who's higher on your ATG list? Mayweather or Hopkins

[ИATAS]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

That's fair enough but that' simply will never be proved.

I don't think Pavlik is useless at 170 but I certainly wouldn't say he's the same fighter at 160.

Take all the guys pavlik beat at 160 and he still beats them at 170. It's not like Hopkins fought at light heavy his whole career he was a 160 pound fighter who moved up to 175 at the age of 41, moved down 5 pounds at the age of 43 to fight Pavlik (and yet cotto losing an extra one pound is the reason he lost to pac according to some people!). Logic doesn't compute.

Hopkins beats pavlik at 175, 170, 168, 164, 160, 156...it doesn't matter. The skills of hopkins plus his style destroy pavlik at any weight, time of careers, etc. Hopkins is just a nightmare for pavlik stylistically.

[IMDAZED]

Originally Posted by THE ИATAS

Take all the guys pavlik beat at 160 and he still beats them at 170. It's not like Hopkins fought at light heavy his whole career he was a 160 pound fighter who moved up to 175 at the age of 41, moved down 5 pounds at the age of 43 to fight Pavlik (and yet cotto losing an extra one pound is the reason he lost to cotto according to some people!). Logic doesn't compute.

Hopkins beats pavlik at 175, 170, 168, 164, 160, 156...it doesn't matter. The skills of hopkins plus his style destroy pavlik at any weight, time of careers, etc. Hopkins is just a nightmare of pavlik stylistically.

The argument isn't where Hopkins beats him. Yes, he beats him at any weight. Doesn't mean he gets the same credit for it.

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by THE ИATAS

Take all the guys pavlik beat at 160 and he still beats them at 170. It's not like Hopkins fought at light heavy his whole career he was a 160 pound fighter who moved up to 175 at the age of 41, moved down 5 pounds at the age of 43 to fight Pavlik (and yet cotto losing an extra one pound is the reason he lost to pac according to some people!). Logic doesn't compute.

Hopkins beats pavlik at 175, 170, 168, 164, 160, 156...it doesn't matter. The skills of hopkins plus his style destroy pavlik at any weight, time of careers, etc. Hopkins is just a nightmare of pavlik stylistically.

We don't know that.

And I agree, Hopkins beat Pavlik at any weight, no doubt.

But, it doesn't mean it's the same as beating him at 160.

[Light_Speed]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

1. Both would be dominated by Hopkins.

2. the answer is; "No one"

Thank you for answering.

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

Does this make Taylor better than Hopkins? I'm confused.

Ruben Carter's win over Emile Griffith is better than Taylor's win over Hopkins and any win Castillo or Corrales has put together.

Does this make him better than all 3 of those?

Infact, I'll go one further.

Carter's win over Griffith is better than anything Mayweather has done by a wide margin.

Is he better than Mayweather?

It's really poor logic you are using to define who's better than who.

Taylor is not a one hit wonder because he actually has two victories over a bonafied ATG who was not far from his prime and arguably accomplished more AFTER those fights.

Ok so now you're using that "styles make fights" cop out, aight so let me ask you this : how would these guys do if they fought Hopkins twice, Spinks and Winky? 3 different styles so you can't use that excuse now.

Matter of fact, I don't even need to look at resumes, I just need to use my own two eyes to see that Taylor > Corrales and Castillo. I'm baffled that you guys can't see it.

[ИATAS]

Originally Posted by IMDAZED

Once he hit the bottle? So now you know when he began drinking? Stop.

so kelly didn't get a DUI after the hopkins fight? he wasn't in the betty ford clinic after hopkins? Quite obviously he had a drinking problem after the loss, he's admitted this. He said he used to drink from time to time then he starting drinking ALL the time.

Originally Posted by IMDAZED

The argument isn't where Hopkins beats him. Yes, he beats him at any weight. Doesn't mean he gets the same credit for it.

So you agree hopkins beats him anywhere, anyplace, anytime but he shouldn't get credit for beating pavlik because it was at a catweight? I guess Pernell Whitaker gets no credit for beating Chavez because Chavez fought him at a higher catchweight and he never really went on to prove his worth at welterweight.

[PBP]

Jermain Taylor was an athletic freak and would have given anybody at 160 problems.

I think he's being grossly downplayed in this thread.

[IMDAZED]

Originally Posted by Light_Speed

Thank you for answering.


Taylor is not a one hit wonder because he actually has two victories over a bonafied ATG who was not far from his prime and arguably accomplished more AFTER those fights.

Ok so now you're using that "styles make fights" cop out, aight so let me ask you this : how would these guys do if they fought Hopkins twice, Spinks and Winky? 3 different styles so you can't use that excuse now.

Matter of fact, I don't even need to look at resumes, I just need to use my own two eyes to see that Taylor > Corrales and Castillo. I'm baffled that you guys can't see it.

Antonio Tarver has two wins over an ATG too. He should've retired right then and waited for Canastota to call, using your logic. Amazing that this incredible fighter named Taylor barely beat Cory Spinks. How could that be, as great as he was?

Anyway, both those wins are highly debatable. And more important, you don't base a legacy off one opponent. Especially if the rest of his resume doesn't add up. In Taylor's case, it most certainly doesn't.

[ИATAS]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

We don't know that.

And I agree, Hopkins beat Pavlik at any weight, no doubt.

But, it doesn't mean it's the same as beating him at 160.

You can say it's slightly less impressive than if he beat him at 160 if you want, it's still a great win for hopkins any way you slice it. Not sure what the argument is here you said yourself it's a good win for hopkins.

My point is anyone saying it isn't a good weight or throw it out or whatever because of the weight just to make their case for Floyd better are being silly. Many of these same people probably thought hopkins was going to lose to pavlik anyway. It's all about timing. At the time it was a fantastic win. Sure, pavlik's career went downhill hardcore since then but that doesn't mean it wasn't a great win in 2008 or whenever it was. Same goes for Calzaghe beating Jeff lacy, etc.

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by Light_Speed

Taylor is not a one hit wonder because he actually has two victories over a bonafied ATG who was not far from his prime and arguably accomplished more AFTER those fights.

He was quite a few years outside his prime. And he clearly lost the first fight.

Originally Posted by Light_Speed

Ok so now you're using that "styles make fights" cop out, aight so let me ask you this : how would these guys do if they fought Hopkins twice, Spinks and Winky? 3 different styles so you can't use that excuse now.

Not sure how that's a cop out. Styles do make fights, after all.

Would Castillo or Corrales beat Hopkins in some mythical fight where they're the same weight? No. And that means?

Like I said, would either of them beat Emile Griffith? Certainly not. But Ruben Carter destroyed him. Is he better than them too?

And again, the same logic applies for Mayweather. Is Carter better than Mayweather aswell?

The logic you are using is senseless.

As for Castillo Vs Spinks? Is that a serious question?

I'd also give him a good chance against Winky Wright aswell.

Originally Posted by Light_Speed

Matter of fact, I don't even need to look at resumes, I just need to use my own two eyes to see that Taylor > Corrales and Castillo. I'm baffled that you guys can't see it.

No disrespect but I get the sense you know very little about those fighters. And weren't around at that time? Atleast I get that sense from your statements.

Taylor might be a lot more flashy than Castillo but he certainly isn't better than Castillo.

And you "Not needing to look at resumes" is a good job because Castillo clearly has a better resume than Jermain Taylor.

[IMDAZED]

Originally Posted by THE ИATAS

You can say it's slightly less impressive than if he beat him at 160 if you want, it's still a great win for hopkins any way you slice it. Not sure what the argument is here you said yourself it's a good win for hopkins.

My point is anyone saying it isn't a good weight or throw it out or whatever because of the weight just to make their case for Floyd better are being silly. Many of these same people probably thought hopkins was going to lose to pavlik anyway. It's all about timing. At the time it was a fantastic win. Sure, pavlik's career went downhill hardcore since then but that doesn't mean it wasn't a great win in 2008 or whenever it was. Same goes for Calzaghe beating Jeff lacy, etc.

No, it's not a "great" win.