Oh No, Carl Froch Holds a WIN Over The #1 Light Heavyweight!
Collapse
-
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.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.Comment
-
Yeah so Spinks would be rated about the same as Dawson was untill saturday.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.
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
wait how high was Dawson rated? I thought he was #6?
Spinks really couldnt have been lower than #3, and he was probably #2.Comment
-
the idiot logic lolSo using the nsb mentality you know what that means................
Carl Froch is better than Thomaz Adamek(thru him in ther cuz it was dawsons best win) because Adamek lost to Dawson, Dawson lost to Pascal and Pascal lost to Froch!
Froch>Pascal>Dawson>Adamek.......woooow......amazing!Comment
Comment