Miguel Cotto's record

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

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

Cotto's resume reads:

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

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

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

Does this put Cotto's record into perspective?

Why omit Hopkins from Calzaghes record? Probably his biggest win. Also came back to beat Pavlik and IMO deserved to recalim his world title at LH.

Cotto for me fell just short but i followed him from early on in his career and thought he was going to be a legend, i thought his days were numbered in the Quintana fight. He was just too easy to hit but still deserves his place in the current crop of fighters. A great style and exciting to watch.

Cotto's record appears exceptional. Cant ague with that. As for JC, it seems that those he beat were at the tail end of their careers with the obvious exception of Lacy. The beating JC put onto Lacy finished him permanently.

Apologies, I forgot B-HOP. I wasn't counting The Ring magazine belt as 1 of the 4 main championships but fair point !

manos de piedra wrote:Why omit Hopkins from Calzaghes record? Probably his biggest win. Also came back to beat Pavlik and IMO deserved to recalim his world title at LH.

True. Cant argue and say it wasn't a peak Bhop seeing what he did afterwards.

I'm not sure. Hopkins was 43-years-old and there's a strong argument that Hopkins actually beat Calzaghe. He certainly beat Calzaghe on flair. Hopkins did well to beat Pavlik who had to move up from middleweight. But let's look at Pavlik's track record: he beat Taylor. Who had Taylor beat? Hopkins on 2 questionable decisions. What did Pavlik achieve after losing to Hopkins? He lost to Sergio Martinez. Other than the Pavlik win, Hopkins pulled out a remarkable performance against Pascal. But having been down on the canvas on 2 occasions, a draw wasn't a bad result when you consider the scoring system.

hitmansam wrote:I'm not sure. Hopkins was 43-years-old and there's a strong argument that Hopkins actually beat Calzaghe. He certainly beat Calzaghe on flair. Hopkins did well to beat Pavlik who had to move up from middleweight. But let's look at Pavlik's track record: he beat Taylor. Who had Taylor beat? Hopkins on 2 questionable decisions. What did Pavlik achieve after losing to Hopkins? He lost to Sergio Martinez. Other than the Pavlik win, Hopkins pulled out a remarkable performance against Pascal. But having been down on the canvas on 2 occasions, a draw wasn't a bad result when you consider the scoring system.

The fight with JC was close, but I thought JC shaded it. He was busier and landed the better punches. BHop had the flair, but flair doesn't win a fight. Also I had BHop beating Pascal despite the kds. Pavlik was never much cop imo and I'm still wondering what happened to Taylor for that to happen.

Roy Jones has:

Jorge Castro
Bernard Hopkins
Sugar boyMalinga
James Toney
Eric Lucas
Virgil Hill
Julio cesar Gonzalez
Clinton Woods
John Ruiz
Antonio Tarver


I assume de la hoya has beaten quite a few who became champs again as well but I agree that of people around cotto's age i can't think of anyone that matches that record

Pacal is a very good fighter; and I had Hopkins beating him.

How he keeps doing it at that age I will never know.

samevans1 wrote:Pacal is a very good fighter; and I had Hopkins beating him.

How he keeps doing it at that age I will never know.

Modern techniques in diets and training

Despite being the contemporary fighter with the closest to old-school fundamentals?

samevans1 wrote:Despite being the contemporary fighter with the closest to old-school fundamentals?

My point exactly. I've never said old timers didn't have the skills. But with better......nevermind. Dont want to derail the thread.

azania wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Pacal is a very good fighter; and I had Hopkins beating him.

How he keeps doing it at that age I will never know.

Modern techniques in diets and training

If he keeps it up he might get close to Archie Moore

Well on the face of things that looks very impressive but statistics aren't a real basis to rate someone and I must say with the exception of Mosley and Judah none of those names are hugely impressive. They may have gone on to reclaim belts but in all honesty they're not that good.

skidd1 wrote:

azania wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Pacal is a very good fighter; and I had Hopkins beating him.

How he keeps doing it at that age I will never know.

Modern techniques in diets and training

If he keeps it up he might get close to Archie Moore

He's still got 160 odd fights to go yet

imperialghosty wrote:

skidd1 wrote:

azania wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Pacal is a very good fighter; and I had Hopkins beating him.

How he keeps doing it at that age I will never know.

Modern techniques in diets and training

If he keeps it up he might get close to Archie Moore

He's still got 160 odd fights to go yet

Keep feeding that modern nutrition and pumping the iron and he might just get there.
Might be worth a call to Holyfield he can get him some of his "fountain of youth" creams and potions.
On second thoughts speak to Donaire because he has Vic Conte's number on speed dial

De La Hoya beat 20 former/current champions yet his critics still have the cheek to look down on him. This idea that De La Hoya lost his big fights is nonsense. Not to forget that he was cheated against Trinidad and Mosley II.

Azania, how did Calzaghe land the better punches when Hopkins didn't have a scratch on him after the fight? Most of Calzaghe's shots were elbow and arm shots which Hopkins actually slipped, rolled and parried.

If you look for workrate then Calzaghe beat Hopkins in every round of the fight. It'd be 12-0 to Calzaghe.

But professional boxing is scored of effective aggression, defense, ring generalship and clean punching. Based on these 4 factors, how did Calzaghe win the fight? Who carried the better defense in the fight? Who controlled the pace for the majority of the fight? Who scored the clean punches? Fair enough it was a close fight but no way did Calzaghe beat Hopkins on flair.

Well Calzaghe won the fight so that's that

It's a simplistic view but beating world champions means nothing if they aren't any good and the context of victory must be taken into account as well. Having Burley on your record is far more impressive than having say Holt or Torres on your record. It's about ability not titles

imperial, he was granted a split decision. Fair enough it was a close fight and by no means was it a robbery but the decision is open to be debate in line with Taylor's ''wins'' over Hopkins.

And Cotto's victims who came back to win championships might not have been great but they were good enough to do it - unlike the Eubanks, Reids, Brewers and Mitchells.

That's all.

But I do see your point. Look at Gavin Rees, for example.

At the same time, many of Cotto's victims came back to beat good fighters. Mosley beat Margarito. Quintana beat Paul Williams. Torres beat Holt etc.

hitmansam: This idea that De La Hoya lost his big fights is nonsense.
----
Errr well he did lose Trinidad, mostly 1 & 2, Hopkins, mayweather and pacquiao. He may have been robbed in mosley 2 but he got a gift against sturm so it evens out.

As for Cotto, quality fighter with great fundamentals but fell short of elite level. Great when he sticks to his gameplan like against Mosley but when hurt he loses his gameplan quite easily. I think we need to differentiate between the term world champion and the term title holder. Cottos victims have not gone on to establish themselves as world champions with the exception of Mosley who became the man at 147.

De La Hoya: robbed against Trinidad. Mosley admitted to being on the juice for the rematch. And against Pac he was a shell. He lost to Hopkins who is now a top gun at 175lbs and it was an even fight before the stoppage. The Sturm fight was close - hardly a robbery in line with De La Hoya-Trinidad or Whitker-Chavez.

Cotto is modern great. He's beaten over 12 former/current champs. A 3 weight world champ who has 1 legit loss to one of the greatest fighters of all time. If you want to give Margarito the benefit of the doubt then that's a real shame for the sport.

Cotto's victims might not have been great but they were good enough to come back and reclaim championships. Something the Eubanks, Brewers, Lacys abd Mitchells couldn't do.

hitmansam: If you want to give Margarito the benefit of the doubt then that's a real shame for the sport.
--------------------------------
i dont wanna give marg the benefit of the doubt, never said I did. I detest the man with a passion. He should've been banned for life, not given a big money high profile return. I am 100% convinced he was using loaded gloves against cotto. He landed more punches on manny than cotto, yet cotto looked like he'd been in a train wreck and manny was fine. He also couldnt put a dent in that bum he fought in mexico in his first comeback fight. Coincidence? definitely not in my eyes.

Part of me hopes manny inflicted enough of a beating to retire him, part of me hopes he goes on to meet cotto and miguel hands him a lesson.

Sugar, I can't give Margarito the benefit of the doubt. He tried it on against Mosley and got caught red handed. IF my life depended on it, I would say Margarito cheated against Cotto.

I have mixed feelings on whether Cotto should rematch him. I'd like to see Cotto beat him but at the same time feel Cheato doesn't deserve the payday. Margarito is a disgrace. He's a dirty stain on the name of boxing.

Margarito shouldn't fight again.Wanted Pac to give him that beating which is not nice
Cotto needs to fight someone else and deserves better

How many of these guys Cottos list or even Calzaghes for that matter were real champions?

I would say only Hopkins, Judah and Mosely. Perhaps Kessler too. To call the rest world champions is but to embrace this nonsensical system in place these days where titles are two a penny. In short it means little.

There is perhaps not too much between them but Cotto edges it for me by virtue of figthing a similar standard of opposition but at a better time. I dont buy into this "world champion" justification though. Its skewing the realities of the situation.

The Sturm fight was close - hardly a robbery in line with De La Hoya-Trinidad or Whitker-Chavez.

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

The Sturm fight wasnt close.
I'm a fan of ODLH but had Sturm beating him 8 rounds to 4.
I actually would classify it as a robbery. Even the HBO commentary team and the Goldenboy himself appeared embarrassed when the scorecards were announced.

As for Cotto, excellent boxer and a true warrior. However, I think boxers should only be judged once they hang up their gloves. Cotto may still have a few more great wins left in him. He's a future HOF in my eyes.

A lot of Oscar's biggest fights were close; Trinidad, Mosley I and II, Quartey, Sturm, Whitaker.

It just about evens itself out. Gun to head, I think he deserved Trinidad and Mosley Ii and lost to Sturm. But at this tage, it's purely academic.

He was a magnificent fighter from 1995-2000 and that is what people should really focus on when judging him. Rather than the celebrity-promoter of later years when he was nowehere near as good as he was during his earlier title run.

"Came back to win a belt"

So you're valuing the belts? Why? The likes of the WBC etc have been disgracing themselves for years. I mean there's now super duper champs belts, super but not quite duper champs belts, champ but not really champ belts etc etc etc

Torres: Beat Anoutis - WOW
Malignaggi: Beat N'Dou - WOW
Maussa: Beat Harris - WOW
Bailey: Didn't win a major belt, was the intercontintel or something
Quintana: Beat Williams fair enough then got annhialated
Judah: Beat Mabuza - WOW
Mosley: Beat Marg fair enough
N'dou: Beat Rabah - WOW
Clottey: Can't say "likely to win one again" to back up your arguement
Foreman: See above

See how many "good" divisional fighters they've won belts against!?

Cotto has defeated some exceptionally good fighters. Names in Quintana, Malignaggi, Judah, Torres have bags loads of skill and ability. It takes alot to consistantly defeat opponents of this calibre, we are not talking a faded Robin Reid. Apart from Mosely, he doesn't have many elite fighters, but not many do. He did defeat a huge number of modern good fighters, which places him in a high position. Added to the fact he is a 4 time world champion in 3 different weight classes, still very few fighters achieve these feets. Cotto has contested 14 world champs in 37 fights, he has taken a difficult route in his career and not avoided the big fights.

Doesn't matter. Out of the 4 main championships, Cotto's opponents have a track record of coming back to reclaim a major championship after losing to him. It's easy to nitpick but this alone reflects very well on Cotto's career. You can't say the same for Calzaghe, for example. Or even David Haye.

As for De La Hoya-Sturm, what did HBO say when De La Hoya stepped into the ring? They pointed out that Oscar had never looked so 'soft' in his entire career. Given the fact he was a full-time promoter and part-time fighter, De La Hoya had lost his hunger to train. He was carrying excess weight but still fought his heart out. Sturm did well and it was a close fight but to call it a robbery is nonsense. I could make a strong argument in favour of De La Hoya winning at least 5 rounds with the addition of a couple of swing rounds which could've went either way. In fact, I'm glad stay-at-home Sturm lost.

There's no way Sturm lost that fight and does very much fall into the robbery category.

Beating average champions who then go on to beat even worse champions doesn't mean a thing in relation to Cottos career, it's about who you beat and I don't see why you keep having to mention Calzaghe.

On the other hand, Hopkins is arguably better than any of the names on the OP's original list.

Boxing Challenges

Yes, yes he is.

And Calzaghe winning that fight. But he far from dominated.

I used Calzaghe's career as an example to compare and contrast to. Given the fact that 168 was extremely weak during Calzaghe's years as champion, why didn't any of Calzaghe's opponents reclaim 1 of the 4 main championships if it's so easy? I was merely pointing out that this is an achievement that shouldn't be underrated and Calzaghe's track record is a testament to that.

And I disagree that Hopkins at 43-years-old was better than a 2006-2007 Shane Mosley who Cotto beat. Since his SD decision loss to Calzaghe, what has Hopkins achieved? He beat the middleweight champion at light-heavy and then he drew against Pascal. I question Pavlik's track record. Who did Pavlik ever beat? He has two wins over Taylor and that's it. Who did Taylor beat? Taylor drew with Winky and got the nod in 2 very close fights against an old Hopkins. Hardly decisive stuff. Mosley came back from the Cotto loss to become the welterweight champion and the no.1 man at the weight. Hopkins hasn't put on a dominating performance against the man at his weight, has he?

Miguel Cotto's record is exceptional. With the exception of the Pacquiao defeat, he has done great. IF you're going to give Margarito the benefit of the doubt then that's your choice but well-informed boxing folk aren't fooled. Ask Roach, Richardson, McGirt, Steward, HBO.

His 1 loss comes to Pac who is arguably a top-25 great. And even in that defeat he was competitive in the first half of the fight. He wasn't dominated like Hopkins or Wright dominated Trinidad. Not to forget the fact that he had no trainer for the fight. If they have a rematch, I'd tip Pac to beat Cotto on a closer decision - along the lines of 116-112 or 115-113. Pac is too fast - for most guys out there.

He also lost to Margarito, until proven otherwise it can't be overlooked, well informed boxing folk like Steward, HBO etc. also rated Calzaghe very highly.

When has Cotto ever been rated as highly as number 3 on the pound for pound list?

I don't consider winning titles to be that important any more because of the proliferation

That's cool, I don't have a problem with you giving Margarito the benefit of the doubt. A lot in life is unproven. The Catholic faith is the biggest Church in the entire world but the claim of Jesus' divinity is unproven. They choose to believe he was God. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and they choose to believe that their prophet was in receipt of sacred messages through heaven's Angel Gabriel. It's unproven but they choose to believe it. I choose to believe that Margarito is (1) a convicted cheat, and (2) it wasn't the first time he cheated. It's not far-fetched when you look at Cotto's face after the fight.

As for your second point, Cotto has never been ranked as high as 3rd but he was ranked 7th in 2007 and 8th in 2008. He was also ranked in the top-10 in 2009 and 2010.

As for Calzaghe, I rate him. How well? As a good fighter. The word 'great' in boxing is overly used. 1 fight can define your career and Calzaghe's career-defining fight is Kessler. Personally, I look for proven track records. Kessler didn't achieve anything special before his fight with Calzaghe. But he did beat Froch to reclaim the WBC championship and that goes in Calzaghe's favour. And we know what Froch has achieved.

Shane Mosley is arguably an all-time great. In 2007 he was in very good condition and ranked 3rd at welter behind (1) Cotto and (2) Williams. Not at his very best but still an elite fighter. The fact (1) Cotto beat him in a war, and (2) Mosley admitted defeat after the fight shows me Cotto's greatness. Couple that with his other wins over 12+ world champions - the majority of whom have come back to win championships, and the fact he's done it across 3 weight classes is a great career.

He still has time to rematch Margarito and seal a few good wins. Boxing needs more guys like Cotto.

I wouldn't consider the Cotto/Mosley fight a war, Cotto boxed beautifully that night didn't engage like he has done on so many occassions and outboxed Mosley. If it were a war it would have ended a lot sooner than the Margarito fight did in Mosleys favour but alas Cotto stuck to his gameplan for once and prevailed.

I'm not a huge fan of Cotto, he's an exciting fighter but has never really proved himself to be the man at a weight which Calzaghe does have in his favour. Being a linear champion in two weights out does being a 3 weight belt holder for me.

No chance. If Cotto was British you'd probably see it differently. He cleaned up at 140. He technically became unified champ at 147. Hatton wouldn't fight Witter let alone Cotto.

As for De La Hoya-Sturm, what did HBO say when De La Hoya stepped into the ring? They pointed out that Oscar had never looked so 'soft' in his entire career. Given the fact he was a full-time promoter and part-time fighter, De La Hoya had lost his hunger to train. He was carrying excess weight but still fought his heart out. Sturm did well and it was a close fight but to call it a robbery is nonsense. I could make a strong argument in favour of De La Hoya winning at least 5 rounds with the addition of a couple of swing rounds which could've went either way. In fact, I'm glad stay-at-home Sturm lost..

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

hitmanam, I'm confused.
Earlier in this thread, you rightly point out that professional boxing is scored of effective aggression, defense, ring generalship and clean punching.
Oscar was inferior to Sturm in all those variables. The final copubox stats would certainly back this up.
If you honestly thought that Oscar actually won 5 rounds and did enough to merit the victory than I'm lost for words.
Considering Oscar had earlier already signed a deal to fight a top P4P opponent in Hopkins, its a bit naiive to suggest that he "lost his hunger to train". Oscar himself said that he "trained as hard as he could" in the post match interview.
As for looking "soft", he was competing at a career high 160lbs so was never going to be as ripped as usual.
Anyway, I can't blame Sturm for choosing to "stay-at-home" after that debacle.

Going back to the original topic, I don't really see what Joe Calzaghe has to do with a Miguel Cotto appraisal. Its not like they ever competed in the same division, fought any of the same men or even had a verbal spat.
If you want to pay a homage to Cotto than is there really any need to bring Calzaghe into it?

He cleaned up at Light Welterweight despite not beating any of the divisions top fighters and only winning the WBO strap

He in no way became unified champion at Welterweight and his record at that weight consists of beating Mosley

He's never been recognized as the best in the division whereas Calzaghe was in two divisions, worlds apart

lol ok ghosty. Are you over 18?

Clottey had to vacate just before the fight otherwise it would've been a unification. Funny how Marg looks great against Cotto but then gets knocked by Mosley, then looks terrible in his comeback fight and then gets obliterated by Pacquiao.

You can always tell when someone no longer has any constructive to say, they start using idiocies like 'lol' and revert to insults.

imperialghosty wrote:He cleaned up at Light Welterweight despite not beating any of the divisions top fighters and only winning the WBO strap

He in no way became unified champion at Welterweight and his record at that weight consists of beating Mosley

He's never been recognized as the best in the division whereas Calzaghe was in two divisions, worlds apart

When was Calzaghe recognised as the best at Light Heavy? He fought Bhop and RJJ. Does that constitute him being the best?

Being the Linear world champions makes you the best in a division, the other four belts are meaningless in comparison to the Linear title.

imperialghosty wrote:Being the Linear world champions makes you the best in a division, the other four belts are meaningless in comparison to the Linear title.

Who did JC beat to become linear champ at Light Heavy? I admit I pay little attention to belts and prefer to see fights regardless of what is at stake. Too many belts for my liking.

Hopkins was the Linear champion before losing it to Calzaghe