***The Top 50 Wins Of The Decade, 2000-2009***

It may have been the biggest win of the decade, but it certainly wasn't the best, and I was more concerned with the quality of the wins rather than the high-profile significance of them. Hopkins-Oscar was a far, far 'bigger' win than Donaire-Darchinyan... but it certainly wasn't a better one.

 

Good job I was grading him at lightweight then, isn't it? :think

Why are you mentioning Johnston's height?? :huh Does that make it a lesser achievement?

I suppose Hearns's win over Duran, Holyfield's first win over Qawi, and Buster Douglas's win over Tyson were all not worth much either then.

And Castillo's win over Johnston was named The Ring's Upset Of The Year - you can't argue with that!!

I am one of those many. Therefore, I can't understand what your problem is with me rating Castillo an 'A' for the lightweight rematch with Floyd.

Up until that point, Floyd had dominated Diego Corrales, Genaro Hernandez, Angel Manfredy, Carlos Hernandez, Jesus Chavez... then Castillo beat him.

Since that fight, Floyd has beaten Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Ricky Hatton, Zab Judah... and still Castillo is the only man to have beaten him.

On that basis, Castillo must be an 'A'. You can't say the guy who effectively took Mayweather's zero is any less than an 'A' coming off that fight, or you're basically saying that Mayweather isn't an 'A' calibre fighter and that beating him is not an 'A' class accomplishment.

See above.

Castillo at that time at that weight was an 'A', no doubt about it.

 

This is nit-picking, isn't it really? Cool, stick a "+" on there if you want, no sweat :good

 

Don't care. Post-Ruiz Jones was not the same fighter anymore, not in the 1st Tarver fight, not in the 2nd, and not in any of the following fights either.

The point of the quality rating of the opponent is to say how good and how tough and how difficult the man was at that time. That version of Jones was a ghost of his former self, he was there for the taking, any top 10 fighter at that weight could've managed it, and Tarver took him all too easily. No chance would I change that rating in a million years.

 

I'm going to rewatch the entire Casamayor-Corrales trilogy this week then come back to you. I feel confident in my decisions, but I haven't seen those fights for quite some time, was relying on my notes on them from a while back, so I will rewatch and reassess.

Ever consider that's why it didn't make the top 50??? :huh

Talk about pedantic and hypercritical...

 

Cheers dude :good

 

OK, just finished rewatching the trilogy last night.

Basically, I'm comfortable with not including any of the three in my top 50.

The 1st fight was stopped on a cut, thereby ruling it out by my own personal criteria. Basically, Casamayor was winning the fight, he was up on the cards and he had done the best work up to that point no question of that, but as I see it that fight was very much alive when it was stopped. Casa was ahead for sure, but Corrales had dropped him and wobbled him, the fight was by no means a foregone conclusion at the time when the doctor intervened.

The 2nd fight, I can see how someone would score that a win for Corrales or a draw, but I don't think El Cepillo did enough to merit the victory. Casa did some nice boxing throughout, but all in all he started too slowly, didn't give enough, and didn't take enough chances. He only has himself to blame for losing a points decision to Diego Corrales. Overall, not a great fight, neither man produced a stellar performance, not a dominant win by any means, basically not a suitable choice for the Top 50 list in any way.

The 3rd fight, I scored for Casamayor. He did some neat boxing again, and did land some good combinations, plus the scores would have been wider if the ref hadn't given that false knockdown, but again I felt it was a pretty drab fight. Corrales didn't look himself, wasn't very aggressive, wasn't very active until the later stages, and Casa did what he needed to do but nothing over and above that. A very good win sure, but nothing special here IMO.

Sorry, no changes.

 

This is actually an older, shorter list than my Top 50 of 1990-1999, which is on page 2 now. That one is better than this.