Your unpopular Boxing opinion.....

First topic message reminder :

This might go down as the worst idea ever with you lot but fortune favours the brave and all that....

One of the other sections has a thread where people post something they truly believe in but goes against popular opinion. In other words, let us know something outlandish which you believe to be true.

Dont make them up and remember the house rules before you go and tear people apart for their post - remember its their opinion and they are entitled to it.

So for example, you might think that Manny won the fight on Saturday comfortably or that Tyson v Bruno had the best opening round ever - let us hear about it and don't be ashamed! Share with your secrets with us all......

Remember - dont post things just to get a reaction. Only post things you actually believe in.

Off you go!

manos de piedra wrote:What defining fight did Hopkins lose?

His defining fights for me were Trinidad on the back of lengthy MW reign where he well and truly cleared out the division, and to a lesser extent De la Hoya and Tarver. He was already a great by the losses to Taylor for me and everything else after that (Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, Pascal) whilst in his 40s just underlines that. Even a SD loss to Calzaghe (a fight where I thought he won) isnt really a cripppling blow and definately wasnt considered a defining fight at the time.

Really cant see how he isnt an ATG.

RJJ, JC are 2 standouts.

Hop isn't a top 10 MW or top 10 LHW. He was/is a very good boxer who just falls short.

ATH for over 40s and he'd be #1

azania wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

How does the point remain? Hopkins beat him at a weight and at a time when he had proved himself to be a very capable boxer having beaten Dawson and Diaconu.

Beating who? FPlease get real. Would those guys live with Spinks, Qawi, Eddie Gregory, Saad, Conteh, Galindez, Jones Jnr and many others from the 70s onwards? Do me a favour. Pascal is decidely average at best.

You cant have it both ways. You've already cited Taylor's wins over Hopkins as a reason as to why Taylor was a good win for Froch. Now your saying Hopkins isn't that good anyway. How does that work? Hopkins is as clear cut an ATG as we've had in the last 20 or so years.

FFS, what is wrong with you people. Too much projection and not enough reading what is actually written.

I have never said Hop is not that good. Hop is good. Very good. But short of being an ATG. Absolutely fantastic for a 48 yr old to do what he has done. Credit to him.

Ha whats your problem? I've read what you've said and disagreed with it. You're saying he's not an ATG I clearly above said he is. I also think you'd be hard pressed to not have BHOP in your top 10 middles. Hes top 5 for me but could understand someone having him outside that. Not in top 10 is ridiculous.

Hopkins is definitely a top ten middleweight and you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who disagrees with that, longevity is a huge part of what makes a boxer unless we are to consider Laing a great based on beating Duran and being prodigiously talented.

Age is quite clearly important as you are the first to write off wins based on an opponents age or does that work differently.

Jones is without doubt the best fighter whom Hopkins ever faced but a fight between two up and comers neither of whom had had a world title fight before isn't defining for either of them and i'd say that the Calzaghe fight was more defining for Joe than it was Hopkins based on what had gone before.

Hopkins is for me the best fighter of his generation, his longevity at the top is almost unrivalled throughout the history of the sport and his sheer dominance of the middleweight division is again almost unrivalled.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:What defining fight did Hopkins lose?

His defining fights for me were Trinidad on the back of lengthy MW reign where he well and truly cleared out the division, and to a lesser extent De la Hoya and Tarver. He was already a great by the losses to Taylor for me and everything else after that (Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, Pascal) whilst in his 40s just underlines that. Even a SD loss to Calzaghe (a fight where I thought he won) isnt really a cripppling blow and definately wasnt considered a defining fight at the time.

Really cant see how he isnt an ATG.

RJJ, JC are 2 standouts.

Hop isn't a top 10 MW or top 10 LHW. He was/is a very good boxer who just falls short.

ATH for over 40s and he'd be #1

Why are those two his standouts? Neither happened when he was close to his peak. Trinidad happened in near the end of his dominating MW reign when he was at his best (and a handy underdog).

What ten MWs do you have ahead of him?

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His main defining fight was Felix Trinidad which he won very easily, Jones was the best opponent he faced but at the time it happened it wasn't defining for either of them, neither were established enough.

On top I would say Tarver and Pascal were fairly defining as they were wins over the men widely considered to be the best in the division.

Beating Pascal doesn't make one an ATG. Is Froch an ATG for beating Pascal?

If you'd said it 5 years ago - fine - but beating Pascal after handing him a bit of a whupping first time out as well at 48 to become LHW#1 makes him an ATG.

Whereas Toney doesn't have nearly enough top wins and isn't as good a boxer IMO.

46

paperbag_puncher wrote:

azania wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

How does the point remain? Hopkins beat him at a weight and at a time when he had proved himself to be a very capable boxer having beaten Dawson and Diaconu.

Beating who? FPlease get real. Would those guys live with Spinks, Qawi, Eddie Gregory, Saad, Conteh, Galindez, Jones Jnr and many others from the 70s onwards? Do me a favour. Pascal is decidely average at best.

You cant have it both ways. You've already cited Taylor's wins over Hopkins as a reason as to why Taylor was a good win for Froch. Now your saying Hopkins isn't that good anyway. How does that work? Hopkins is as clear cut an ATG as we've had in the last 20 or so years.

FFS, what is wrong with you people. Too much projection and not enough reading what is actually written.

I have never said Hop is not that good. Hop is good. Very good. But short of being an ATG. Absolutely fantastic for a 48 yr old to do what he has done. Credit to him.

Ha whats your problem? I've read what you've said and disagreed with it. You're saying he's not an ATG I clearly above said he is. I also think you'd be hard pressed to not have BHOP in your top 10 middles. Hes top 5 for me but could understand someone having him outside that. Not in top 10 is ridiculous.

Take it easy. I'm not p'd off or frustrated. Just jesting. But point out where I've said that Hop is no good. We'll start there.

Give me your top 10 MW please.

I'm going to go out on a limb here Manos and say one of them will Dick Tiger which is fairly absurd.

you arent being baited stop being a drama queen.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hopkins is definitely a top ten middleweight and you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who disagrees with that, longevity is a huge part of what makes a boxer unless we are to consider Laing a great based on beating Duran and being prodigiously talented.

Age is quite clearly important as you are the first to write off wins based on an opponents age or does that work differently.

Jones is without doubt the best fighter whom Hopkins ever faced but a fight between two up and comers neither of whom had had a world title fight before isn't defining for either of them and i'd say that the Calzaghe fight was more defining for Joe than it was Hopkins based on what had gone before.

Hopkins is for me the best fighter of his generation, his longevity at the top is almost unrivalled throughout the history of the sport and his sheer dominance of the middleweight division is again almost unrivalled.

I'm not writing off wins base on his age. His age should not be a factor. I believe many here are factoring that in. Hop was no where near as good as RJJ. RJJ was the better boxer and proved it over a decade of dominance.

AlexHuckerby wrote:you arent being baited stop being a drama queen.

If you mention Rocky and Petterson to any response to me I'm being baited.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here Manos and say one of them will Dick Tiger which is fairly absurd.

And Hogan Bassey

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:What defining fight did Hopkins lose?

His defining fights for me were Trinidad on the back of lengthy MW reign where he well and truly cleared out the division, and to a lesser extent De la Hoya and Tarver. He was already a great by the losses to Taylor for me and everything else after that (Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, Pascal) whilst in his 40s just underlines that. Even a SD loss to Calzaghe (a fight where I thought he won) isnt really a cripppling blow and definately wasnt considered a defining fight at the time.

Really cant see how he isnt an ATG.

RJJ, JC are 2 standouts.

Hop isn't a top 10 MW or top 10 LHW. He was/is a very good boxer who just falls short.

ATH for over 40s and he'd be #1

Why are those two his standouts? Neither happened when he was close to his peak. Trinidad happened in near the end of his dominating MW reign when he was at his best (and a handy underdog).

What ten MWs do you have ahead of him?

When was his peak? It seems to me that he is one of those boxers who gets a pass for every defeat. Against RJJ he wasn't at his peak.he was young. Against Taylor he wasn;t at his peak. Ditto JC. Then all of a sudden he beats Pavlik, Pascal and Union Cane actor and he's an ATG and the best boxer of the generation. You guys cant have it both ways.

He lost to RJJ because RJJ was far better. Taylor had his number as probably many good boxers who used straight punches, good footwork and jab.

His age is a massive consideration as it shows his longevity and adaptability to losing his physical attribute something Jones never able to do, both he and Jones proved there greatness but in different divisions, not a case of one being great at the others expense. If age doesn't matter then we can factor in the losses to men such as Johnson or Green as a way of disproving Jones' greatness.

Azania wrote:Take it easy. I'm not p'd off or frustrated. Just jesting. But point out where I've said that Hop is no good. We'll start there.

Give me your top 10 MW please.

I haven't accused you of saying Hopkins is no good. I disagree where you say hes not an ATG because I think he clearly is. Don't see the need for me to give you my top 10 as I haven't made an outlandish statement like yours that Hopkins isn't a top 10 MW. I have him in my top 5 so I clearly believe he fits into a top 10. My 5 are always the same but can be swayed about their placings. I'd have to sit down and think about a 10 but cant see how there can be 10 above Bernard.

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Harry Greb
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Ray Robinson
5. Bernard Hopkins

Neither Hopkins or Jones were anywhere near there bests when they fought or we would have to start marking down every fighter for losses they had early in their careers.

In no partucilar order

SRR
RJJ
Hagler
Monzon
Tiger
Charles
Burley
Fulmer
Hearns
I'd also pick McCallum to beat him.

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His age is a massive consideration as it shows his longevity and adaptability to losing his physical attribute something Jones never able to do, both he and Jones proved there greatness but in different divisions, not a case of one being great at the others expense. If age doesn't matter then we can factor in the losses to men such as Johnson or Green as a way of disproving Jones' greatness.

Hardly any boxer in history can adapt to the aging process as well as Hop. No need to slight RJJ for that.

RJJ proved his greatness for being the better boxer, more talented and too good for Hop. Even Hop admitted that the only boxer he felt he lost to was RJJ.

No you cant factor in losses to Green et al to discredit Jones. You may as well factor in Berbick etc for ali and Jones for SRR.

What people are saying is that Hop beating Pascal makes him an ATG. I say it doesn't. Its a remarkable achievement, but taking the blinkers away, its a victory over a very ordinary boxer in Pascal.

So Jones gets in based on two fights of note at the weight
Hearns gets in based on beating Shuler and Roldan but losing to Barkley and Hagler
Dick Tigers consistency at the weight saw him lose almost as many as he won
Burley is a bit of wild card for all his brilliance and I would give him every chance of beating Hopkins but had a tendency to lose against the better fighters far too often
Fullmer is a reasonable one but would have to rate Hopkins consistency and dominance higher
Charles would be too good for him but based on achievements at the weight not sure he deserves such a lofty rating

paperbag_puncher wrote:

Azania wrote:Take it easy. I'm not p'd off or frustrated. Just jesting. But point out where I've said that Hop is no good. We'll start there.

Give me your top 10 MW please.

I haven't accused you of saying Hopkins is no good. I disagree where you say hes not an ATG because I think he clearly is. Don't see the need for me to give you my top 10 as I haven't made an outlandish statement like yours that Hopkins isn't a top 10 MW. I have him in my top 5 so I clearly believe he fits into a top 10. My 5 are always the same but can be swayed about their placings. I'd have to sit down and think about a 10 but cant see how there can be 10 above Bernard.

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Harry Greb
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Ray Robinson
5. Bernard Hopkins

OK. We differ. No big deal. It creates debate and its all good.

Hop is 11 or 12 for me. SRR is in the lower reaches of the top 10 at MW for me.

Again what 10 MWs do you rate above him? And how many of those top ten are ATGs? because theres maybe only 5 at best that would survive the same kind of assassination and scrutiny test you are subjecting Hopkins to.

Longetivity and dominance are massive parts of a boxers legacy and Hopkins has both in abundance. His win column is none too shabby either and he has been the main man in two weight divisions.

You can construct an argument against him being an all time great if you want but I would need a refererance point of greatness to go off bcause it would seem you have an extremelly high standard of qualification for greatness if Hopkins falls short.

He was only ever beaten decisely in his career once and that was by Jones in his first ever world title fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So Jones gets in based on two fights of note at the weight
Hearns gets in based on beating Shuler and Roldan but losing to Barkley and Hagler
Dick Tigers consistency at the weight saw him lose almost as many as he won
Burley is a bit of wild card for all his brilliance and I would give him every chance of beating Hopkins but had a tendency to lose against the better fighters far too often
Fullmer is a reasonable one but would have to rate Hopkins consistency and dominance higher
Charles would be too good for him but based on achievements at the weight not sure he deserves such a lofty rating

RJJ gets in because he was the best MW of his generation regardless of how fleeting his visit there was.

azania wrote:In no partucilar order

SRR
RJJ
Hagler
Monzon
Tiger
Charles
Burley
Fulmer
Hearns
I'd also pick McCallum to beat him.

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

Clearly not a Hopkins fan so... RJJS MW career isn't a patch on Hopkins. Vast majority of his best work was done above 160lbs. There's a difference between picking someone like McCallum to beat him and stating that hes a better MW. So based on legacy and longevity at the weight as opposed to the results of one off match ups do you still have the above ahead of Hopkins or do you simply think they would beat him? I disagree with both but one statement isn't as ludicrous as the other..

If age doesn't matter then it also doesn't matter for losses, works both ways.

Do you truly believe we saw the best of Hopkins and Jones when they fought because I do not, they both improved but at very different rates, with maturity Hopkins altered his style to a spoiling counter puncher while Jones moved away from more traditional boxing to a style that fully utilised his speed. Don't think a victory for either so early in their careers proves all that much, just as Hopkins victory at the end of their careers proves nothing.

azania wrote:In no partucilar order

SRR
RJJ
Hagler
Monzon
Tiger
Charles
Burley
Fulmer
Hearns
I'd also pick McCallum to beat him.

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

Can only assume that list is based almost solely on a 'who beats who' basis, Azania, and even then I'm not one hundred percent sure I'd agree with it. Moreover, that's not how a list for divisional all-time standings should be done, surely? If you don't fancy Hopkins in a head-to-head match up with any of them, fair enough, but it's madness to casually ignore the fact that, at 160 lb, he achieved a lot more than all but two or three of them.

As for you Greb-Ketchel-Sibson point...Christ Almighty, you've got the nerve to claim that it's you who is being baited after that?

So do you just base your lists purely on who you would suspect beats who?

Manos

The MW division was very average when RJJ left. Hop fed on scraps, blown up WW (Tito was a great win regardless but he was no Hearns). Oscar had no business fighting at MW and even though he tried to cheat (catchweight) he got what he deserved.

erhaps for me his style is something I dont like Too much spoiling and that may cloud my judgement. But the names I mentioned I believe would all beat him quite comfortably.

azania wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:

Azania wrote:Take it easy. I'm not p'd off or frustrated. Just jesting. But point out where I've said that Hop is no good. We'll start there.

Give me your top 10 MW please.

I haven't accused you of saying Hopkins is no good. I disagree where you say hes not an ATG because I think he clearly is. Don't see the need for me to give you my top 10 as I haven't made an outlandish statement like yours that Hopkins isn't a top 10 MW. I have him in my top 5 so I clearly believe he fits into a top 10. My 5 are always the same but can be swayed about their placings. I'd have to sit down and think about a 10 but cant see how there can be 10 above Bernard.

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Harry Greb
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Ray Robinson
5. Bernard Hopkins

OK. We differ. No big deal. It creates debate and its all good..

That's about the only thing I agree with you on in this thread...

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So Jones gets in based on two fights of note at the weight
Hearns gets in based on beating Shuler and Roldan but losing to Barkley and Hagler
Dick Tigers consistency at the weight saw him lose almost as many as he won
Burley is a bit of wild card for all his brilliance and I would give him every chance of beating Hopkins but had a tendency to lose against the better fighters far too often
Fullmer is a reasonable one but would have to rate Hopkins consistency and dominance higher
Charles would be too good for him but based on achievements at the weight not sure he deserves such a lofty rating

RJJ gets in because he was the best MW of his generation regardless of how fleeting his visit there was.

To be the best of your generation you have to prove it over time instead of having one singular victory, may have been the most talented fighter to have fought in the division although I favour Hopkins personally but that means little in regard to the divisional rankings itself.

manos de piedra wrote:So do you just base your lists purely on who you would suspect beats who?

[right]

Something like that.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So Jones gets in based on two fights of note at the weight
Hearns gets in based on beating Shuler and Roldan but losing to Barkley and Hagler
Dick Tigers consistency at the weight saw him lose almost as many as he won
Burley is a bit of wild card for all his brilliance and I would give him every chance of beating Hopkins but had a tendency to lose against the better fighters far too often
Fullmer is a reasonable one but would have to rate Hopkins consistency and dominance higher
Charles would be too good for him but based on achievements at the weight not sure he deserves such a lofty rating

And Burley throughout his MW career was weighing in hardly above 155 - and was a WW really anyway.

BALTIMORA wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His main defining fight was Felix Trinidad which he won very easily, Jones was the best opponent he faced but at the time it happened it wasn't defining for either of them, neither were established enough.

On top I would say Tarver and Pascal were fairly defining as they were wins over the men widely considered to be the best in the division.

Beating Pascal doesn't make one an ATG. Is Froch an ATG for beating Pascal?

If you'd said it 5 years ago - fine - but beating Pascal after handing him a bit of a whupping first time out as well at 48 to become LHW#1 makes him an ATG.

Whereas Toney doesn't have nearly enough top wins and isn't as good a boxer IMO.

46

You do love pedantry Balti. I never knew you were such a stickler for accuracy.

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So Jones gets in based on two fights of note at the weight
Hearns gets in based on beating Shuler and Roldan but losing to Barkley and Hagler
Dick Tigers consistency at the weight saw him lose almost as many as he won
Burley is a bit of wild card for all his brilliance and I would give him every chance of beating Hopkins but had a tendency to lose against the better fighters far too often
Fullmer is a reasonable one but would have to rate Hopkins consistency and dominance higher
Charles would be too good for him but based on achievements at the weight not sure he deserves such a lofty rating

And Burley throughout his MW career was weighing in hardly above 155 - and was a WW really anyway.

Fought at middleweight through necessity more than anything, the best of the black murderers row but Williams did seem to have his number somewhat.

46 is still a good age to be doing what he was doing. Still not a fan of Hopkins though. Think he's been allowed to get away with too much dirty boxing because 'oh, it's B-Hop'. Think he got what he deserved against Dawson and if he retires now I wouldn't miss him. He's a lot to be proud of but it does seem a fair number of his best-regarded wins have come against men from lower weight classes (Trinidad, Oscar, Pavlik).

BALTIMORA wrote:46 is still a good age to be doing what he was doing. Still not a fan of Hopkins though. Think he's been allowed to get away with too much dirty boxing because 'oh, it's B-Hop'. Think he got what he deserved against Dawson and if he retires now I wouldn't miss him. He's a lot to be proud of but it does seem a fair number of his best-regarded wins have come against men from lower weight classes (Trinidad, Oscar, Pavlik).

Same can be said about Hagler. I think Hopkins gets a bit of an unfair tag of only winning by spoiling. When you watch him or hear him talk about boxing his knowledge of the sport and technique are top class.

BALTIMORA wrote:46 is still a good age to be doing what he was doing. Still not a fan of Hopkins though. Think he's been allowed to get away with too much dirty boxing because 'oh, it's B-Hop'. Think he got what he deserved against Dawson and if he retires now I wouldn't miss him. He's a lot to be proud of but it does seem a fair number of his best-regarded wins have come against men from lower weight classes (Trinidad, Oscar, Pavlik).

For a pedant, you said in one post what I've tried to say over 2 pages.

Well if you consider Hopkins was mainly a MW then his entire LH career is basically against guys that are from a bigger or same weight class, with the exception of Wright.

paperbag_puncher wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:46 is still a good age to be doing what he was doing. Still not a fan of Hopkins though. Think he's been allowed to get away with too much dirty boxing because 'oh, it's B-Hop'. Think he got what he deserved against Dawson and if he retires now I wouldn't miss him. He's a lot to be proud of but it does seem a fair number of his best-regarded wins have come against men from lower weight classes (Trinidad, Oscar, Pavlik).

Same can be said about Hagler. I think Hopkins gets a bit of an unfair tag of only winning by spoiling. When you watch him or hear him talk about boxing his knowledge of the sport and technique are top class.

I didn't say he ONLY wins by spoiling but he certainly makes more than generous use of it. If he wasn't so quick to cry foul when he's on the receiving end I'd have more respect for him.

BALTIMORA wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:46 is still a good age to be doing what he was doing. Still not a fan of Hopkins though. Think he's been allowed to get away with too much dirty boxing because 'oh, it's B-Hop'. Think he got what he deserved against Dawson and if he retires now I wouldn't miss him. He's a lot to be proud of but it does seem a fair number of his best-regarded wins have come against men from lower weight classes (Trinidad, Oscar, Pavlik).

Same can be said about Hagler. I think Hopkins gets a bit of an unfair tag of only winning by spoiling. When you watch him or hear him talk about boxing his knowledge of the sport and technique are top class.

I didn't say he ONLY wins by spoiling but he certainly makes more than generous use of it. If he wasn't so quick to cry foul when he's on the receiving end I'd have more respect for him.

Didn't mean that you personally were saying he ONLY wins by spoiling. Think he gets a raw deal at times by some though in that respect and people forget that hes a top class boxer. The likes of Floyd do their fair share of spoiling and get credit for it. I agree that Hopkins can bring it on himself a bit with his crying and moaning though.

azania wrote:

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

Sweet baby jesus am I really reading this.

[quote="rowley"]

azania wrote:

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

I've seen people sectioned for less than this.

[quote="tcribb"]

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

I've seen people sectioned for less than this.

And deservedly so, I would certainly feel a lot safer knowing these people were not walking the streets.

tcribb wrote:

rowley wrote:I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

I've seen people sectioned for less than this.

rowley is normally an OK poster.

Scottrf wrote:

tcribb wrote:

rowley wrote:I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

I've seen people sectioned for less than this.

rowley is normally an OK poster.

It's Russell Grant going out of Strictly Scott, it has hurt me

rowley wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

tcribb wrote:

rowley wrote:I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

I've seen people sectioned for less than this.

rowley is normally an OK poster.

It's Russell Grant going out of Strictly Scott, it has hurt me

He should've seen it coming

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:So do you just base your lists purely on who you would suspect beats who?

[right]

Something like that.

Seems a bizzare method to me I must say with some pretty obscure results if you manage to end up with Lewis outside your top 20 heavyweights and Hopkins outside your top 10 middleweights. Basically seems to ignore what they actually acheived in favour of what might have been. But each to his own I guess.

I find it interesting Az that neither Taylor or Pavlik are on your list considering Taylor beat Hopkins and Pavlik beat Taylor, would seem to fit with your head to head style lists.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I find it interesting Az that neither Taylor or Pavlik are on your list considering Taylor beat Hopkins and Pavlik beat Taylor, would seem to fit with your head to head style lists.

My problem with this head to head thing is nobody who applies it has Buster Douglas in their top ten heavyweight lists, given how well he fought in Tokyo seems odd because that guy would give many a heavyweight absolute fits. Am not arguing he should be in top tens, because actual acheivements have to play a part but if you are doing it solely on head to head at their best he surely has to warrant consideration. Welcome back by the way Ghosty, good to see you posting again.

Funny you say that, jeff.

Only yesterday, while I was reading and commenting at the Vitali Klitschko v Tyson thread, I began daydreaming about the Buster Douglas of Tokyo against either of the Klitschko brothers.

Must say that I was fancying his chances, too.

But on a who beats who basis for most fighters in weight divisions you can come up with a lot of arguements for 10 fighters that could beat somene, fact is you're meant to be basing this on achievemnts at the weight and for me Hopkins is an arguable top 5 (Though I don't think so) or at the very least a top 10, I can't honestly see 10 other candidates that have more achievements than Hopkins at Middleweight.

As for disregarding his fights into his 40's you've got to add that as more impressive as there are very if at all any fighters that could have ever put themselves as a number 1 in a decent weight divison by beating the man there, so I think it's very silly to disregard this as not adding to his ATG status.

I fancy his chances against a lot of heavies on that night Windy. Think it is one of the real tragedies of that fight that so much guff gets written about the long count and how Tyson did not prepare, with some validity on that count I should add, that it often gets overlooked or dismissed just how good Douglas was on that night, excellent jab, decent movement and conditioning and genuine focus and fearlessness, a handful for many a decent heavyweight for what my opinion is worth.