Oh No, Carl Froch Holds a WIN Over The #1 Light Heavyweight!

Wow you're an idiot. Did you read my follow ups? I meant in p4p sense as you would have known if you had read just a little more.

4 on Boxingscene. http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=28917 oh, well Ring had him six, and thats what I was going by. anyways, P4P lists are stupid.

Wow, what has the division become, when 168lb'er Carl Froch has beat the current #1 LHW in DEC 2008. The LHW division, is in a damn bad state. Gone of the days, when the division was ruled by greats like Michael Spinks, Ezzard Charles, Roy Jones & Archie Moore........:nonono: Anything can happen in boxing. Crazy to think Pascal can handle Dawson but lose to Froch.

wait how high was Dawson rated? I thought he was #6? Spinks really couldnt have been lower than #3, and he was probably #2. 4 on Boxingscene. http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=28917

Yeah so Spinks would be rated about the same as Dawson was untill saturday. Todays fighters seem quite inferior to the guys of '84. Maybe we'll look at todays top fighters in a better light in 25 years. wait how high was Dawson rated? I thought he was #6? Spinks really couldnt have been lower than #3, and he was probably #2.

to be fair froch beat pascal easily and won with plenty to spare That version of Pascal wasn't the same fighter who beat Dawson. He has improved dramatically since then, plus he had the wrong gameplan against Froch (and Dawson had the wrong gameplan against him). I'm sure Pascal would be the strong favourite to beat Froch if they were to rematch at LHW now, and I also suspect Dawson will be the favourite to beat Pascal in their rematch.

Todays fighters seem quite inferior to the guys of '84. Maybe we'll look at todays top fighters in a better light in 25 years. I doubt it - if that were likely, why would the current top 10 contain several fighters who are way past their prime, and a couple who have been outclassed in recent fights? Both indicate a very weak field, IMO.

I cant see Ring putting Spinks lower than 6 at that point and time. I'm sure he'd have been top 3 if they'd had a list back then. In any case, #6 or even #10 in a big field of future ATGs in their primes like you mentioned is worth far more than even #3 is worth today, when today's list only contains two potential ATGs in their primes. If you're making statements about who is more highly rated, as Bat was, then the depth of competition then vs. now has to be taken into account; and in those terms, to claim Dawson was more highly rated than any of the top 10 fighters of the early 80s is misleading at best, and is really simply wrong, IMO.

to be fair froch beat pascal easily and won with plenty to spare

Hagler, Spinks and Holmes wouldve been near the top, imo. I dont think Pryor would have been too high, he wasnt nearly as highly regarded as his the early 80s by then. Curry was actualyl really highly regarded at the time too, I think some people even had him #1, but that have been a little later on. Pedroza would have been lower p4p, since he was a smaller guy. McCallum wasnt well known then either I think I cant see Ring putting Spinks lower than 6 at that point and time. Yeah so Spinks would be rated about the same as Dawson was untill saturday. Todays fighters seem quite inferior to the guys of '84. Maybe we'll look at todays top fighters in a better light in 25 years.

Hagler, Spinks and Holmes wouldve been near the top, imo. I dont think Pryor would have been too high, he wasnt nearly as highly regarded as his the early 80s by then. Curry was actualyl really highly regarded at the time too, I think some people even had him #1, but that have been a little later on. Pedroza would have been lower p4p, since he was a smaller guy. McCallum wasnt well known then either I think I cant see Ring putting Spinks lower than 6 at that point and time. Hagler was seen as number one and Spinks was seen at number two. This and the money is why Spinks would call out hagler every opportunity he could at 168 to see who the best fighter in the wrold was. Hagler wanted nothing to do with it, and understandibly so since Spinks would have beat him.

Im glad u caught my sarcasm.......... I cant tell on this website anymore, some people's sarcasm sounds more reasonable than what a lot of people truly believe.

Yeah I saw that on boxrec just now. Maybe other trade magazines had p4p rankings? (KO, Boxingnews or others)? Let's do a rundown of fighters on top in 1984: Holmes, Spinks, Hagler, Hearns, Curry, Pryor. Maybe McCallum, Bramble, Pedroza and Azumah as well. Pretty strong roster. Hagler, Spinks and Holmes wouldve been near the top, imo. I dont think Pryor would have been too high, he wasnt nearly as highly regarded as his the early 80s by then. Curry was actualyl really highly regarded at the time too, I think some people even had him #1, but that have been a little later on. Pedroza would have been lower p4p, since he was a smaller guy. McCallum wasnt well known then either I think I cant see Ring putting Spinks lower than 6 at that point and time.

he has a good point. a subpar 168lber just became the best LHW in the world. its not just the Froch loss, Pascal was struggling against Omar Pittman too. other indications of a weak division: 168lb flunkie Jorgen Brahmer is highly regarded at LHW Yusaf Mack, someone who got KOed by Andrade and Berrio at 168lbs, beat Chris Henry at LHW(Henry is just about as good as Diaconu) and this is a Henry that actually probably was better after the Diaconu lost oh yea, and the same old men from 5 years ago have stayed at the top of the divison, despite getting obviously worse over time. Im glad u caught my sarcasm..........

The concept of P4P was invented way back when, but they(Ring Magazine) didnt have lists until 1989. Yeah I saw that on boxrec just now. Maybe other trade magazines had p4p rankings? (KO, Boxingnews or others)? Let's do a rundown of fighters on top in 1984: Holmes, Spinks, Hagler, Hearns, Curry, Pryor. Maybe McCallum, Bramble, Pedroza and Azumah as well. Pretty strong roster.

I'm only stating in p4p terms. No question that Spinks was the greater LHW. He's in the all time top 3 IMO. Are you sure about the ring not having p4p rankings before that? I could have sworn they had them back in the days of Ray Robinson. I could be wrong though. youre so wrong about a p4p list in the days of SRR...lol

I'm only stating in p4p terms. No question that Spinks was the greater LHW. He's in the all time top 3 IMO. Are you sure about the ring not having p4p rankings before that? I could have sworn they had them back in the days of Ray Robinson. I could be wrong though. See here. ....

I'm only stating in p4p terms. No question that Spinks was the greater LHW. He's in the all time top 3 IMO. Are you sure about the ring not having p4p rankings before that? I could have sworn they had them back in the days of Ray Robinson. I could be wrong though.The concept of P4P was invented way back when, but they(Ring Magazine) didnt have lists until 1989. The Ring magazine inaugurated its Pound For Pound Annual Ratings with the 1989 list.

I'm talking p4p-wise. I should have made that clear: I doubt Spinks was rated as high in the p4p rankings as Dawson was. The Ring magazine inaugurated its Pound For Pound Annual Ratings with the 1989 list. Spinks' heyday was in the early 80s. But at his peak I'm sure he'd have been rated in the top 3, if The Ring had had a P4P list back then, which they didn't. And against far more elite competition than today. Today's P4P list only contains 2 potential ATGs in their primes, whereas in Spinks' day there were many more than that.

Ring Magazine didnt have a P4P list until the end of 1989, a year after he lsot to Tyson and was retired. so...you cant really say that. I have an extremely hard time imagining that Dawson would be more highly regarded when Spinks had wins over Dwight Muhammed Qawi, Yanqui Lopez, Eddie Mustaffa Muhammed, and Marvin Johnson(among othr highly ranked guys) under his belt at a time when the LHW division was considered very deep. and thats without him going to HW. ANd Mustafa Saad, I tend to agree with you the 80's were really the decade where the LHW are trully deep and very competitive.After that it went by spurt