Does martinez have a legitimate claim to be p4p #1

First topic message reminder :

Does Sergio Martinez have a claim to be pound for pound #1?

Now before the onslaught of Pacquiao fans come and slam this post lets look at the facts.

Martinez last 3 opponents

Sergei Dzinzurik - (best light middleweight moving up)
Paul Williams - (self proclaimed most avoided man in boxing)
Kelly Pavlik - (recently schooled by the wily old fox Hopkins but still the man at middleweight).

Pacquiao

Antonio Margarito - (Coming off a year lay off after a royal beating from Mosley).
Joshua Clottey (No more than a sparing session in which he got hit a lot).
Miguel Cotto (Very good win but tainted slightly by the 145 catch weight).

I have no problems with manny as p4p number 1 after beating Hatton and Cotto, however his last two opponents could drop him in the standings in my opinion.

Now I believe Manny's true weight is actually light-welter and I don't think there is anyone in the division that will beat him there. He would also school Berto and beat Mosley. The only challenge out there is Floyd Mayweather who cannot fight at the moment. Therefore based on who Manny could potentially fight and who I think would win, I can see an argument for him being at the top of the p4p tree. However based on recent opponents and until these matches are made surely Sergio Martinez is more deserving of the spot?

Even without the Hagler win, he'd already beaten 3 genuine ATG's in one weight to cement his place in history

For arguments sake I have about 25 single weight champions in my top 50 and only around 10 who won titles in more than 2 weights.

Hagler win was excellent. Rate the Hearns win higher though; because I thought the Hearns of that time would have beaten practically any other Welterweight in history at the time. He was an absolute beast; murderous puncher, excellent speed and huge for the weight.

I think we would all agree that quality of opponent is what matters. All some people are saying is that both is more impressive. Leonard beating Hagler would be more impressive than a Middleweight beating Hagler for example. Definately there is some degree of moving weights for convenience of a title shot etc.

I'm not too sure, any win over Hagler would be impressive irrespective of how many weights someone had fought at.

Quality of opposition is extremely important.

This why I feel Martinez is a bit stuck for an opponent at the moment. There is no real challenge at Middleweight. Cotto and Margarito will be probably be called too small/shot to provide a challenge. And, he is probably too small for super middleweight.

Perhaps absolutely cleaning out Middleweight is the best idea. Sturm and Pirog don't have name recognition; but certainly both are good fighters.

Of course any win over him is good, but it's more impressive if you are giving size away too, or we wouldn't have weight divisions.

Can of worms with that fight though; did Leonard really beat Hagler?

When do people criticise multiple weight world champions? Surely, its always been an achievement in boxing. Moving up in weight and defeating opponents is harder to do, thats why there are weight divisions. Jose Napoles didn't fair to well at MW, Duran lost more fights above LW, JCC - WW, Mosely struggled against the larger Winky Wright. The fact fighters can struggle, or even compete only a few times, shows how difficult it is. I reckon Duran's weight jumping adds to him as a fighter and is certainly often mentioned in relation to him. Bob Fitzsimmons, Gene Tunney, Evander Holyfield, Roy Jones Jr, Edre Jofre, Mike McCallum, Miguel Cotto, Wilfred Benitez, Duke McKenzie? Moving up in weight has enhanced their reputation as boxers and in fact are regarded as great feets.

If a relatively unknown fighter takes on a similarly undistinguished opponent, the title may not be a big deal. If its two top fighters in the game, such as Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Morales - they are impressive victories. On can look at rehydrating after the weigh in and so on, but that isn't natural weight size ( he's adding weight in a short time period), it doesn't involve training or living at that weight, Pacquiao still weighs 144 lbs at WW, a few lbs of the top limit. He's smallish at WW.

Natural physical limits come into play, if you are training for months at flyweight and even if rehydrated before fights (not that Pacquiao did this), that doesn't mean the boxer can step into the ring and beat SFW or LWs. The boxer has to train at that higher weight for months and then beat opponents of the larger size. Usually a figher can only move so far in weight, before the punches get to hard and the opposition to big. Its a challenge to consistantly move up in (pre-weight in) weight, especially, if you are talking 5-6 weight divisions. Thats never a stroll in the park, defeating 8 world champions isn't either.

I see what your saying but it becomes to easy to say this guy won at 3 weights so is better than this other guy who only ever won at 1 weight.

How many 1 division fighters are in your top 10 / 20 /50 p4p all time?

--------------------------

Archie Moore
Canzoneri
Monzon
Napoles
Carlos Ortiz
Ricardo Lopez

Not exactly big weight jumpers, i could go on and on and on... but i've made my point and there's no real need for me to discuss this much further in all honest. Unless you don't agree. Then i might smash my head into the desk.

Coxy, have to say that Canzoneri is one of only a handful of fully fledged multi weight world champions

Just an example of a guy against a bigger opponent, and also one he wouldn't have fought if he stayed in his division. Whether he beat him is a separate point, if you like treat is as hypothetical 'if he beat him'.

It becomes easy if they achieved more/beat better opponents etc. Noone is saying an 3 weight world champion is always better than a 2 weight world champion. But if they have beat the same standard of opponents, but one has done it out of his comfort zone then that's more impressive.

imperial, some of his best work came at lightweight, probably not the best example but he spent a fair time there in terms of fights...

Didn't climb the weights at a rapid rate though, up for arguements where his best work came

Oh, I wasn't criticisng. I believe Leonard's standard of opposition was phenomenal. He was fortunate enough to come along where he had numerous opponents around a similar weight to test him.

Look at the state of Welterweight now. Basically, Pacquiao has Mayweather. That is it. Any other fighter he takes on will almost invariably have some kind of criticism levelled at him. Would probabaly have a lot of sympathy for the situation if it wasn't for D4!

I don't think you should give someone extra marks for jumping up a few pounds.

There's a huge difference between what Fitzsimmons and Armstrong did to what pretty much every other weight hopper did, they were truly out their comfort zones.

Canzoneri was a 2 or 3 weight champ...

And I can name a dozen fighters who rank higher, and probably make up the bulk of most top 20 lists because they fought at more weights thus had the chance to a wider range / consistently higher calibre of fighters

Greb
SRR
SRL
Duran
Ross
Charles
Walker
Fitzsimmons
Langford
Armstrong
Tunney
Jofre
Hearns
JC Chavez
Whitaker
Holyfield
Hopkins
RJJ
Mayweather Jr
Pac

Weight jumping can improve legacy and opposition; but it can have the totally opposite effect.

Take De La Hoya as a prime example. He looked fantastic at Lightweight and Light-Welterweight. In fact, he was probably within a fight ot two of achieving all time great status at both.

He was also excellent at Welterweight, beating Whitaker and Quartey; getting jobbed against Trinidad.

But once he moved up the scale, he was never the same fighter. His hand speed slowed, his size was no longer an advantage, his power dulled. This was an example of jumping weight detracting from the fighter someone could have been, in my opinion.

imperialghosty wrote:I don't think you should give someone extra marks for jumping up a few pounds.

There's a huge difference between what Fitzsimmons and Armstrong did to what pretty much every other weight hopper did, they were truly out their comfort zones.

You don't give more credit for something harder to do? Who says we are talking a few pounds? A stone from Welter to Middle is a sizeable advantage to give to a professional boxer, which was the example I used.

imperialghosty wrote:I don't think you should give someone extra marks for jumping up a few pounds.

There's a huge difference between what Fitzsimmons and Armstrong did to what pretty much every other weight hopper did, they were truly out their comfort zones.

Imperial

It's not about extra marks for jumping a few pounds, it's about the likelihood of the weight hopper having a better range and standard of opponent than someone who stays in 1 weight class.

For example, after Bradley and Khan fight, would the winner get more plaudits for staying at 140lb and defending or for moving up and taking on the best available there? Considering it's unlikely that a top 140lb challenger will emerge before the year end, the latter option would be the better resume building choice IMO

I dunno; Judah and Maidana would both be excellent fights for the winner of the 140 unification to take. Better than anything at Welter apart from Pacquiao and Mayweather, certainly.

wow_j

And you can make serious cases for most elite fighters to have had a stella career focusing on one weight class where their renowned for building their legacy.

wow_junky wrote:Canzoneri was a 2 or 3 weight champ...

And I can name a dozen fighters who rank higher, and probably make up the bulk of most top 20 lists because they fought at more weights thus had the chance to a wider range / consistently higher calibre of fighters

Greb
SRR
SRL
Duran
Ross
Charles
Walker
Fitzsimmons
Langford
Armstrong
Tunney
Jofre
Hearns
JC Chavez
Whitaker
Holyfield
Hopkins
RJJ
Mayweather Jr
Pac

RJJ, Mayweather, Pac and Hearns above Canzoneri?

I also don't really consider Greb, Walker, Tunney or Jofre as weight hoppers, they were there or there abouts there main weight for the majority of their career

Jofre was a bantamweight and featherweight champ, two distinct weight divisions, similarly Walker held titles in two weight classes - WW & MW, he even competed with success at HW. Tunney competed for most of his career at LHW, before moving up. Also, SRR, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Alexis Arguello, Ruben Olivares, Michael Spinks, etc.

Certainly a great fighter, Armstrong held world titles at FW to WW, in fact he rarely weight 147 lbs, evidently he was constantly shifting in weight. Pacquiao has held titles from FW to LMW, thats the whole of bantamweight, flyweight and half of middleweight. He beat legitimate champions as well and top fighters in the division. His last 12 fights have been against world champions, he's taken part in match series, risked is health by moving up in weight, participated in almost sixty fights - I reckon he deserves the success he has achieved. Been knocked out, lost, took 200 punches in his last fight from guy outweighing hm by nearly 6 lbs, 5 inches taller.

A hard working and honest fighter as well. Compelling story how he raised himself from poverty to become a famous boxer. One of the few boxers from Asia to top p4p rankings. Its pretty difficult in the Western and America dominated world.

The difference being that the Walkers, Griffiths, Canzoneris and Armstrongs etc., of this world were LEGITIMATE and undisputed champions, and the ' man ' of each division.

Incidentally, your point about Napoles' not having done well at MW is unfair. Napoles was a lightweight who was denied a shot at the title by Ortiz and had to move up to welter, where he acquitted himself so well as to figure in the top tens of most folks. No shame in coming unstuck against a top five middle of all time in Monzon. Could Pacquiao beat Hearns or McCallum at LM, or Leonard at welter ?

I don't believe he could.

Thank you Windy, that is exactly the point I was trying to get across

Imperial

That list wasn't in order, after the first dozen names I just included some other notables that wouldn't be ranked as high if they didn't seek challenges outside of their weight class

Fair enough mate, misunderstood it slightly

I do think there is a notable difference between Greb fighting around 2 weights at the same time and someone like De La Hoya jumping from weight to weight just to pick up a title belt.

To be fair, only two of De La Hoya's titles weren't legitimate; super-feather and Middle. All the others were pretty kosher world titles. Most modern weight jumpers have the odd dodgy one!

samevans1 wrote:To be fair, only two of De La Hoya's titles weren't legitimate; super-feather and Middle. All the others were pretty kosher world titles. Most modern weight jumpers have the odd dodgy one!

Yeah, picking Oscar as an example of not fighting the best available across multiple weights is a bit of a non-starter! Apart from Winky Wright he fought pretty much the best from 135lb to 160lb

Fair point. His record was mixed against the very top echelon fighters he fought; but no-one can really argue with his opposition.

http://www.boxingscene.com/sergio-martinez-peter-manfredo-battle-on-dibellas-mind--37070

Dear god, nooooooo!

samevans1 wrote:http://www.boxingscene.com/sergio-martinez-peter-manfredo-battle-on-dibellas-mind--37070

Dear god, nooooooo!

If he's good enough for JCs legacy he's good enough for Martinez's!!

Can i add what a pleasant-ish day of debating it's been without our resident nuisance. Mods - take note.

Just don't want a fighter with as much momentum as Martinez to fight a bum.

If he wants a relatively easy one, why not take on Cintron in a rematch or Angulo? Both very beatable for a fighter of his caliber, but far better than the likes of Manfredo.

I think they wanted the Angulo fight before, but Angulo wanted no part of Martinez, I can't see that changing now!

If Martinez gets another lull in viable opponents and Kirkland has worked his way (think he's already fighting again this weekend to help get his sharpness back) back that would be one fun "filler" fight for us lot.

Think Kirkland managed to throw something like 60 punches in his 30 second demolition job of some poor hapless journeyman, wouldn't give him a prayer of beating Martinez but he'd certainly make it fun for how ever long it lasted

Armstrong beat 3 world champs, Walker 2, etc. Pacquiao has beaten 8. Including Cotto, Hatton and Juan Manuel Marquez. He beat very good fighters at each weight. If somene defeats a current world champ, then they hold a title in that division to my mind. Pacquiao has also beaten a number of world champs throughout his career. If someone had to list top 10 p4p of the 2000's, Morales, Cotto, Barrera, Margarito and Marquez would be among them. I could be facetious and say how many Mexican or Filipino world champs did they have in those days.

Jose Napoles fight against Monzon was his only one in the division, I would also say his lack of size counted against him and power. Wilfredo Gomez was undefeated at SBW, wasn't the same at FW and SFW. Its not easy to move up in weight and defeat world champions.

Armstrong beat 3 universally recognized world titles and was the best in each division whereas Pacquiao beat 8 belt holders, a whole world of difference.

What you fail to be appreciating Chris is the fragmentation of the world title nowadays, your mentioning boxers who had to beat the best in the division rather than someone who is merely a holder of a world title not the world title.

There really is no comparison between the achievements of Armstrong and Pacquaio, they are worlds apart in regards to multi weight titles.

Also wins over Zivic, Arizmendi, Garcia, Ambers and Ross among others more than trumps the best victories of Pacquiao in my opinion

ArchBritishchris wrote:Armstrong beat 3 world champs, Walker 2, etc. Pacquiao has beaten 8. Including Cotto, Hatton and Juan Manuel Marquez. He beat very good fighters at each weight. If somene defeats a current world champ, then they hold a title in that division to my mind. Pacquiao has also beaten a number of world champs throughout his career. If someone had to list top 10 p4p of the 2000's, Morales, Cotto, Barrera, Margarito and Marquez would be among them. I could be facetious and say how many Mexican or Filipino world champs did they have in those days.

Jose Napoles fight against Monzon was his only one in the division, I would also say his lack of size counted against him and power. Wilfredo Gomez was undefeated at SBW, wasn't the same at FW and SFW. Its not easy to move up in weight and defeat world champions.

Pacquiao has beaten eight belt holders.

By all means be facetious with regard to Mexicans and Filipinos. Allow me to return the compliment. Walker was a welter / middle. How many Mexican or Filipino welter or middleweight champions do we have in recent history ?

I repeat, Napoles was a lightweight who became one of the greatest welters of all time. He was always going to be out of his depth against Monzon, so your citing of him is a ridiculous example. Pacquiao would have been slaughtered had he made the same leap against the same calibre of opposition.

Suggest you check Walker's record against larger men than he, including his draw with Jack Sharkey. It might persuade you to be a little less patronizing.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Armstrong beat 3 world champs, Walker 2, etc. Pacquiao has beaten 8. Including Cotto, Hatton and Juan Manuel Marquez. He beat very good fighters at each weight. If somene defeats a current world champ, then they hold a title in that division to my mind. Pacquiao has also beaten a number of world champs throughout his career. If someone had to list top 10 p4p of the 2000's, Morales, Cotto, Barrera, Margarito and Marquez would be among them. I could be facetious and say how many Mexican or Filipino world champs did they have in those days.

Jose Napoles fight against Monzon was his only one in the division, I would also say his lack of size counted against him and power. Wilfredo Gomez was undefeated at SBW, wasn't the same at FW and SFW. Its not easy to move up in weight and defeat world champions.

This is precisely the kind of superficial comparisons that I cannot fathom.

Why do people insist on comparing eras with fewer weights and significantly fewer titles to eras that are polluted with more titles than one can keep track of?

Pacquaio being an 8 weight world champion is a gross distortion of reality. If you translate the current climate back to Armstrongs day then he could have held about 15 belts simaltaneously.

Pacquiao beating an inactive, shopworn Margarito at a catchweight for a world title is about as devalued as a title can get.

The ease of "moving up a weight" as ever, depends entirely on the competition you face, when you face them. There are too many weights now, especilly lower down. Fighters can easily pick and choose across at least two weights down there if not more. And for what reason? All it does is dilute the talent pools in each weight and allow fighters to engineer easy passages.

Pacquiao may be the pound for pound numero un but he hasnt established himself as the man in any class above super featherweight for me. He may have beat Hatton at Light welterweight but Hatton for other reasons had never really defended his unofficial title in ages and its arguable that Bradley had developed a strong enough claim to his status by then by virtu of beating the other top rated light welters that Hatton never defended against.

Rather than be dragged into complications of the multi belt/weight system now which means little I suggest we go back to basics to evaluate fighters and go from there. Starting off saying "hes an 8 weight world champion" as the beginning position is just provoking complications.

Lets look at who the fighter has beat and lost to, then the circumstances in the fights, then the competition around and so on and build outword from a basic position rather than a highly disputed and incomparible one.

Oh, and for the record, Armstrong beat Arizmendi, Wolgast, Bass, Sarron, Belloise, Klick, Wright, Ambers, Garcia, Ross and Lew Jenkins, each of whom held a version of a world title. He also fought Garcia again with the middleweight title on the line, earning a draw, which many consider to have been a gift for Garcia.

I appreciate and understand from your comments at the other thread that you are an intellectual who reads the ' Guardian, ' but, in my ignorance, I imagined that Armstrong actually beat eleven world title holders, rather than three.

Then again, arithmetic was never my thing, just as intelligent debate doesn't appear to be yours.

archbritishstopboringus

How many belts and divisions were there in Armstrong's day?

Many thanks

p.s. don't bother replying, and don't bother coming on with your other alias - D4. You've been shown up enough sunshine, ta ra

Don't forget Zivic as well Windy which brings it up to 12 fully fledged world champions

imperialghosty wrote:Don't forget Zivic as well Windy which brings it up to 12 fully fledged world champions

Forgot all about him, Ghosty. Thanks for reminding me. I also forgot Larkin and Angott.

Fourteen and counting.

I've been trying to find the article that details all the HOFers and world champions that the top guys beat, was on 606 months ago

Armstrong was second or third I believe behind Greb and possibly Mclarnin I believe

imperialghosty wrote:I've been trying to find the article that details all the HOFers and world champions that the top guys beat, was on 606 months ago

Armstrong was second or third I believe behind Greb and possibly Mclarnin I believe

Off the top of my head I believe Greb has eighteen, Ghosty, which is absolutely phenomenal given that he seldom put on weight to fight the lightheavies and heavies. He wasn't even a big middleweight. McLarnin, as you say, has an incredible array of scalps, also.

Greb was definitely top, had something ridiculous like 13 hall of famers in his win column, most of them beaten multiple times.

Mclarnin always gets forgotten but who else can claim victories from Bantamweight up to Welterweight over guys like Villa, Ambers, Canzoneri, Ross and Leonard

imperialghosty wrote:Greb was definitely top, had something ridiculous like 13 hall of famers in his win column, most of them beaten multiple times.

Mclarnin always gets forgotten but who else can claim victories from Bantamweight up to Welterweight over guys like Villa, Ambers, Canzoneri, Ross and Leonard

Hugely impressive.

Canzoneri didn't do too shabbily, either. Three lineal titles plus the NBA ( WBA ) bantamweight crown.

Nor did Barney Ross

In short Chris if this has all gone over your head as most of the guys mentioned will look inferior to Pacquiao and co on Boxrec but they all won multiple genuine world titles.