Hopes for 2014

A quick look at the BBC's list of Champions reads as follows

WORLD CHAMPIONS:
Weight WBC WBA IBF WBO
Heavy
WBC Vacant
WBA W Klitschko
IBF W Klitschko
WBO W Klitschko

Cruiser
Wlodarczyk
Lebedev
Hernandez
Huck

Light-heavy
Stevenson
Shumenov
Hopkins
Kovalev

Super-middle
Bika
Ward
Froch
Stieglitz

Middle
Martinez
Golovkin
Sturm
Quillin

Light-middle
Mayweather
Mayweather
Molina
Andrade

Welter
Mayweather
Maidana
Porter
Bradley

Light-welter
Garcia
Garcia
Peterson
Provodnikov

Light
Figueroa
Gamboa
Vazquez
Burns

Super-feather
Miura
Uchiyama
Mendez
Garcia

Feather
Gonzales
Vetyeka
Gradovich
Salido

Super-bantam
Santa Cruz
Rigondeaux
Martinez
Rigondeaux

Bantam
Yamanaka
Moreno
vacant
Kameda

Super-fly
Rungvisai
Kaovichit
Kameda
Narvaez

Fly
Yaegashi
Estrada
Mthalane
Estrada

Light-fly
Hernandez
Gonzalez
Casimero
Nietes

Strawweight
Chaozhong
Budler
Takayama
Sabillo


Outside of Wlad, no fighter holds more than two versions of the belt in his particular weight class and this must depress many of us on here. There's currently an argument ongoing about fighter of the year and someone staked a claim for Stevenson calling him the "king at 175" A quick glance above would surely put paid to that particular argument. Kovalev and Stevenson is surely a pick 'em so I'm at a loss as to how Adonis gets the nod.

Therefore, my wish for 2014 would be a series of fights to determine the top dog in each weight class. I appreciate it's not going to be decided within 12 months but by this time next year I'd love to hear that we are well underway with these match-ups.

I'll also write a follow up article next December staing how pi$$ed off I am that there's only been one attempt at a unification and that surely there could have been a better match-up made than Nathan Cleverley and the recently un-retired Bobby Gunn.

Hopes for 2014:
1.) Wlad to retire
2.) Ward to give Chavez a real hiding getting himself some mainstream attention
3.) GGG to get some big fights
4.) Khan to get bypassed by floyd then KOed by maidana or Garcia in a rematch
5.) Mayweather  vs Lara
6.) Lomachenko vs Rigondeux
7.) Rios vs Provodnikov
8.) Abolish silver/emeritus/super/regular belts (no point trying the associations as it won't happen)
9.) Froch vs Groves II
10.) Matthysse, donaire and Mares to win world titles

I called Adonis the king at 175 - I don't know why that's controversial.... Beat Dawson, the former king of 175, has a Ring title.

With regards to the whole diamond/super/regular rubbish, Dan Rafael tweeted the other week that there are now something like 173 versions of world titles overall. I may be wrong on the exact figure but to my knowledge that's what it is. Pretty much sums up boxing at present. That's before we get into different promotors and all that.

kingraf wrote:I called Adonis the king at 175 - I don't know why that's controversial.... Beat Dawson, the former king of 175, has a Ring title.

It's not conkers mate and there nothing about Stevenson to clearly suggest he's the man at the weight.

Pedro147 wrote:With regards to the whole diamond/super/regular rubbish, Dan Rafael tweeted the other week that there are now something like 173 versions of world titles overall. I may be wrong on the exact figure but to my knowledge that's what it is. Pretty much sums up boxing at present. That's before we get into different promotors and all that.

Is that per weight class?

Stevenson has had a great year. Knocked out the top dog at light heavyweight in one round and then gone on to prove hes more than just a big puncher by following it up with two very good performances over contenders, albeit fairly average ones. He is good value for top dog status at light heavyweight at present. Kovalov is the only guy in his division that I could see beating him at the moment.

DAVE667 wrote:

kingraf wrote:I called Adonis the king at 175 - I don't know why that's controversial.... Beat Dawson, the former king of 175, has a Ring title.

It's not conkers mate and there nothing about Stevenson to clearly suggest he's the man at the weight.

Stevenson beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal etc. I'm with kingraf - completely pointless to even acknowledge the alphabets.

Stevenson is the champion until someone beats him.

My biggest wish?

Mayweather to legitimately hit the canvas hard and for us to see just how he copes with that. I want to see the moment when he looks at his own blood and decides whether or not to grit his teeth or if it's all a bit too much for him.

Other wishes (in no particular order)

Carl Froch to say without prompting "I was 2nd best tonight and I have no excuses to offer"

George Groves to be given the opportunity to prove whether or not he's genuinely got what it takes or if he just had the night of his life against Froch. (theremay or may not be a connection with the above wish)

Two fighters to engage in a modern day classic and six months later have a rematch which sets up trilogy to rival some of the best we've had down the years. Quigg/Frampton would do nicely.

Someone to emerge as perhaps THE most exciting fighter we've seen in a many a year and for there to be pretty much universal agreement that we're watching something very special indeed.

Someone to punch Adam Smith in the windpipe...twice.

Tyson Fury to be handed a one-sided and sustained beating which makes him see that he really is nothing special....whilst being punched in the windpipe...twice....by himself if at all possible.

Robert Smith to come out and say that a referee has made a terrible mistake and that he will do everything in his power to make sure it never happens again instead of covering for these chucklemonkeys and making fighters sound like whingers...and then for someone to punch him in the windpipe...twice.

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

kingraf wrote:I called Adonis the king at 175 - I don't know why that's controversial.... Beat Dawson, the former king of 175, has a Ring title.

It's not conkers mate and there nothing about Stevenson to clearly suggest he's the man at the weight.

Stevenson beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal etc. I'm with kingraf - completely pointless to even acknowledge the alphabets.

Stevenson is the champion until someone beats him.

Frankly that's b~llocks...until these belts holders face one another with a clear winner at the end, it's nonsense to say someone is the man because they beat (holds head in hands and weeps ) Chad Dawson.

The belts mean jack sh1t as to who the top fighter is. Cleverly wasnt even the 4th best fighter when he held one of them. If there was only one belt then Stevenson would be the man holding it, by virtue of beating Dawson who would have been the man holding it when Stevenson beat him.

Dawson v Hopkins was billed as the top two light heavyweights facing off. Dawson won and then Stevenson beat him.

catchweight wrote:The belts mean jack sh1t as to who the top fighter is. Cleverly wasnt even the 4th best fighter when he held one of them. If there was only one belt then Stevenson would be the man holding it, by virtue of beating Dawson who would have been the man holding it when Stevenson beat him.

Dawson v Hopkins was billed as the top two light heavyweights facing off. Dawson won and then Stevenson beat him.

Oh do shut up, if Kovalev had been given the opportunity to fight Dawson, then, given the way he's also demolished his opposition, there's a genuine argument to say that he'd have beaten Chad too but what you're saying is that because one guy gets in there first and because the organisations and promotors fa*t ar$e around not making unification fights and you arbitrarily pick one guy as your favourite he's therefore the best?

It's like saying that Martinez is the best MW just becasue he's not yet faced a guy in Golovkin with a genuine chance of beating him.

Unless a division is woeful like the HW or you have someone like Mayweather...it's nigh on impossible to call yourself the man at the weight and even now we still have arguments about that.

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

kingraf wrote:I called Adonis the king at 175 - I don't know why that's controversial.... Beat Dawson, the former king of 175, has a Ring title.

It's not conkers mate and there nothing about Stevenson to clearly suggest he's the man at the weight.

Stevenson beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal etc. I'm with kingraf - completely pointless to even acknowledge the alphabets.

Stevenson is the champion until someone beats him.

Frankly that's b~llocks...until these belts holders face one another with a clear winner at the end, it's nonsense to say someone is the man because they beat (holds head in hands and weeps ) Chad Dawson.

Dawson beat Hopkins who beat Pascal (who was declared top dog after defeating Dawson when both men were ranked at the top of the division). Why doesn't that work for you?

1. Tyson Fury to be given an absolute lesson in the first 3 rounds of his next fight before being knocked on his butt 4 times. He calls it a controversial stoppage. Nobody cares.

2. Stiverne to KO Arreola this time then set up a unification bout against Wlad.

3. Wilder to be put on jelly legs by an opponent who isn't half-dead or so far past their best they're barely recognisable - I want to see how he copes.

4. Stevenson to fight Kovalev.

5. Froch to fight Groves again and to be gracious if defeated.

6. Lamont Petersen to fight Danny Garcia and be totally humiliated.

7. Floyd to fight someone he hasn't chosen.

8. Pascal to retire Bute.

9. David Price to show a massive improvement in his next fight by deliberately putting rounds in the bank and taking a few shots before KOing his opponent in the 12th.

10. Hughie Fury to fight for the British & European Titles against Chisora. Let's see how good he is.

DAVE667 wrote:

catchweight wrote:The belts mean jack sh1t as to who the top fighter is. Cleverly wasnt even the 4th best fighter when he held one of them. If there was only one belt then Stevenson would be the man holding it, by virtue of beating Dawson who would have been the man holding it when Stevenson beat him.

Dawson v Hopkins was billed as the top two light heavyweights facing off. Dawson won and then Stevenson beat him.

Oh do shut up, if Kovalev had been given the opportunity to fight Dawson, then, given the way he's also demolished his opposition, there's a genuine argument to say that he'd have beaten Chad too but what you're saying is that because one guy gets in there first and because the organisations and promotors fa*t ar$e around not making unification fights and you arbitrarily pick one guy as your favourite he's therefore the best?

It's like saying that Martinez is the best MW just becasue he's not yet faced a guy in Golovkin with a genuine chance of beating him.

Unless a division is woeful like the HW or you have someone like Mayweather...it's nigh on impossible to call yourself the man at the weight and even now we still have arguments about that.

Was your wife one the women Stevenson pimped or something?

Basically you are saying even if there was only one belt per division the champion would have no right to declare himself the champion because there is a challenger somewhere out there that might beat him.

The top light heavyweights fought it out with Dawson emerging with belt. Stevenson came along and beat him. Ergo - Stevenson is the champion. If thats too complex for you, hard luck.

DAVE667 wrote:

catchweight wrote:The belts mean jack sh1t as to who the top fighter is. Cleverly wasnt even the 4th best fighter when he held one of them. If there was only one belt then Stevenson would be the man holding it, by virtue of beating Dawson who would have been the man holding it when Stevenson beat him.

Dawson v Hopkins was billed as the top two light heavyweights facing off. Dawson won and then Stevenson beat him.

Oh do shut up, if Kovalev had been given the opportunity to fight Dawson, then, given the way he's also demolished his opposition, there's a genuine argument to say that he'd have beaten Chad too but what you're saying is that because one guy gets in there first and because the organisations and promotors fa*t ar$e around not making unification fights and you arbitrarily pick one guy as your favourite he's therefore the best?

It's like saying that Martinez is the best MW just becasue he's not yet faced a guy in Golovkin with a genuine chance of beating him.

Unless a division is woeful like the HW or you have someone like Mayweather...it's nigh on impossible to call yourself the man at the weight and even now we still have arguments about that.

Martinez is regarded as the middleweight champion (by many) as he beat Pavlik, who beat Taylor, who beat Hopkins.

So, if someone like Kovalev managed to win a series of unification fights but was then stripped by the alphabets, who then crowned other fighters - would Kovalev not be the top dog?

So if Stevenson just ditches all his belts and spends the next 3 years beating the Karpency's of this world he would remain divisional number 1 as no one beat him?

Stevenson has as good a claim as anyone to be number 1 but it is not quite as cut and dry as he beat Dawson he's the man.

It's just a style thing which meant that Hopkins beat Pascal, Pascal beat Dawson and Dawson beat Hopkins, can you really say that Dawson was the stand out from those 3 to be recognised as undoubted divisional number 1 and wouldn't have lost to Pascal again?

bellchees wrote:So if Stevenson just ditches all his belts and spends the next 3 years beating the Karpency's of this world he would remain divisional number 1 as no one beat him?

Stevenson has as good a claim as anyone to be number 1 but it is not quite as cut and dry as he beat Dawson he's the man.

It's just a style thing which meant that Hopkins beat Pascal, Pascal beat Dawson and Dawson beat Hopkins, can you really say that Dawson was the stand out from those 3 to be recognised as undoubted divisional number 1 and wouldn't have lost to Pascal again?

Is this what has become of boxing?

Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

Agreed.

I think Golovkin could be the best middleweight in the world but he hasn't proven it. Martinez is the boss until someone whups him.

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

Agreed.

I think Golovkin could be the best middleweight in the world but he hasn't proven it. Martinez is the boss until someone whups him.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then, he's the man for now but if he continues struggling against opposition that Golovkin is blowing through with no problems I'd have no problem installing Golovkin as the man if Martinez refuses to fight him.

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Pascal defeated Dawson and was regarded as the division's top man. Hopkins beat Pascal and Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson then knocked Dawson out. Pretty simple - why pick holes in it?

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Pascal defeated Dawson and was regarded as the division's top man. Hopkins beat Pascal and Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson then knocked Dawson out. Pretty simple - why pick holes in it?

Because it's flawed, I know it doesn't change anything but why was Dawson vs Pascal suddenly to decide who the best in the division was? Neither at the time had any better claim than Hopkins to be the best in the division after Calzaghe.

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

Agreed.

I think Golovkin could be the best middleweight in the world but he hasn't proven it. Martinez is the boss until someone whups him.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then, he's the man for now but if he continues struggling against opposition that Golovkin is blowing through with no problems I'd have no problem installing Golovkin as the man if Martinez refuses to fight him.

Martinez is talking two fights then out. Cotto swells the pension. After that I can see HBO throwing money at a Golovkin fight.

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Pascal defeated Dawson and was regarded as the division's top man. Hopkins beat Pascal and Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson then knocked Dawson out. Pretty simple - why pick holes in it?

Because it's flawed, I know it doesn't change anything but why was Dawson vs Pascal suddenly to decide who the best in the division was? Neither at the time had any better claim than Hopkins to be the best in the division after Calzaghe.

Hopkins was rated behind Dawson, Johnson and Pascal.

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Its not as straightforward no, and there isnt a tangible single championship to mark it out, but its a pretty similar logic. The top guys in the division fighting each other and passing about the title.

If you are going to recognise Calzaghe as a clear number 1 when he beat Hopkins then I dont see why you cant do the same with the following fighters after. There may not have been a dominant champion but it was a championship being passed around which is currently resting with Stevenson in my opinion. Its not a perfect a system as there is no way of forcing the top guys to fight anymore but thus far at least at light heavyweight the better guys in the division have been facing each other so it works for the time being.

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

Agreed.

I think Golovkin could be the best middleweight in the world but he hasn't proven it. Martinez is the boss until someone whups him.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then, he's the man for now but if he continues struggling against opposition that Golovkin is blowing through with no problems I'd have no problem installing Golovkin as the man if Martinez refuses to fight him.

Martinez is talking two fights then out. Cotto swells the pension. After that I can see HBO throwing money at a Golovkin fight.

I hope a Cotto fight doesn't happen, Cotto is a long way past his best and has no business being at Middleweight and I think Sergio is probably done as a top level guy now as well and has blown hot and cold since Dzinziruk, if the Middleweight scene outside of himself and Golovkin wasn't so bad he would have already been replaced as top dog.

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

Agreed.

I think Golovkin could be the best middleweight in the world but he hasn't proven it. Martinez is the boss until someone whups him.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then, he's the man for now but if he continues struggling against opposition that Golovkin is blowing through with no problems I'd have no problem installing Golovkin as the man if Martinez refuses to fight him.

Martinez is talking two fights then out. Cotto swells the pension. After that I can see HBO throwing money at a Golovkin fight.

I hope a Cotto fight doesn't happen, Cotto is a long way past his best and has no business being at Middleweight and I think Sergio is probably done as a top level guy now as well and has blown hot and cold since Dzinziruk, if the Middleweight scene outside of himself and Golovkin wasn't so bad he would have already been replaced as top dog.

Signed I believe - New York (will sell a heap of tickets).

Hope Golovkin gets his chance after Cotto.

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Pascal defeated Dawson and was regarded as the division's top man. Hopkins beat Pascal and Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson then knocked Dawson out. Pretty simple - why pick holes in it?

Because it's flawed, I know it doesn't change anything but why was Dawson vs Pascal suddenly to decide who the best in the division was? Neither at the time had any better claim than Hopkins to be the best in the division after Calzaghe.

Hopkins was rated behind Dawson, Johnson and Pascal.

Why would he be rated below these 3 before the Dawson vs Pascal fight?

Pascal had what 3 fights at the weight and got given a paper title.

No idea how Johnson is even considered for this, who'd he beat to make him rank above Hopkins?

Dawson has the best record of the guys depth wide but it's still far from clear cut given how he made his name beating guys Hopkins had already beaten more conclusively.

Is that what the ring magazine says Haz? Strange how you're so quick to dismiss opinions based on that when it suits you.

Usually I agree with beating the man to become the man but at 175lbs it isn't that simple, you have a triangle where they all have one win and one loss, you can't come up with a definitive answer in that situation.

"Tyson Fury to be handed a one-sided and sustained beating which makes him see that he really is nothing special....whilst being punched in the windpipe...twice....by himself if at all possible."

Brilliant.

Wish list...

Khan to get knocked out by Paulie in the first round.

Froch to hand a beating to Groves before stopping him.

Stevenson to knock Ward out.

Mayweather to fight GGG, beat him and then watch how the latter gets put down as being always merely average.

Pacquiao to get drilled by Marquez. Twice in the year.

Brook to beat Khan.

Anyone to beat Khan.

Khan to retire.

Khan to come out of retirement and not last one punch.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Is that what the ring magazine says Haz? Strange how you're so quick to dismiss opinions based on that when it suits you.

Usually I agree with beating the man to become the man but at 175lbs it isn't that simple, you have a triangle where they all have one win and one loss, you can't come up with a definitive answer in that situation.

Ring Mag's ratings were fine while Collins was in charge and they were decided by a panel. Since GBP bought the mag and sacked the staff the rankings and championship policy have taken a nosedive - always been my position.

Helmet.

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Pascal defeated Dawson and was regarded as the division's top man. Hopkins beat Pascal and Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson then knocked Dawson out. Pretty simple - why pick holes in it?

Because it's flawed, I know it doesn't change anything but why was Dawson vs Pascal suddenly to decide who the best in the division was? Neither at the time had any better claim than Hopkins to be the best in the division after Calzaghe.

Hopkins was rated behind Dawson, Johnson and Pascal.

Why would he be rated below these 3 before the Dawson vs Pascal fight?

Pascal had what 3 fights at the weight and got given a paper title.

No idea how Johnson is even considered for this, who'd he beat to make him rank above Hopkins?

Dawson has the best record of the guys depth wide but it's still far from clear cut given how he made his name beating guys Hopkins had already beaten more conclusively.

Hopkins was pittling about fighting the likes of Ornelas and Jones and presumably took a dip in rankings (can't quite recall).

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

catchweight wrote:Stevenson has a better claim to be the best light heavyweight at the moment than anyone else. Thats not to say he automatically beats everyone else. But he deserves to be ranked number 1 as things are now.

Ali beat Foreman who beat Frazier who beat Ali and the belt passed along accordingly to the champion at each stage. Its not as difficult as some on here make out to apply a similar criteria to Pascal, Hopkins, Dawson and Stevenson. Better than using the current system of multiple belts anyway.

I don't think it's quite as clear as the Ali, Frazier and Foreman situation where each one had a reign as champion for a few years and was a clear number one while holding the belt.

After Calzaghe retired there was no clear divisional number 1, you have an 18 month period where 3 guys who are very evenly matched all pick up a win and a loss against each other.

Pascal defeated Dawson and was regarded as the division's top man. Hopkins beat Pascal and Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson then knocked Dawson out. Pretty simple - why pick holes in it?

Because it's flawed, I know it doesn't change anything but why was Dawson vs Pascal suddenly to decide who the best in the division was? Neither at the time had any better claim than Hopkins to be the best in the division after Calzaghe.

Hopkins was rated behind Dawson, Johnson and Pascal.

Why would he be rated below these 3 before the Dawson vs Pascal fight?

Pascal had what 3 fights at the weight and got given a paper title.

No idea how Johnson is even considered for this, who'd he beat to make him rank above Hopkins?

Dawson has the best record of the guys depth wide but it's still far from clear cut given how he made his name beating guys Hopkins had already beaten more conclusively.

Hopkins was pittling about fighting the likes of Ornelas and Jones and presumably took a dip in rankings (can't quite recall).

Whereas Johnson was just destroying top opponents like Judah and Norwood between getting beat twice by Dawson.

Without getting into what magazine ranked who where, wasnt the general concensus that Dawson against Hopkins was the match between the two best light heavyweights? And havent they not generally been the two best light heavyweights over the last number of years? It stands to reason that the winner of that was more or less considered the top dog in the division. Stevenson came along and beat the winner of that.

I think people seem to think a champion must be a dominant one to qualify. Its simply been passed from one fighter to the next. If its not with Stevenson then where else should it be? Depending on how far back you go, the best light heavyweights in recent years have been Dawson, Hopkins and Pascal and the title was passed between them until its ended up with Stevenson now. Stevenson has also had best recent form. I cant think why he doesnt deserve to be top of the pile presently.

I don't think there is an established top guy in the division right now, you had a situation where 3 guys all fought each other and came out even, I don't think beating one of them, albeit very conclusively is enough to claim to be undisputed top dog, man to beat, real champion in the division. For me if Stevenson were to knock over cans or not fight for 6 months while Kovalev dispatches Hopkins and Pascal in decent fashion Kovalev's claim would be just as valid. My hope for 2014 is that Kovalev and Stevenson fight though as that would be a cracker.

Well if Stevenson was to fight nobodies and if Kovalov was to beat all the other top contenders in the meantime then fair enough, it would be up for debate. But that hasnt happened. Which is why Im reiterating at this particular point in time Stevenson deserves to be top of the pile.

Theres never going to be established champions anymore because there are no established championship. Just a bunch of crap ones. If there was a single established one, it would have passed along through Pascal, Hopkins and Dawson and winded up with Stevenson right now. He might not have established himself as a dominant champion, but he would be champion none the less.

http://www.tbrb.org

This is about as good as it gets.

If Stevenson fought nobodies he'd just be a poor champion. That's unlikely to happen as he's viewed as top dog -- meaning the networks demand he fights big fights.

This thread is agony to read in parts but what two titles does Froch hold?

Wish list: Floyd not to fight Khan.

Fury to get humiliated, I don't really care how.

Gallaghers gym burns to the ground, each and every Smith brother exposed as ordinary.

Burns takes on Beltran again and gets KO'd.

Manny vs Floyd in September. Hey, we can still dream right? Right? Hey? Guys? Guys!?

Oh and Mitchell smashes the granny out of Crolla before going on to fight for and win a world title by beating Beltran (already beaten Burns) in the States.

Brian Rose and Scott Cardle accidently find a small black hole whilst out walking together and get sucked in to never be seen again. Black hole disappears, no answers ever found but fans treated to not sitting through any more of their fights so a collective shrug of shoulders all round seems to resolve the issue.

Kovalev Vs Stevenson

Groves v Froch Re-Match

Some decent heavyweight matchups

Golovkin to Step up against a real live opponent

Big dev year for some of the U.K up and comers - luke campbel, BJ Saunders, Anthony Joshua etc

KingMonkey wrote:Brian Rose and Scott Cardle accidently find a small black hole whilst out walking together and get sucked in to never be seen again. Black hole disappears, no answers ever found but fans treated to not sitting through any more of their fights so a collective shrug of shoulders all round seems to resolve the issue.

  

I dont know what it is about Cardle. I just don't rate him, but Matchroom seem to be backing him in his early career. I can't see Rose picking up a World title at Light-Middle.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:Brian Rose and Scott Cardle accidently find a small black hole whilst out walking together and get sucked in to never be seen again. Black hole disappears, no answers ever found but fans treated to not sitting through any more of their fights so a collective shrug of shoulders all round seems to resolve the issue.

  

I dont know what it is about Cardle. I just don't rate him, but Matchroom seem to be backing him in his early career. I can't see Rose picking up a World title at Light-Middle.

What? Not even when Floyd picks him out of the blue as his next and toughest opponent to date?

DAVE667 wrote:What? Not even when Floyd picks him out of the blue as his next and toughest opponent to date?

Only if he gets enough "Likes" and "re-tweets" and "internets" though

He is only doing it for the fans after all...

I just wrote a ducking article.............You'd do well to read it Dave......It was meant for those above your pay grade.........but what the heck..

It may help improve your contribution more in the future..........

No doubt you had a happy xmas my old friend.........after all they say Ignorance is bliss !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I just wrote a ducking article.............You'd do well to read it Dave......It was meant for those above your pay grade.........but what the heck..

It may help improve your contribution more in the future..........

No doubt you had a happy xmas my old friend.........after all they say Ignorance is bliss !!

I note you comments on the ducking article that you're not looking for arguments ...and then you've come on here and have been mean to me. I don't like it! Not one bit!

There are plenty above my pay grade dear chap, but that doesn't mean they actually know anywhere near as much as I do...I've got one sitting behind me at work as I write this....

As for improving my contributions in the future I think I've clearly demonstrated with my Peter Jackson and Bradley Pryce articles that I'm more than fulfilling my quota of quality writing on this forum!

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:Brian Rose and Scott Cardle accidently find a small black hole whilst out walking together and get sucked in to never be seen again. Black hole disappears, no answers ever found but fans treated to not sitting through any more of their fights so a collective shrug of shoulders all round seems to resolve the issue.

  

I dont know what it is about Cardle. I just don't rate him, but Matchroom seem to be backing him in his early career. I can't see Rose picking up a World title at Light-Middle.

I'm not sold on him either (even though he comes out to the Celtic song...). His style is still very amateurish and doesn't seem to have any natural power. Add to that he bleeds like a haemophiliac on a heavy dose of warfarin it looks like he could struggle to get beyond British/European titles. Still a very high standard mind you. He had some very good wins as an amateur, Vastine, Nolan and Moylette among others, so he has talent but just doesn't look as suited to the pro's as other former GB boxers.