Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

[lefthook82]

I was talking with my slightly uninformed friend about Joe Calzaghe as he as raving about his performance against Roy Jones Jr. I was saying that his win against Kessler is his best win and that he should check it out on youtube. Obviously he didn't know who Kessler was so I told him he was at he very least seen as the number 2 super middleweight after Joe and is now seen as the number 1

It got me thinking, so I am here asking how many fights in the new millenium have been between the consensus number 1 and 2 in the division?

Now I know consensus is a contentious word because boxing, more than any sport, is about opinions. but lets just build up a list and then we can debate what we disagree with and of alternative fighters who may have been top 2 at the time of the fight

I'll start. Joe v Kessler

[CEO_Hoodlem]

Hatton V Mallignagi

[Dioufy]

Haye/Maccarinelli

[Autobarn]

Haye/Maccarinelli

I reckon that was #1 and #3. Cunningham was #2 IMO, but Macca was the more lucrative and anticipated.


Some #1 vs #2 fights - Adamek-Cunningham, Vazquez-Marquez 2 and 3

[Dioufy]

I always thought Enzo Macc was second, with Cunningham a very close third. But I suppose you could argue that Mormeck was still right up there too, so I will retract my statement. But in my opinion Haye was first and Macca was second.

[Tommy Gunn13]

Vitali-Wlad????

[Tommy Gunn13]

Vitali any day in my eyes....

[BigGar]

Tsyzu v Judah. Many saw Judah as fave going into that one.

[ArtOfWar]

I always thought Enzo Macc was second, with Cunningham a very close third. But I suppose you could argue that Mormeck was still right up there too, so I will retract my statement. But in my opinion Haye was first and Macca was second.

The only people ranking Enzo second were British fans. He'd be 4th or 5th on a world wide vote in my opinion.

[EddieShredder]

Pac - JMM

[Dioufy]

I always thought Enzo Macc was second, with Cunningham a very close third. But I suppose you could argue that Mormeck was still right up there too, so I will retract my statement. But in my opinion Haye was first and Macca was second.

The only people ranking Enzo second were British fans. He'd be 4th or 5th on a world wide vote in my opinion.

I'm not too keen on Enzo Macc myself (mainly due to his lack of class whenever he talks about the Haye fight), but I still would've put him as 2nd best in the world, behind Haye, at the time Haye and Macca fought. He had been a title-holder since 2006 and had stopped Dominguez and had beat Braithwaite, albeit a faded version. Still, after Mormeck had been beat off Bell and Haye, and Cunningham had been beaten off Wlodarczyk, I feel the 2nd ranking spot was Enzo Macc's. And at the when Haye and Macca fought each other, Bell had beaten Mormeck, before Mormeck beat him. Adamek was still new at the weight so he couldn't have gained second spot.

At the time of Haye and Maccarinelli.

1# David Haye
2# Enzo Maccarinelli
3# Steve Cunningham (him and Mormeck a very close 3rd and 4th)
4# Jean Marc Mormeck
5# O'Neill Bell

But like I have said previously, it's only my opinion but I feel that even though Macca had been spoon-fed a little bit, he still deserved that 2nd place. Maybe other people feel differently but that's the beauty of having a forum and opinions then.

[Axe]

There is no way Macca was any higher than #3 at any point in his career, and that is being generous.

I do think he is a good fighter though, and may yet win a 2nd belt at 200 lbs (unlikely though).

[steve689]

I have to agree. Enzo's status was exaggerated by his Britishness which alongside his punching power added intrigue to the Haye contest.

I wouldn't have placed Enzo higher than Cunningham at any point. Cunningham twice went into the lions den for the IBF title (shafted first time, won it second time) while Enzo was busy accomodating Bobby Gunn for the inherited WBO belt. No comparison.

[Dioufy]

Yeah, perhaps you lot are right then. Maybe I am being a tad silly here.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

I think your all answering the Q incorrectly, look at the Q:

It got me thinking, so I am here asking how many fights in the new millenium have been between the consensus number 1 and 2 in the division?

[Autobarn]

Yeah but I can't think back too far in my current state, PN!

Let me think, Hopkins-Trinidad, Naz-Barrera (or was that 1 and 3, with Morales as #2?), Tszyu-Mitchell/Judah (or was 1 of those late '90s), Mormeck-Bell 1 and 2, Tarver-Johnson 1 and 2.

Anything awarded with Ring mag title USUALLY qualifies, but then again Vitali-Sanders was a somewhat suspect fight as I saw it.

I seem to recall one or two #1 vs #2 bouts from the early '00s, and more since after about late 2004 when things seemed to perk up.

[gb]

Jones - Tarver 1
Calzaghe - Lacy

[Autobarn]

Calzaghe-Kessler IMO. Whereas Calzaghe-Lacy seemed to be #1 and #3.

[stujones]

Hopkins vs Tito

Vasquez vs Marquez

JMM vs Pacquiao 2

DLH vs Vargas - contensious one I know

Winky Wright vs Taylor

Mosley vs Forrest 1 and 2

Forrest vs Mayorga 1 and 2.

Mayweather vs Corrales

[Autobarn]

JMM-Pac 1?

Spinks-Mayorga

[BigEars]

Calzaghe-Kessler IMO. Whereas Calzaghe-Lacy seemed to be #1 and #3.

Not at the time it didn't, at the time that was very much seen as the #1/2 Super-Middleweights in the World colliding.

[stujones]

JMM-Pac 1?

Spinks-Mayorga

I would argue that maybe Forrest was still ranked above Spinks given the closeness of Mayorga vs Forrest 2.

Was Morales still classed as a Featherweight at the time of JMM vs MP 1?

[stujones]

Hopkins vs Taylor 1 and 2.

[Asterix]

Pavlik vs Taylor II :??

[kevo]

Pavlik vs Taylor II :??

I think that fight was at Super Middle, so they won't have been classed as the consensus 1 & 2