State Of The Division: Middleweight

Nice breakdown here from Eric Raskin: http://www.insidehboboxing.com/inside/2014/10/15/state-of-the-division-middleweight

"The middleweight division has as clear and indisputable a current championship lineage as any weight class in boxing. Bernard Hopkins won a unification tournament in 2001 (then added another alphabet belt, for what that’s worth, by knocking out Oscar De La Hoya three years later); Jermain Taylor decisioned Hopkins in ’05; Kelly Pavlik knocked out Taylor in ’07; Sergio Martinez outboxed Pavlik in 2010; and earlier this year, Miguel Cotto overwhelmed Martinez at Madison Square Garden—the very arena in which Hopkins stopped Felix Trinidad to begin this unbroken lineage.

As clear and indisputable as the identity of the 160-pound division’s true champion is, the identity of the division’s best fighter is almost as unanimously agreed upon. And it’s not the same as the lineal champion, which is where this conversation starts to get very interesting."

The lineage thing is overplayed by boxing historians in my view. It's something they use to try and counter the alphabet mess but it is flawed.  The true champ today is the guy who holds 3 or 4 of the belts simultaneously such as Klitchko. There is no true champ at middleweight at the moment.

Lineal titles (so basically the Ring belt now) do still hold some weight. It’s the best way a current fighter can absolve themselves from the charge of ‘they wouldn’t have been a world champion in the old days of just one belt’ which applies to a hell of a lot of titlists from recent decades and is regularly used as a stick to beat them with. Likewise, if you go through the divisions right now and look at the lineal title holder in each of them, in quite a lot of cases I’d say they’ve got the right guy down as the division’s proper champion.

But boxing politics dictates that it can never be a faultless system and there will be anomalies. No doubt we’ve got one at Middleweight right now and unfortunately unless the system changes these kind of curve balls will always get thrown up. Golovkin is the best Middleweight in the world in 90% of people’s eyes, so unless Cotto defends against him to bolster his own claim, his lineal title is pretty meaningless. If Alvarez is stepping up to 160 permanently then he’d get a lot more credit from me for beating Golovkin than he would for beating Cotto. Just not sure the promoters will see it that way.

Strongback wrote:The lineage thing is overplayed by boxing historians in my view. It's something they use to try and counter the alphabet mess but it is flawed.  The true champ today is the guy who holds 3 or 4 of the belts simultaneously such as Klitchko. There is no true champ at middleweight at the moment.

Couldn't agree less. Cotto is the man at middleweight. He might not be the best in the division but he's the top dog until he's beaten in the ring.

Is Froch the super middleweight champion (over Ward)? Is he balls.

I cant class Cotto as the man myself

wheelchair1991 wrote:I cant class Cotto as the man myself

Why not? He beat Martinez who was the man before him. That's how boxing is supposed to work. Do I think he'd beat Golovkin? No. But that doesn't mean he isn't the boss.

Would you rather he be given approval by a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats?

What weight was the Martinez fight at?

Middleweight.

But Martinez was crippled

wheelchair1991 wrote:But Martinez was crippled

That's cricket.

He was a crippled old man its sad as sergio was a great fighter however he wasnt when he fought cotto. GGG is the man for me at the weight by a distance

wheelchair1991 wrote:He was a crippled old man  its sad as sergio was a great fighter however he wasnt when he fought cotto. GGG is the man for me at the weight by a distance

He needs to beat Cotto to be the boss.

Cotto only holds one belt of 4 and he isn't even a proper middleweight. Lineal is a flawed system.


One of the comments above mentions the Ring belt which is of course different to the lineal champ. The Ring belt was the best thing we had to go by until Oscar corrupted it.

Strongback wrote:Cotto only holds one belt of 4 and he isn't even a proper middleweight.  Lineal is a flawed system.


One of the comments above mentions the Ring belt which is of course different to the lineal champ.  The Ring belt was the best thing we had to go by until Oscar corrupted it.

Hopkins-Taylor-Pavlik-Martinez-Cotto: what's flawed about that?

Alphabet belts are meaningless, promoters effectively buy them for their fighters by overpaying either the holder or another mandatory at the purse bid stage.

The only men who have proven they are the best at their weight by beating either the second best guy or the man universally recognised as the best before them are as follows:

Heavyweight Wladimir Klitschko
Light Heavyweight Adonis Stevenson
Super Middleweight Andre Ward
Middleweight Miguel Cotto
Junior Middleweight Floyd Mayweather
Junior Welterweight Danny Garcia
Junior Featherweight Guillermo Rigondeaux
Flyweight Roman Gonzalez

All other belt holders are merely top contenders who've managed to boost their earning potential by winning titles that used to define the top men at their weight (but no longer do).

Cotto being lineal champ when there are at least two or three current middleweights that would punch him into outer space is my issue with the lineal ideal.

It just doesn't always come up with the best fighter at a weight. Remember Dariusz Michalczewski.

The Ring rating, although corrupted, is still the best measure currently out there.

Strongback wrote:Cotto being lineal champ when there are at least two or three current middleweights that would punch him into outer space is my issue with the lineal ideal.

It just doesn't always come up with the best fighter at a weight. Remember Dariusz Michalczewski.

The Ring rating, although corrupted, is still the best measure currently out there.  

Two or three? Golovkin. Maybe. But then everyone thought Martinez would do that.

The Ring ratings have been compromised. These are the best set:

http://www.tbrb.org

They were founded in a direct response to Ring watering down their policy.

Cotto is the champ. He may not be the best. We won't know that until he fights Golovkin but, to be fair, Mayweather and Canelo offer way bigger paydays.

On to the lineal thing - how is Mayweather the 147lbs lineal champion? If I remember correctly, he was until he retired. Who got it then? Seems they retired it with him, which re.tards the point for me.

kingraf wrote:On to the lineal thing - how is Mayweather the 147lbs lineal champion? If I remember correctly, he was until he retired. Who got it then? Seems they retired it with him, which re.tards the point for me.

He isn't the lineal champ. Mainly because he never fought Pacquiao.

Depends on what rankings you use Haz, I do however agree in principal with the Pacquiao argument but that was confused somewhat after he lost to Marquez and Bradley. Taking into account robberies it would be two losses to Marquez and two wins over Bradley for the record.

He's never beaten the consensus number two ranked welterweight (he did manage this at 154, however).

Ring moved to try and crown a load of "champs" by loosening their policy (which rendered it largely pointless).

They had to try and do something to clear up the mess but it was far from ideal and except from Welterweight made very little difference.

If lineal champ is as simple as beat the man... surely it's still Paccy? Lost to Bradley, beat Bradley. Even if you take the First Bradley fight as a robbery - lost to Marquez who lost to Bradley who lost to him?

Mayweather's the closest thing to a lineal champion at Welter, for me. I'd consider him top dog in the division - certainly if we're doing the same for Cotto at 160!

Judah won the unisputed Welter title from Spinks, lost the lineage (and WBC belt) to Baldomir, who then lost to Mayweather. Floyd defended the title until 'retiring' in 2008, a few weeks before the first Margarito-Cotto fight. Margarito (IBF champion, though soon to be stripped) beating Cotto (WBA champion and many people's number two in the division before Mayweather temporarily disappeared) gave him a decent shout to being the division's new de facto champion, so it was fair enough that when he faced Mosley, it was also for the Ring Magazine belt vacated by Floyd (remember, no word of Mayweather coming back at that point). Mosley trounced Tony who was disgraced in the aftermath to take the Ring Belt, and then got mauled by Mayweather, who hasn't lost since.

Can't see how you can call Cotto the man at 160 but say that Floyd isn't the man at 147 really, Haz. Neither lineage in the division is perfect by any means, but at least there's no feeling around Floyd that he's the man by fluke and purely opportunistic timing like there is for Cotto.

88Chris05 wrote:Mayweather's the closest thing to a lineal champion at Welter, for me. I'd consider him top dog in the division - certainly if we're doing the same for Cotto at 160!

Judah won the unisputed Welter title from Spinks, lost the lineage (and WBC belt) to Baldomir, who then lost to Mayweather. Floyd defended the title until 'retiring' in 2008, a few weeks before the first Margarito-Cotto fight. Margarito (IBF champion, though soon to be stripped) beating Cotto (WBA champion and many people's number two in the division before Mayweather temporarily disappeared) gave him a decent shout to being the division's new de facto champion, so it was fair enough that when he faced Mosley, it was also for the Ring Magazine belt vacated by Floyd (remember, no word of Mayweather coming back at that point). Mosley trounced Tony who was disgraced in the aftermath to take the Ring Belt, and then got mauled by Mayweather, who hasn't lost since.

Can't see how you can call Cotto the man at 160 but say that Floyd isn't the man at 147 really, Haz. Neither lineage in the division is perfect by any means, but at least there's no feeling around Floyd that he's the man by fluke and purely opportunistic timing like there is for Cotto.

[quote="88Chris05"]

Cotto is the man because he beat Martinez, who beat Pavlik, who beat Taylor, who beat Hopkins, who was undisputed and linear champion (he had every title going). What does it matter if his win was "flukey"? It matters not a jot.

Floyd isn't the lineal "true" welterweight champion because he hasn't earned that distinction in the ring. After Floyd retired - I'll call it ducking out of a red-hot welterweight division once there were no cash cows left to fight there (even an old, faded Oscar posed too much of a risk to his precious 0) - no-one established themselves as top man (the top two fighters never fought: Margarito vs Cotto and Mosley vs Margarito were close but not close enough). Mosley became the number one welterweight after spanking Margarito but Floyd hadn't established himself as number two in shutting out Marquez (especially considering Marquez had never fought at 147) because of guess who? Yep. Pacquiao.

You bloody Floyd diehards crack me up! One of the ten greatest fighters despite avoiding his greatest rival. Now he's the welterweight champion despite never having established it in a bout between the division's two best men (unless you follow the Ring, who managed to come up with Robert Guerrero as a suitable candidate!).

It's as though Pacquiao never existed!!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:They had to try and do something to clear up the mess but it was far from ideal and except from Welterweight made very little difference.

In which case they pis sed away a policy that was gaining some traction to help sell a fight between Mayweather and Guerrero.

Who promoted that one?

Anyone who isn't unremittingly negative in their opinions of Mayweather and his career is a "Mayweather die hard" in your mind, Haz. If you read what I've written about Mayweather you'll see I've always been super-critical of his failure to meet Pacquiao and that I don't consider him to be a lock for the all-time top ten....I just happen to have him on the cusp of it.

Besides, you've said that it doesn't matter if Cotto never fights the consensus number one challenger. I quote - "Cotto is the man until someone beats him. We don't know if he's better than Golovkin until they fight, but in fairness Mayweather and Canelo offer bigger pay days." So basically Cotto doesn't have to fight his nearest contender ever again and can still be called the real deal champ? Isn't chasing money over legacy the one thing you crucify Mayweather for?

Let me stress - I did say that the 'lineage' at Welter is far from perfect. But in terms of the 147 pounders claiming to be the man, I think Mayweather's claim is better than anyone else's.

88Chris05 wrote:Anyone who isn't unremittingly negative in their opinions of Mayweather and his career is a "Mayweather die hard" in your mind, Haz. If you read what I've written about Mayweather you'll see I've always been super-critical of his failure to meet Pacquiao and that I don't consider him to be a lock for the all-time top ten....I just happen to have him on the cusp of it.

Besides, you've said that it doesn't matter if Cotto never fights the consensus number one challenger. I quote - "Cotto is the man until someone beats him. We don't know if he's better than Golovkin until they fight, but in fairness Mayweather and Canelo offer bigger pay days." So basically Cotto doesn't have to fight his nearest contender ever again and can still be called the real deal champ? Isn't chasing money over legacy the one thing you crucify Mayweather for?

Let me stress - I did say that the 'lineage' at Welter is far from perfect. But in terms of the 147 pounders claiming to be the man, I think Mayweather's claim is better than anyone else's.

Mayweather doesn't have a claim. He gave that up in not facing Pacquiao.

I'm not giving Cotto a pass in choosing not to face GGG. In an ideal world (or just one where boxing had some real governance) he'd be forced to. I merely pointed out reality: Cotto, a guy who, unlike Floyd, fought most of the top dogs at their best, is likely to follow the money at this stage of his career. That doesn't mean he isn't the true champion but his tenure will be judged accordingly (he'll be viewed as a champion who avoided his greatest threat - like Patterson and Spinks were until they faced Liston and Tyson).

Anyone who rates Floyd alongside a fighter like Leonard has to be a fan of his. It's an insult to the men who risked everything to prove they were the greatest in their time to give Floyd a pass on that - which is what you're doing, essentially, in positioning him so highly.

Welterweight champion without facing his main rival. Top ten fighter all time without facing the best men at his weight (at their best) and paid ludicrously into the bargain. He must wake up laughing his head off each morning.

Mayweather has a very good claim that was enhanced the moment a certain Manny Pacquiao lost twice.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Mayweather has a very good claim that was enhanced the moment a certain Manny Pacquiao lost twice.

You don't become a champion by default. A titlist maybe but even when Pac lost Floyd still didn't beat the number two.

Didn't Eusebio Pedroza become a champion by default?

Either way Mayweather is the closest thing there is to a true champion at Welterweight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Didn't Eusebio Pedroza become a champion by default?

Either way Mayweather is the closest thing there is to a true champion at Welterweight.

Pedroza's was a particularly unique scenario considering he'd beaten the number two guy just prior to Sanchez dying.

Mayweather isn't anything like a true champion at the weight - he's the complete opposite! He's the number one contender - that's about it. He isn't interested in taking on top rivals - let's face it, he fought Canelo because he was a massive cash cow - he didn't seek out the best fighter at 154 to prove anything.

If a Trout had gotten the nod he'd never have bothered.

Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Stevenson is the champion because he beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson when the two best light heavyweights in the world faced off. Pretty crystal clear. I've no idea what you're gibbering on about Ring Mag for.

If you're willing to argue Floyd gives as much as a hoot about sporting achievement or what people will think of him when he's gone then more power to you.

And no-one's arguing he didn't establish himself as top man at 154. He just didn't do so to achieve in a sporting sense. He fought Canelo as he was an overrated fighter who paid huge dividends. He'd never have gone after Trout had he won - wouldn't have been interested.

Light Heavyweight is anything but crystal clear Haz and it goes back more than 10 years to when Jones was handed the ring/lineal title despite their being a clear number in the divison.

hazharrison wrote:And no-one's arguing he didn't establish himself as top man at 154. He just didn't do so to achieve in a sporting sense. He fought Canelo as he was an overrated fighter who paid huge dividends. He'd never have gone after Trout had he won - wouldn't have been interested.

Why does it matter why he fought when he did fight him, it's just another excuse.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Light Heavyweight is anything but crystal clear Haz and it goes back more than 10 years to when Jones was handed the ring/lineal title despite their being a clear number in the divison.

Not in Stevenson's case. He is top dog at 175 - indisputable.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:And no-one's arguing he didn't establish himself as top man at 154. He just didn't do so to achieve in a sporting sense. He fought Canelo as he was an overrated fighter who paid huge dividends. He'd never have gone after Trout had he won - wouldn't have been interested.

Why does it matter why he fought when he did fight him, it's just another excuse.

The point was, he isn't interested in being a champion yet sympathisers such as yourself are desperately looking to appoint him one at 147 despite the fact he's never taken on his main rival at the weight (even when that rival changed).

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Stevenson is the champion because he beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson when the two best light heavyweights in the world faced off. Pretty crystal clear. I've no idea what you're gibbering on about Ring Mag for.

If you're willing to argue Floyd gives as much as a hoot about sporting achievement or what people will think of him when he's gone then more power to you.

He hates Mayweather and he's not all there..

Let's be honest when Mayweather wins the WBA Welterweight title at 37!!!! and he writes an article titled "Maidana shows Mayweather isn't top 10"

You know you're dealing with a maniac..

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Stevenson is the champion because he beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson when the two best light heavyweights in the world faced off. Pretty crystal clear. I've no idea what you're gibbering on about Ring Mag for.

If you're willing to argue Floyd gives as much as a hoot about sporting achievement or what people will think of him when he's gone then more power to you.

Thats one way of putting it, but it could be spun around a totally different way.

How did Dawson become number 1 in the first place? by beating a tight at the weight Adamek and retaining his title against Johnson and Tarver?

If he was never number 1 in the first place then he doesnt lose the linear title to Pascal or get to regain it off Hopkins.

The LH championship has been fractioned for a long time. Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Dawson, but beat Pascal who beat Dawson.

Stevenson, Kovalev and Hopkins all have a right to claim themselves as the champion, but once either Hopkins or Kovalev has 3 of the 4 belts in two weeks time I think they will guarantee themselves as the champion.

Don't you think Lance that we could dissect any win or record ??

Ali
---

Williams was scared.............
Saved by the bell against the awful Cooper...
Frazier was Foreman-sloppy seconds
Foreman was clueless
Liston chucked the fight....and din't try...

Where does it end..

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Stevenson is the champion because he beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson when the two best light heavyweights in the world faced off. Pretty crystal clear. I've no idea what you're gibbering on about Ring Mag for.

If you're willing to argue Floyd gives as much as a hoot about sporting achievement or what people will think of him when he's gone then more power to you.

Thats one way of putting it, but it could be spun around a totally different way.

How did Dawson become number 1 in the first place? by beating a tight at the weight Adamek and retaining his title against Johnson and Tarver?

If he was never number 1 in the first place then he doesnt lose the linear title to Pascal or get to regain it off Hopkins.

The LH championship has been fractioned for a long time. Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Dawson, but beat Pascal who beat Dawson.

Stevenson, Kovalev and Hopkins all have a right to claim themselves as the champion, but once either Hopkins or Kovalev has 3 of the 4 belts in two weeks time I think they will guarantee themselves as the champion.

Have you been sniffing Trussman's Pritt Stick? Dawson and Pascal were the top two rated light heavyweights when they faced off. There's no sensible argument against that.

Pritt Stick............Is that Brit slang for man sausage ??

If it is............I've got a very big Pritt stick !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pritt Stick............Is that Brit slang for man sausage ??

If it is............I've got a very big Pritt stick !!

You must have some of the stuff you come out with on here. It must be huge. Definitely the biggest Pritt Stick on 606v2.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pritt Stick............Is that Brit slang for man sausage ??

If it is............I've got a very big Pritt stick !!

You must have some of the stuff you come out with on here. It must be huge. Definitely the biggest Pritt Stick on 606v2.

Thank you..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't you think Lance that we could dissect any win or record ??

Ali
---

Williams was scared.............
Saved by the bell against the awful Cooper...
Frazier was Foreman-sloppy seconds
Foreman was clueless
Liston chucked the fight....and din't try...

Where does it end..

I agree we could, but that wasnt what was trying to do. Its been hard to pinpoint who the definitive number 1 at light heavy is for quite some time. Hopkins was the linear champ, but he then lost to Calzaghe. Who obviously beat Jones then retired. Im not trying to knock Dawson, he beat Hopkins fair and square, but it seems hes getting higher rated now hes lost a few than he ever was when he was unbeaten. Just to muddy the waters even further, he got beat up by Ward before losing to Stevenson

hazharrison wrote:

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Stevenson is the champion because he beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson when the two best light heavyweights in the world faced off. Pretty crystal clear. I've no idea what you're gibbering on about Ring Mag for.

If you're willing to argue Floyd gives as much as a hoot about sporting achievement or what people will think of him when he's gone then more power to you.

Thats one way of putting it, but it could be spun around a totally different way.

How did Dawson become number 1 in the first place? by beating a tight at the weight Adamek and retaining his title against Johnson and Tarver?

If he was never number 1 in the first place then he doesnt lose the linear title to Pascal or get to regain it off Hopkins.

The LH championship has been fractioned for a long time. Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Dawson, but beat Pascal who beat Dawson.

Stevenson, Kovalev and Hopkins all have a right to claim themselves as the champion, but once either Hopkins or Kovalev has 3 of the 4 belts in two weeks time I think they will guarantee themselves as the champion.

Have you been sniffing Trussman's Pritt Stick? Dawson and Pascal were the top two rated light heavyweights when they faced off. There's no sensible argument against that.

HaHaHa...man if you are going to insult somebody at least try to look like you know what you are talking about.

Pascal and Dawson were not number 1 nad number 2 by any stretch of the imagination. Dawson and Hopkins were considered number 1 and 2, with Pascal being a massive underdog going into his fight against Dawson. Dawson was supposed to win it easily to set up a fight with Hopkins. You just make it up to suit yourself

Lance wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't you think Lance that we could dissect any win or record ??

Ali
---

Williams was scared.............
Saved by the bell against the awful Cooper...
Frazier was Foreman-sloppy seconds
Foreman was clueless
Liston chucked the fight....and din't try...

Where does it end..

I agree we could, but that wasnt what  was trying to do. Its been hard to pinpoint who the definitive number 1 at light heavy is for quite some time. Hopkins was the linear champ, but he then lost to Calzaghe. Who obviously beat Jones then retired. Im not trying to knock Dawson, he beat Hopkins fair and square, but it seems hes getting higher rated now hes lost a few than he ever was when he was unbeaten. Just to muddy the waters even further, he got beat up by Ward before losing to Stevenson

Dawson and Pascal were the top two rated men at the weight. Pascal beat Dawson to become the universally accepted champion. Hopkins beat Pascal. Dawson beat Hopkins. Stevenson beat Dawson.

There isn't much more to it than that.

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Spin however you want Haz he fought the best fighter at 154lbs who has since gone to prove he is the next best fighter in the division, you'll moan and find an excuse no matter what.

In your opinion he isn't a true champion but in the opinion of many he is the true champion at Welterweight, you're more than happy to proclaim Stevenson the true champion at 175lbs but that's only because of a manipulation by the much derided ring magazine.

Stevenson is the champion because he beat Dawson who beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson when the two best light heavyweights in the world faced off. Pretty crystal clear. I've no idea what you're gibbering on about Ring Mag for.

If you're willing to argue Floyd gives as much as a hoot about sporting achievement or what people will think of him when he's gone then more power to you.

Thats one way of putting it, but it could be spun around a totally different way.

How did Dawson become number 1 in the first place? by beating a tight at the weight Adamek and retaining his title against Johnson and Tarver?

If he was never number 1 in the first place then he doesnt lose the linear title to Pascal or get to regain it off Hopkins.

The LH championship has been fractioned for a long time. Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Dawson, but beat Pascal who beat Dawson.

Stevenson, Kovalev and Hopkins all have a right to claim themselves as the champion, but once either Hopkins or Kovalev has 3 of the 4 belts in two weeks time I think they will guarantee themselves as the champion.

Have you been sniffing Trussman's Pritt Stick? Dawson and Pascal were the top two rated light heavyweights when they faced off. There's no sensible argument against that.

HaHaHa...man if you are going to insult somebody at least try to look like you know what you are talking about.

Pascal and Dawson were not number 1 nad number 2 by any stretch of the imagination. Dawson and Hopkins were considered number 1 and 2, with Pascal being a massive underdog going into his fight against Dawson. Dawson was supposed to win it easily to set up a fight with Hopkins. You just make it up to suit yourself

http://bloguin.com/queensberryrules/2010-articles/why-tqbrs-taking-a-field-trip-to-canada-for-chad-dawson-vs-jean-pascal.html

Loads more if you need them chump change.

Wow!!! an article bigging up a fight. Well done! Never said it was a meaningless fight did I? But nobody considered number 1 vs number 2, and what were the odds on Pascal?

What had happend to Hopkins to get him ranked below Pascal by the way?

why dont you drop the insults and try debating in a more civil tone? makes you sound insecure