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

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Steak
    Undisputed Champion
    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
    • Aug 2006
    • 10713
    • 509
    • 268
    • 17,902

    #21
    Originally posted by da beatdown
    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.

    Comment

    • street bully
      Tua's daddy.
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Jan 2008
      • 25014
      • 697
      • 263
      • 35,118

      #22
      Originally posted by blackirish137
      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.

      Comment

      • BattlingNelson
        Mod a Phukka
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • Mar 2008
        • 29884
        • 3,256
        • 3,204
        • 286,536

        #23
        Originally posted by blackirish137
        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.

        Comment

        • musiol
          Interim Champion
          Gold Champion - 500-1,000 posts
          • Nov 2008
          • 949
          • 25
          • 10
          • 14,125

          #24
          to be fair froch beat pascal easily and won with plenty to spare

          Comment

          • Dave Rado
            Undisputed Champion
            Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
            • Dec 2008
            • 8064
            • 266
            • 453
            • 14,460

            #25
            Originally posted by blackirish137
            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.

            Comment

            • Dave Rado
              Undisputed Champion
              Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
              • Dec 2008
              • 8064
              • 266
              • 453
              • 14,460

              #26
              Originally posted by BattlingNelson
              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.

              Comment

              • Dave Rado
                Undisputed Champion
                Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                • Dec 2008
                • 8064
                • 266
                • 453
                • 14,460

                #27
                Originally posted by musiol
                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.

                Comment

                • Steak
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
                  • Aug 2006
                  • 10713
                  • 509
                  • 268
                  • 17,902

                  #28
                  Originally posted by BattlingNelson
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • BattlingNelson
                    Mod a Phukka
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Mar 2008
                    • 29884
                    • 3,256
                    • 3,204
                    • 286,536

                    #29
                    Originally posted by blackirish137
                    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.

                    Get the latest boxing news, fight results, interviews, rankings, and more from BoxingScene.com - your source for everything boxing.

                    Comment

                    • americanbot
                      Banned
                      • Aug 2010
                      • 4002
                      • 179
                      • 29
                      • 4,267

                      #30
                      Originally posted by da beatdown
                      So 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!
                      the idiot logic lol

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP