I was just reading a article on another website and they were talking to a older champ and he was saying how he used to have 6 or 7 fights a year. Now days a champ is lucky to have 3.

Hopkins only has 2 fights a year. The guy said we had Tito as #4# first and he started in the low 40's and moved up to 160. We had RJ who started in the high 50's and moved all the way to heavyweight. He said now we have Hopkins who has been at 160 his whole career and always calls up welterweights and lightweights to fight him. He said dont be fooled by Eastman. IF X wins then he should get some credit but this is also the same man that loss to Joppy who was clearly on his downside after being KO by Tito. He said that X is a great fighter and I take nothing away from him but he would really impress me if he moved up to 168 and beat Calzaghe. Thats how we would really know if he was #4#.

Most of you know that I feel the same way about this and not jus X. Is it really fair to call X and Zoo #4# the best when they have been at the same weight there whole career and guys like Tito, RJ, Mosley, Mayweather, and DLH have moved up a bunch of times. Is it really that impressive for X to beat up naturaly smaller men. Is it really that great if Zoo beats Floyd who has fought at 126 before so he is really in his 4th division. I think we should give Floyd much more credit for that fight then Zoo. How would Zoo have done if he wouldve fought at 140 or 147. Would he have beaten DLH, Mosley, or Tito? Alot of you will say that Zab is the champ now so of course he would. Thats not true. Alot changes when you move up in weight. Zoo wouldnt hurt the bigger guys like he does these ones.

At the end of the day, I dont think you have to move up. Great fighters like Hagler didnt. But I think it's all about competition. If you have good fights at your weight then stay, but if the good fights are above you then go. There were no good fighters at 160 until Tito got there. X shouldve had atleast 1 fight at 160. Zoo had no one to fight at 140. He shouldve moved to 147 where all the big boys are. 140 wasnt great a few years ago.

I think that guys like X and Zoo should be at the top of these list but I think guys who have done it at higher weights should be regarded higher and should get more credit for beating up bigger and stronger men

By the way I have X, Floyd, and Zoo 123 on my #4# list. Zoo hasnt beaten anyone really smaller then him and X still has some good wins even though they are smaller. I still think they shouldve moved up. I dont think they should now because they have good fighters in there divisions

My thing is that we criticize guys when they lose, even though they are fighting guys who are bigger then them at a higher weight but we give others props because they havent loss but they havent put there self in the line of fire like these other guys have. If you move up, you have a good chance of losing

What do you guys think?

I agree with you to some extend.
First, fighters fight way to rarely nowadays.
Second, most of 'em doesn't fight the best there is like in the old days.
And third, I think a loss means too much in boxing today.
I mean, why does it matter that De La Hoya loses from time to time when he continuesly fights the best there is?
A fighter reveals his true self in a close fight, win or lose. It doesn't really matter to me if Trinidad loses a fight, because he's always fighting the best there is, and some nights you are going to have a bad night. It's impossible to always win if you seek the biggest challenges, and that's why I can't fault guys like Trinidad, DLH, Mosley or Winky for losing a fight or two when they meet the best.
And those who beat the best and moves up a division or two to fight a bigger man definiatly deserves more props than those who don't.

Nard is a natural 160 #er, so it would be dumb for him to move up if he didn't have to. He is def. P4P material: you don't go unbeaten in 25 fights, defend your title(s) 19 times, and totally dominate a division for 10 years without losing without becoming a P4P fighter.

Nard is a natural 160 #er, so it would be dumb for him to move up if he didn't have to. He is def. P4P material: you don't go unbeaten in 25 fights, defend your title(s) 19 times, and totally dominate a division for 10 years without losing without becoming a P4P fighter.
I agree about he is great but there are other guys who are natural smaller and move up. I think Floyd is talented enought to fight at 140 and 147 because he is special but I think he is a natural lightweight so I think he should get more credit. Mosley jumped from 135 to 147. He wasnt a natural welterweight and he even went to 154. I think he should get more credit because he couldve stayed at 140 for a long time and dominated. This goes for Oscar and RJ also and Tito probally moved up too fast. There are also many more. These guys were fighting at there natural weights but moved up so they should get more credit then these other guys. Im not saying that you have to move up, Im just saying that these others should get more credit. You say he dominated his division for years but his division sucked. He hasnt beaten one good fighter except for the smaller Tito and much smaller Oscar.

If there are 2 fighters and both win 20 fights in the same division but one guy fought a top fighter every 4 fights and another guy only beat 2 top fighters out of 20 and one was smaller and the other was much smaller then why does he get so much credit. He wouldve had more problems at 168

IMHO is not that much bout if they fought in different weight classes or not, but the quality of opponnents that they had fought...

IMHO is not that much bout if they fought in different weight classes or not, but the quality of opponnents that they had fought...
I agree, thats my point. Zoo and X stayed in there divisions when there werent great opponents there. 140 didnt have nothing until recently but 147 was loaded. There were no good fighters at 160 but he waited for smaller guys with bigger names to come up. What if Floyd was still at 130? None of those guys wouldve beat him. He wouldve been bigger, stronger, and faster then all of them. He couldve had wins over Morales, Barrera, and Pac Man. Would that make Floyd great in your eyes or would you said that he was just bigger then them like X is.

What do you guys think?

I'm probably going to be smacked from pillar to post for saying this but here goes. I'm not sure that mosley and DLH are the best examples for what you are trying to point out. Sure both stepped up and won "titles" at the higher division's but both have also lost many of the fights that they have had when they have fought against good oppostion at those weights. I know that stepping up is a big challange, but I don't think that stepping up and losing to bigger oppostion makes you better than staying and dominating against the guys who are coming to get what you have in the division you are already in.

Eg DLH v Mosley 1 and 2 - This can't really be called stepping up because both guys were from lower down anyway.

DLH v Hopkins - Smoked

DLH v Sturm - We all know who really won that fight.

Mosley v Forrest 1 and 2 - Forrest was just too good.

Should these fight be worth more than KT demolishing Zab and Mitchell?

I personaaly don't think so, but this is just my take. :)

PS If PBF had of stayed and beat all those guys he would be one of the biggest draws in boxing on PPV because of the following that those guys have, but now he struggles to get the money he wants because he does not have the name outside of true boxing fans who know how good he is. Just a thought?