Toughest Sequence of fights a fighter has had??

First topic message reminder :

Carl Froch got a load of credit for his tough sequence of fights during the peak of his career, where he fought a lot of good fighters back to back. More recently Floyd Mayweather is getting a lot of flak for ‘hand-picking’ his opponents.

My question is simple really – which fighters have put together the most impressive/ toughest (and I mean against hall of fame worthy opponents) sequence of fights back to back? I’m guessing we might have a couple of fighters having 2, 3 or 4 max ‘super-fights’ in a row but then have a gimme thrown in.
What are the best run of (preferably winning) fights that any fighter has had that you guys can think of??

hazharrison wrote: (another asked who on earth Sam Angott was)

There is someone on here without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of the sport? Who is this person, I shall ban them immediately. Nothing is surer to increase the traffic and popularity on this forum than elitism and snobbery.

Theres no excuse for that sort of lack of knowledge though. One click on boxrec is all you need to be a Sam Angott expert.

3fingers wrote:Hold on a minute? Hopkins is an old time fighter? Yeah, he's from the last generation of fighters...but oldtime? Comeon.

He's a once in a life time fighter with a wealth of experience. He' brilliant not because he's oldtime, hes brilliant because hes taken time to learn and polish the finer intricacies. Thats why he beat Pavlik and Cloud....not because he is akin to fighters of a long gone era.

Go read about him and his influences. He's studied the old-timers. He never stops talking about it.

I find it hilarious how he's become this feted figure. For the majority of his career he was largely ignored.

Maybe because he's a unified belt holder at the age of 48, doing something almost unprecedented is going to make you more revered than you were in your younger days.

Haz and Catchy both go on about Boxrec and the old timers but neither of you ever give any insight into their brilliance, constant petty jibes.

The usual jibes come from yourself, probably the biggest d1ckhead on here. The boxrec thing isnt a "jibe". Its actually what your "original thought" is based on. Mangled interpretation of whatever fighter you have boxrecd latest. You come on here armed with your boxrec info desperate to be thought of as a boxing buff. Il happily admit when I know shag all about some old boxer from 60 years ago. You pretend you are expert because you are bothered to spend all day on boxrec.

That's exactly what I do catchy you're so right, yet another petty jibe when you don't get your own way, what is the point of you?

catchweight wrote:The usual jibes come from yourself, probably the biggest d1ckhead on here. The boxrec thing isnt a "jibe". Its actually what your "original thought" is based on. Mangled interpretation of whatever fighter you have boxrecd latest. You come on here armed with your boxrec info desperate to be thought of as a boxing buff. Il happily admit when I know shag all about some old boxer from 60 years ago. You pretend you are expert because you are bothered to spend all day on boxrec.

Dead on. I have no issue holding my hands up on certain fighters but this guy is a pedant of the highest order. Little wonder Mr. BoxRec fawns over these two modern winning machines - greatness isn't all about statistics.

Not a jibe though. It is the TRUTH, as TRUSSMAN would say.

Yet you fawn over the statistics of Moore and Louis all the time Haz, maybe need to take some of your own advice, neither of you are able to debate the points at hand, you see it as an opportunity to spew more insults around.

There has been plenty of debate. You just cant handle it and getting your arse kicked all over the place.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Yet you fawn over the statistics of Moore and Louis all the time Haz, maybe need to take some of your own advice, neither of you are able to debate the points at hand, you see it as an opportunity to spew more insults around.

I don't think I've ever mentioned Moore. Louis perhaps in the context of debating his greatness (another argument waged in the face of ignorance).

I don't think you've ever offered up a single arresting thought take on a single subject. Respect points zero

We had a massive debate about Moore and Foster, all you could offer up was that he'd reign for longer yet with fewer defences which didn't matter in that case because it was all about the length of time.

catchweight wrote:There has been plenty of debate. You just cant handle it and getting your arse kicked all over the place.

You do live in a fantasy world, you offer absolutely zero except the same lines over and over again.

I know, Il never get into boxing mensa at this rate. Need to come up with some genius stuff like Zivic was a journeyman and Cotto living off busting Mayweathers face up a little. My respected opinion marks need to be upped I agree.

catchweight wrote:I know, Il never get into boxing mensa at this rate. Need to come up with some genius stuff like Zivic was a journeyman and Cotto living off busting Mayweathers face up a little. My respected opinion marks need to be upped I agree.

I'm working on some original insight myself. Think I'm basically gonna start quoting paragraphs from CyberBoxingZone to flash my historical chops and claim Floyd is the best ever (because it says it on his hat).

Zivic was a journeyman of that time and certainly wasn't top class when Conn beat him, he had a stage at the top table but was for most of his career a trial horse who lost almost as many as he won.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Zivic was a journeyman of that time and certainly wasn't top class when Conn beat him, he had a stage at the top table but was for most of his career a trial horse who lost almost as many as he won.

*according to BoxRec.

Reality: Voted one of the hundred greatest fighters of all time in an expert poll.

Respect points: -1

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:I know, Il never get into boxing mensa at this rate. Need to come up with some genius stuff like Zivic was a journeyman and Cotto living off busting Mayweathers face up a little. My respected opinion marks need to be upped I agree.

I'm working on some original insight myself. Think I'm basically gonna start quoting paragraphs from CyberBoxingZone  to flash my historical chops and claim Floyd is the best ever (because it says it on his hat).

Proclaim Mayweather as TBE and say you are partial to watching a good Hopkins stinkfest and you will be Grandmaster in no time.

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:I know, Il never get into boxing mensa at this rate. Need to come up with some genius stuff like Zivic was a journeyman and Cotto living off busting Mayweathers face up a little. My respected opinion marks need to be upped I agree.

I'm working on some original insight myself. Think I'm basically gonna start quoting paragraphs from CyberBoxingZone  to flash my historical chops and claim Floyd is the best ever (because it says it on his hat).

Proclaim Mayweather as TBE and say you are partial to watching a good Hopkins stinkfest and you will be Grandmaster in no time.

Sometimes I have Floyd, Hopkins and Rigo on all at once while painting and drinking port (naked but for a bowler hat).

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Zivic was a journeyman of that time and certainly wasn't top class when Conn beat him, he had a stage at the top table but was for most of his career a trial horse who lost almost as many as he won.

*according to BoxRec.

Reality: Voted one of the hundred greatest fighters of all time in an expert poll.

Respect points: -1

Reality: Fought in the 30's and 40's so gets marked up because of it, had he fought at another time well he would not be considered world class by any stretch of the imagination.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Zivic was a journeyman of that time and certainly wasn't top class when Conn beat him, he had a stage at the top table but was for most of his career a trial horse who lost almost as many as he won.

*according to BoxRec.

Reality: Voted one of the hundred greatest fighters of all time in an expert poll.

Respect points: -1

Reality: Fought in the 30's and 40's so gets marked up because of it, had he fought at another time well he would not be considered world class by any stretch of the imagination.

Frak. I just sprayed port everywhere....

catchweight wrote:Yes. One whos excessive spoiling and fouling is often mis-labeled as technical brilliance.

I guess it's the same with Mayweather.

If there is anything less than Mayweather or Hopkins on I will instead stroll down to the local boozer to watch the drunks fight it out.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

catchweight wrote:Yes. One whos excessive spoiling and fouling is often mis-labeled as technical brilliance.

I guess it's the same with Mayweather.

Mayweather and Hopkins are nothing alike. This is exactly the sort of comparison that is what is BS about Hopkins. He is an arch spoiler.

Watch Mayweather v Maidana for a lesson in spoiling.

Yeah when Mayweather cant keep a swarming fighter off him. There is no comparison between Hopkins and Mayweather.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote: (another asked who on earth Sam Angott was)

There is someone on here without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of the sport? Who is this person, I shall ban them immediately. Nothing is surer to increase the traffic and popularity on this forum than elitism and snobbery.  

That was me. Sometimes I think I shoukd be band, especially on friday and saturday nights.

I think it was a legitimate question fingers. You should have passed it off as 'who the f*ck is sam angott?' In the context of top 20 post war fighters, rather than who actually is he.

I knew precious little about him and without the much denegrated boxrec I'd know precious little about plenty of others too. For all an understanding of the backgrounds to fights and fighters is important for context, you can learn plenty from who fought who and when. Makes me chuckle when people say they don't use it... Or have a bit of Snobbery about it. It might grant fake expert status for some but its an easy and handy tool for most of us.

I meant banned and I use boxrec too. Every boxing fan does.

catchweight wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

catchweight wrote:Yes. One whos excessive spoiling and fouling is often mis-labeled as technical brilliance.

I guess it's the same with Mayweather.

Mayweather and Hopkins are nothing alike. This is exactly the sort of comparison that is what is BS about Hopkins. He is an arch spoiler.

They are both incredibly smart counterpunchers. Old man Hopkins doesn't have Mayewather's hand or foot speed though, he just has to rely on his great technique.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

catchweight wrote:Yes. One whos excessive spoiling and fouling is often mis-labeled as technical brilliance.

I guess it's the same with Mayweather.

Mayweather and Hopkins are nothing alike. This is exactly the sort of comparison that is what is BS about Hopkins. He is an arch spoiler.

They are both incredibly smart counterpunchers. Old man Hopkins doesn't have Mayewather's hand or foot speed though, he just has to rely on his great technique.

So? I said Hopkins was overrated as a great technical boxer. Not that he was a poor technical boxer. Lumping him in with Mayweather emphsises my point.

Hopkins is a master spoiler more than a master technical boxer. Nowadays they seem to pass as one and the same. I consider them seperate.