Miguel Cotto's record

First topic message reminder :

I can't think of another fighter from the modern era who has beaten so many fighters who have come back to win a world championship.

Zab Judah reclaiming the IBF championship last night got me thinking.

Cotto's resume reads:

Torres: undefeated, came back to win a championship
Malignaggi: undefeated, came back to win a championship
Maussa: undefeated, came back to win a championship
Bailey: came back to win a championship
Quintana: undefeated, came back to win a championship
Judah: came back to win a championship
Mosley: became THE welterweight champion after Cotto loss
N'dou: came back to win a championship
Clottey: likely to win a championship again
Foreman: undefeated, likely to win a championship again
Not to forget he beat former champions like Cesar Bazan & Corley.

Now you could argue that it's easy to win a championship these days but let's compare with say Calzaghe's record:

Eubank: was coming back from defeats and then lost 2 fights after losing to Calzaghe and retired
Reid: was coming back from a loss and then achieved nothing after the defeat
Woodhall: was coming back from a loss and then achieved nothing after the defeat
Brewer: was coming back from a loss and then achieved nothing after the defeat
Mitchell: was coming back from a loss and then achieved nothing after the defeat
Lacy: accomplished nothing after the defeat
Kessler is the only exception who beat Frochy.

Does this put Cotto's record into perspective?

imperialghosty wrote:Hopkins was the Linear champion before losing it to Calzaghe

I didn't realise that. SO who did Bhop beat? Sorry about the questions.

Hopkins beat Antonio Tarver who I believe won it by beating Jones Jr

De La Hoya should never have fought at Middleweight. The Sturm fight was the only time in his career he looked out of shape.

he was never really as effective at light middleweight as he was as a Welter; where he was a match for anybody. But at Middleweight, he was undersized; plus his assets of hand speed and power were diminished by the time he moved up to the weight, as was over 30 and past his best.

samevans1 wrote:De La Hoya should never have fought at Middleweight. The Sturm fight was the only time in his career he looked out of shape.

I completely agree.

Oscar looked grotesque in the Sturm fight, sporting a waistline of which Arreola would be proud. He certainly didn't look like a bona fide middleweight, and apart from the early snap in his left hooks, ( which receded as the fight wore on, ) he didn't punch like one, either.

He never was one. He should probably have stayed at light-middleweight and attempted to unify the titles; which I would have backed him to do at the time.

But I still the best of Oscar was before 2000/2001. After this time, he was on a steady decline due to both inactivity and other factors.

Calzaghe ''beat'' Hopkins on a SD in what was a very close fight. If you're looking for high workrate and punches in bunches then Calzaghe wins the majority of rounds. Las Vegas judges are well known to like aggressive fighters. But professional boxing is scored through (1) clean punching, (2) effective aggression, (3) defence and (4) ring generalship. Based on those factors, I'd say there's a strong argument that Hopkins won the fight when you consider Calzaghe was also down in the 1st round. Couple that with the fact that Hopkins was 43-years-old and it's not all that impressive.

The Mosley beat Cotto beat in 2007 was better than Hopkins at 43-years-old. Mosley became the welterweight champion after destroying Margarito. Hopkins hasn't achieved anything close to what Mosley did. He beat an unproven middleweight champion at light-heavy and then drew with Hopkins.

I would say that Hopkins has proven himself more since the Calzaghe fight than Mosley has since the Cotto fight. You call Pavlik unproven when he wasn't, he'd proved at the time to be the best Middleweight in the world and was very big at the weight, think he outweighed Hopkins on the night so makes that point null.

End of the day Calzaghe deservedly beat Hopkins and you seem to pay a lot of attention to what HBO think, in their opinion it was a clear victory for Calzaghe 116-111

Don't get me wrong, it was a good win for Hopkins. But regardless of Pavlik's size, he had to move up 2 weight classes. Like I said, Pavlik had 2 wins over Taylor and nothing else. And Taylor isn't a defining win. Fair enough, had Pavlik continued after his loss to Hopkins to achieve something of note then that would be different. But he didn't. He was beat up by Martinez.

I agree with HBO on some of their commentary. Note: some. Listen to Lampley and Max Kellerman during the fight and it's the complete opposite to how Harold L saw it.

I guess the bank balance is the most important factor for many fighters. After all, that's why it's called prizefighting. Cotto's done great from a business perspective. He's sold more tickets at The Garden in NY than any other fighter in history. And he was guaranteed $12m against Pacquiao + PPV - considering Pac-Cotto did 1.25 million buys, it generated over $70m in revenue so I'd imagine he got a good bonus on top. Not many fighters these days get paydays like that.

But it's all about opinions.

Doing well financially is irrelevant, your also ignoring the fact the Pavlik/Hopkins fight was at 170lbs just wasn't a full 2 divisions and the fact Hopkins wasn't a natural 175lber anyway

It's called prizefighting for a reason. Money is relevant.

170lbs is light-heavyweight.

And if Hopkins isn't a ''natural'' 175lb-er, then what is he?

I asked you how old you are for a reason. Care to answer?

Why is my age important?

Hopkins like Pavlik is a natural Middleweight hence why he made more defences of that title than anyone else has in history

Harrison has probably made more money than a lot of accomplished boxers, does that make him better?

Hopkins was never a 'natural' middleweight - he says himself that the only reason he made 160 was because he was addicted to running. When he hired Mackie Shilstone, he said Hopkins was natural at 175lbs. That's not me making unsubstantiated claims, their the words from Hopkins and Shilstone.

As for Harrison, how did he make more money than most accomplished boxers? I'm intrigued because as far as I know, he was paid a million by the BBC, and he got a similar payday against Haye. £2m isn't what accomplished boxers earn. Like I said, Cotto was guaranteed $12m against Pac + PPV bonus. There's 1 example of an accomplished boxer earning more in 1 fight that Harrison has in his entire career.

I just wondered how old you are because you seem a bit of an a**hole.

He's as natural a Middleweight as Pavlik is then, seeing as the Ghost was a far bigger middleweight than him or does that not fit in your train of thought?

You should raise the money from the Haye by about 2mil. Most champions in the lower divisions would be hard pushed to make 4mil plus in a whole career. Well done Cotto made more money than Harrison, that's an awesome point you've made there.

I seem like an a**hole, bit rich coming from someone who feels the need to mention Calzaghe in an article about Cotto.

OK, I'll tell you why I noted Calzaghe. Calzaghe is British. This is a British forum. Some British fight fans rate Calzaghe. I wanted to show what Cotto's opponents had achieved and Calzaghe's hadn't. I suceeded. I could've used Haye as instead. I like Calzaghe. Cheer up.

So Cottos average opposition have gone on to beat even more average opposition with the exception of Mosley. Should also consider that Calzaghe held his title for 10 years, a period in which the belt holders were Calzaghe, Ottke and Beyer for the most part. Beating Calzaghe was never going to happen, Brewer and Reid found out that beating one of the germans was impossible even when you win clearly. There's more to things like this than just winning a belt again.

Cognac time!

OK, what did Calzaghe's opponents continue to achieve? Funny how Calzaghe fought in Germany against Veit but not against Ottke. Tell me what Calzaghe's average opponents achieved?

With the exception of old man Hopkins who (it could be argued) actually beat Calzaghe, what have Calzaghe's opponents achieved? Eubank, Brewer, Mitchell, Reid, Lacy ... where did they go after losing to Calzaghe?

Let me answer it for you in the shortest way I can. The majority of Calzaghe's biggest wins came against average opponents - all of whom were (a) coming back from defeats, and/or (b) achieved a big fat nothing after losing to him. Kessler is the only exception, a fighter I actually really like.

Think about it without being biased. Hopkins, at 43, was past it. He did well to beat Pavlik at light-heavy and draw with Pascal but let's not forget the fact that there's a real strong argument that Hopkins actually beat Calzaghe.

Mosley in 2007 was the 3rd best welter behind Cotto and Williams. After losing his 2nd fight to Wright - which was a very close fight with 114-114 as one of the official scorecards - he came back to dominate guys like Vargas and Collazo. Not to forget that he continued after his loss to Cotto to become the no.1 man at welter by destroying Margarito.

Hopkins is still a good fighter but put him in with a guy who will pressure him for 12-rounds and he'll get ''beat'' on a decision - just like he was against Calzaghe. Hopkins doesn't have the legs to last 12 rounds at a high pace given the fact he's in his 40s.

Yeah Hopkins was the number one Light Heavyweight in the world, case closed

So...Calzaghe is relevant to Cotto's career because..?

:run1:

Just as I thought. Not a day over 18. It's time to be ghosted, ghosty.

I'm simply highlighting the stupidity of your argument

Surely a better comparison would be a fihter who has fought at a similar weight in the past few years? Trinidad? De La Hoya? Quartey? Certainly not Calzaghe as he fought in a completely different division.

Sam Ghosty, you'd be well advised to give this a miss. HMS was on 606 years ago and is genetically incapable of writing a thread or comment that does not have some either explicit or subtle dig at Calzaghe.

Unless you are the most commited of Calzaghe lovers on earth and feel duty bound to defend his honour, which I'm fairly sure you're not can assure you it will get tired in a hurry for you both pretty quick because I'm fairly sure like me mild ambivalence is about as strong an emotion as Joe stirs up in you both.

rowley wrote:I'm fairly sure like me mild ambivalence is about as strong an emotion as Joe stirs up in you both.

Millions of words have been written about Joe Calzaghe, but for me, jeff has summed it all up in one sentence. In my opinion, we are duty bound to copy this little gem and append it to EVERY Calzaghe thread in future.

Cheers Windy, fear with how much is written about him though we are very much in the minority. Do find it amazing he so polarises opinions to such a degree, does seem the middle ground is an area you are not permitted to occupy when it comes to Joe

Sums it up nicely really.