribs like ****ing breadsticks will never, never fail to send surges of panic around my abdomen. :admin

 

As an aside, vasquez was the current lineal champ when hamed beat him.

I honestly can't believe there is any argument against zoo making it. He is certainly top ten all time lightwelter and, truth be told, has a pretty good argument as number 1. He unified, established linearity, cleaned house and so on and so forth.

A guy leaving that legacy has to enter the hall and it's preposterous to say otherwise. On that same note, I hope you all realise that joe c will be there in 3 years time!

 

Carlos Baldomir was the lineal ww champ when Mayweather beat him. Is that win as good as Tszyu-Judah as well? Vazquez sank without trace after the Hamed fight, Vazquez was targeted because he was a name who was well-declined from his peak.

 

nono

I never said it was as good as tzyu - judah.

I'm saying for a career featherweight, it'd be foolish not to fight a unification against "the man".

 

It would be equally foolish to rate it as a great win, which it wasn't. And Tszyu-Judah was much better.

 

These days you have to account for the fact that boxing politics won't allow for all the best boxers to fight each other. It's a pity Tyszu never got a super fight, Delahoya, Mosley, Forrest all past him by and by the time he had the name recognition to try and fight 1 of them he was 35 and about to be taken by Hatton. He dominated Forrest in the amateurs though and it isn't quite the totally unrelated sport many make it out to be

Just because a fighter, in the old days, a boxer would fight everyone, in his prime he'd get the full chance to expose his talents against fighters who weren't in their prime. But in about 50 fights against fellow greats, winning 5 isn't that good. Compare it to football if West Ham beat Manchester United and draw with Arsenal but finnish with30 points in a season, are they a great time? Obviously not, in boxing around here people shout about the wins someone has and discount the losses saying 'well if they fight that many they are bound to have losses' - well aren't they also going to have more great wins if they 'fight that many times and that many greats'

Another thing is people are forgetting how good Judah looked coming into the Tyszu fight (either that or they weren't around). His speed, power, ellusiveness, jab and he had a hell of a workrate at 140lbs too. Tyszu's right hand completely took his confidence away, he would have turned over many top 140lbers in history that night. Let's take into account this Judah outboxed Whitaker in sparring

Hurtado was a couple of rounds away from beating the great Whitaker and he was a great amateur - he got destroyed. But I'm not sure how much the Whitaker stoppage took from him. If you haven't seen the end of Whitaker-Hurtado, go and look it up

Mitchell had great movement and speed at his best, a nightmare to pin down. Ruelas/Gonzalez top LW titlist, Leija/Ukral were solid contenders. Chavez was past it but he was good enough to draw with Gonzalez a while before that. Mayweather was tricky, Pineda and Bergman top prospect

Obviously the fights that would have taken him over the edge would be DLH, Mosley, Forrest, FMJ or even Castillo or Stevie J

He was in 1 truly great fight against Phillips, Phillips is seen as a bum but I think he was great for that 1 night, a bit like Buster Douglas. Then he sadly went back to smoking crack but his right hand was great, shook up Hatton with it after flying to Manchester 24hours before the fight at the age of 39

Really it wasn't who he fought, but how he looked against them and he often looked devastating

Do people disagree wit think Cuevas, McGuigan, Johansson, should be in? What about guys who weren't really top5 in their era like Levinski, Miske, Maxim, Graziano??

 

Or perhaps you simply lack enough confidence in your own argument.I mean,why actually back up your own argument when you can merely repeat the same thing over and over in some vain hope that others may take may take your repetitive,tedious attempts as you actually being truly convinced by your posts.




Both Johnson and Vazquez were top ranked Featherweights at the time Hamed fought them - that is a solid fact.To minimize and diminish Hamed's victories by claiming that he was somehow "cherry-picking"(a claim you've now back off of,I see) is pure revisionist bull****.These were not unranked fighters that no longer had any relevancy to the sport like Laporte,Chavez,Mayweather and Bramble.These were boxers that were still competing at a world class level and recognized world champions.




Judah was at the same level that both Johnson and Vazquez were - B level.He was never,at any point,any higher than that.Not when he was stinking out the joint and looking like utter **** against the likes of Hector Quiroz and Junior Witter,or when he was getting outhustled and barely getting past a near 40 year old man that was as slow as a slug.

 

nono

Are you even reading what I write? Where did I say it was a great win? Where did I say it was comparable to zoo-judah?

What I did do was make a side point. I thought it noteworthy since noone had noted it.

I don't believe i've even disagreed with anything you've said but i'm sure you'll find something to disagree with again.

Tho just to clarify, I do not class vasquez as a great victory, I do not class it as greater than the judah victory. I class it as a win over a lineal champ and one that, considering the era, had to happen.

 

Beating an unbeaten champion at his best, looking great, is impressive. Period.

Everybody else failed to give the guy the first L. Tsyzu did, and that deserves kudos. People talk a lot about what a guy does after that loss, but its not fair to remove it from his conquerors ledger if he didn't go on to greatness. He still beat him first, and that deserves props. 80% of the boxing world at least was drinking the Judah kool-aid. He was looking like a million dollars.

 

Joe Papa and Teddy Atlas were kind of questioning Tzsyu's induction last night on Friday Night Fights on ESPN. They were both saying he did have a long career with several good wins, was an exciting fighter that the fans loved, BUT, was it a good enough resume to warrant induction???

I liked Tzsyu's fights and looked forward to watching him every chance I got. He brought mental and physical toughness to the ring every time he entered it. He wasn't as fluid as many fighters of the time and fought in a somewhat "European" stiff style, but it was effective for him.

I can see where he's HOF material with his two title runs, especially unifying the titles on his second run at champion. I can see him as a HOF candidate. After all, it is not the ATG/HOF he's entering.

 

Then we agree. Tszyu-Judah was better, and Vasquez holding a title did not mean he was not there for the taking and greatly diminished from his prime.

 

Tszyu-Judah was a much better win than Hamed-Vazquez or Hamed-Johnson because Judah was at his peak, and Vazquez and Johnson had seen their peaks go by years and years earlier. Judah was undefeated and one of the most highly rated fighters in the world, whereas Vazquez and Johnson were in decline and there for the taking.

You may think that in order to be convincing you need to ramble on for hours, citing boxrec stats etc, but in this case it's not merited. People who know boxing in the 80s/90s/00s know that the above paragraph is true, and that Tszyu-Judah was a much better win. Honestly man, I don't even need to go any further. It's not even a debate really, it's you looking a bit dim, and me looking a bit bored, and has been for some time now. :good

 

As a Hamed fan, I'd concede the Judah win is better than any of Hamed's but would argue as a whole Hamed. I'd also concede there was an element of smart management, aka cherry picking, pick the top guys who are past their best - lots of fighters do that - including Pacquaio, including Morales both curtesy of Bob Arum, in this case it was ****** doing the match making. HE still fought all the belt holders, most the top rated contenders. McColough, Sanchez, Ingle, Medina, Soto, Robinson were all prime and McColough was a Bantam champ and ripped off in his other title shot. Bungu was a 7year SBW champ, albeit at the end but arguably more accomplished than MAB/Morales at 122. Vasquez the 3weight champ and WBA champ, Kelly top3 and ex-champ, Johnson a long reigning IBF champion. Yes they were past their best but they were still threats and still good. And what happened all were pretty much dominated and steam rolled.

And interesting point, before the fight Hamed maintained Barrera wouldn't be the best opponent he'd faced. Obviously he was wrong but make of that what you will. Prior to that fight on his website he said he wanted Mayweather, Morales, Barrera and Marquez, predicting knock out wins over the lot of them