Seconded. Graham lost to Kalambay twice and McCallum - all three losses were close/controversial. Jackson was getting his ass handed to him big time - it was like Mayweather vs Gatti until Graham got arrogant and KO'd. He lost to Frank Grant in a British title fight, again sticking his chin in the air. He was beating Charles Brewer, at supermiddle in 1998 (aged 39) and was winning easily before getting KO'd again. But for his chin, he would have been top 15 at 160 without question.
Exactly. This chump has clearly never seen him fight to even suggest he isn't as good as Robin ****ing Reid or Richie Woodhall!! atsch
you have a poor understanding of sucess, you need to win your big fights to be considered a great fighter losing when it comes to the crunch doesn't do this. Obviously just becuase a fighter wins fights and wins titles it doesn't make him the best around but if a fighter never wins a title how do you know he has the mental strength to do that.
That must make it right then atsch Let me ask you, who would win in a 12-rounder between Ricardo Lopez and Lennox Lewis? How do you see that one going?
Monzon's MW reign was STACKED. And by the way, Hopkins has a weaker resume than Jones come to think of it.
He was still a very good one, despite his chin. People were hardly forming a line to take him on. Those that did either had to for the money or were in danger of losing a title.
he is a great figher who i classed above the other guys mnetioned but that other guy is to stupid to read properly. However is a guy who fights great but loses his big fights better than a solid guy who wins the fights for the title.
I disagree with the first statement...Napoles is arguably the only legit name in his resume I somewhat agree with the 2nd..its close..Bernards coming on strong lately..evaluate in two years
So what you're saying is that the number of titles won is not the only way to decide between fighters after all?? If you check your earlier comment on Reid-Graham you will see that this was your sole reason for thinking it was Reid. If you are now considering other factors, how about these: talent, skill, ability? By your dire logic, a guy who challenges a dire champion for a WBO belt and gets a gift of a decision is then a greater fighter than a guy who gets robbed in world title challenges but is a top quality boxer? Don't you see how crap the logic you are employing is?? Of course you don't, you think Robin Reid is a better fighter than Herol Graham, and that Joe Calzaghe's resume is better than Mike McCallum's, and when asked who the best fighter is between a heavyweight and a welterweight, you will sit down and imagine either a heavyweight shrunk to 147lbs or a welterweight stretched up to 17st.
You are looking at entire careers/resumes in a very reductive way. Monzon's resume was far better than Jones's.
It depends on who he fights. For instance, is Ottke better than De La Hoya? DLH lost his five biggest fights (whether he ACTUALLY lost them is open to debate), whereas Ottke went undefeated and made 20 defences. There is only one winner, either P4P, or H2H for that matter IMO. For instance, Britain has had a lot of phoney champions, of the WBO (Warren Boxing Organisation) variety - but could you really say that the likes of....... Herbie Hide Enzo Maccarinelli Nicky Cook Alex Arthur and others, are better than....... Herol Graham Henry Cooper Joe Bugner Michael Watson Because I can't.