Marquez at #1 P4P is debatable but there is no reason for him to be behind Calzaghe!

Im a Brit but would very obviously vote for JMM as no.2.

Lacy was a better win than Juarez, though IMO both are equally B level fighters. Past it MAB was a better win than solid Kessler, MAB was still champ and p4p rated. SD over BHop very slightly better win than TKO over Casamayor. Controversial SD loss to Pac leaps JMM over Joe.

 

tffp loves kessler but hates on pac - fail

 

Perfect post. I've been saying the same thing for weeks.

:happy :happy :happy

 

Your arguments are within reason I believe. However, I think you fail to factor in what it takes to remain champion for as long as Joe has too. The longevity is impressive and something that is a main factor in guys like Hopkins' and Calzaghe's carreers.

 

fixed for tffp:good

 

Longetivity IMO only counts if you been facing top fighters all through it. If you're an A level fighter, id expect you to pretty much beat any B-C level fighters out there and be 50/50 with A level fighters.

Beating 20 B level fighters is a given..afterall you're suppose to be better than them. All it is saying is that you're above a B level fighter which in Joe's case, nobody disagrees with anyways.. Now if you consistently beat A level fighters and refuse to loose for a long time, thats saying something, thats saying your a notch above A level fighters. You're great.

Outside Eubank, I think Joe has fought pretty much B-C level fighters at best all through his career until recently. He never really challlenged himself, just stayed in his comfort zone.

Look at other names, you will see that many times in their career some of their big fights the outcome was simply out there. You didnt know who was gonna win, sometimes their even the underdog. Outside Eubank, we knew Joe was gonna win every single fight he took up until Lacy.

 

i was surprised he doesn't have guzman at number 1. what a douchebag :yep

 

Clearly top 2 and very close to Pacquiao for number 1.

 

I agree he should only be at #2 not 1. A victory with casa doe'snt give him much credit. Casa is old and shot.

 

Thanks man :nut

Now why the hell would I have Guzman at 5? :yep

 

i have Pac a clear #1 with JMM at #2 and Calzaghe close behind JMM.

Pac

JMM
Calzaghe

 

Well... yes... and no.

I see what you are saying.

However, if either Joe wa 10% weaker then Joe would have gone perhap 1-2 with Eubanks and 1-1 with Kessler (whch would have improved both Calzaghe and Kesslers statuses). Or if Barrera for example was 10% better than he really is and was, then he would have beaten Pacman and Marquez relatively easily and they would be considered lesser fighters now.

But would that really be fair?

It is difficult to really be dominant and is it then really fair to make it so much harder to get some credit if you beat everyone else? It seems people have a tendency to prefer the ones that are not 10% better, but 0.1% better so that there can be some rematches and people can live it up. Sure I can see why... if people have close fights they can both be painted to be really good and then the rematch can be hyped to be even better etc. If a fighter is too good and too dominant then basically he kills his own legacy because he exposes his opponents (if nothing else then by not losing to them) and then people can downgrade them.

Would Pacman (the exact same Pacman that Barrera fought) have been so much of a lesser win for Barrera, if Barrera was 10% better - and thus undefeated and easily beat up Pacman?

- Well many would consider it a lesser win... I am not sure that is a reasonable way to look at things. That way of looking at things could mean that even if Barrera was improved 10% his legacy would lessen and if Calzaghe was decreased by x % his legacy would go up, because we could have these mutually lagacy building fights. Suddenly Kessler would be all that (like Marquez became after the Pac fight) and then they would have some close fights further building legacy etc.

I think its mostly psychology and it is not necessarily steering us towards the objectively better fighters.

 

The debate rises when names such as Chris John come to mind... Just compare with the unfairness to rate JMM above Calzaghe considering the undefeated John - at most, Calzaghe is not getting the same media coverage Marquez is - Calzaghe outfought Hopkins ( about to do the same to Roy) the same way Marquez beat Barrera or Casa, not to mention that Calzaghe beat undefeated Kessler and Lacy for title fights, has been fighting for World titles for a long, long time and has no stone in his shoe like Marquez has with the Johns and the Pacs of this world. To rate Marquez right behind and below Pac just because the latter didn't prove emphatically that he beat the former is too narrow minded.

 

He's number 2 and Slappy is third.

 

I guess one can make a case for Marquez being #2.

Calzaghe has

W Hopkins [very close some say controversial]
W Jeff Lacy [undefeated]
W Kessler [undefeated]

while JMM has
W Casamayor [never KO'd; extremely difficult style]
L Pacquiao [very close some say controversial]
D Pacquiao [very close some say controversial]
W Barrera [very close some say controversial]
L John [hometown decision]

Good point TheHitman I can see what you're getting at.