Re: Greatest Accomplishments
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
If Floyd retires undefeated & it doesn't brake Marciano's record- I think it would be a major accomplishment, but not great. If he retires 50-0, what would trump it?
Seriously: I think all our bitching about who he didn't fight will fade into oblivion or ..as Tyson would say Bolivian ;D
Ali's winning the HW title 3 times, use to be considered a major accomplishment to me, but Holy has won it what 4, or 5 times? In some regard that is major, then on the flip side- its like well damn why cant U two just hold on to the title?
I think there is one accomplishment that has faded, but hasn't died: Triple Crown winner Hank Armstrong aka suicidal!
Featherweight, Welterweight & Lightweight champ..at the same time!
Hank did lunge at times, & lowering his head could be predictable, but his workrate was off the charts. His inside game was pretty nasty- he knew out to use his shoulders inside to tee off on fighters.
I think Hank's triple crown is the greatest accomplishment to date.
Guys like Mayweather, Holmes or Wlad's run at holding a title can be seen as a major accomplishment but it can als0 be seen as subjective- we can argue who were in their era & who wasn't.
Forman winning the title & Hopkins run as an old man IMO trumps Floyd's accomplishment- provided Floyd beats Marciano's record 50-0, then that would be hard to dispute: 18-20 years undefeated.
How does one argue that in 3 weight classes?
Honorable mention to Bob Fitzsimmons- I just don't know enough about the guy in actual footage that is.
Good post. And you'll have the same amount of agreement about greatest accomplishments as if you were to start a thread on the world's greatest rock bands. ;D
That being said, I still contend that we should be able to compare accomplishments based on quality of opponents. That is always the "X" factor that is left out of just pure numbers. 40-0, 50-0..... what does it really mean if the majority of your opponents have been forgettable? Some will argue that it is too difficult to compare quality of opponents. I say that in this day and age of statistics about everything under the sun, I'm pretty sure there's someone out there with the mathematical and boxing intelligence to come up with an algorithm that takes into account quality of opponent. I know it's not as simple as how many W's and L's your opponents have..... but in the absence of anything else, I'd rather use that than nothing at all.
Good point on the winning the HW title (or any other title) several times! Yes.... why the hell didn't you hang on to it in the first place? Vintage example is Ali losing to Leon Spinks, only to win it right back. What the hell was all that about? Losing to Leon Spinks should be a major demerit on your scorecard.... not an "attaboy" for winning the title back later.
In modern times, I would say Pacquiao's run through several weight divisions would have to be ranked way the hell up there..... if only not for the specter of PED use.... never actually proven.... but mighty suspicious. And Pacquiao didn't just beat the run-of-the-mill boxers on his way through the divisions. He beat a veritable who's who in boxing. Yeah.... any opponent can be picked apart if we look hard enough. He was over the hill.... it was a catchweight.... blah, blah, blah. It is still a remarkable achievement.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
It's hard to compare accomplishments from different generations, because the landscape of boxing has constantly changed and evolved. All I really give a fuck about is how good a guy was in the ring at his best. How can we accurately evaluate how good a Jake Lamotta was compared to a Ricky Hatton, or a Maidana, it's an exercise in futility.
Floyd's a piece of shit as a person, but in the ring at his best... if we're being objective about it, we put all biases aside and judge purely on in-ring ability... Floyd's probably the greatest all-around package in boxing history.
People can talk about who he should have fought and when he should have fought them, but at the end of the day, since 1998 when he beat Hernandez for his first world title, he's fought nothing but world class, top 10 ranked opposition. There's a lot of guys with over 100 wins, but just look at their record and you'll see how much "padding" the record has.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
Wlad breaking Louis record would be a great accomplishment. Better than Floyds.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
It's hard to compare accomplishments from different generations, because the landscape of boxing has constantly changed and evolved. All I really give a fuck about is how good a guy was in the ring at his best. How can we accurately evaluate how good a Jake Lamotta was compared to a Ricky Hatton, or a Maidana, it's an exercise in futility.
Floyd's a piece of shit as a person, but in the ring at his best... if we're being objective about it, we put all biases aside and judge purely on in-ring ability... Floyd's probably the greatest all-around package in boxing history.
People can talk about who he should have fought and when he should have fought them, but at the end of the day, since 1998 when he beat Hernandez for his first world title, he's fought nothing but world class, top 10 ranked opposition. There's a lot of guys with over 100 wins, but just look at their record and you'll see how much "padding" the record has.
With Floyd- it would seem accomplishments per paper is hard to beat.
Say if it were a quiz of boxing accomplishments, I could see it this way:
Question
1. Who won a title within their 1st two years?- Floyd is one of them. Holyfield another.
2. Who has the longest reign (at any given weight) Floyd :18 years thru several classes
3. Who has the highest connect rate since the advent of punchstats/compubox? Floyd & RJJ
4. Who has the lowest connect per defense since advent of punchstats/compubox? Floyd & Wlad
5. Which fighters have fought past 18 years with least amount of knockdowns? Floyd 1 in 18 yrs.
6. Why didn't Floyd ever win back a title 2 or 3x like Ali ? Because he never lost it to begin with-or he won it coming back from so-called retirement
Floyd has a lot of accomplishment to me in that sense- But I don't think all of them combined trumps Hank kicking ass in 3 divisions at the same time?! And that was before divisions got watered down-to where today- if you lose/gain 2-3lbs you're in another weight class.
Holyfield winning a title in his 12th fight against a veteran who was still in his prime is a hell of an accomplishment also.
Tyson - the youngest to win a HW title is also a major accomplishment, but is tripled when he unified the belts as well. No small task.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
I wonder if GGG wants to discipline his body to outdo the accomplishment of Bernard Hopkins: 20 title defenses at MW.
Monzon, Haglar & Hopkins knew that eventually a great fighter as a young man, becomes a full grown man in their prime.
Hearns, Leonard & a few others weren't going to live and die as WW's. Fighters do gain weight with age and fill into a certain weight class later on. So all that smack about so and so isn't a natural MW or WW, blah-blah. Any WW @ age 25 or Jr.MW @ age 25 most likely won't be that by age 30.
With that being said: Demetrius Andrade IMO won't be a 154lbs into his late 20's. Same with Julian Willliams or either Charlo brother. So Andrade vs GGG in 2-3 years is very realistic: So as long as Andrade continues to win. So I say, GGG stick around MW if his body allows- we may see some fireworks at MW in a few years.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
INPO a few more
George Dixon deserves a shout even though his record is criminally understated at places like boxrec. The real breaker of the colour barrier and first black champion. Oh and a Canadian;D
Len Wickwar Somewhere around 460 fights in a career that spanned about 20 years including the WW2 title freeze. Won over 330 times and at times fought 3 or 4 times a day. His stablemate Tish Marsden right behind him with about 375. Pretty sure they died on the exact same day and year.
Speaking of true grit how about Moore. 28 years. Fought 160 to get a title shot and then ruled a division for a decade and much of it over 40. The 145 ko's was a nice touch.
Kind of reminds of of another fella. Bernard. Props to his unbelievable run
Leonard coming off a 3 year hiatus to beat Hagler
Foreman coming back 20 years after losing the title to gain a version.
Onomastos of Smyrna. He won the first Olympic gold in 688 Bc and went on to win 4. The only guys to close in on that mark were Lazlo Pap, Stevenson and Savon with 3.
Roy duplicating Fitzy
Hearns. First man to get 4 different weight class titles during a time frame when they were not so watered down.
Jimmy Wildes 100 ko's at fly will never be touched
Willie Peps peak of 135-1-1 wont be either
Langford may have been the greatest fighter of all time when examined thoroughly and would have accumulated much of the accolades and paper trails of others remembered had he been given the opportunity's.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
greb going 49-0 (if i remember that number correctly) in one year i think is only beaten by armstrongs 3 division titles. and greb fought multiple HOFers in that year. it wasnt a completely watered down run.
it is true that accomplishments for the most part are subjective because of what we think of their opponents. for example, if wlad beats louis' title defense record, will that actually be more impressive, or is it just a higher number? or if mayweather beats marcianos 49-0 record, is that more impressive or just a higher number?
accomplishments to me are impressive depending on who the fighter has beaten while accomplishing what they have. armstrongs 3 titles in 3 weight classes were impressive because he beat some very good fighters for the titles. we might not think so highly of him if it were today and just got 3 trinkets from the 3 worst trinket holders. just like title runs today. because there are so many belts per division, title runs are easier to do and its easier to be a multi-division champion.
we just have to look at how good a fighter was and who they beat. because lets be honest, could mayweather have gone undefeated for 150 fights if he fought in the 50's? could his hands have held up? could he have won titles in multiple divisions when there was only one title? maybe. but it would have been tough and different. same with someone like armstrong. could armstrong have been as successful now? would a featherweight really be able to handle the likes of mayweather? i dont know. maybe.
this was a lot longer post than i thought it would be. but mainly, i think that certain fighters accomplishments are a lot greater than others based purely on the fact of how they got there and not by the numbers.
Re: Greatest Accomplishments
I remember the other day, someone on another site said that Floyd's fought bums.
Like Bean said, since fighting Hernandez back in 1998, Floyd has fought nothing but champions, former champions, or top 10 contenders. In reality, he MAKES his opponents look like bums.
As for great accomplishments, Roy Jones being the first MW in a century to win a title at HW is pretty impressive, even if it was against a weak trinket holder like Ruiz.
Another great one would be Michael Spinks being the first ever LHW champion to win a HW title. And he actually beat the LINEAL champion in Larry Holmes. The only other LHW to do that that I can recall off the top of my head would be Michael Moorer.
