Oscar Dela Hoya live on Sky Sports News at 16:30

:rofl

 

That was funny

 

:happy:happy:happy:happy:happy:happy

 

:hat

 

:good

 

I disagree.

****ing hell, Dan where do I come into this? I think Oscar is a great fighter but he has his limits, he aint up there with the Arguellos or the Barney Ross's and he aint even up there with the Wilfredo Gomez's and Carlos Zarate's but he is definitly an all time great.

Also I like to think I'm oretty fair when it comes to a fighter, but when you look at the record of a fighter like Alexis Arguello say compared to Floyd Mayweather, look at what more Arguello achieved and the names he beat.

I sure as hell dont see no Ruben Olivares's or even any Alfredo Escalara on Mayweathers record, and also look at the manner in which Arguello was dominant against top contenders, whereas Floyd has destroyed some top contenders but looking at film I think in his best challenges he wasnt quite as dominant as other greats.

Fair enough, but lets compare Roy Jones Jr and Bob Fitzsimmons, both won titles from Middleweight to Heavyweight and are comparable in strength of era's IMO

Fitzsimmons beat THE best fighter who had ever lived fro his Middleweight crown in Jack Dempsey, IMO this is comparable to the Hopkins win.

Then Fitzsimmons beat Corbett for the Heavyweight title, despite me not thinking too much of Corbett it still is a better achievement than beating possibly the 4th best Heavyweight of the time, Fitz beat the man.

At Light Heavyweight way past his prime again Fitz beat THE man, Jones didnt fight THE man because there wasnt one and he didnt make any attempt to become top dog.

Fitzsimmons better dominance in weights is what sets him apart IMO but both guys are comparable in achievements.

And as for favouring modern fighters, I think Manny Pacquiao is one of the greatest fighters to have lived, and what he has achieved is comparable to Armstrong and dare I say it almost as as impressive.

 

Marvellous Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Robinson are the greatest middleweights that have ever lived :nono,

but I do agree with you that Fitzsimmons achievements are greater because of the fact he won 3 undisputed titles, so we agree on that part :good

 

You missed out Monzon.

Also I meant to say that Dempsey was the best fighter who had ever lived up until that point in history in my opinion. Just isnt completly clear that is waht I mean

 

there all valid points, I kinda of thought you meant up to that point in history aswell.

so whats your top 3 middleweights of all time, based more on Hd 2 Hd than anything else.

 

I'm not too big on rankings but I would have it

Monzon
Hagler
Robinson

 

I was hoping for some e-mails

 

I think Mayweather is the best super feather in the history of the division, including the likes of Arguello and whoever else you care to mention.

People just have issues with his personality and let that cloud their judgement of him.

It's hard to compare fighters like Jones and Fitzsimmons because their careers are 100 years apart - one of them has been in the public eye throughout and the other most probably has an incomplete record, with opponents with incomplete records.

That said, it's not so much that that gets on my nerves. It's the ''[insert modern fighter] isn't proven over 15 rounds'' or ''wouldn't have been as successful with same day weigh ins in an eight division system''...... when there is absolutely no proof one way or the other whether or not it would be the case.

Boxing, like all sports, changes. There is no reason why you couldn't stand the thing on it's head and say that a fighter from a previous era wouldn't cope with previous day weigh ins and 12 round fights.

In fairness, your boxing knowledge is superior to mine, it may be just my ignorance.... but I'm not particularly inclined to research flyweights from the early 1900's

 

And here we go again. Greg and his strange obsession with Fitzsimmons FFS

every thread that gets made about ancient fighters Greg can't pound Fitzsimmons into the keys quick enough.

SRR is widely regarded as the best fighter EVER so how does he get overshadowed by Fitzsimmons in his own weight category ??


CLASSIC >>> Off you go :good

 

That fair enough saying Mayweather is the best 130lber. I think he was quality, not sure he beats Arguello (as it is a great stylistic match up for Floyd) and Arguello did achieve alot more at the weight IMO. I really admrie Floyd and rate him higher than most so you cant call me a Floyd hater.

It is hard to compare them in terms of era as things change but the rudimentry stuff is there. Fitz took more risks and therefore gained bigger rewards IMO

That 15 round stuff, it is partially true and I do tend to give most guys the benfit of the doubt and presume they could keep a good pace for 15 rounds. And I'm not too fussed about the classical divisions.

You know about boxing yourself in terms of up to date stuff and even just watching fights and picking stuff up. Just I research stuff like you say Flyweights from the 1900s. Just stuff I enjoy but others weould find boring.

 

I just used Fitzsimmons as an example as Roy Jones Jr is one of the best boxers of the era and I used someone that was similar to compare them. Fitzsimmons was an awesome fighter but I know his limits, he aint the best ever but what he achieved is worthy of mention.

Robinson is better than Fitzsimmons, there is no doubt in it. I dont think Fitz overshadows him. Im a massive admirer of Robinson and would ick him to beat Fitz.


On the classic you get derided for rating a modern fighter here you get derided for rating an old timer.