Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Putting BHOP in Perspective

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3124
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    796
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

    Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    South London Baby
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1709
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.

    You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.

    As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?

    I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.

    Good list though, nice work!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    796
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
    Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.

    You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.

    As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?

    I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.

    Good list though, nice work!
    Good thouights all around. At 126 there was no clearcut guy after Jofre, but when Arguello fought Olivares it was pretty clearly 1 vs.2. Ring Magazine, Cyberboxingzone and me all recognize it Plus it was Alexis! (No, I'm not biased there...really...I mean it)

    Emile was the inaugural champ at 154 for about seven seconds.

    I agree I screwed up on Ross and Mayweather on two divisions! Thanks for the correction!

    Oscar at 140? Geeze was Chavez STILL the guy then? Works for me! Thanks again for the corrections!
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    South London Baby
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1709
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
    Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.

    You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.

    As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?

    I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.

    Good list though, nice work!
    Good thouights all around. At 126 there was no clearcut guy after Jofre, but when Arguello fought Olivares it was pretty clearly 1 vs.2. Ring Magazine, Cyberboxingzone and me all recognize it Plus it was Alexis! (No, I'm not biased there...really...I mean it)

    Emile was the inaugural champ at 154 for about seven seconds.

    I agree I screwed up on Ross and Mayweather on two divisions! Thanks for the correction!

    Oscar at 140? Geeze was Chavez STILL the guy then? Works for me! Thanks again for the corrections!
    Well if Cyberboxingzone recognizes it that's good enough for me

    I have a lot more faith in them than Ring. I still think Olivares was too patchy then to be #1 or #2 (look at me saying that like I was even alive). But it's Arguello so I'm good with it

    I still can't go with the Griffith one. I know CBZ agrees with that, but having looked into it the fact it was a vacant title and only recognized by the Austrian Board of Control () has me having doubts.

    Yeah, apparently JCC was still the guy somehow.

    I like your list though, it's given me greater encouragement on my post in the other thread re: Mayweather. When someone calls me out on it, I'm citing this as my defending evidence

    Also made me look up Terry McGovern who I'm ashamed to say I hadn't heard of.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3124
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

    Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
    I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

    I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
    Last edited by Fenster; 05-23-2011 at 04:05 PM.
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    796
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

    Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
    I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

    I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
    Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3124
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

    Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
    I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

    I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
    Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
    Not really.

    The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.

    You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    796
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

    Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
    I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

    I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
    Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
    Not really.

    The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.

    You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
    The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best. Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3124
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Marble,

    Here's an example -

    Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.

    During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.

    So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
    Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?

    Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
    I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.

    I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
    Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
    Not really.

    The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.

    You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
    The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best. Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
    Foreman-Savarese wasn't the best fighting the best. Take the linage away and you would never even mention it, because you know it's a veteran vs a borderline journeyman fight. Holyfield-Bowe, among many others, were far, far superior heavyweights at this time.

    When has Pro boxing NOT been about money? Has there ever been guys that didn't pursue their most lucrative money option?
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Promoters putting on in house fights
    By skel1983 in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-25-2010, 05:05 PM
  2. Saddo I am putting you on the spot, get in here.
    By Bookkeeper in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 12:53 PM
  3. Putting together a training routine....
    By MDS8405 in forum Ask the Trainer
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 01:25 PM
  4. Putting on weight.
    By Universalcomplex in forum Ask the Trainer
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-11-2006, 05:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2025 Saddo Boxing - Boxing