10 truths boxing fans should accept!

great thread. There's a one or two on your list I slightly disagree with but for the most part it's right one.

9. Like em not, you should have Hatton and Calzaghe in your P4P list somewhere. I'm not a huge fan of either man. Go back through my post history and you'll see I've never hugged their nuts. However, I must call it like I see it. They catch alot of sh*t on this board. They catch too much crap for being undfeated, longtime champions. absolutely yes

9. Like em not, you should have Hatton and Calzaghe in your P4P list somewhere. I'm not a huge fan of either man. Go back through my post history and you'll see I've never hugged their nuts. However, I must call it like I see it. They catch alot of sh*t on this board. They catch too much crap for being undfeated, longtime champions. True... Bottomline is that they are both are undefeated..That's is a hard mark to reach regardless of the level of comp you're fighting..Both are in my top ten..

i hear ya, but you do see that the "man who beat them man" theory means that Julio Gonzlez(a guy RJ beat) and Zsolt Erdei are the undisputed champs while RJ, tarver and nard are not.... so it has its flaws... The only flaw is in the sanctioning bodies behavior, you realize that in this case ALL the three major belts weres tripped off their legit owner, before Roy got to them. Not like any of the other fighters retired, they were just stripped. Now, say that someone beats Malignaggi beats Witter and the english who beat m'baye. who is the champ? Paulie or Ricky Hatton? Now consider that Jones beat 40 years old McCallum, Lou Del Valle and Reggie Johnson... On the other hand I see your point, but it is only because of alphabet bullshit that the competition for the real 175 title went down in the past few years. And now we are kind of stuck in limbo. Again, to me there is no man at lightheavy, but surely it is not Hopkins

You are trying to say positive things about Floyd and Roy Jones's career and saying negative things about Hopkins's career... That isn't really comparing anything very well. What do you have to say that is positive about Hopkins's career? I said earlier that what he does at 42 is remarkable, I'm not knocking him. I'm just disagreeing with Guru. I don't think he carries more weight than OScar, Floyd, Roy Jones in terms of legacy on the sport. His 20 defenses are real suspect if you look at them closely. He is a great fighter no doubt and he should be mentioned amongst those guys but behind them.

yes, surely he was, because he beat the champion and kinda (yes, but the competition for that title became weaker and weaker as of lately, basically after DM lost it). I dont consider anyone to be champ at 175 right now, it is about time someone cleans out the division. (btw Gonzalez lost to a hungarian since then) i hear ya, but you do see that the "man who beat them man" theory means that Julio Gonzlez(a guy RJ beat) and Zsolt Erdei are the undisputed champs while RJ, tarver and nard are not.... so it has its flaws...

9. Like em not, you should have Hatton and Calzaghe in your P4P list somewhere. I'm not a huge fan of either man. Go back through my post history and you'll see I've never hugged their nuts. However, I must call it like I see it. They catch alot of sh*t on this board. They catch too much crap for being undfeated, longtime champions.

so by your logic, briggs was the undisputed champion? and since Julio Gonzalez beat DM, that makes him the undisputed champ, not RJ or tarver?? I'm sorry, but i dont hear anyone else claiming that... yes, surely he was, because he beat the champion and kinda (yes, but the competition for that title became weaker and weaker as of lately, basically after DM lost it). I dont consider anyone to be champ at 175 right now, it is about time someone cleans out the division. (btw Gonzalez lost to a hungarian since then) Of course no one claims that HERE... but go to a german boxing forum and see, even here on bs there was this polish-american poster who would rub DM in everyone's face EVERY DAY when roy was p4p. Fact is Jones won the wbc title from maccallum who just lost it to Tiozzo but the title mysteriously became Jones's (btw I think this is the Rocchigianni lawsuit which WBC lost a few years ago and almost made WBC bankrupt), he beat Hill after he just lost to DM his ibf and wba titles. After DM was immediately stripped of those belts, those other belts were vacated and Roy won them from Johnson and some of the other "greats" which Jones chose to fight at the time (mind, if you hzve read other posts of mine you will know that I am definitely a jones' fan, perhaps a "nuthugger", but facts are facts)

logic is: you are the man, when you beat the man. the alphabet bullshit does not matter, otherwise... right now Casamayor is NOT the lightweight champion? Hatton is NOT jr welter champion, and so on lewis beat briggs who beat foreman, hence he was the man. DM beat Hill, therefore he was the man. Roy Jones would have most likely beaten DM, but IFs dont change who the champion is. so by your logic, briggs was the undisputed champion? and since Julio Gonzalez beat DM, that makes him the undisputed champ, not RJ or tarver?? I'm sorry, but i dont hear anyone else claiming that...

i see your logic, but its flawed.... foreman captured all the belts in 94 from moorer, but then got stripped for not making his mandatories.. holyfield and lewis would go on to unify titles again, making lewis the undisputed champ even though he never beat foreman or won the wbo title... back then if you collected the big three titles(wba,ibf,wbc) that made you the undisputed champ... as was the case with holy and lewis logic is: you are the man, when you beat the man. the alphabet bullshit does not matter, otherwise... right now Casamayor is NOT the lightweight champion? Hatton is NOT jr welter champion, and so on lewis beat briggs who beat foreman, hence he was the man. DM beat Hill, therefore he was the man. Roy Jones would have most likely beaten DM, but IFs dont change who the champion is.

do yourself a favor... check what happened to the IBF and WBA belts i see your logic, but its flawed.... foreman captured all the belts in 94 from moorer, but then got stripped for not making his mandatories.. holyfield and lewis would go on to unify titles again, making lewis the undisputed champ even though he never beat foreman or won the wbo title... back then if you collected the big three titles(wba,ibf,wbc) that made you the undisputed champ... as was the case with holy and lewis

just checked it, he was WBO champ... back then they didn't even recognize that title... Lewis and tszyu never captured the WBO titles, but they were still recognized as the undisputed champs... only in the past few years have the titles gone from the big three to including the WBO... do yourself a favor... check what happened to the IBF and WBA belts

NOPE Roy Jones Jr. was not undisputed to begin with. comprende? Darius Michawhateverthespelling was the 175 champion. Jones did not want to fight out of US, DM did not want to fight out of Germany, so the fight never happened, but DM was the champ and Jones just collected pieces of paper here and there. just checked it, he was WBO champ... back then they didn't even recognize that title... Lewis and tszyu never captured the WBO titles, but they were still recognized as the undisputed champs... only in the past few years have the titles gone from the big three to including the WBO...

NOPE Roy Jones Jr. was not undisputed to begin with. comprende? Darius Michawhateverthespelling was the 175 champion. Jones did not want to fight out of US, DM did not want to fight out of Germany, so the fight never happened, but DM was the champ and Jones just collected pieces of paper here and there. wasnt he the WBO champ?

they gave up the belts, but everybody recognized them the undisputed champ... just like lewis gave up the IBF and WBA titles instead of fighting guys like byrd, but was still recognized as the MAN... NOPE Roy Jones Jr. was not undisputed to begin with. comprende? Darius Michawhateverthespelling was the 175 champion. Jones did not want to fight out of US, DM did not want to fight out of Germany, so the fight never happened, but DM was the champ and Jones just collected pieces of paper here and there.

Tarver was not undisputed champion because Roy Jones Jr. was not undisputed champion. they gave up the belts, but everybody recognized them the undisputed champ... just like lewis gave up the IBF and WBA titles instead of fighting guys like byrd, but was still recognized as the MAN...

nard jumped two weight classes and beat the undisputed light hvy champ... he also has record title defenses at 160 and at 42 he's beating top P4P fighters.... i dont see where holy, oscar and floyd have done greater... Tarver was not undisputed champion because Roy Jones Jr. was not undisputed champion.

except for oscar, winky and tito coming up in weight to fight him... the rest of your post is OPINION and not fact... you can nit pick anyone's resume... i'll give you an example and do it to RJ...he beat a drained toney, an inexperienced nard, a paper champion in ruiz... he fought a long list of paper mandatories that included policemen, garbage collectors and part-time fighters... he refused to fight several tough contenders and choosing to fight the paper mandatories instead... How was Toney drained that was damn near his first fight at 168. Ruiz is c+ to B- fighter he beat Holyfield twice, I believe and fought Rahman and Toney and won. RJJ and Nard had the same amount of experience when they fought, actually Nard had one more fight as a pro.

Sorry I did not get to finish my list... I went out of town this weekend... so here's the rest of it: 6. MMA is a skilled sport that’s here to stay and although boxing will always be around, it needs to get its act together. MMA is not a fad, its not going away and neither is boxing. They will both co-exist together, but as PPV and TV ratings suggest MMA has passed boxing in viewers. UFC’s last PPV had two title defenses by top champions (shrek, silva) and it had its top star, Tito against an undefeated top contender. When’s the last time boxing had a PPV comparable to that? Boxing isn’t going anywhere, but it does need to get its act together. There are many PPV's today that should be on free TV(holyfield/savarese, oleg/rahman). And when we do get a PPV with a worthy fight, thats all you get, ONE worthy fight. The undercard is filled with crap. I remember back in 1991 on my birthday, I ordered Tyson/Ruddock II on PPV. On the undercard we got Azumah Nelson and Jeff Fenech. Today there's almost no chance of getting a quality undercard like that. A few weeks ago, we got a triple header, but that's is so few and far between. We need cards like that more often. PBF-DLH undercard was great Soto-Pacquiao, Bautista-Medina and that's it. Nard-Winky undercard had two really good fights on it.

Yes and no. Compete, yes I'll give them that but only Lewis and Vitali. I think Wlad would get knocked out too much to keep getting top fights. Also, I don't think either Vitali or Lewis could be champions in the great Clay, Foreman, etc era. Compete? Yes. Win? No. A better three names and statement for you to post would have been "Bowe, Holyfield, and Tyson in their primes could compete in any era at any time. Having a series of wars and title exchanges time after time" That would be a much more accurate statement. except for Bowe, i believe most already agree that tyson and holy could compete with other era's, so that would not go with the point of my thread... while the big three(wlad, Vk, lewis) would have trouble with big aggressive punchers like foreman, i think they could do well against boxers like ali and holmes because of their size and styles...