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

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • -PBP-
    32 Time World Champion
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Jan 2012
    • 24107
    • 836
    • 635
    • 34,297

    #181
    Originally posted by IMDAZED
    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.
    lol...In all fairness Cory Spinks is not the easiest fighter to look good against. When he still had legs, he played it very safe, boxed on the outside and took very few chances. Plus, he did beat Judah, Karmazin and Mayorga.

    Never an elite fighter but he was very good at what he did.

    Comment

    • ИATAS
      Banned
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Jul 2007
      • 36648
      • 2,509
      • 1,953
      • 50,835

      #182
      Originally posted by IMDAZED
      No, it's not a "great" win.
      In your opinion. To most others it was a great win. It won "Upset of the year" according to The Ring magazine and most others. I don't know of many upset of the year fights which are not considered great wins for the guy who won.

      At the time it was a fantastic win, period. You can try to discredit it now but it matters not.

      Comment

      • IronDanHamza
        Banned
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • Oct 2009
        • 48371
        • 4,778
        • 266
        • 104,043

        #183
        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.
        I think it's a good win certainly. But wouldn't say it's a great win, nor close.

        I don't think it's any better than Mayweather's win over Marquez. Infact, I'd say Marquez win is better considering he's more proven at WW than Pavlik is at LHW.

        I disagree on the Jeff Lacy thing, I don't consider that a great win at all for Calzaghe. Good win? Yes. Solely because Lacy was considered to be one of the top fighters at 168. And the most Calzaghe could do was fight him and beat him.

        But, the fact of the matter is, Jeff Lacy is simply not very good.

        Comment

        • ИATAS
          Banned
          Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
          • Jul 2007
          • 36648
          • 2,509
          • 1,953
          • 50,835

          #184
          Originally posted by IronDanHamza
          I think it's a good win certainly. But wouldn't say it's a great win, nor close.
          Well that's a matter of opinion. Like I said above at the time pretty much everyone considered it a great win (upset of the year, 43 years old, undefeated fighter in pavlik, etc etc etc).

          I don't think it's any better than Mayweather's win over Marquez. Infact, I'd say Marquez win is better considering he's more proven at WW than Pavlik is at LHW.
          Let's use Marquez vs Pac. JMM moved up 2 weight classes to fight Pac the third time and he arguably won the fight. How do you explain that? Maybe it's because Pac & JMM are naturally the same size. Weight wasn't an issue, it was about styles (just like Pavlik lost to hopkins not because of weight but because of styles & skills).

          I disagree on the Jeff Lacy thing, I don't consider that a great win at all for Calzaghe. Good win? Yes. Solely because Lacy was considered to be one of the top fighters at 168. And the most Calzaghe could do was fight him and beat him.

          But, the fact of the matter is, Jeff Lacy is simply not very good.
          Just using lacy as an example. My point was put the win in perspective of the time it happened. A better example is hopkins beating echols was a very solid win, but now I'm sure not too many people give a damn.

          Comment

          • Mr. Fantastic
            Banned
            Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
            • May 2008
            • 19036
            • 527
            • 1,328
            • 20,027

            #185
            Hopkins' record against ELITE guys his own size. 2-5

            Taylor 0-2
            Dawson 0-1 ........should of had the first one count too for trying to be shady.
            Jones 0-1 ..........1-1 if you count the eliteness of a washed up Jones.
            Calzaghe 0-1
            Pascal 1-0-1 If you even want to count him as one.
            Johnson 1-0
            Tarver if you want to count it. 3-5 but look at the wins compared to loses.


            Guys smaller than him.

            Trinidad 1-0 Small MW
            Oscar 1-0 Small MW
            Winky 1-0 Went up more than 10+ pounds
            Pavlik 1-0 Went up more than 10+ pounds


            This is why Hopkins' greatness isn't made out to be what it is. Sure he's a great boxer but Hopkins can't handle elite guys his own size most of the time, that's why he loves them smaller.

            Comment

            • IronDanHamza
              Banned
              Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
              • Oct 2009
              • 48371
              • 4,778
              • 266
              • 104,043

              #186
              Originally posted by THE ИATAS
              Well that's a matter of opinion. Like I said above at the time pretty much everyone considered it a great win (upset of the year, 43 years old, undefeated fighter in pavlik, etc etc etc).
              A lot did, some didn't. Pavlik being overrated was one of the main reasons why. Kind of similar to Calzaghe-Lacy, ironically.

              Although, Hopkins win over Pavlik was definitely a better win.

              Originally posted by Light_Speed
              Let's use Marquez vs Pac. JMM moved up 2 weight classes to fight Pac the third time and he arguably won the fight. How do you explain that? Maybe it's because Pac & JMM are naturally the same size. Weight wasn't an issue, it was about styles (just like Pavlik lost to hopkins not because of weight but because of styles & skills).
              Because Marquez is that good Is how I would explain it.

              I don't think skills and styles is the sole reason. Pavlik isn't as effective at 170 IMO and he certainly hasn't proved otherwise.



              Originally posted by Light_Speed
              Just using lacy as an example. My point was put the win in perspective of the time it happened. A better example is hopkins beating echols was a very solid win, but now I'm sure not too many people give a damn.
              Echols is absolutely a better win that Pavlik. IMO. That's one of Hopkins best wins IMO.

              And you're right, no one gives a damn. But that's because 95% of people on here started watching Boxing in the 00's onwards.

              I will say this, you are certainly the most knowledgeable Hopkins fan on this site. And you clearly followed his entire career. You and I both know that Echol's was a very good win for Hopkins and it isn't his only very good win at MW either outside of Trinidad.

              Comment

              • IMDAZED
                Fair but Firm
                Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                • May 2006
                • 42644
                • 1,134
                • 1,770
                • 67,152

                #187
                Originally posted by THE ИATAS
                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.
                Oh please. Kelly Pavlik's drinking problem was known before he fought Miranda. A drink from time to time? He had a litany of excuses for losing to Hopkins, do you believe those too?



                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.
                Putting words in my mouth much? I said he shouldn't get credit? It's a good win, nothing more. Not a great win as you'd like to portend. And never, ever mention Kelly Pavlik's name with Chavez' just because they both shared a catchweight. Are you that far gone? Horrible analogy on all levels. Kelly Pavlik has done nothing with his career since. Nothing. At any weight class. Chavez weighed two pounds more than he normally weighed against Whitaker. And two of his last four fights had been at welter. Not to mention he's 1,000 times the fighter Pavlik is.

                Comment

                • IMDAZED
                  Fair but Firm
                  Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                  • May 2006
                  • 42644
                  • 1,134
                  • 1,770
                  • 67,152

                  #188
                  Originally posted by THE ИATAS
                  In your opinion. To most others it was a great win. It won "Upset of the year" according to The Ring magazine and most others. I don't know of many upset of the year fights which are not considered great wins for the guy who won.

                  At the time it was a fantastic win, period. You can try to discredit it now but it matters not.
                  Discredit it? It was a good win over a good fighter. Not great. Pavlik isn't great at 160, how can a win over him at 170 be great? My goodness.

                  Comment

                  • IMDAZED
                    Fair but Firm
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • May 2006
                    • 42644
                    • 1,134
                    • 1,770
                    • 67,152

                    #189
                    Originally posted by PBP
                    lol...In all fairness Cory Spinks is not the easiest fighter to look good against. When he still had legs, he played it very safe, boxed on the outside and took very few chances. Plus, he did beat Judah, Karmazin and Mayorga.

                    Never an elite fighter but he was very good at what he did.
                    Dude...Jermain Taylor looked like doo-doo . In fact, I thought he lost. He spent most of his reign fighting 154lbers and looking like **** doing so. And then got flattened by Pavlik.

                    Comment

                    • IronDanHamza
                      Banned
                      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                      • Oct 2009
                      • 48371
                      • 4,778
                      • 266
                      • 104,043

                      #190
                      Originally posted by IMDAZED
                      Dude...Jermain Taylor looked like doo-doo . In fact, I thought he lost. He spent most of his reign fighting 154lbers and looking like **** doing so. And then got flattened by Pavlik.
                      Yeah, I'm with you on that.

                      I don't rate Jermain Taylor at all.

                      No way was he better than Jose Luis Castillo.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP