Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[eagle]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

[BIG H]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

[marbleheadmaui]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

I AM logical. YOU are giving weight to the term "champion" when it has ZERO meaning in the alphabet world.

How long after Wlad beat 13 did it take the WBA to create a new title? Three days?

Know how many middleweights in the world right now hold alphabet straps? SEVEN!

They are MEANINGLESS! Sergio Martinez is the one and only middleweight champion and he doesn't stop until he is beaten, moves up or retires.

Now, was Kostya THE MAN at 140? Damned straight. But not because some silly belts given and taken by corrupt organizations said so. It was because of what he did in the ring.

[marbleheadmaui]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.

There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.

[BIG H]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.

There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.

It's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.

[eagle]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

Well in response to that try this.
He is saying becoming lineal champ is better than unifying the belts. How can this be though?
Because A) If you are beating all the other champs, one of them should be the lineal champ so in reality unifying means becoming lineal champ.
or B) If the lineage has been broken, unifying effectively means you are the new lineal champ, as its hard to fight the lineal champ if there is none.
If you hold all the belts you are the champion no matter how the bodies define it as you have beaten everyone really.

[ICB]

All those quotes are giving me a headache, so i'll just say quickly. That i think style wise Aaron Pryor beats Kostya Tszyu just my opinion.

[eagle]

All those quotes are giving me a headache, so i'll just say quickly. That i think style wise Aaron Pryor beats Kostya Tszyu just my opinion.

I agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.

[eagle]

If Tszyu was not lineal champ after unifiying the belts who was? That should clear up the recent argument.

[ICB]

All those quotes are giving me a headache, so i'll just say quickly. That i think style wise Aaron Pryor beats Kostya Tszyu just my opinion.

I agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.

I think Aaron Pryor had better single wins, but Kostya Tszyu did unify and had a longer reign so that probably makes it about even.

[marbleheadmaui]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.

There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.

It's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.

At least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport.

I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)

[eagle]

All those quotes are giving me a headache, so i'll just say quickly. That i think style wise Aaron Pryor beats Kostya Tszyu just my opinion.

I agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.

I think Aaron Pryor had better single wins, but Kostya Tszyu did unify and had a longer reign so that probably makes it about even.

Thankyou for looking at it with some logic. People on this thread have been acting like i'm comparing the records of Manny Pac to Bobby Pac or something! Good to be back on Saddo's.

[marbleheadmaui]

All those quotes are giving me a headache, so i'll just say quickly. That i think style wise Aaron Pryor beats Kostya Tszyu just my opinion.

I agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.

Let's be REALLY clear. Thae argument was Canzoneri, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Pryor. Four of those aren't really debatable.

The Hawk defeated HOFers three times. Kostya once. Good size difference there. And the clincher in my view.

[BIG H]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.

There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.

It's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.

At least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport.

I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)

There is no prefect answer. But whilst sport is about money there will always be coruption and having a lineal champion 'crowned' by virtue of a judging decision in a fight he clearly hasn't won, negates the 'function of what happens in the ring' part

[eagle]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.

There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.

It's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.

At least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport.

I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)

Well answer this, if Kostya was not lineal champ at 140 after unifying who was?