Exemplary

I am trying to think of fighters who, in Teddy Atlas' phrase "behave like fighters."

What do I think that means? I think it includes AT LEAST all the following (in no order)

1. Showing up in shape and making weight
2. Taking risky fights
3. Demonstrating "bottom," that old British word that combines stamina, desire for victory, the ability to take punishment and fighting spirit
4. Being able to understand what is going on in the ring and adapt. No "You hit me and then I'll hit you" fighters need apply.

Over the last twenty years the obvious names would be men like Holyfield and Chavez and Whittaker and Trinidad and De La Hoya and Morales and both Marquez Brothers.

But those men are great fighters. A fighter needn't be great to be exemplary. So let's look below the greats.

Meldrick Taylor-He didn't have the physical constitution to be a great fighter it turns out, but don't we wish everyone had Meldrick's attitude?

Buddy McGirt-In shape? Check. Daring fights? Check. Hung in when things got tough? Check.

Genaro Hernandez-Gets in if all he ever did was choose to continue against Azumah rather than winning the crown while on his stool. Perhaps the ideal display of what I'm trying to get at.

Greg Haugen-He kept trying while Chavez was just toying with him.

Yory Boy Campas-Is there ANYONE this guys wasn't willing to fight?

Glencoffe Johnson-If there was a guy today I could take a young fighter to and say "Do what he does" in these four areas? It would be the Road Warrior.

Where am I wrong and who am I leaving out?

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

Carl Froch as well. The only part he could ever possibly be criticised on would be the taking punishment part purely cos hes never taken a massive sustained beating from anyone. You know he'd fit the criteria though.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

---

Chris Eubank was and is a weird dude. But you're absolutely right to want him included.

Johnson isn't adaptable in the way greats are adaptable, no. And he gets less so as he ages. But go watch the Green fight again and you will see a guy searching for and then applying things that worked and discarding things that didn't. Maybe I should have made reference to a "thinking" fighter than an adaptable one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

Carl Froch as well. The only part he could ever possibly be criticised on would be the taking punishment part purely cos hes never taken a massive sustained beating from anyone. You know he'd fit the criteria though.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

---

You added Froch after I'd posted.

As near as I can tell there is NOTHING not to like about Carl Froch. The sport absolutely needs more guys like him. I'm satisfied that the punches he took from Johnson were enough to test his "bottom." Good call.

I think every great fighter of the past two decades has shown those qualities, with the possible exception for me being Roy Jones & not because of opposition (I think great fighters get held to a far higher standard while still active than their peers), but because I personally feel he couldn't adapt once his physical gifts deteriorated.

Anyway, I totally agree about Glen Johnson, he's an excellent choice. The man is the very definition of average athletically, yet his intelligence in the ring is incredible. The very definition of a wise old pro. As was Genaro, a man who is easily the equal of some of the lesser lights in Canastota.

A guy who I feel fits all that & just falls slightly short of being great for me, is Ivan Calderon. Always showed up in shape, was always fighting bigger men, obviously intelligent in the ring & showed bottle just by being in with men as big as Cazares or Segura. I know some criticized him going out on a knee in both Segura fights but they looked so far apart in weight, it's amazing he took as much as he did in the first fight.

A lesser light, kind of like a smaller (& crapper) Glen Johnson would be Carlos Baldomir. The guy is imo unfairly vilified because people don't believe he was worthy of being the real welter king. But, it's worth looking at his record. He fought guys with winning records from the very beginning of his pro career to the present. He had a good chin, but other than that very little. Fuck all power, no speed, short arms & wasn't tall. But he worked at his game & was able to somehow beat more gifted fighters on more than one occasion & with the exception of Mayweather, was competitive with much better men such as Vernon Forrest. Not great, but surely all we can ask of a fighter.

I think if we're including Froch, then Khan deserves to be in there, although the one question I might have is over his adaptability, as I might over Froch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I think every great fighter of the past two decades has shown those qualities, with the possible exception for me being Roy Jones & not because of opposition (I think great fighters get held to a far higher standard while still active than their peers), but because I personally feel he couldn't adapt once his physical gifts deteriorated.

Anyway, I totally agree about Glen Johnson, he's an excellent choice. The man is the very definition of average athletically, yet his intelligence in the ring is incredible. The very definition of a wise old pro. As was Genaro, a man who is easily the equal of some of the lesser lights in Canastota.

A guy who I feel fits all that & just falls slightly short of being great for me, is Ivan Calderon. Always showed up in shape, was always fighting bigger men, obviously intelligent in the ring & showed bottle just by being in with men as big as Cazares or Segura. I know some criticized him going out on a knee in both Segura fights but they looked so far apart in weight, it's amazing he took as much as he did in the first fight.

A lesser light, kind of like a smaller (& crapper) Glen Johnson would be Carlos Baldomir. The guy is imo unfairly vilified because people don't believe he was worthy of being the real welter king. But, it's worth looking at his record. He fought guys with winning records from the very beginning of his pro career to the present. He had a good chin, but other than that very little. Fuck all power, no speed, short arms & wasn't tall. But he worked at his game & was able to somehow beat more gifted fighters on more than one occasion & with the exception of Mayweather, was competitive with much better men such as Vernon Forrest. Not great, but surely all we can ask of a fighter.

I think if we're including Froch, then Khan deserves to be in there, although the one question I might have is over his adaptability, as I might over Froch.

---

Very nice post. Baldomir is an excellent insight in my view. The fact that he found a way to beat far more gifted guys says a lot.

I have nothing bad to say about Iron Boy Calderon. We need more like him too.

Like I've said before, I think Khan's attitude and improvements are all we could have asked of the guy following the Prescott KO. Another good call!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

Carl Froch as well. The only part he could ever possibly be criticised on would be the taking punishment part purely cos hes never taken a massive sustained beating from anyone. You know he'd fit the criteria though.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

---

You added Froch after I'd posted.

As near as I can tell there is NOTHING not to like about Carl Froch. The sport absolutely needs more guys like him. I'm satisfied that the punches he took from Johnson were enough to test his "bottom." Good call.

---

Are you getting that confused with "bottle"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

Carl Froch as well. The only part he could ever possibly be criticised on would be the taking punishment part purely cos hes never taken a massive sustained beating from anyone. You know he'd fit the criteria though.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

---

You added Froch after I'd posted.

As near as I can tell there is NOTHING not to like about Carl Froch. The sport absolutely needs more guys like him. I'm satisfied that the punches he took from Johnson were enough to test his "bottom." Good call.

---

Are you getting that confused with "bottle"?

---

No. The word "bottom" comes out of Pierce Egan's 1824 Book Boxiana. Maybe it has morphed into "bottle."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

Carl Froch as well. The only part he could ever possibly be criticised on would be the taking punishment part purely cos hes never taken a massive sustained beating from anyone. You know he'd fit the criteria though.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

---

You added Froch after I'd posted.

As near as I can tell there is NOTHING not to like about Carl Froch. The sport absolutely needs more guys like him. I'm satisfied that the punches he took from Johnson were enough to test his "bottom." Good call.

---

Are you getting that confused with "bottle"?

---

No. The word "bottom" comes out of Pierce Egan's 1824 Book Boxiana. Maybe it has morphed into "bottle."

---

Well iv never heard of the phrase "bottom" especialy in a boxing sense but to put "bottle" in to context "after being knocked down by Pacquiao, Mosley lost his bottle" or "pavlike pulled out because he lost his bottle" or "Morales has got plenty of bottle"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

I know some didnt like his character (I loved it) but Eubank fits all those criteria imo.

Carl Froch as well. The only part he could ever possibly be criticised on would be the taking punishment part purely cos hes never taken a massive sustained beating from anyone. You know he'd fit the criteria though.

I know what youre saying on Glen Johnson, he is a true warrior, but do you really think hes an adaptable fighter? He does the same thing every fight really from what I can see and he just does what he does. Or am I being harsh?

---

You added Froch after I'd posted.

As near as I can tell there is NOTHING not to like about Carl Froch. The sport absolutely needs more guys like him. I'm satisfied that the punches he took from Johnson were enough to test his "bottom." Good call.

---

Are you getting that confused with "bottle"?

---

No. The word "bottom" comes out of Pierce Egan's 1824 Book Boxiana. Maybe it has morphed into "bottle."

---

Well iv never heard of the phrase "bottom" especialy in a boxing sense but to put "bottle" in to context "after being knocked down by Pacquiao, Mosley lost his bottle" or "pavlike pulled out because he lost his bottle" or "Morales has got plenty of bottle"

---

I discovered the word "Bottom" through the great AJ Liebling who attributed it to Egan.

Doesn't sound like quite the same meaning. Bottle sounds like courage or desire, or perhaps a combination of the two (am I correct?).

Bottom as defined by Pierce Egan is a broader term. Courage and desire are part of it, but so are stamina and the ability to take punishment and keep coming and the ability to find a way to continue to not just fight, but to compete. I'll go pull out the book later and see if Egan provides a short definition. I think he does.

For examples of "bottom" go watch Bobby Chacon against Bazokka Limon in their fourth fight or George Foreman hanging in there against Evander Holyfield.

You cannot argue that a Klitshcko doesn't tick off all of those traits. But they'll go down as greats.

I'm guessing you mean boxers not as great or legendary. Someone like Paul Mckloskey, the guy will always turn up for a fight and train everything he can. The adaptability tends to go hand in hand with most greats.

I still class the brilliantly one dimensional fighters as proper boxers. Love them actually.

Maidana, Katsidis, Rogan. All true boxers through and through. Head down and swinging, take pretty much anything you throw at them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

You cannot argue that a Klitshcko doesn't tick off all of those traits. But they'll go down as greats.

I'm guessing you mean boxers not as great or legendary. Someone like Paul Mckloskey, the guy will always turn up for a fight and train everything he can. The adaptability tends to go hand in hand with most greats.

I still class the brilliantly one dimensional fighters as proper boxers. Love them actually.

Maidana, Katsidis, Rogan. All true boxers through and through. Head down and swinging, take pretty much anything you throw at them!

---

You could certainly make an argument that the Klitschkos don't take risky fights, but I'd agree they probably meet the criteria, although I personally don't consider them truly great in the way guys like Pac, Floyd & B-Hop are.

But, where I've really got to draw a line with you mentioning McCloskey. The man put in an absolutely disgusting non-effort in the fight with Khan & got away with it by saying he was planning for the later rounds. Even if you take that as true, what it shows is that he lacks 'bottom' as defined by MHM. The guys we're talking about try to win every second of every round & even if they're not succeeding they don't give up.

Rogan really does lack skill to be exemplary of a fighter. He was exciting, but with all due respect, if you're retiring on your stool against Sam Sexton, that's not a guy to be discussed with the likes of guy mentioned here.

However, Katsidis & Maidana are very good examples. Although they have a tremendous natural gift in that they've both got top level power, they're both far more skilled than credited with. Katsidis uses head movement very well to work his way to the inside, while Maidana is actually a guy who is very adept at adapting to opponents. You'll see how he adjusts the angles of where he throws right hands as a fight goes on. In fact, I can't think of a fight of his where he wasn't taking control later in the fight.

Ricky Hatton and Tim Bradley get my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

You cannot argue that a Klitshcko doesn't tick off all of those traits. But they'll go down as greats.

I'm guessing you mean boxers not as great or legendary. Someone like Paul Mckloskey, the guy will always turn up for a fight and train everything he can. The adaptability tends to go hand in hand with most greats.

I still class the brilliantly one dimensional fighters as proper boxers. Love them actually.

Maidana, Katsidis, Rogan. All true boxers through and through. Head down and swinging, take pretty much anything you throw at them!

---

You could certainly make an argument that the Klitschkos don't take risky fights, but I'd agree they probably meet the criteria, although I personally don't consider them truly great in the way guys like Pac, Floyd & B-Hop are.

But, where I've really got to draw a line with you mentioning McCloskey. The man put in an absolutely disgusting non-effort in the fight with Khan & got away with it by saying he was planning for the later rounds. Even if you take that as true, what it shows is that he lacks 'bottom' as defined by MHM. The guys we're talking about try to win every second of every round & even if they're not succeeding they don't give up.

Rogan really does lack skill to be exemplary of a fighter. He was exciting, but with all due respect, if you're retiring on your stool against Sam Sexton, that's not a guy to be discussed with the likes of guy mentioned here.

However, Katsidis & Maidana are very good examples. Although they have a tremendous natural gift in that they've both got top level power, they're both far more skilled than credited with. Katsidis uses head movement very well to work his way to the inside, while Maidana is actually a guy who is very adept at adapting to opponents. You'll see how he adjusts the angles of where he throws right hands as a fight goes on. In fact, I can't think of a fight of his where he wasn't taking control later in the fight.

---

To be fair to the Ukranians, who, outside of each other, have they not fought who they should have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Ricky Hatton and Tim Bradley get my vote.

---

It's funny. Up unitl the last six months I thought Bradley was kind of who I was talking about here. But not fighting Khan was weak.

Ricky? I guess he was in shape once he got in the ring, right? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

To be fair to the Ukranians, who, outside of each other, have they not fought who they should have?

---

It's not really a position that I ascribe to, I think that as fans we have to accept that certain fights just don't happen. Still I've (laughably imo) heard that the Klitschkos didn't want to fight Valuev, Tua, Holyfield, a 'prime Shannon Briggs' (whatever the fuck that is). As I said I think it's bollocks.

Where there could be a question is on 'risky opponents'. Lewis aside, has either bro ever fought a guy they weren't favoured to beat? Probably, but can't think of any off the top of my head. They'd meet my requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

To be fair to the Ukranians, who, outside of each other, have they not fought who they should have?

---

It's not really a position that I ascribe to, I think that as fans we have to accept that certain fights just don't happen. Still I've (laughably imo) heard that the Klitschkos didn't want to fight Valuev, Tua, Holyfield, a 'prime Shannon Briggs' (whatever the fuck that is). As I said I think it's bollocks.

Where there could be a question is on 'risky opponents'. Lewis aside, has either bro ever fought a guy they weren't favoured to beat? Probably, but can't think of any off the top of my head. They'd meet my requirements.

---

You're rolling tonight. Another fine post.

Yeah I take back Mclosckey.

Wasn't really thinking, got caught up more in the "train hard take it serious" trait than the others.

Stand by Rogan though, that guy was built to be a fighter, lack of skills yes, the Sexton 2 night was odd, he didn't seem his normal self at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

You cannot argue that a Klitshcko doesn't tick off all of those traits. But they'll go down as greats.

I'm guessing you mean boxers not as great or legendary. Someone like Paul Mckloskey, the guy will always turn up for a fight and train everything he can. The adaptability tends to go hand in hand with most greats.

I still class the brilliantly one dimensional fighters as proper boxers. Love them actually.

Maidana, Katsidis, Rogan. All true boxers through and through. Head down and swinging, take pretty much anything you throw at them!

---

You could certainly make an argument that the Klitschkos don't take risky fights, but I'd agree they probably meet the criteria, although I personally don't consider them truly great in the way guys like Pac, Floyd & B-Hop are.
.

---

huh? Who have they ever avoided apart from each other? Ok Vitali was inactive for a few years but they have both fought and beat the best opposition available to them. How could they have taken any riskier fights?

Also, I object to the veneration of Ivan Calderon as if he did something amazing in ebating Hugo Cazares and then getting battered by Segura.

He was a decent little fighter in a weight class hopelessly devoid of talent. Segura was hardly a big man either. 108 lbs, that's like the weight of an average 5 year old American child.

Plus Calderon started out his career at 107 so it's not even true he climbed up trhough divisions.

When you have Manny who went from 104 to 154 and smashed everybody up and Ivan gets battered by a man who even I look physically imposing against I just donn't see how he can be considered just short of great.

If Calderon had been 147lbs he would just be another Malignaggi, a decent fighter, maybe capable of winning a belt, but not of challenging the top guys in the weight class.

He fought in a division with about 300 pro fighters, versus the 1000/1500 in most of the others. None of them are fulltime professionals, in football terms it's like being top of the Isthmian League and then struggling when they got promoted to the Conference South.

Sure he was skilfull and elusive, but he also had a crippling lack of power and phsyical strength that would have been considered far more of a weakness had he not operated in such a weak talent pool.

Hey, my view may not be popular but's it the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

You could certainly make an argument that the Klitschkos don't take risky fights, but I'd agree they probably meet the criteria, although I personally don't consider them truly great in the way guys like Pac, Floyd & B-Hop are.
.

---

huh? Who have they ever avoided apart from each other? Ok Vitali was inactive for a few years but they have both fought and beat the best opposition available to them. How could they have taken any riskier fights?

Also, I object to the veneration of Ivan Calderon as if he did something amazing in ebating Hugo Cazares and then getting battered by Segura.

He was a decent little fighter in a weight class hopelessly devoid of talent. Segura was hardly a big man either. 108 lbs, that's like the weight of an average 5 year old American child.

Plus Calderon started out his career at 107 so it's not even true he climbed up trhough divisions.

When you have Manny who went from 104 to 154 and smashed everybody up and Ivan gets battered by a man who even I look physically imposing against I just donn't see how he can be considered just short of great.

If Calderon had been 147lbs he would just be another Malignaggi, a decent fighter, maybe capable of winning a belt, but not of challenging the top guys in the weight class.

He fought in a division with about 300 pro fighters, versus the 1000/1500 in most of the others. None of them are fulltime professionals, in football terms it's like being top of the Isthmian League and then struggling when they got promoted to the Conference South.

Sure he was skilfull and elusive, but he also had a crippling lack of power and phsyical strength that would have been considered far more of a weakness had he not operated in such a weak talent pool.

Hey, my view may not be popular but's it the truth.

---

Read my above post about the Klitschkos. It's not something I believe, just an argument I've heard given.

On Calderon you are clearly off on one. No one in this thread is saying he's the greatest fighter of all time & if you read my post I argued he fell just short of being great. However, what he showed is what you want to see a fighter doing. Always turning up to fight in shape, always taking on the best opposition, showed heart in the ring & was an intelligent fighter. Him not having power is besides the point, it only re-emphasises how impressive it was that the could beat bigger men through skill.

Segura walks around at 135lbs, Calderon at about 115lbs. That is quite a difference at that weight. Quoting numbers of available fighters tells you nothing about how good he would have done with a wider pool. It's like saying that Manny Pacquiao & Floyd Mayweather would have been contenders in the 60s & 70s because there were more welterweights back then.

Many boxers are not full-time pros, shockingly unless you're at the very top, it's not the best paying job in the world. The very best little guys can be just as good as any other fighter. Trying to say you look physically imposing is laughable. I've seen a light-flyweight amateur knock a 6'2 guy who looked about 200lbs unconscious in a nightclub. Ivan Calderon might not be a huge puncher in pro boxing, but he'd probably beat most posters on here unconscious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

You could certainly make an argument that the Klitschkos don't take risky fights, but I'd agree they probably meet the criteria, although I personally don't consider them truly great in the way guys like Pac, Floyd & B-Hop are.
.

---

huh? Who have they ever avoided apart from each other? Ok Vitali was inactive for a few years but they have both fought and beat the best opposition available to them. How could they have taken any riskier fights?

Also, I object to the veneration of Ivan Calderon as if he did something amazing in ebating Hugo Cazares and then getting battered by Segura.

He was a decent little fighter in a weight class hopelessly devoid of talent. Segura was hardly a big man either. 108 lbs, that's like the weight of an average 5 year old American child.

Plus Calderon started out his career at 107 so it's not even true he climbed up trhough divisions.

When you have Manny who went from 104 to 154 and smashed everybody up and Ivan gets battered by a man who even I look physically imposing against I just donn't see how he can be considered just short of great.

If Calderon had been 147lbs he would just be another Malignaggi, a decent fighter, maybe capable of winning a belt, but not of challenging the top guys in the weight class.

He fought in a division with about 300 pro fighters, versus the 1000/1500 in most of the others. None of them are fulltime professionals, in football terms it's like being top of the Isthmian League and then struggling when they got promoted to the Conference South.

Sure he was skilfull and elusive, but he also had a crippling lack of power and phsyical strength that would have been considered far more of a weakness had he not operated in such a weak talent pool.

Hey, my view may not be popular but's it the truth.

---

Read my above post about the Klitschkos. It's not something I believe, just an argument I've heard given.

On Calderon you are clearly off on one. No one in this thread is saying he's the greatest fighter of all time & if you read my post I argued he fell just short of being great. However, what he showed is what you want to see a fighter doing. Always turning up to fight in shape, always taking on the best opposition, showed heart in the ring & was an intelligent fighter. Him not having power is besides the point, it only re-emphasises how impressive it was that the could beat bigger men through skill.

Segura walks around at 135lbs, Calderon at about 115lbs. That is quite a difference at that weight. Quoting numbers of available fighters tells you nothing about how good he would have done with a wider pool. It's like saying that Manny Pacquiao & Floyd Mayweather would have been contenders in the 60s & 70s because there were more welterweights back then.

Many boxers are not full-time pros, shockingly unless you're at the very top, it's not the best paying job in the world. The very best little guys can be just as good as any other fighter. Trying to say you look physically imposing is laughable. I've seen a light-flyweight amateur knock a 6'2 guy who looked about 200lbs unconscious in a nightclub. Ivan Calderon might not be a huge puncher in pro boxing,

---

I don't really have anything decent to come back with so I'll just resort to childish insults.

Fuck off Jaz you prick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

You could certainly make an argument that the Klitschkos don't take risky fights, but I'd agree they probably meet the criteria, although I personally don't consider them truly great in the way guys like Pac, Floyd & B-Hop are.
.

---

huh? Who have they ever avoided apart from each other? Ok Vitali was inactive for a few years but they have both fought and beat the best opposition available to them. How could they have taken any riskier fights?

Also, I object to the veneration of Ivan Calderon as if he did something amazing in ebating Hugo Cazares and then getting battered by Segura.

He was a decent little fighter in a weight class hopelessly devoid of talent. Segura was hardly a big man either. 108 lbs, that's like the weight of an average 5 year old American child.

Plus Calderon started out his career at 107 so it's not even true he climbed up trhough divisions.

When you have Manny who went from 104 to 154 and smashed everybody up and Ivan gets battered by a man who even I look physically imposing against I just donn't see how he can be considered just short of great.

If Calderon had been 147lbs he would just be another Malignaggi, a decent fighter, maybe capable of winning a belt, but not of challenging the top guys in the weight class.

He fought in a division with about 300 pro fighters, versus the 1000/1500 in most of the others. None of them are fulltime professionals, in football terms it's like being top of the Isthmian League and then struggling when they got promoted to the Conference South.

Sure he was skilfull and elusive, but he also had a crippling lack of power and phsyical strength that would have been considered far more of a weakness had he not operated in such a weak talent pool.

Hey, my view may not be popular but's it the truth.

---

Read my above post about the Klitschkos. It's not something I believe, just an argument I've heard given.

On Calderon you are clearly off on one. No one in this thread is saying he's the greatest fighter of all time & if you read my post I argued he fell just short of being great. However, what he showed is what you want to see a fighter doing. Always turning up to fight in shape, always taking on the best opposition, showed heart in the ring & was an intelligent fighter. Him not having power is besides the point, it only re-emphasises how impressive it was that the could beat bigger men through skill.

Segura walks around at 135lbs, Calderon at about 115lbs. That is quite a difference at that weight. Quoting numbers of available fighters tells you nothing about how good he would have done with a wider pool. It's like saying that Manny Pacquiao & Floyd Mayweather would have been contenders in the 60s & 70s because there were more welterweights back then.

Many boxers are not full-time pros, shockingly unless you're at the very top, it's not the best paying job in the world. The very best little guys can be just as good as any other fighter. Trying to say you look physically imposing is laughable. I've seen a light-flyweight amateur knock a 6'2 guy who looked about 200lbs unconscious in a nightclub. Ivan Calderon might not be a huge puncher in pro boxing,

---

I don't really have anything decent to come back with so I'll just resort to childish insults.

Fuck off Jaz you prick.

---

;D

It's been too long since we were on opposing sides of an argument Bilbo. You little bitch.


This is what veteran posting is all about.

Mickey Ward, was not what you call the greatest but he was adaptable and hardly ever in a dull fight. Arturo Gatti would keep us on the edge of our seats. Ivan Robinson had some good moves and all these guys fought each other too. Those fights were all entertaining.,

here's a controversial one .......

Nikolai Valuev was never a great fighter, he got some opportunities because he was marketed as a bit of a freak show, he may have been given some questionable decisions - but he extraxted everything he could from his limited talent, he was always in as good shape as he could be, he studied the sport, you could see he listened to his trainers, he showed bravery in the ring (as did primo carnera!), he made the most of every opportunity he was ever given.

People who annoy me are those that piss God given talent up the wall and waste their potential (George Best, Scott Harrison etc) I am not a BHOp fan, but that man has drawn every ounce of his talent and maximised it through hard work and professionalism. Respect.