Re: What Do You Prefer ??
Good question, but honestly I don't care. No matter what someone does; if they are really good someone will say they should have attempted to move up in weight. If they don't they say they're scared. If they move up and lose then they were stupid to move up{like I said about Hatton}. If they move up and win then some guy in the other division will say he left cause he was scared of the new guys. Blah blah blah. Actually I like a guy who moves up, as it shows how much a science boxing can be{like Floyd}. But I have nothing against a guy who dominates one div. Everyone is different. ??? CC, good post Finito.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEGION
Good question, but honestly I don't care. No matter what someone does; if they are really good someone will say they should have attempted to move up in weight. If they don't they say they're scared. If they move up and lose then they were stupid to move up{like I said about Hatton}. If they move up and win then some guy in the other division will say he left cause he was scared of the new guys. Blah blah blah. Actually I like a guy who moves up, as it shows how much a science boxing can be{like Floyd}. But I have nothing against a guy who dominates one div. Everyone is different. ??? CC, good post Finito.
:coolclick: back thanks for your input.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
I think it depends on how they do it....If a guy is going to jump into different divisions to win titles that is all fine and dandy but if they are going to do it like a stalker then I give them no credit....EG- jump up if they can get a fight with a champion they know they can beat without a doubt then win the title just to vacate it and move back down the next fight...IMO if your going to jump up and win a title more credit to ya but defend to belt a few times first....
If a fighter is just going to do that I rather see them stay in one division and dominate that division until there are no more worthy challengers...
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daxx Kahn
I think it depends on how they do it....If a guy is going to jump into different divisions to win titles that is all fine and dandy but if they are going to do it like a stalker then I give them no credit....EG- jump up if they can get a fight with a champion they know they can beat without a doubt then win the title just to vacate it and move back down the next fight...IMO if your going to jump up and win a title more credit to ya but defend to belt a few times first....
If a fighter is just going to do that I rather see them stay in one division and dominate that division until there are no more worthy challengers...
Good points CC in 24 Daxx.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
CC Ice, nice post. I can see both sides of the coin, like most people when it comes to this I guess. Hopkins and Jones Jr were head and shoulders clear of the rest in their respective divisions for years, and are guaranteed Hall of Famers, but both were eventually forced to move up to prove their worth in multiple divisions.
I think it is a natural progression if a fighter has dominated a division for a period of time, to either challenge the best from the division below, or move up and try and dominate a second division too. Personally, I love to see a unification fight, as having two champs go head to head just boosts the excitement for me.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
I think the nature of boxing has changed now so that moving up through the divisions has more emphisis than in days past.
I actually think many fans who argue that fighters should stay and dominate a division are actually about 15 years behind the times.
When guys like Duran, Hearns, Leonard and further back to guys like Ray Robinson there wern't all the divisions that we have today and those extra ones that were there had little recognition.
For example Hagler had no need to move up as the super middleweight division barely existed back then and the other divisions light welter, light middle etc had little importance.
In that regard you could say that the main divisions of lightweight, welterweight, middleweight etc counted for two divisions in today's era as the talent was more concentrated in them than it is now.
Secondly those who argue that staying at your ideal weight is somehow more legacy defining than pushing yourself above and beyond your weight class completely lose me to be honest.
How is it harder for say Floyd Mayweather to have stayed at super featherweight and dominated than it was for him to continually move up and face the champions in the next 4 divisions up? ???
Even more bizarre to me is that when a lesser fighter like Ricky Hatton attempts to just move up a single divison and loses he is excused on the grounds that he's not a natural welterweight. ???
So what they saying in effect is it is harder to stay and dominate one division i.e your natural weight than it is to move up BUT you shouldn't expect a fighter to be able to move up above his natural weight and win :-\ A rather strange way of looking at things imo.
It's also funny to me how people always use Hopkins as an example of a guy dominating one division, and of course he did. But his legacy and status as an ATG received a massive shot in the arm when he moved up two divisions to beat Antonio Tarver. He is now a two weight world champ!
Finally I have to say I'm far more impressed by a fighter who is able to move through the divisions. Being able to beat everyone the same size as you is not as impressive as being able to beat people 2,3,4 or even 5 weight classes above you. To do so you have to have seriously good boxing skills and/or amazing physical attributes.
That's why I still rate guys such as Oscar De Hoya and Shane Mosely so highly as they were able to take their skills and translate it to success in multiple divisions. Roy Jones' feat of moving up to heavyweight and defeating John Ruiz was an amazing thing as well, never mind that Ruiz was not a great champion, it still required amazing skill, boxing craft and guile for a much smaller man to move up and hand him his ass.
That's why I have little to no understanding for those posters who will bash someone like Floyd whilst defending someone like Ricky Hatton.
To me these two fighters just arn't in the same league. Hatton is a great junior welter but Floyd is a truly elite fighter.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
I think that you could make an arguement for both sides, but defending the title is part of being a champion though its not always the case. Personally, I think someone like Hagler is able to say he is one of the best Middleweights of all time, and not a single boxing fan will question that. But a fighter that moves through weight without many defences sucessfully can be called a great fighter, but its harder to call him an ATG at any particular weight. Im more into the history of divisions so an Ali, Pep, Hagler, Hopkins, of any title record title holder will always carry more weight, at least to me cause they answered all the questions at their weights.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
I think it is easier to move up in weight now, if you look at a fighter's diet and the supplements available to him. Plus the fact there is a dirth of talent compared to years ago; whereas the top ten in any weight division was decent, now there is a chasm between the top man and most of the other ten in his class. I think Mayweather is stunning, and could have fought in any era, but I would still like to see him knocked off his perch. This is because greatness is not as endearing as fallability.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright
I think it is easier to move up in weight now, if you look at a fighter's diet and the supplements available to him. Plus the fact there is a dirth of talent compared to years ago; whereas the top ten in any weight division was decent, now there is a chasm between the top man and most of the other ten in his class. I think Mayweather is stunning, and could have fought in any era, but I would still like to see him knocked off his perch. This is because greatness is not as endearing as fallability.
:coolclick: rarely a truer word spoken. It's no coincedence imo that the two only great undefeated champions of our era Floyd Mayweather and Joe Calzaghe are also the two most criticised.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
CC to all the new replies great posting fellas keep it up.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright
I think it is easier to move up in weight now, if you look at a fighter's diet and the supplements available to him. Plus the fact there is a dirth of talent compared to years ago; whereas the top ten in any weight division was decent, now there is a chasm between the top man and most of the other ten in his class. I think Mayweather is stunning, and could have fought in any era, but I would still like to see him knocked off his perch. This is because greatness is not as endearing as fallability.
:coolclick: rarely a truer word spoken. It's no coincedence imo that the two only great undefeated champions of our era Floyd Mayweather and Joe Calzaghe are also the two most criticised.
So are you suggesting that Joe Calzaghe could in fact improve in some people's estimations should he lose in a summer bout against Hopkins, as long as he puts in a brave performance? Everything's messed up if that's the case.
Re: What Do You Prefer ??
i like to see fighters dominate a division then move up.
example : calzaghe
