Naseem Hamed or Antonio Tarver who place's higher on a all time great list?

[joseph5620]

Like many top fighters, Johnson declined after taking the first beating of his career. He had been the IBF champion for 4 years and had won 11 stright title fights. The Ring Magazine reference is just selective speculation. It was a very legitimate win. Kelley and McCullough were former champions with just one career loss. Soto was 54-7 when he fought Hamed and was the WBC champion. And Bungu beating McKinney and Romero was pretty damn impressive, whether you want to admit it or not.

I think Hamed gets a lot of unfair criticism. Jim Lampley clearly showed his own bias and personal dislike in the Barrera fight. Hamed had an impressive run prior to losing to Barrera and he had exceptional power and speed. The Barrera loss doesn't erase his previous success. I've seen top fighters lose in more dominant and embarrassing fashion than Hamed without losing their status as a HOF fighter.

[StarshipTrooper]

Like many top fighters, Johnson declined after taking the first beating of his career. He had been the IBF champion for 4 years and had won 11 stright title fights. The Ring Magazine reference is just selective speculation. It was a very legitimate win.

No sale. That's the old so-and-so ruined so-and-so argument that fans use to protect the reputation of their favs when they beat up a washed-up name. I don't buy it any other time it's used and I'm not buying now. When guys who are payed to watch boxing for a living notice you're sliding it's a pretty damn good indicator you're sliding not "selective speculation". Just because he held a belt doesn't mean he wasn't past-it: Johnson hadn't fought a legitimate world-class opponent in a long time and even a washed-up champion can usually still beat tomato cans.

Kelley and McCullough were former champions with just one career loss. Soto was 54-7 when he fought Hamed and was the WBC champion. And Bungu beating McKinney and Romero was pretty damn impressive, whether you want to admit it or not.

Beating Soto has about as much cred as beating as beating up Yori Boy Campos. No matter how you spin it Soto was NOT an elite opponent. Hell, Peter McNeely was 36-1 when he fought Tyson.....does that make McNeely an elite opponent?

Being a former champ doesn't mean it's a good win. Joe Louis was a former champ and Marciano doesn't any credit for beating him.....nor should he. You get credit for how good an opponent is at the time you fight him NOT for good he USED to be.

Beating McCullough is no different from beating Gatti. Do you think I give De La Hoya and Mayweather any credit for beating up Gatti? Hell no! Gatti got the spit slapped out him every time he faced a legitimately elite fighter: How do hell do you get credit for beating someone like that? If anything Gatti was a BETTER fighter than McCullough was. And what the hell did Romero ever do to make him an impressive win for anyone? Get exposed as a fraud by Johnny Tapia? McKinney was too damn erratic in his performances to be stepping stone to elite status for anyone.....especially for someone with no other real names on their resume like Bungu.

Poet

[Scott9945]

No sale. That's the old so-and-so ruined so-and-so argument that fans use to protect the reputation of their favs when they beat up a washed-up name. I don't buy it any other time it's used and I'm not buying now. When guys who are payed to watch boxing for a living notice you're sliding it's a pretty damn good indicator you're sliding not "selective speculation". Just because he held a belt doesn't mean he wasn't past-it: Johnson hadn't fought a legitimate world-class opponent in a long time and even a washed-up champion can usually still beat tomato cans.

Johnson was the IBF champion. His record spoke for itself. Was Hamed supposed to refuse the fight until a better champion turned up? Pernell Whitaker was clearly on the downside when he barely lost to DLH. While you can't begin to compare Johnson to Whitaker, it is a similar situation. Yet nobody ever downgrades Oscar's win over someone who had just struggled to beat Rivera and Hurtado. Same with Marciano beating a faded Walcott and Charles. Just pro USA double standards. You can only beat the best fighters available. Since you access to Ring Magazine from back then, who was rated higher than Johnson at 126?

[Nacho_Analstain]

Hamed because hes English, nothin' else.

[StarshipTrooper]

Johnson was the IBF champion. His record spoke for itself. Was Hamed supposed to refuse the fight until a better champion turned up? Pernell Whitaker was clearly on the downside when he barely lost to DLH. While you can't begin to compare Johnson to Whitaker, it is a similar situation. Yet nobody ever downgrades Oscar's win over someone who had just struggled to beat Rivera and Hurtado. Same with Marciano beating a faded Walcott and Charles. Just pro USA double standards. You can only beat the best fighters available. Since you access to Ring Magazine from back then, who was rated higher than Johnson at 126?

I would point out I don't give De La Hoya credit for Whitaker.....if anything I count it against him that that he could only scrape by (and in my eyes LOST to) a past-it Whitaker. I don't give Marciano much credit Walcott and Charles either. Tom Johnson was rated #1 at Feather year end 1996.....and they were still pointing out he was sliding and only had the belt because the division was so weak at the time. Right now Light-Heavy is so weak an ancient and WELL past-it B-Hop is considered the best fighter in the division. You don't get credit for beating him. Another example is Larry Holmes. He was the #1 fighter in his division up until the Spinks fights. The sports writers had already pointed out he was clearly on the slide as early as the Bey fight and was ready to be taken at any time. Point is, even a past-it fighter (or even WELL past-it) can be the top guy in the division when the division is weak.

While you can only beat the best fighters available, it doesn't mean that those fighters are any good. Why should someone get credit for fighting in a weak division? This stuff isn't graded on a curve. Either you beat elite fighters or you don't. If there aren't any available for too bad so sad nobody said life was fair. You don't get put on the same level as someone who actually DID fight and beat elite opponents. If you're competition is ordinary why in the hell should you get the same credit for beating great competition? It's insulting to the fighters who actually DID fight and beat great competition.

The bottom line is you only get credit for a win in proportion to the quality of your opponent.....and specifically the quality of your opponent at the time you fought him. You don't get credit for beating great fighters if you don't fight them.....and you don't get symphathy bonus points just because there're none available.

Poet

[baya]

Poet Is *****ing all over this thread.