Does the weight class matter? Amount of title defenses? 10 years? 15 years? Who will set the bar to discussion?
Inspired by Ykdad's Berto-Lopez thread
Does the weight class matter? Amount of title defenses? 10 years? 15 years? Who will set the bar to discussion?
Inspired by Ykdad's Berto-Lopez thread
Can you set a specific number of years and defences?
I always thought 7 years being champion was a magic number for Holmes, Johnson and Dempsey.
Long enough to fight a great challenger and be in a great fight.
No one can pass 25 world title defences.
Mayweather has 23....
Time doesn't matter. What matters is who you fight
This is a trick question. There is no correct answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
Once you set a quota then all you have is a guy running up numbers I believe. Quality over quantity.
Well longer it lasts the greater if everything else is equal.
But in practice there are other factors like Quality of opposition.
The number of quality opponents beaten at championship level is the best measure because some fighters like to pad up their record with bums.
Also it's weight class specific. The lighter the weight, the more fights you can have against quality opposition.
Obviously at HW one fight is worth far more than a fight at any other weight.
I remember commentators talking about Morales loss to Pac as a sign that smaller fighters usually began to fade on the early side of 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill PaxtomThis is a trick question. There is no correct answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
JMM since then is an example that goes contrary-
JMM born 1973 makes him 43 years old.
fighting since 1993 (22years)
How many feather weights turned welter have had careers this damn long? By general guess he's been in about 20 championship fights.
I would say he IS NOT the norm.
Overall I see it this way:
Standard athletes amatuer (college ball, NCAA, Boxing Olympics) turn pro around 20-22 yrs of age?
Football & Basketball players usually move into their prime around 26-30 yrs of age.
Making the downside of the careers around 30, then when we look at pro ball players to boxers like ALi & Holmes, to QBs like John Elway, Troy Aikman seem to all fizzle out around 37-40yrs of age.
Or am I incorrect & there aren't many GREATs pass this age?
It seems like generally speaking athletes are past their past by age 35. And only hanger-ons , delusional or broke athletes continue past the age of 40.
Then on another note- I've read plenty of stories stating the fight style can prolong/shorten ones career like the blast U out fighting styles of Frazier to Tyson.
Not really a trick question, but maybe a subjective one?
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
The smaller weight class usually have more fights or options. So would that mean they can burn out quicker?
A feather @ age 30 is equivalent to a HW @ age 35? (if their level of comp assumed is the same?)
Specific- the thread Berto-Lopez was stated Berto may not be able to fight top opposition. But I questioned- maybe he has?? 10 years in the game, 3 -4 years to get title shot.
When he did -won & held it for a about 4 years.
NO right or wrong answer - I just question: Isnt that sufficient to call him at least a durable champion?
Flip the script_ if a fghter holds any belt(s) longer than 5 years, doesnt that open up the argument that it HAD to have been padded? Or that the class was weak as hell?
Kind of a double edged sword question I guess! If a fighter loses a title after 4 years then he aint shit. But if he holds it longer than 5, well he fought soft opposition.
Just wondering if you or anyone here can present a case where someone did more in 10 years than someone in 20 years? Once again no right or wrong; all opinions welcome!;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I'm not gonna say time and # of defenses don't matter at all.... but otherwise I'm in full agreement.
Ten defenses against top opposition trumps twenty against mediocre bums.
To be defined as great though, I feel it should be upwards of 8-10 defenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I'm not gonna say time and # of defenses don't matter at all.... but otherwise I'm in full agreement.
Ten defenses against top opposition trumps twenty against mediocre bums.
To be defined as great though, I feel it should be upwards of 8-10 defenses.
Interesting exercise:
1. James Toney IMO has had an outstanding career.
2. Carl Froch has had an outstanding career
Question: can their careers be compared as greater or lesser to each other?
Carl Froch born 1977 13 years pro with 35 fights.
James Toney born 1968 25 years pro with 88 fights.
JT fought more times in six years than Froch's whole career.
For the sake of similar numbers
35 fights for Toney vs to 35 fights for Froch
Toney is 33-0-2 wins title
Froch is 33-2 won & lost title
Cobra has beaten 21-0 Pascal, Jermaine Taylor, Andre Dirrell, Mikkel Kessler (1-1), Arthur Abraham, 30-0 Lucian Bute, & loss to 24-0 Andre Ward. (Groves still writing his legacy-so not sure to count him as a great fighter) 12 title fights not counting British belt.
JT has fought Doug Dewitt, Mike McCallum [43-1-1]2x, Reggie Johnson, 36-0 Michael Nunn, 18-0 Merqui Sosa & has 8 IBF title fights. not counting IBC title.
by 1994 (6) years into his career JT had 46 fights 44-0-2
So a subjective question:
Did JT fight as many good fighters in 35 fights as Froch did?:)
After 13 (MORE) years to which is equivalent to Froch's whole career- JT goes on to win:
MW, SMW, LHW, CW & given a NC for substance he would've won the HW title over Ruiz.
The more fights one takes the more one can be expected to lose granted no cherry picking.
After JT's 35 fight streak he would go on to fight Montell Griffin, Roy Jones Jr, 31-0 Vasiily Jirov, Evander Holyfield, HW champ John Ruiz, Dominick Guinn, Hasim Rahman & Sam Peter.
Is it possible that JT did more in the latter 1/2 of his career then the 1st 1/2 of his career? Has he done more in 1/2 his career then Froch has his whole career?
In conclusion: on one hand I think Froch had a great career. But on the other hand his career can't be seen as great...IF...I compare it to JT, since:
1. Both have lost
2. So as an end result had/if Froch would have fought more times, than I can conclude with confidence he too would have quite a few losses, but not sure if he would have won as many titles against different styles of fighters JT has taken on.
Til you can't go no more at the top level, or even near the top level. I'm not gonna stay in, no matter how broke I am, as a journeyman with my last 10 fights with a record of 2-8..... makes no sense..Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaTil you can't go no more at the top level, or even near the top level. I'm not gonna stay in, no matter how broke I am, as a journeyman with my last 10 fights with a record of 2-8..... makes no sense..Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
So then you must be an anti-Reggie Strickland fan ;D
66-276-17
Side note- outta the times I have boxrec'd this guy- today is the 1st time I paid attention to his ko ratio.
1987-2005 18 years = 14 KO's a ratio of % 3.86 . :(
Sounds like a sadist...Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeLOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaTil you can't go no more at the top level, or even near the top level. I'm not gonna stay in, no matter how broke I am, as a journeyman with my last 10 fights with a record of 2-8..... makes no sense..Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
So then you must be an anti-Reggie Strickland fan ;D
66-276-17
Side note- outta the times I have boxrec'd this guy- today is the 1st time I paid attention to his ko ratio.
1987-2005 18 years = 14 KO's a ratio of % 3.86 . :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I'm not gonna say time and # of defenses don't matter at all.... but otherwise I'm in full agreement.
Ten defenses against top opposition trumps twenty against mediocre bums.
To be defined as great though, I feel it should be upwards of 8-10 defenses.
Interesting exercise:
1. James Toney IMO has had an outstanding career.
2. Carl Froch has had an outstanding career
Question: can their careers be compared as greater or lesser to each other?
Carl Froch born 1977 13 years pro with 35 fights.
James Toney born 1968 25 years pro with 88 fights.
JT fought more times in six years than Froch's whole career.
For the sake of similar numbers
35 fights for Toney vs to 35 fights for Froch
Toney is 33-0-2 wins title
Froch is 33-2 won & lost title
Cobra has beaten 21-0 Pascal, Jermaine Taylor, Andre Dirrell, Mikkel Kessler (1-1), Arthur Abraham, 30-0 Lucian Bute, & loss to 24-0 Andre Ward. (Groves still writing his legacy-so not sure to count him as a great fighter) 12 title fights not counting British belt.
JT has fought Doug Dewitt, Mike McCallum [43-1-1]2x, Reggie Johnson, 36-0 Michael Nunn, 18-0 Merqui Sosa & has 8 IBF title fights. not counting IBC title.
by 1994 (6) years into his career JT had 46 fights 44-0-2
So a subjective question:
Did JT fight as many good fighters in 35 fights as Froch did?:)
After 13 (MORE) years to which is equivalent to Froch's whole career- JT goes on to win:
MW, SMW, LHW, CW & given a NC for substance he would've won the HW title over Ruiz.
The more fights one takes the more one can be expected to lose granted no cherry picking.
After JT's 35 fight streak he would go on to fight Montell Griffin, Roy Jones Jr, 31-0 Vasiily Jirov, Evander Holyfield, HW champ John Ruiz, Dominick Guinn, Hasim Rahman & Sam Peter.
Is it possible that JT did more in the latter 1/2 of his career then the 1st 1/2 of his career? Has he done more in 1/2 his career then Froch has his whole career?
In conclusion: on one hand I think Froch had a great career. But on the other hand his career can't be seen as great...IF...I compare it to JT, since:
1. Both have lost
2. So as an end result had/if Froch would have fought more times, than I can conclude with confidence he too would have quite a few losses, but not sure if he would have won as many titles against different styles of fighters JT has taken on.
It's difficult for me to make a comparison career vs. career.
Once Toney started adding on blubber and ballooning up to an obese heavyweight, I stopped counting his fights.
True, but that fat meatball did well as a fattington. His last great performance to me was the 1st Peter loss. I thought he won it. Not sure what happened 2nd time- Peter won that one hands down.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I'm not gonna say time and # of defenses don't matter at all.... but otherwise I'm in full agreement.
Ten defenses against top opposition trumps twenty against mediocre bums.
To be defined as great though, I feel it should be upwards of 8-10 defenses.
Interesting exercise:
1. James Toney IMO has had an outstanding career.
2. Carl Froch has had an outstanding career
Question: can their careers be compared as greater or lesser to each other?
Carl Froch born 1977 13 years pro with 35 fights.
James Toney born 1968 25 years pro with 88 fights.
JT fought more times in six years than Froch's whole career.
For the sake of similar numbers
35 fights for Toney vs to 35 fights for Froch
Toney is 33-0-2 wins title
Froch is 33-2 won & lost title
Cobra has beaten 21-0 Pascal, Jermaine Taylor, Andre Dirrell, Mikkel Kessler (1-1), Arthur Abraham, 30-0 Lucian Bute, & loss to 24-0 Andre Ward. (Groves still writing his legacy-so not sure to count him as a great fighter) 12 title fights not counting British belt.
JT has fought Doug Dewitt, Mike McCallum [43-1-1]2x, Reggie Johnson, 36-0 Michael Nunn, 18-0 Merqui Sosa & has 8 IBF title fights. not counting IBC title.
by 1994 (6) years into his career JT had 46 fights 44-0-2
So a subjective question:
Did JT fight as many good fighters in 35 fights as Froch did?:)
After 13 (MORE) years to which is equivalent to Froch's whole career- JT goes on to win:
MW, SMW, LHW, CW & given a NC for substance he would've won the HW title over Ruiz.
The more fights one takes the more one can be expected to lose granted no cherry picking.
After JT's 35 fight streak he would go on to fight Montell Griffin, Roy Jones Jr, 31-0 Vasiily Jirov, Evander Holyfield, HW champ John Ruiz, Dominick Guinn, Hasim Rahman & Sam Peter.
Is it possible that JT did more in the latter 1/2 of his career then the 1st 1/2 of his career? Has he done more in 1/2 his career then Froch has his whole career?
In conclusion: on one hand I think Froch had a great career. But on the other hand his career can't be seen as great...IF...I compare it to JT, since:
1. Both have lost
2. So as an end result had/if Froch would have fought more times, than I can conclude with confidence he too would have quite a few losses, but not sure if he would have won as many titles against different styles of fighters JT has taken on.
It's difficult for me to make a comparison career vs. career.
Once Toney started adding on blubber and ballooning up to an obese heavyweight, I stopped counting his fights.
And I thought the Ruiz fight was a virtuoso performance. I actully liked his fight with Ruiz better than RJJ's. As Jady Nady intervened like a father chaperoning his daughter on prom night. Ruiz just couldnt get close, to no fault of his own.