Cream of the crop since c2009

These are the fighters who've proven themselves the cream of the crop in their respective divisions over the last seven years or so. Pretty good showing from the UK. Any surprises (both in terms of who's there and who isn't)?

Tyson Fury
Wladimir Klitschko
David Haye
Chad Dawson
Bernard Hopkins
Jean Pascal
Andre Ward
Joe Calzaghe
Sergio Martinez
Kelly Pavlik
Jermain Taylor
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao
Danny Garcia
Ricky Hatton
Terrence Crawford
Juan Manuel Marquez
Nonito Donaire
Guillermo Rigondeaux
Vic Darchinyan
Roman Gonzalez
Akira Yaegashi
Toshiyuki Igarashi
Sonny Boy Jaro
Pongsaklek Wonjongkam
Koki Kameda
Ivan Calderon
Giovani Segura

Tyson Fury ??..

Hasn't proved a damn thing..........Joshua would be a big favorite...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tyson Fury ??..

Hasn't proved a damn thing..........Joshua would be a big favorite...

Only beat THE MAN in the division......

I would bet on Fury

Yeah, I'd give the edge to Fury. Joshua has plateaued off a bit. Fights in straight lines, doesn't move his head. Still good enough to crunch most of the division.

Like him or loathe him, Fury is THE heavyweight champ.

I'm guessing Froch is missing because he didn't beat Ward? Fair enough however if I'd have Froch before Fury. Yes, he beat Wlad but it wasn't exactly a cream of the crop performance for me. I'd also have Vitali on there but I'm guessing he's missing because he was only holding one belt. The smart money says had they fought, he'd beat little bro with ease.

Would also question Garcia. He's hardly top of the welterweight pile in reality.

Cotto too. Great fighter and a favourite but was he ever really the top dog in the last 7 years?

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:I'm guessing Froch is missing because he didn't beat Ward? Fair enough however if I'd have Froch before Fury. Yes, he beat Wlad but it wasn't exactly a cream of the crop performance for me. I'd also have Vitali on there but I'm guessing he's missing because he was only holding one belt. The smart money says had they fought, he'd beat little bro with ease.

Would also question Garcia. He's hardly top of the welterweight pile in reality.

Cotto too. Great fighter and a favourite but was he ever really the top dog in the last 7 years?

Yeah, Froch was never the best '68er with Ward around. Fury, meanwhile, is top of the tree at heavyweight as he dethroned Wlad (and deservedly so).

Garcia was the top 140 pounder for years. He beat Matthysee in 2013 when they were the top two fighters in the division.

Cotto knocked off Martinez at 160 (a somewhat fortunate win due to Sergio's physical condition).

hazharrison wrote:

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:I'm guessing Froch is missing because he didn't beat Ward? Fair enough however if I'd have Froch before Fury. Yes, he beat Wlad but it wasn't exactly a cream of the crop performance for me. I'd also have Vitali on there but I'm guessing he's missing because he was only holding one belt. The smart money says had they fought, he'd beat little bro with ease.

Would also question Garcia. He's hardly top of the welterweight pile in reality.

Cotto too. Great fighter and a favourite but was he ever really the top dog in the last 7 years?

Yeah, Froch was never the best '68er with Ward around. Fury, meanwhile, is top of the tree at heavyweight as he dethroned Wlad (and deservedly so).

Garcia was the top 140 pounder for years. He beat Matthysee in 2013 when they were the top two fighters in the division.

Cotto knocked off Martinez at 160 (a somewhat fortunate win due to Sergio's physical condition).

Froch did lose to Ward, but he also anihilated Bute who was apparently the best at 168 according to a lot of people

Froch was a heavy under dog in that fight and smashed him

The only loss he had that he didn't manage to avenge was Ward, so not really sure why he gets flack for that one

So this is one of those linear type things then??

I.e. Cotto in there no matter what a joke of a career he's had at the weight he's in there for, just because he beat a shot lineal champ?

Similar with Superduck, 1 win several years ago versus a guy coming off a loss?

Also shouldn't Tim Bradley be in there for 140lbs? He was the one that kept Khan from claiming undisputed #1 spot at LWW.

Why's he getting flack bf? The list is people who were top dog in their division, Froch wasn't because ward was. Beating bute doesn't alter that.

Haz, the U.K. Look well represented but the c2009 is stretching it to get calzaghe, Hatton and haye in!

BoxingFan88 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:I'm guessing Froch is missing because he didn't beat Ward? Fair enough however if I'd have Froch before Fury. Yes, he beat Wlad but it wasn't exactly a cream of the crop performance for me. I'd also have Vitali on there but I'm guessing he's missing because he was only holding one belt. The smart money says had they fought, he'd beat little bro with ease.

Would also question Garcia. He's hardly top of the welterweight pile in reality.

Cotto too. Great fighter and a favourite but was he ever really the top dog in the last 7 years?

Yeah, Froch was never the best '68er with Ward around. Fury, meanwhile, is top of the tree at heavyweight as he dethroned Wlad (and deservedly so).

Garcia was the top 140 pounder for years. He beat Matthysee in 2013 when they were the top two fighters in the division.

Cotto knocked off Martinez at 160 (a somewhat fortunate win due to Sergio's physical condition).

Froch did lose to Ward, but he also anihilated Bute who was apparently the best at 168 according to a lot of people

Froch was a heavy under dog in that fight and smashed him

The only loss he had that he didn't manage to avenge was Ward, so not really sure why he gets flack for that one

He's not taking flack - he did about as well against Ward as anyone. He just wasn't ever top man at 168 while Ward was around.

milkyboy wrote:Why's he getting flack bf? The list is people who were top dog in their division, Froch wasn't because ward was. Beating bute doesn't alter that.

Haz, the U.K. Look well represented but the c2009 is stretching it to get calzaghe, Hatton and haye in!  

Ha. I wrote most of the list from memory and then clagged a date on the end. Rumbled!

TopHat24/7 wrote:So this is one of those linear type things then??

I.e. Cotto in there no matter what a joke of a career he's had at the weight he's in there for, just because he beat a shot lineal champ?

Similar with Superduck, 1 win several years ago versus a guy coming off a loss?

The moves Cotto, Stevenson and Canelo made after proving themselves top man should probably preclude them from the list. Everyone knocks Fury but he's gone straight back in with Klitschko - could easily have manufactured a way out of it.

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So this is one of those linear type things then??

I.e. Cotto in there no matter what a joke of a career he's had at the weight he's in there for, just because he beat a shot lineal champ?

Similar with Superduck, 1 win several years ago versus a guy coming off a loss?

The moves Cotto, Stevenson and Canelo made after proving themselves top man should probably preclude them from the list. Everyone knocks Fury but he's gone straight back in with Klitschko - could easily have manufactured a way out of it.

Yeh, not really knocking Fury so much, he still did what no man even came closing to doing in a decade. As much as Truss likes to knock him.

I just think v soft wins (none of those above three have a win close to the quality or magnitude of Fury over K) followed by patsy defences and clear ducking of #1 challengers should preculde fighters from any kind of 'cream of the crop' list. As arguably they've not ACTUALLY proved (or is it proven?!) it.

It's hardly cream of the crop when it's just a list of lineal champions some of whom were/are not the best in their divisions.

Cloud, Bellew and Fonfara weren't exactly patsy defences Toppy, stop being so ridiculously over the top when it comes to Stevenson.

Ok, so if Cotto, Alvarez and Stevenson go - who else goes with them?

hazharrison wrote:Ok, so if Cotto, Alvarez and Stevenson go - who else goes with them?

Jermaine Taylor?
OK he beat Hopkins but my God his tenure was dreadful, struggled with career LW Winky and former WW Kasim Ouma before pavlik cleaned his clock for him....Pavlik's reign wasn't tremendous either.

Beating Hopkins twice in 2005 was a top class feat......Hopkins was at the top of the sport back then......Only Jones had beat him..

Regardless of what he did next those two wins alone put him up there.....

Whilst in fairness to the oP a lot of these fighters have valid claims to be "THE" champion.......Cream of the crop is a bit of a stretch..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Beating Hopkins twice in 2005 was a top class feat......Hopkins was at the top of the sport back then......Only Jones had beat him..

Regardless of what he did next those two wins alone put him up there.....

Whilst in fairness to the oP a lot of these fighters have valid claims to be "THE" champion.......Cream of the crop is a bit of a stretch..

Can't really slate Fury too highly for beating Wlad if Taylor has essentially done the same thing then?

Hoppo twice and one win over a limited bully who was scared of getting hit..

Are comparable ??

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's hardly cream of the crop when it's just a list of lineal champions some of whom were/are not the best in their divisions.

Cloud, Bellew and Fonfara weren't exactly patsy defences Toppy, stop being so ridiculously over the top when it comes to Stevenson.

Cloud is his one good defence. Fonfara is tough but average. Bellew largely hot air. Since those three it's been Sukhotsky, Bika and Nurse Karpency. Dross.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hoppo twice and one win over a limited bully who was scared of getting hit..

Are comparable ??

Both proclaimed as "the man" and both beaten but one of them is ok to be considered a good win and one isn't? Hey, I understand why you don't like Fury or rate the achievement (and for the record, I'm with you on the fact I think he's a jammy slob who's done nothing to suggest it was nothing more than a fluke) but Hopkins was as old as Wlad is now and something of a stinking spoiler even back then. He'd been dominant over so chaff for ages, just like Wlad and was beaten by a younger fighter who was able to negate his spoiling tactics, just like Wlad.

For the record, imo neither Fury or Taylor warrant a place on that list but given the similarities you either have one or neither.

They warrant their place. They both beat the man who was clearly the best in the division at the point they usurped them.

If you're picking holes then Crawford's tenure as top dog was brief (and controversial considering he beat Ricky Burns - who was deemed to have been lucky in his previous couple of fights). Of course, he gets a chance to become top man at 140 against Postol.

It's an interesting exercise to filter out all of the Liam Smiths, Adrien Broners of the world and to debate what exactly qualifies a fighter as being the best these days.

The majority of the list will be the guys people remember in years to come.

Smokecreening by saying I don't like Fury and am not not objective..Dave.

1. I haven't liked a lot of fighters but am able to look at them objectively...I rate GGG P4P 1 and I don't like him....I'm not like Haz who lets emotion get in the way..

2. Both being proclaimed as the man means Bo Diddley...Hopkins was a better fighter with better opponents on his record and had only lost to an ATG.....And Taylor beat him twice..

Lols at 1.

hazharrison wrote:They warrant their place. They both beat the man who was clealy the best in the division at the point they usurped them.

If you're picking holes then Crawford's tenure as top dog was brief (and controversial considering he beat Ricky Burns - who was deemed to have been lucky in his previous couple of fights). Of course, he gets a chance to become top man at 140 against Postol.

But then it's been a game of pass the parcel with the belts with no-one really standing out from the crowd long enough to make a statement. Supposed taking over from someone with the longevity of Hopkins, any length of reign would seem short by comparison but for me, I don't rate Taylor as warranting the sobriquet, "cream of the crop" as his losses have been greater and more damaging than his wins

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:They warrant their place. They both beat the man who was clealy the best in the division at the point they usurped them.

If you're picking holes then Crawford's tenure as top dog was brief (and controversial considering he beat Ricky Burns - who was deemed to have been lucky in his previous couple of fights). Of course, he gets a chance to become top man at 140 against Postol.

But then it's been a game of pass the parcel with the belts with no-one really standing out from the crowd long enough to make a statement. Supposed taking over from someone with the longevity of Hopkins, any length of reign would seem short by comparison but for me, I don't rate Taylor as warranting the sobriquet, "cream of the crop" as his losses have been greater and more damaging than his wins

I think middleweights been one of the easier divisions to follow:

Hopkins
Taylor
Pavlik
Martinez

All goes a bit Pete Tong from there with the Golovkin factor.

If you're not having Taylor, are you also not having Pavlik and Sergio?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Smokecreening by saying I don't like Fury and am not not objective..Dave.

1. I haven't liked a lot of fighters but am able to look at them objectively...I rate GGG P4P 1 and I don't like him....I'm not like Haz who lets emotion get in the way..

2. Both being proclaimed as the man means Bo Diddley...Hopkins was a better fighter with better opponents on his record and had only lost to an ATG.....And Taylor beat him twice..

What does losing to an ATG have to do with anything? Yes he had some good names on his record but were Tito and Oscar really MW and what's with fighting Robert(?) Allen three times. Supposedly the guys Wlad beat were the best available (excluding his brother) and for the longest time he was slated for beating fat useless bums but then he fights Haye who's supposed to be the biggest threat to him since Sanders and he negated him totally (you can argue 'til the cows come home whether Wlad was good that night or if Haye was just poor...much like the Fury fight). Memory serves, Taylor only beat Hopkins on an SD in the first fight anyway.

One swallow doesn't make Summer...as I used to tell my ex!

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:They warrant their place. They both beat the man who was clealy the best in the division at the point they usurped them.

If you're picking holes then Crawford's tenure as top dog was brief (and controversial considering he beat Ricky Burns - who was deemed to have been lucky in his previous couple of fights). Of course, he gets a chance to become top man at 140 against Postol.

But then it's been a game of pass the parcel with the belts with no-one really standing out from the crowd long enough to make a statement. Supposed taking over from someone with the longevity of Hopkins, any length of reign would seem short by comparison but for me, I don't rate Taylor as warranting the sobriquet, "cream of the crop" as his losses have been greater and more damaging than his wins

I think middleweights been one of the easier divisions to follow:

Hopkins
Taylor
Pavlik
Martinez

All goes a bit Pete Tong from there with the Golovkin factor.

If you're not having Taylor, are you also not having Pavlik and Sergio?

Think I mentioned I wouldn't have Pavlik but I also think that with Martinez it was clear for a very long time he was the standout MW even with others making spurious claims to be the best

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Smokecreening by saying I don't like Fury and am not not objective..Dave.

1. I haven't liked a lot of fighters but am able to look at them objectively...I rate GGG P4P 1 and I don't like him....I'm not like Haz who lets emotion get in the way..

2. Both being proclaimed as the man means Bo Diddley...Hopkins was a better fighter with better opponents on his record and had only lost to an ATG.....And Taylor beat him twice..

What does losing to an ATG have to do with anything? Yes he had some good names on his record but were Tito and Oscar really MW and what's with fighting Robert(?) Allen three times. Supposedly the guys Wlad beat were the best available (excluding his brother) and for the longest time he was slated for beating fat useless bums but then he fights Haye who's supposed to be the biggest threat to him since Sanders and he negated him totally (you can argue 'til the cows come home whether Wlad was good that night or if Haye was just poor...much like the Fury fight).  Memory serves, Taylor only beat Hopkins on an SD in the first fight anyway.

One swallow doesn't make Summer...as I used to tell my ex!

Hoppo is regarded as a great fighter..

Is Wlad ??....Brewster and Sanders suggest not..

Tito was the favorite against Hoppo.

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:They warrant their place. They both beat the man who was clealy the best in the division at the point they usurped them.

If you're picking holes then Crawford's tenure as top dog was brief (and controversial considering he beat Ricky Burns - who was deemed to have been lucky in his previous couple of fights). Of course, he gets a chance to become top man at 140 against Postol.

But then it's been a game of pass the parcel with the belts with no-one really standing out from the crowd long enough to make a statement. Supposed taking over from someone with the longevity of Hopkins, any length of reign would seem short by comparison but for me, I don't rate Taylor as warranting the sobriquet, "cream of the crop" as his losses have been greater and more damaging than his wins

I think middleweights been one of the easier divisions to follow:

Hopkins
Taylor
Pavlik
Martinez

All goes a bit Pete Tong from there with the Golovkin factor.

If you're not having Taylor, are you also not having Pavlik and Sergio?

Think I mentioned I wouldn't have Pavlik but I also think that with Martinez it was clear for a very long time he was the standout MW even with others making spurious claims to be the best

I think both Pavlik and Martinez were the stand out guys for a similar length of time (as long as you didn't regard Hopkins as a middleweight when the pair clashed at 168).

Golovkin's reputation began to grow just as Martinez appeared to be declining from 2012-14.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Smokecreening by saying I don't like Fury and am not not objective..Dave.

1. I haven't liked a lot of fighters but am able to look at them objectively...I rate GGG P4P 1 and I don't like him....I'm not like Haz who lets emotion get in the way..

2. Both being proclaimed as the man means Bo Diddley...Hopkins was a better fighter with better opponents on his record and had only lost to an ATG.....And Taylor beat him twice..

What does losing to an ATG have to do with anything? Yes he had some good names on his record but were Tito and Oscar really MW and what's with fighting Robert(?) Allen three times. Supposedly the guys Wlad beat were the best available (excluding his brother) and for the longest time he was slated for beating fat useless bums but then he fights Haye who's supposed to be the biggest threat to him since Sanders and he negated him totally (you can argue 'til the cows come home whether Wlad was good that night or if Haye was just poor...much like the Fury fight).  Memory serves, Taylor only beat Hopkins on an SD in the first fight anyway.

One swallow doesn't make Summer...as I used to tell my ex!

Hoppo is regarded as a great fighter..

Is Wlad ??....Brewster and Sanders suggest not..

Tito was the favorite against Hoppo.

No accounting for the silliness of some people... lots of people bet on Oscar to beat him too.

Some people regard Wlad as a great fighter...as you say it's all about opinions (just not when they differ from yours, evidently)

Anyway, I'm only really arguing/discussing to play Devil's Advocate as I don't rate Taylor or Fury and would question their inclusion in the list. I don't think you should have to have a replacement for them either. It's not called "top 25 since 2009" is it?

Maybe we should have called it: fighters who could justifiably be called the best in their divisions since 2009?

2009ish

best-ish

hazharrison wrote:Maybe we should have called it: fighters who could justifiably be called the best in their divisions since 2009?

Given that we're discussion possible omissions, they can't be justified

I think you'd be harsh not to recognise the likes of Taylor and Pavlik as the best middleweights in the world back in the day.

If nothing else, this goes to show how difficult it is to actually name fighters who've been the best at their weight.

hazharrison wrote:I think you'd be harsh not to recognise the likes of Taylor and Pavlik as the best middleweights in the world back in the day.

Well, given Taylor was named most disappointing MW Champion by some US magazine, I don't think I'm being overly harsh

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I think you'd be harsh not to recognise the likes of Taylor and Pavlik as the best middleweights in the world back in the day.

Well, given Taylor was named most disappointing MW Champion by some US magazine, I don't think I'm being overly harsh

He might have been disappointing but he proived himself to be better than his peers in the ring. Beating Hopkins twice proved he was the top dog until Pavlik came along.

Does Wladimir really qualify? I don't think anyone doubted that he'd be dissembled like cheap ikea furniture if he ever fought his brother, and post Vitali's retirement he didn't best the guys who inherited the green belt, and worse (infinitely so) he lost the game of peek a boo to Fury.

kingraf wrote:Does Wladimir really qualify? I don't think anyone doubted that he'd be dissembled like cheap ikea furniture if he ever fought his brother, and post Vitali's retirement he didn't best the guys who inherited the green belt, and worse (infinitely so) he lost the game of peek a boo to Fury.

If Wlad wasn't considered the best heavyweight around post-Vitali, then we might as well fold our tents.

I don't rate him at all but he was clearly the best heavyweight in the world for a number of years.

Why does beating an old champ make a fighter cream of the crop ??..

Spinks beat the linear Holmes but no one thought he'd beat Witherspoon or Thomas...

No one with any sense thinks Fury beats Joshua..

Plenty of folk fancy Fury to beat Joshua if the fight was made this year - bookies can barely split them.

As for Klitschko being old, he showed no appreciable signs of decline before Fury. That was him close to his best. He just wasn't ever any great shakes.

hazharrison wrote:

kingraf wrote:Does Wladimir really qualify? I don't think anyone doubted that he'd be dissembled like cheap ikea furniture if he ever fought his brother, and post Vitali's retirement he didn't best the guys who inherited the green belt, and worse (infinitely so) he lost the game of peek a boo to Fury.

If Wlad wasn't considered the best heavyweight around post-Vitali, then we might as well fold our tents.

I don't rate him at all but he was clearly the best heavyweight in the world for a number of years.

Got to agree, if you have two fighters who have an argument to be the best fighter in the world at their weight and one retires I am not exactly sure on what basis you can deny the other the number one spot, if on no other basis than basic arithmetic surely.

Couple who could have a claim but not mentioned yet are Kazuto Ioka at minimum weight, picked up the WBA and WBC titles before moving up in weight in 2012, with them being the only belts they really recognise in Japan and the Japanese supplying a great majority of the fighters in the lower weight classes he must have been considered top dog.

The other with less of a claim would be Nishioka at Super Bantamweight before Donaire knocked his face off, pretty long stint as champion in a division most were using as a stepping stone or just bypassed and outgrew, I'm sure at some stage in his 4 year reign he must have been the guy, even if it was by default.

Kovalev? I'd put him in. GGG is cream of the crop at middle and has been for a few years now dominantly.

Surely have to have Khan in there if your having the likes of Kelly Pavlik and Jermaime Taylor in there?

mobilemaster8 wrote:Kovalev? I'd put him in. GGG is cream of the crop at middle and has been for a few years now dominantly.

Surely have to have Khan in there if your having the likes of Kelly Pavlik and Jermaime Taylor in there?

Khan?

hazharrison wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:Kovalev? I'd put him in. GGG is cream of the crop at middle and has been for a few years now dominantly.

Surely have to have Khan in there if your having the likes of Kelly Pavlik and Jermaime Taylor in there?

Khan?

Agreed, never more than a belt holder at best, certainly never "the man" in any division he's fought in. FFS his refusal to fight John Murray meant he never even proved he was the best fighter in the Lancashire/Greater Manchester area