A Look Back at Mayweather-Alvarez: Part One by Thomas Hauser

by hazharrison Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:07 pm

First topic message reminder :

Can't see Truss being happy with this:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/17280-a-look-back-at-mayweather-alvarez-part-one

"Also, as great a fighter as Mayweather is, there’s one flaw on his resume. He has consistently avoided the best available opposition.

A fighter doesn’t have to be bloodied and knocked down and come off the canvas to prove his greatness. A fighter can also prove that he has the heart of a legendary champion by testing himself against the best available competition.

Mayweather has done neither.

Floyd said earlier this month, “I push myself to the limit by fighting the best.”

That has all the sincerity of posturing by a political candidate.

Mayweather has some outstanding victories on his ring record. But his career has been marked by the avoidance of tough opponents in their prime.

There always seems to be someone who Mayweather is ducking. The most notable example was his several-year avoidance of Manny Pacquiao. Bob Arum (Pacquiao’s promoter) might not have wanted the fight. But Manny clearly did. And it appeared as though Floyd didn’t.

Mayweather also steered clear of Paul Williams, Antonio Margarito, and Miguel Cotto in their prime. He waited to fight Cotto until Miguel (like Shane Mosley) was a shell of his former self. Then Floyd made a show of saying that he’d fight Cotto at 154 pounds so Miguel would be at his best. But when Sergio Martinez offered to come down to 154, Floyd said that he’d only fight Martinez at 150 (an impossible weight for Sergio to make).

Thus, Frank Lotierzo writes, “Mayweather has picked his spots in one way or another throughout his career. Floyd got over big time on Juan Manuel Marquez with his weigh-in trickery at the last moment. He fought Oscar De La Hoya and barely won when Oscar was a corpse. Shane Mosley was an empty package when he finally fought him seven years after the fight truly meant anything. As terrific as Mayweather is, he's not the Bible of boxing the way he projects himself as being. He came along when there were some other outstanding fighters at or near his weight. Yet, aside from the late Diego Corrales, he has never met any of them when the fight would have confirmed his greatness. It would be great to write about Mayweather and laud all that he has accomplished as a fighter without bringing up these inconvenient facts. But it can't be done if you're being intellectually honest.”

“Mayweather,” Lotierzo continues, “wouldn't be the face of boxing today if there was an Ali, Leonard, De La Hoya, or Tyson around. But they're long gone. Give him credit for being able to make a safety-first counter-puncher who avoided the only fight fans wanted him to deliver [into] the face of what once was the greatest sport in the world.”"

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:01 pm

What was Hearns middleweight record when he lost to Hagler Haz ????????????

If Mayweather has beaten castillo, Marquez, cotto, guerrero, Oscar, Hatton and alvarez......

Apart from hearns which defences did Hagler take that were better than these guys between 80 and 87.........

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:02 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.
Pep rates higher, though. Similar scenario to Bowe-Holyfield.
I'll be honest the 1950's featherweights are a bit of a blind spot for me but there isn't a great deal on Peps record from what I can see, Bartolo, Wright and Famechon being the standouts.

Jock Leslie, Humberto Sirra, Paddy DeMarco, Phil Terranova, Joey Archibald, Sal Bartola, Chalky Wright, Allie Stolz, Bobby "Poison" Ivy, Lulu Constantino, Jackie Wilson, Willie Joyce.
Again, maybe just my ignorance, but not sure how those guys greatly exceed a unbeaten career covering 20lbs including wins of Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo (x2), Gatti, Judah, ODLH, Hatton, JMM, Cotto and Alvarez.
The return win over Saddler alone trumps anything on that list.
Well, 1) My original point was about depth of CV, i.e. lots of very good fights, rather than singular huge highlight wins; and 2) He still had a losing record to Sandy though, didn't he?
Yes, but at the tail-end of a career blighted by his involvement in a plane crash.

I've never disputed Floyd's quality of opposition is consistently good but is it any better than Pacquiao's?
1) The first fight where he got stopped by Sandler wasn't the tail of his career; and 2) Pac is another example of someone I'd say with better highs than Floyd but less consistency and depth.

Pep was in a plane crash in '47 (after which he wasn't expected to walk again -- never mind fight). He lost 10 of his 11 career reverses after that -- including the Saddler fights.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:03 pm

What was Hearns middleweight record when he fought Hagler has ??????????

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:06 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What was Hearns middleweight record when he lost to Hagler Haz ????????????

If Mayweather has beaten castillo, Marquez, cotto, guerrero, Oscar, Hatton and alvarez......

Apart from hearns which defences did Hagler take that were better than these guys between 80 and 87.........

Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.

Hagler was the undisputed number one at middleweight and faced everyone who challenged him. Hearns was a legendary welterweight and, arguably, the greatest light middleweight of all time (who had the frame to excel at light heavyweight).

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:07 pm

BTW Marquez was #2 P4P March 2009, I fail to believe he lost much considering he didn't fight again before Mayweather.

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:09 pm

hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.

Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:09 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What was Hearns middleweight record when he lost to Hagler Haz ????????????

If Mayweather has beaten castillo, Marquez, cotto, guerrero, Oscar, Hatton and alvarez......

Apart from hearns which defences did Hagler take that were better than these guys between 80 and 87.........

Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.

They took Mayweather on though didn't they............They probably would have thought Hamsho and Obelmijas x2.... beneath them when a Mayweather/Spinks fighter was out there....

you must have Calzaghe above Mayweather too........His longevity was ten years and he beat the same quality........yet didn't draw with Vito,,,,,,

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:11 pm

Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.

Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:13 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What was Hearns middleweight record when he lost to Hagler Haz ????????????

If Mayweather has beaten castillo, Marquez, cotto, guerrero, Oscar, Hatton and alvarez......

Apart from hearns which defences did Hagler take that were better than these guys between 80 and 87.........

Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
They took Mayweather on though didn't they............They probably would have thought Hamsho and Obelmijas x2.... beneath them when a Mayweather/Spinks fighter was out there....

you must have Calzaghe above Mayweather too........His longevity was ten years and he beat the same quality........yet didn't draw with Vito,,,,,,

Mayweather has beaten better men than Calzaghe. So no.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:14 pm

Hatton was unbeaten when Mayweather fought him.........

Curry had a great record before Honeyghan........so what..........

some times a loss can kill confidence..........Or even a fight in camacho's case..

Look at Hamed...............

by TopHat24/7 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:15 pm

azania wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
azania wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
azania wrote:Guerrero was top 10 P4P. Alvarez was the lineal champion. JMM was and still is P4P top 3.

1. Only the Ring, and apparently you and Truss, has Guerrero top10.
2. Fine.
3. He wasn't when Floyd fought him. If he put on the same masterclass now then hat's off to him.
Where was he ranked when Floyd fought him?
Not top 3 for certain. JMM might've been in the lower reaches of top10 at best. But even that wouldn't do justice to the reality of the fight.
Yeah, Floyd was streets ahead of him. Shutout if there ever was one. Won every second of that fight.

And if Ward fought Garcia at a 160 catchweight but came in a 168 anyway I'd expect him to win a shut-out also.

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:15 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.
Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.

How can he be hopelessly undersized against someone that he in all probability outweighed? Of the 2 losses, one was where he was completely shot, the other against the greatest in a generation. Hardly a worthwhile stat. Skill clearly won that fight, not size.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:16 pm

Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.
Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.
How can he be hopelessly undersized against someone that he in all probability outweighed? Of the 2 losses, one was where he was completely shot, the other against the greatest in a generation. Hardly a worthwhile stat. Skill clearly won that fight, not size.

Unbeaten also when Floyd fought him........and a 50/50 fight on the old 606.......

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:17 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hatton was unbeaten when Mayweather fought him.........

Curry had a great record before Honeyghan........so what..........

some times a loss can kill confidence..........Or even a fight in camacho's case..

Look at Hamed...............

Hatton struggled above 140. He'd have made a hopeless welterweight. How do you explain the Collazo performance? He was lucky to escape with that one.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:19 pm

This is all speculation Haz dear boy...........

He had a bad night against Collazo.............Holy had a bad night against Cooper......Hagler against Vito........

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:19 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.
Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.
How can he be hopelessly undersized against someone that he in all probability outweighed? Of the 2 losses, one was where he was completely shot, the other against the greatest in a generation. Hardly a worthwhile stat. Skill clearly won that fight, not size.
Unbeaten also when Floyd fought him........and a 50/50 fight on the old 606.......

You must really rate Pacquiao's performance against Hatton Truss?

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:19 pm

Ricky never looked good against southpaws either if we can base so much on the Collazo fight, so do we give Pacquiao no credit for the win?

What aspects of the Mayweather-Hatton fight do you think weight was a factor in?

by TopHat24/7 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:19 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.
Pep rates higher, though. Similar scenario to Bowe-Holyfield.
I'll be honest the 1950's featherweights are a bit of a blind spot for me but there isn't a great deal on Peps record from what I can see, Bartolo, Wright and Famechon being the standouts.

Jock Leslie, Humberto Sirra, Paddy DeMarco, Phil Terranova, Joey Archibald, Sal Bartola, Chalky Wright, Allie Stolz, Bobby "Poison" Ivy, Lulu Constantino, Jackie Wilson, Willie Joyce.
Again, maybe just my ignorance, but not sure how those guys greatly exceed a unbeaten career covering 20lbs including wins of Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo (x2), Gatti, Judah, ODLH, Hatton, JMM, Cotto and Alvarez.
The return win over Saddler alone trumps anything on that list.
Well, 1) My original point was about depth of CV, i.e. lots of very good fights, rather than singular huge highlight wins; and 2) He still had a losing record to Sandy though, didn't he?
Yes, but at the tail-end of a career blighted by his involvement in a plane crash.

I've never disputed Floyd's quality of opposition is consistently good but is it any better than Pacquiao's?
1) The first fight where he got stopped by Sandler wasn't the tail of his career; and 2) Pac is another example of someone I'd say with better highs than Floyd but less consistency and depth.
Pep was in a plane crash in '47 (after which he wasn't expected to walk again -- never mind fight). He lost 10 of his 11 career reverses after that -- including the Saddler fights.

If he was good enough to win after the crash , and be credited for it, then his losses cannot be disregarded. If we're to disregard his Saddler losses due to the effect of the crash then I'll have to write-off his win as a fluke.

by azania Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:19 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.
Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.

Irrelevant. He wasn't undersized. He was the bigger man on fight night. Even when he fought at 140 he regularly stepped into the ring heavier than Floyd.

Was Floyd hopel;essly undersized when he faced everyone about 140 (bar JMM)? Floyd has beaten bigger guys so why do people use the size differential when it comes to his great win against JMM?

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:20 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:This is all speculation Haz dear boy...........

He had a bad night against Collazo.............Holy had a bad night against Cooper......Hagler against Vito........

It isn't speculation that Hatton wasn't very good at welterweight. It's fact.

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:21 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:This is all speculation Haz dear boy...........

He had a bad night against Collazo.............Holy had a bad night against Cooper......Hagler against Vito........
It isn't speculation that Hatton wasn't very good at welterweight. It's fact.

No, it's based on a single fight.

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:23 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.
Pep rates higher, though. Similar scenario to Bowe-Holyfield.
I'll be honest the 1950's featherweights are a bit of a blind spot for me but there isn't a great deal on Peps record from what I can see, Bartolo, Wright and Famechon being the standouts.

Jock Leslie, Humberto Sirra, Paddy DeMarco, Phil Terranova, Joey Archibald, Sal Bartola, Chalky Wright, Allie Stolz, Bobby "Poison" Ivy, Lulu Constantino, Jackie Wilson, Willie Joyce.
Again, maybe just my ignorance, but not sure how those guys greatly exceed a unbeaten career covering 20lbs including wins of Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo (x2), Gatti, Judah, ODLH, Hatton, JMM, Cotto and Alvarez.
The return win over Saddler alone trumps anything on that list.
Well, 1) My original point was about depth of CV, i.e. lots of very good fights, rather than singular huge highlight wins; and 2) He still had a losing record to Sandy though, didn't he?
Yes, but at the tail-end of a career blighted by his involvement in a plane crash.

I've never disputed Floyd's quality of opposition is consistently good but is it any better than Pacquiao's?
1) The first fight where he got stopped by Sandler wasn't the tail of his career; and 2) Pac is another example of someone I'd say with better highs than Floyd but less consistency and depth.
Pep was in a plane crash in '47 (after which he wasn't expected to walk again -- never mind fight). He lost 10 of his 11 career reverses after that -- including the Saddler fights.
If he was good enough to win after the crash , and be credited for it, then his losses cannot be disregarded. If we're to disregard his Saddler losses due to the effect of the crash then I'll have to write-off his win as a fluke.

Or a remarkable feat -- depending whether you're looking to apply common sense or score points on a forum?

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:23 pm

azania wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.
Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.
Irrelevant. He wasn't undersized. He was the bigger man on fight night. Even when he fought at 140 he regularly stepped into the ring heavier than Floyd.

Was Floyd hopel;essly undersized when he faced everyone about 140 (bar JMM)? Floyd has beaten bigger guys so why do people use the size differential when it comes to his great win against JMM?

Maybe they use it because it's convenient............Hagler's reign was no better than Calzaghe's............and If being UNDISPUTED matters........

Then stick Douglas in a list above Tommy Hearns......

Haz wanted to know their welterweight records before Floyd and yet hasn't told me what Hearns middleweight record was before Hagler........

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:24 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
azania wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Marquez and Hatton were hopelessly undersized. Oscar and Cotto were past their best and Guerrero just isn't that good.
Hatton went up one weight class, and was probably bigger than Mayweather in the ring. Hopelessly undersized?

A ridiculous standard of nitpicking that doesn't get applied to anything but the current era.
Hatton's record above 140 lbs was 1-2 (with the win highly controversial against Luis Collazo). He wasn't effective above light welter.
Irrelevant. He wasn't undersized. He was the bigger man on fight night. Even when he fought at 140 he regularly stepped into the ring heavier than Floyd.

Was Floyd hopel;essly undersized when he faced everyone about 140 (bar JMM)? Floyd has beaten bigger guys so why do people use the size differential when it comes to his great win against JMM?
Hagler's reign was no better than Calzaghe's....

Beauty

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:25 pm

Why was it better Haz..........Hopkins vs Hearns..............Kesler vs Mugabi............

Who did he beat better than Eubank..........Sibson ??

by azania Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:27 pm

The verbal gymnastics being employed by haz is something I should take on board.

Great stuff haz. I wonder when the joke that is TopHat will start the flip flop stuff because you don't halk use it a lot.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:28 pm

Lacey, Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins................

I'll swap a dipping his feet at middle for the first time Hearns for Hoppo.........

Come on ...............

by TopHat24/7 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:29 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.
Pep rates higher, though. Similar scenario to Bowe-Holyfield.
I'll be honest the 1950's featherweights are a bit of a blind spot for me but there isn't a great deal on Peps record from what I can see, Bartolo, Wright and Famechon being the standouts.

Jock Leslie, Humberto Sirra, Paddy DeMarco, Phil Terranova, Joey Archibald, Sal Bartola, Chalky Wright, Allie Stolz, Bobby "Poison" Ivy, Lulu Constantino, Jackie Wilson, Willie Joyce.
Again, maybe just my ignorance, but not sure how those guys greatly exceed a unbeaten career covering 20lbs including wins of Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo (x2), Gatti, Judah, ODLH, Hatton, JMM, Cotto and Alvarez.
The return win over Saddler alone trumps anything on that list.
Well, 1) My original point was about depth of CV, i.e. lots of very good fights, rather than singular huge highlight wins; and 2) He still had a losing record to Sandy though, didn't he?
Yes, but at the tail-end of a career blighted by his involvement in a plane crash.

I've never disputed Floyd's quality of opposition is consistently good but is it any better than Pacquiao's?
1) The first fight where he got stopped by Sandler wasn't the tail of his career; and 2) Pac is another example of someone I'd say with better highs than Floyd but less consistency and depth.
Pep was in a plane crash in '47 (after which he wasn't expected to walk again -- never mind fight). He lost 10 of his 11 career reverses after that -- including the Saddler fights.
If he was good enough to win after the crash , and be credited for it, then his losses cannot be disregarded. If we're to disregard his Saddler losses due to the effect of the crash then I'll have to write-off his win as a fluke.
Or a remarkable feat -- depending whether you're looking to apply common sense or score points on a forum?

If I was trying to score points do you think the first thing I would've done is plead ignorance?

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:30 pm

Caveman Lee, Hamsho x2, Obelmijas x2, Roldan, Vito, Mugabi, Hearns and Scypion.......

Wow.............

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:32 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why was it better Haz..........Hopkins vs Hearns..............Kesler vs Mugabi............

Who did he beat better than Eubank..........Sibson ??

Let's have a look:

Calzaghe

Lacy
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi

Hmmm. It's a toughie.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:34 pm

Bika...Manfredo ??????????????????????????????????? Behave yourself

Hopkins, Mitchell, Kessler, Lacey Eubank............More than matches anything bar Hearns on that list.........

Duran ?????????? Was a shocking display as you well know.......Hearns trashed him in two next fight......

chuck in two defeats and a draw with the mighty Vito.........I rest my case..

...................

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:36 pm

Edit: Nevermind.

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:37 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bika...Manfredo ??????????????????????????????????? Behave yourself

Hopkins, Mitchell, Kessler, Lacey Eubank............More than matches anything bar Hearns on that list.........

Duran ?????????? Was a shocking display as you well know.......hearns trashed him in two next fight......

...................

Title reigns Truss. That's what we were taling about. Keep up -- it's me that's having ten different conversations. I feel like Michael Caine in Zulu.

Duran fought out of his skin that night -- he looked half cut against Hearns.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:38 pm

Patronise when you're losing huh...........I'm talking about careers...........

Oh Hearns got lucky...........Thank god Duran never wanted a rematch..

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:38 pm

Scottrf wrote:Puts Scypion in Hagler's list, leaves Hopkins out of Calzaghe's. Agenda?

No. Calzaghe fought Hopkins at light heavyweight. Last time I looked that precludes him from Calzaghe's super middleweight reign.

KAPOW! (getting bored now).

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:40 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Puts Scypion in Hagler's list, leaves Hopkins out of Calzaghe's. Agenda?
No. Calzaghe fought Hopkins at light heavyweight. Last time I looked that precludes him from Calzaghe's super middleweight reign.

KAPOW! (getting bored now).

Yeah, acknowledged that. Hardly interesting to compare though, seeing as most of his title defences were of the WBO title.

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:40 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Patronise when you're losing huh...........I'm talking about careers...........

Oh Hearns got lucky...........Thank god Duran never wanted a rematch..

But you said "reigns".

Duran was hopelessly erratic post Leonard (when he scored one of the greatest wins in boxing history). Hearns was hardly lucky -- kicked the living daylights out of him.

by azania Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:41 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why was it better Haz..........Hopkins vs Hearns..............Kesler vs Mugabi............

Who did he beat better than Eubank..........Sibson ??
Let's have a look:

Calzaghe

Lacy
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi

Hmmm. It's a toughie.

Vito, Caveman Lee, Fully Obel, Willy Scipion, Hamsho, Duran (at MW), Roldan were worse than rubbish.

Sibbo was average, so was Mugabi. It leaves just Hearns who was hopelessly undersized.

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:41 pm

Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Puts Scypion in Hagler's list, leaves Hopkins out of Calzaghe's. Agenda?
No. Calzaghe fought Hopkins at light heavyweight. Last time I looked that precludes him from Calzaghe's super middleweight reign.

KAPOW! (getting bored now).
Yeah, acknowledged that. Hardly interesting to compare though, seeing as most of his title defences were of the WBO title.

He didn't become top man until the Lacy fight (remember he was an underdog heading into that one).

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:42 pm

I'm not interested in reigns.......I'm interested in opposition..........Stop smokescreening......

Duran fought out of his skin that night perhaps..............25 pounds above his weight class and Hagler fights stiffs so he can avoid Spinks.........

and you moan about Mayweather................Who has left his comfort zone repeatedly.....

Oscar could have fought stiffs at lightweight for 10 years......no doubt that would make him top 10 material in your book........not in mine though.

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:43 pm

azania wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why was it better Haz..........Hopkins vs Hearns..............Kesler vs Mugabi............

Who did he beat better than Eubank..........Sibson ??
Let's have a look:

Calzaghe

Lacy
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi

Hmmm. It's a toughie.

It leaves just Hearns who was hopelessly undersized.

Yet won titles at 160 and 175. BOOM!!

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:43 pm

Waht was his record at middle when he fought Hagler haz ??

Hatton's and Marquez records at welter mattered................

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:45 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested in reigns.......I'm interested in opposition..........Stop smokescreening......

Duran fought out of his skin that night perhaps..............25 pounds above his weight class and Hagler fights stiffs so he can avoid Spinks.........

and you moan about Mayweather................Who has left his comfort zone repeatedly.....

Oscar could have fought stiffs at lightweight for 10 years......no doubt that would make him top 10 material in your book........not in mine though.

I'm only addressing what you asked. Don't blame me if I can't read your mind!

I agree -- remarkable performance from Duran. Fought with a broken hand also.

And we've been through the Spinks thing. There's no evidence to back your assertion. THWACK!!

by Scottrf Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:46 pm

hazharrison wrote:Yet won titles at 160 and 175. BOOM!!

So if JMM beats Bradley he wouldn't have been undersized against Mayweather?

by azania Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:46 pm

hazharrison wrote:
azania wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why was it better Haz..........Hopkins vs Hearns..............Kesler vs Mugabi............

Who did he beat better than Eubank..........Sibson ??
Let's have a look:

Calzaghe

Lacy
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi

Hmmm. It's a toughie.

It leaves just Hearns who was hopelessly undersized.
Yet won titles at 160 and 175. BOOM!!

Later on. On that night, just as Hatton was apparently undersized against Floyd even though he was bigger and heavier, Hearns was the smaller guiy. Hopelessly undersized. He had never won a fight at MW either.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:46 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Waht was his record at middle when he fought Hagler haz ??

Hatton's and Marquez records at welter mattered................

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:47 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Waht was his record at middle when he fought Hagler haz ??

Hatton's and Marquez records at welter mattered................

I'd argue it isn't the same principle. Hearns had the frame to win titles at 175 and then 160 so, while he wasn't as good above 154 lbs, he was still good enough to fight at world class.

Hatton and Marquez didn't do anything at the higher weights (until Marquez hired Heredia and turned into Lou Ferrigno).

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:48 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What was his record at middle when he fought Hagler haz ??

Hatton's and Marquez records at welter mattered................

by hazharrison Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:49 pm

Scottrf wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Yet won titles at 160 and 175. BOOM!!
So if JMM beats Bradley he wouldn't have been undersized against Mayweather?

I'd suggest that Marquez is a different physical specimen now than what he was then (clearly). Make of that what you will (makes me puke to be honest).

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:49 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested in reigns.......I'm interested in opposition..........Stop smokescreening......

Duran fought out of his skin that night perhaps..............25 pounds above his weight class and Hagler fights stiffs so he can avoid Spinks.........

and you moan about Mayweather................Who has left his comfort zone repeatedly.....

Oscar could have fought stiffs at lightweight for 10 years......no doubt that would make him top 10 material in your book........not in mine though.
I'm only addressing what you asked. Don't blame me if I can't read your mind!

I agree -- remarkable performance from Duran. Fought with a broken hand also.

And we've been through the Spinks thing. There's no evidence to back your assertion. THWACK!!

Pathetic...........Hearns beats a half cut Duran..........No evidence to suggest he was half cut...

But there is no evidence Hagler fought stiff after stiff instead of wanting a fight with spinks..

p**s poor stuff.

by Sponsored content