Who are the ten 'modern masters' of boxing?

Top of the morning to you all, chaps. A difficult day on 606v2 for obvious reasons - I'm hoping that a bit of good, old fashioned debate will be the best tonic for us all.

As someone who (perhaps fairly, at times) gets a bit of stick for favouring the old-timers in the tapestry of boxing history, I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to give the 'modern masters' a moment in the sun, and see if we can agree on which men have been the cream of the crop of the past quarter of a century which, I believe, is just about as close to the definition of a 'generation' as you can get.

I think 1987, with it being the end of the fifteen round era and the like, is a convenient starting place for us all. Which men, do you think, have been the stand out operators since then? To avoid any pedantry, I implore you to only include men whose careers have been in full bloom between 1987 and the present day, rather than seeing 1987 as a strict cut off point. For instance, despite his career stuttering on for another ten years from the year in question, Ray Leonard wouldn't be fit for inclusion, whereas Julio Cesar Chavez, despite winning his first world title in 1984, certainly would be.

As I'm sure we all appreciate, trying to rank fighters is always a personal and, at times, almost arbitrary task, but it would be interesting to see what level of agreement, if any, we can reach on this - particularly as I've decided that I'm going to include fighters who are still currently active, which I know is a pet peeve amongst some of you!

After a fair bit of deliberation, I've come up with this:

1) Pernell Whitaker
2) Floyd Mayweather Jr
3) Julio Cesar Chavez
4) Manny Pacquiao
5) Roy Jones Jr
6) Bernard Hopkins
7) Ricardo Lopez
8) Azumah Nelson
9) Khaosai Galaxy
10) Jeff Fenech

Needless to say, there's a host of exceptional fighters snapping at Fenech's heels for that last spot, the likes of Oscar De la Hoya, Marco Antonio Barrera, Lennox Lewis and Ivan Calderon included.

After my top two, which is basically nigh-on set in stone, I'm having a great deal of difficulty even as I write this! The trio of Chavez, Pacquiao and Jones, and the order they should be in, is giving me a headache in particular. Chavez the best of the three if we look at sheer consistency and career numbers, Jones arguably a candidate for the number one spot if we combine the aforementioned with level of utter dominance (a department in which he has almost no equal), Pacquiao a man whose weight-defying exploits make him one of the very few who can be compared to someone like Henry Armstrong on any scale at all; what to do with the three of them!?

In particular, I think it's important that Lopez and Galaxy, two truly outstanding little'uns, get their due here. Granted, if it was all down to eye-catching names, they'd struggle to make the list. However, as I'm sure Tino will attest to, Lopez was poetry in motion, totally dominant across his chosen division in a way similar to how Whitaker and Jones were at Lightweight and Light-Heavyweight respectively. Khaosai Galaxy, likewise, campaigned in a divison which has never really taken off outside of the Orient, but again, he made himself so unquestionably the king of the 115 lb weight class, it's impossible to ignore him here. The likes of Pical, for instance, were no pushovers - considered Khaosai's nearest rival in many quarters, the Thail crushed him with contempt.

Anyway, I'm rambling on here. Can we reach anything even approaching universal agreement here? How would you rejig the names I've come up with, which new ones would you introduce, and who would be thrown on the scrap heap to make way for them?

Let me know who are the modern masters in your eyes, lads. Cheers!

Tyson and Holy for Fenech and B-Hop.

Never had you down as rating Evander all that highly, Az - I thought you were a little too suspicious of what his 'diet' may have consisted!

Holyfield obviously a very, very fine fighter, but I can't see how any of the names here can make way for him. Personally, I find him, in general, slipping a little further and further down my all-time Heavyweight estimations with each passing year. Upon further inspection, he was more fortunate than I first remembered to get the second verdict against Bowe, and with a 4-4-1 ledger against his most significant rivals in his prime years (Bowe, Lewis, Tyson and Moorer), I can't nudge him ahead of men who comprehensively dominated their nearest rivals for such long, extended periods.

Tyson not far off the number ten spot, though, and I'd have no issues with anyone sneaking him in there.

A guy who I always felt had some lovely skills but a complete lack of anything even approaching self discipline was Juan Guzman, if you watch some of his defensive work it is truly sublime. However his ill discipline and lack of the acheivements his talent truly deserves probably means it would be a hard argument to find him a place above any of the guys on the list but if we are to do this purely on skill set he is worthy of consideration.

I don't want to let my ignorance of the lower weights get in the way, but I think I'd pull for Lights Out in Fenech's place, but that's probably just my bias.

In a way BHop could be top of the list. Not in a slick Sweet Pea way, but definitely a 'master' of the ring in knowing how to win and grind out results.

I think it is a pretty solid list, Chris, though as Jeff says is depends what you are judging them on.

For example, I'd put Pacquiao's record ahead of Mayweather's, and I prefer his style, but as to who is the more talented of the two that is clearly Floyd. Difficult to gain a balance, as it is with any such list.

Terry Norris in for Fenech.........

An unbeaten comebacking Leonard....Taylor....Mugabi....Curry......Brown.....

Are better than anything the aussie thug beat!!!!!!

88Chris05 wrote:Never had you down as rating Evander all that highly, Az - I thought you were a little too suspicious of what his 'diet' may have consisted!

Holyfield obviously a very, very fine fighter, but I can't see how any of the names here can make way for him. Personally, I find him, in general, slipping a little further and further down my all-time Heavyweight estimations with each passing year. Upon further inspection, he was more fortunate than I first remembered to get the second verdict against Bowe, and with a 4-4-1 ledger against his most significant rivals in his prime years (Bowe, Lewis, Tyson and Moorer), I can't nudge him ahead of men who comprehensively dominated their nearest rivals for such long, extended periods.

Tyson not far off the number ten spot, though, and I'd have no issues with anyone sneaking him in there.

His HW record is patchy which imo is mainly because he was a small guy competing against giants. But I wont judge him solely on his HW campaign. He was a magnificent cruiserweight and here HW in the 230lb limit, he would be dominant.

Norris isn't a bad shout, Truss. In terms of ability he'd certainly be ahead of Fenech, who was lacking in some areas but made up for it by being outstanding in others. On the other hand, Norris was the far more complete specimen, apart from that awful lack of discipline of course!

Can't help but feel that Norris caught some of his big-name victims at the right time, though. Taylor (as you yourself have acknowledged) really had no business contesting a 154 lb title at that point. Leonard visiby a lesser fighter by 1991. Curry likewise.

His performance in the rematch against Brown was tremendous, though. I just can't help but think that Light-Middleweight offered him something of a convenient oasis in the early ninties, though, with many of the better fighters plying their trade either side of it.

In recent months I've started to think that Fenech may be one of the most underrated fighters of the modern era. It's actually surprising how much quality is on his record, and even more surprisng the manner in which he dealt with many of these esteemed opponents. The wins over Zaragoza, Villasana, Callejas etc were all pretty decisive and, upon watching them again, I was amazed at the sheer workrate and pressure that Fenech put on his opponent. His performance against Payakaroon was from the top drawer, too; not a household name, but Payakaroon had been the heavy favourite beforehand.

And then, of coruse, what should have been his finest moment - the first fight with Nelson. Scored a draw, and while I tend to have the score a little narrower than most others, I still feel that Fenech was terribly unlucky not to get the verdict there. Had justice been done, that would have been a fourth divisional world title without a loss - not to be sniffed at!

I admit, it's a bit of a mystery how or why he fell apart so dramatically after that first fight with Nelson. Like others have suggested, I imagine that the injustice of being robbed of such a defining win (there's that term again!) took some of the wind out of his sails.

But I maintain that history hasn't been as kind to Fenech as it perhaps should have been.

It's just like Duke mckenzie a lot of Fenech's titles were soft!!!

Payakaroon at super bant and some useless Ibf bantam guy...

But hey it's all about opinions..

Maybe If he'd beat Nelson rather than draw and get creamed I might feel different..

Where is Arguello?

Are you joking?????????

Well as I said, Truss, I can only call that first fight with Zoomy a 'draw' through gritted teeth! And this was a Nelson who still had plenty of impressive moments ahead, starting with the rematch in Melbourne, of course!

Fists, I used to be in the same boat as you with regards to Mayweather and Pacquiao, insofar as I had Mayweather as the better talent, but considered Pacquiao to have had more defining moments and perhaps a more impressive CV.

Now I'm not so sure on that second point.

I do think that Pacquiao's first win over Barrera is better than anything on Floyd's ledger so far. You could perhaps say the same of his first win over Morales, albeit with no great conviction. Outside of that, I'd say their mutual opponents and their respective performances against them probably favours Floyd.

Clearly, Floyd's wins over De la Hoya, Mosley and Marquez trump Manny's over the same men, all things considered. Pacquiao, on the flip side, did a better job with Cotto, and arguably Hatton. If there's an edge for Pacquiao, it's becoming minimal at this point.

The rest of their ledgers are comparable, but what Mayweather has had virtually his whole career (but Manny has only had in spurts) is that feeling of invincibility; at times, we've wondered where and when he's going to lose a round, never mind a fight.

There's a sterling level of dominance and virtuosity in Mayweather's work which is perhaps just a little lacking in Manny's. Not a great deal in it, but Mayweather definitely has the edge for me.

I even toyed with the idea of putting Jones ahead of Pacquiao. Like Floyd, he spent years putting on a string of exemplary performances in which he either nigh-on pitched a shut out, or put his opponent away in style. He also, from dazzling Toney to defeat in 1994 to being stunned by Tarver in 2004, had a decade-long run as a widely acclaimed tip-of-the-iceberg, top dog pound for pound fighter; a truly rare feat across the whole of boxing history and, in modern terms, perhaps a unique one.

On level of dominance and pure talent, I think a case can be made to put Jones ahead of Pacquiao. I resisted, due to Manny having a string of wins which trump Jones', but it was a damn close run thing!

Reading Fenech's record, he won the IBF bantamweight title in only his seventh proffessional fight - is that the quickest world title win in any boxer's career?

Seems astonishing, unless I've just embarrassed myself by relying on BoxRec...

I'd have had little argument had you done so, Chris. Loved Jones Jr, a fine fighter and incredible to watch.

Agree any Mayweather and Pacquiao differences are minimal, so yes perhaps you're right place Floyd higher due to the other factors you have considered.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reading Fenech's record, he won the IBF bantamweight title in only his seventh proffessional fight - is that the quickest world title win in any boxer's career?

Seems astonishing, unless I've just embarrassed myself by relying on BoxRec...

Someone (I forget who) won it in their 1st fight, I believe!

Saensak Muangsurin (spelling almost definitely incorrect!) won the WBC Light-Welterweight title in his third bout, which is the record, I believe. Proved to be a fairly decent champion, too.

Fists of Fury wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reading Fenech's record, he won the IBF bantamweight title in only his seventh proffessional fight - is that the quickest world title win in any boxer's career?

Seems astonishing, unless I've just embarrassed myself by relying on BoxRec...

Someone (I forget who) won it in their 1st fight, I believe!

Is it Peter Rachmacher that challenged for the title in his first fight?

I would have had Toney on that list somewhere

Great article Chris, and one that more than does justice to Windy on a sad day like today.

I can't find much fault with your list, although I would certainly have El Finito above Hopkins, for me. I would say his skills and dominance were pretty close to guys like Mayweather, Jones and even Sweet Pea. That is how highly I rate him. I appreciate that it takes a leap of faith to rank him in the same bracket as these guys due to the opposition not having the same star quality (although having looked at his opposition in detail before, I feel he gets unfairly beaten with this particular stick), but his skills were so obviously transferable, I find it a very easy leap to make. I wouldn't rate him above your current top four as that would be an injustice to their records, but I would find room in the top five, even if that is my heart ruling my head.

Guys like Winky Wright, JMM and Trinidad deserve a shout as well.

It makes you realise that we have been blessed with some excellent talent over the last 25 years.

Again, superb article and a nice fillip on a difficult day for the board. Thanks.

Thanks Tino. I have to say, your constant championing of Lopez hasn't fallen on deaf ears - he certainly resides higher than he used to in my estimations after revisiting him, which was prompted by your protestations!

Can totally understand why you might nudge him ahead of Hopkins. The problem with Bernard, perhaps, is that he doesn't rally stand out in any one particular area the way others do, his incredible longevity aside. He never really had the invincibility factor that Jones and Floyd had (or have, in the latter case). Nor has he ever really scored highly for excitement like Chavez or Manny. His list of wins is excellent, of course, but doesn't stand out as much as Whitaker's, or perhaps even Nelson's. And on and on we go.

Given that he's seemingly half way up the list in each separate criterion, I'd say that half way up the list in general seems fairest to him. But if anyone had Lopez ahead, I wouldn't complain.

Josef and S.O.F, as I said in my article on him last month, Toney could have been a nailed-on top three for a list such as this, had he delivered fully on the talent he had. The man was so gifted at his peak it was almost scary. Skills-wise, I wouldn't even put Hopkins in the same conversation as him, for instance.

I don't think he'd miss this list by too a great a margin in any case, but still, I don't think he did quite enough to sneak in. The terribly frustrating thing, once again, is that he should have made it at a canter.

Chris, I have so much admiration for Hopkins the fighter, and to still be doing what he has been doing at his age is incredible. I would happily concede that he has the greater 'names' on his record, but in terms of dominance, his achievements at MW and Lopez's dominance of SW/LFW are comporable for me. The only way I seperate then is on the basis of a head to head fight, and all the associated difficulties that brings! Completely subjective of course, but I would pick Lopez over Hopkins 8 times out of 10 based purely on how I view their respective skills. That is no slight on Hopkins, more an expression of my awe for Lopez. Anybody that can knock a guy out with a counter left uppercut as he is walking backwards is something truly special. It is always hard to compare fighters of totally different weights, but when the margins in their careers are so fine, it is sometimes the only way to make a definitive decision. Opens it up for abuse and ridicule of course, but sometimes it is the only way to go.

On a side note, I had started to write a 'Real Boxing Heroes' thread about B-Hop, but I eventually decided I couldn't reconcile some of the less palatable aspects to his character in my own mind, so I shelved it for the time being. One thing that I did read was that recidivism amongst offenders at the time Hopkins was released from prison was around 30%. Amongst black prisoners, that figure rose to a barely conceivable 72% so for him to leave that system, avoid going back and have such an incredible career is nothing short of remarkable. In some ways he is inspirational, it is just a shame he can say some idiotic things on occasion.

Like you Tino, I yield to nobody in my admiration for Hopkins the fighter, even if I don't tend to revisit his fights after watching them the first time!

Some say that winning while old (as in, north of forty) is overrated, and so it goes that Hopkins must be overrated, too. Not sure I agree. I can't bring myself to say that winning while old is overrated, when only such a precious few have managed it in the whole history of the sport the way Hopkins has.

As a personality, I agree with you that he can vary from the interesting, to the absurd, to the offensive, to the funny, to the cringe-worthy and just about everything else inbetween, but regardless of all that, he is a truly remarkable character.

I would have to have Calderon and Nas on my list in place of Fenech and Galaxy. I would probably have Lopez above Pacquiao in 4th.

Calderon was outrageously talented and boxed rings round some good fighters. Nas was probably the most entertaining fighter and one of the few guys who made a point of putting on a show for the fans. He beat some very good fighters in some style as well.

I'd argue a case for Lewis just based on his achievements - the others (mostly) haven't fully unified a division and you'd need a Heavyweight "Master" and from 1987 - I'd argue that man to be Lewis over Tyson.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:I would probably have Lopez above Pacquiao in 4th.

I've always said you are one of my favourites, Kev!

Thanks for the continued responses, fellas.

Kev, as stated in my article, Calderon would certainly be in the near miss category at least. Like Lopez and Galaxy, perhaps suffers from the division in which he boxed, but he's definitely one of the few little men who warrant inclusion in the same breath as them.

Hamed, too, is in danger of becoming a terribly underrated Featherweight champion in some quarters - however, I'm far more comfortable in leaving him out of the list. In Britain alone, I think Lewis and Calzaghe have outdone him in the past quarter of a century. Realistically, the Mexican trio of Barrera, Marquez and Morales have done so, too. Given that none of them make my list, I'm forced to say that Naz can't get in to it, either.

JM, Lewis would be a shade closer to the list than Tyson, I agree. Not sure that he's quite the equal of the likes of Nelson, Galaxy and Fenech pound for pound, though.

Chris I can't have Calzaghe ahead of Nas. Fair enough he has longevity on his side but he was beating tin cans a lot of the time. Nas tore through a good featherweight division in some style.

I'd have Lewis in ahead of Bhop - I don't see the fighter I think everyone else sees. I just don't like his style - I never have. Its difficult to appreciate him as a "master" other than to think he's a master of "anti-boxing" in a boxing match.

Chris/Kev (or anyone else that is interested), how do you see a fight betwen Lopez and Calderon going?

It is a shame that Calderons career started the same year as Lopez's ended, as they could have had a great series of fights. Both outrageously talented with sublime skills, but I would lean towards Lopez winning more times than not. He certainly had greater power and his technique was incredible as was Calderons but I fancy El Finito to win as he could probably take more chances knowing he had that explosive power to match his skills.

Sorry for highjacking the thread, Chris, but as they are both on or near the list, it is still on topic?!

JJM

Agreed about Hopkins, but disagree with Lewis replacement. Personally I wouldn't have Lewis in the top 25. I'd have Holy ahead of him for sure and Tyson. Tyson was actually dominant when in his peak whereas many felt they had a punchers chance at least against Lewis. he had an air of vulnerability about him.

Holy was dominant at CW and very good at HW. Taking his HW ledger alone, he wont qualify. But one has to include his CW reign which was brilliant.

You wouldn't have Lewis in a top modern 25? I think you need to rethink exactly what that means.

The man was the dominant heavyweight through the 1990's until his retirement. If anyone was a modern master, its him. He may have had an air of vulnerability, but if you look at every one of his fights, when he turned it on, he was one of the best boxers I've ever seen in terms of skills. He also had devastating power when he went for it.

So in terms of the past 25 years the consensus is that no heavyweight deserves a place on the list? I can see pound for pound Lewis would rip Bhop apart. Even Pacquiao in terms of his boxing ability, because personally I'd have someone like JMM in there (I'm aware of their history) but for me, in terms of masters of what they do, JMM is better at what he does than Pacquaio at what he does.

If I'm making sense. Maybe I'm taking the term "master" too literally.

Granted, JM, Hopkins wins no points for style. He even managed to make that fight with a young version of Roy a stinker, which not many others could do.

Hard to argue that his record is anything other than significantly superior to Lennox's, however.

Kev, with regards to Calzaghe and Hamed, I'd actually argue that there's very little between their respective opposition. I see a similarity in some ways in the way in which Froch is compared to Calzaghe; some would have us believe that Froch has already scored better wins than Calzaghe, or been involved in more truly significant fights. He hasn't, on either count. He's just achieved his defining moments in a shorter space of time. Similarly, Hamed's star burned brighter between, say, 1998 and 2001 than Calzaghe's ever did at any one time, but over the course of his career I'd say that Calzaghe more than evened things out. Annoying that it took him so long to do so, of course.

Calzaghe's best win over Hopkins is certainly better than Hamed's over Vasquez, for instance. Outside of that, there's probably little in it; Bungu, Kelley, Johnson, Robinson and McCullough are, collectively, comparable to Kessler, Lacy, Mitchell, Eubank and Reid, if we look at the respective conditions of each opponent when they fought. There may be an edge to Hamed, but if there is it's surely countered by the defeat to Barrera.

Post-WWII, I'd say there's probably only a spot or so which separates them in the British stakes, but invariably I do find myself putting Calzaghe that little bit higher.

88Chris05 wrote: There may be an edge to Hamed, but if there is it's surely countered by the defeat to Barrera.

.

Think you mean robbery as opposed to defeat chris, easy mistake to make.

Chris, I can't disagree with you. You know more than I could hope to.

I just think the term "master" may have to be redefined if we're talking about actual careers as opposed to skills.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You wouldn't have Lewis in a top modern 25? I think you need to rethink exactly what that means.

The man was the dominant heavyweight through the 1990's until his retirement. If anyone was a modern master, its him. He may have had an air of vulnerability, but if you look at every one of his fights, when he turned it on, he was one of the best boxers I've ever seen in terms of skills. He also had devastating power when he went for it.

So in terms of the past 25 years the consensus is that no heavyweight deserves a place on the list? I can see pound for pound Lewis would rip Bhop apart. Even Pacquiao in terms of his boxing ability, because personally I'd have someone like JMM in there (I'm aware of their history) but for me, in terms of masters of what they do, JMM is better at what he does than Pacquaio at what he does.

If I'm making sense. Maybe I'm taking the term "master" too literally.

Jab

I beg to differ. Was never sold on Lewis in terms of his actual ability. His jab was more of a pawing weapon which lacked snap. Yes he was skillful, butt were he to have faced a peak Holy or Tyson, I reckon he would have lost to both quite comfortably. Look at the hell a faded Holy gave him? P4P over the past 25 years, I'd have lewis scraping into the top 25-30. 3rd best HW though.

Don't sell yourself short, JM.

Essentially, this is really just a 'pound for pound greatest' list for 1987 onwards - perhaps my article title doesn't quite convey that! It's almost impossible, of course, to rank fighters purely on what you define as skills and / or abilities when you've got seventeen weight divisions to cover, so I tend to find that ranking each man on a combination of opposition beaten (that being the foremost criterion), career achievements, dominance against the best men they faced and, of course, skills and abilities is a much easier and more realistic exercise.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Chris/Kev (or anyone else that is interested), how do you see a fight betwen Lopez and Calderon going?

It is a shame that Calderons career started the same year as Lopez's ended, as they could have had a great series of fights. Both outrageously talented with sublime skills, but I would lean towards Lopez winning more times than not. He certainly had greater power and his technique was incredible as was Calderons but I fancy El Finito to win as he could probably take more chances knowing he had that explosive power to match his skills.

Sorry for highjacking the thread, Chris, but as they are both on or near the list, it is still on topic?!

I would go for Lopez to edge a series. Lopez could take more chances but I'm not sure he would have the power to really hurt Calderon. Remember Calderon had a decent chin. Segura just beat the fight out of him but he had seen better days by then. Lopez couldn't do what Segura did he's not the type. I think Lopez would rely heavily on his jab he had a decent height advantage over Calderon.

I don't think Holy at heavyweight was ever anything to trouble Lewis. I didn't see Holyfield give him any hell. I saw him get a draw where Lewis clearly won and a loss where Lewis outboxed him comprehensively.

At Cruiser its undeniable Holyfield was awesome, but lets not assume Holyfield was a shell. He was 2 years older than Lewis. At the time they were 36 and 34 - not exactly young but lets face it, neither over the hill either.

Lewis had a top drawer jab when he threw it with conviction - his footwork for a heavyweight, although not Ali was sublime - and when he came to box, he was a brilliant counter puncher.

I see him as being one of the best boxers of the past 20 years, easily, and deserving of a place on the list through sheer dominance. Wlad might even deserve a place on there - he's a master of what he does.

I'm understanding of Chris' list now. If we're talking about the best careers from the last 25 years, I think we'd have to say Hopkins has had a better career as he's not really had any vulnerability or question marks despite incredible longevity. Pacquiao alone for his rise in weights etc.

I get it now

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:
I would go for Lopez to edge a series. Lopez could take more chances but I'm not sure he would have the power to really hurt Calderon. Remember Calderon had a decent chin. Segura just beat the fight out of him but he had seen better days by then. Lopez couldn't do what Segura did he's not the type. I think Lopez would rely heavily on his jab he had a decent height advantage over Calderon.

I agree Kev. I wasn't suggesting that Lopez would blast Calderon out of there, however it would have been tremendously comforting to him knowing that out of the two fighters, he was the only one with the genuine potential for a knockout. Lopez would rely heavily on his jab, and it was a thing of beauty. You need good footwork to compete with a 'prime' Calderon and that was something else that Lopez had in spades. The more I think about it, the more I lean towards a 3-0 result if they had fought in a 3 match series, but none of the fights would have been comfortable for him.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:where Lewis outboxed him comprehensively.

Not sure I would agree with that JM, old buddy. I think it was an excellent performance from Lennox and as close to a 'defining' fight for him as you are likely to get, but it was a real battle. Lewis showed heart, a chin, stamina and courage but I didn't see him comprehensively outbox Evander. I had him winning, don't get me wrong, but it was a hell of a scrap.

I think it was Evander's last real hurrah and I credit Lennox for coming through it. Evander didn't really do anything after the fight but if you judge it on its merits, he had that old bounce back, his jab was good, his left hook was thrown with bad intentions and Lewis came through it.

Lennox's best night for me, but not a comprehensive beating.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:
I would go for Lopez to edge a series. Lopez could take more chances but I'm not sure he would have the power to really hurt Calderon. Remember Calderon had a decent chin. Segura just beat the fight out of him but he had seen better days by then. Lopez couldn't do what Segura did he's not the type. I think Lopez would rely heavily on his jab he had a decent height advantage over Calderon.

I agree Kev. I wasn't suggesting that Lopez would blast Calderon out of there, however it would have been tremendously comforting to him knowing that out of the two fighters, he was the only one with the genuine potential for a knockout. Lopez would rely heavily on his jab, and it was a thing of beauty. You need good footwork to compete with a 'prime' Calderon and that was something else that Lopez had in spades. The more I think about it, the more I lean towards a 3-0 result if they had fought in a 3 match series, but none of the fights would have been comfortable for him.

Over 3 fights I would go 2-1 Lopez. I just think that if you have to try and out box Ivan Calderon 3 times on at least one of those occasions you are going to struggle with his speed, movement and reflexes.

I'm biased Tino - I don't debate that. When watch the fight again I just see Lennox beating him rather than watching it with a neutral hat on.

I wish I could watch his fights and not be cheering for him throughout.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I'm biased Tino - I don't debate that. When watch the fight again I just see Lennox beating him rather than watching it with a neutral hat on.

I wish I could watch his fights and not be cheering for him throughout.

Nothing wrong with that, JM. I am the same with Oscar De La Hoya. As far as I am concerned he finished with a 43 - 2 record. All the judges are wrong and Floyd doesn't have his '0'.

Ah, I'll agree with you there Tino - that fight was unbelievably close. Thought ODLH was very unlucky to not get his career defining win, although I can't agree with you if you debate the second Mosely fight!

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Ah, I'll agree with you there Tino - that fight was unbelievably close. Thought ODLH was very unlucky to not get his career defining win, although I can't agree with you if you debate the second Mosely fight!

I am only messing, mate. I actually had Floyd winning, it was more an expression of love for one of my first sporting heroes!

I did think he won the Trinidad fight though.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

I did think he won the Trinidad fight though.

I actually agree on that tina, but have always struggled to have any sympathy to be honest because had he not coasted the last few rounds would not even be a need to have the conversation. Always say with Oscar is swings and roundabouts though because Sturm was as big a gift as I have seen and could not have had too many complaints had either or both of Whitaker or Quartey gone the other way.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I am only messing, mate. I actually had Floyd winning, it was more an expression of love for one of my first sporting heroes!

I did think he won the Trinidad fight though.

The Oscar that turned up that night would have ripped Pacquiao apart

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

I did think he won the Trinidad fight though.

I actually agree on that tina, but have always struggled to have any sympathy to be honest because had he not coasted the last few rounds would not even be a need to have the conversation. Always say with Oscar is swings and roundabouts though because Sturm was as big a gift as I have seen and could not have had too many complaints had either or both of Whitaker or Quartey gone the other way.

You're right, I don't have sympathy for him, he should have put it beyond doubt and I imagine it must eat away at him knowing that. I still felt he edged it, it just shouldn't have even been a question.

The Sturm fight was a gift, a Bernard Hopkins sized gift. Shameful really but Hopkins v Sturm wouldn't really have filled everyone pockets as much.

Sturm can't complain though, he got a gift against Macklin. It wasn't a hard fight that could have been scored either way. It was a robbery coz waingro told me.

Oscar must still be kicking himself today over the Trinidad fight. I can understand the calls for him getting the decision, but what he was thinking during those last three or four rounds, I'll never know.

I think Oscar simply overestimated how dominant and in control he'd been for the first two thirds of the bout. I'm yet to meet anyone who didn't have him unequivocally ahead after eight or nine, and I agree that he was one hundred percent, but I suppose my gripe is that his (apparently) winning the first eight rounds gets passed off as fact, when it really isn't.

I'm not above giving even rounds, and I think Oscar-Tito is a fight which certainly had a couple of them. Only watched the fight twice and scored it just the once, but I do remember having it a draw, 5-5-2 in rounds. Like just about everyone else, I had Oscar way ahead after the ninth, but didn't give him anything after that point.

Still think that Trinidad was perhaps a touch fortunate, but then again, Oscar did himself no favours.