Senya13 wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:You can speculate that Jones would have beaten McCallum at his best, but that is all you are doing, speculating.
Same as it is speculating that McCallum would do any better had he been closer to his prime. Same as we all do all the time, when we are discussing virtual matchups, ratings, etc.
-When you speculate on how a fighter would do against another in a fighter who didn't fight, or how he should be rated, it should be based on what a fighter actually did. You are basing part of of your opinion on what Jones would have done, not what he did. When rating Jones as a middleweight, McCallum should not factor into it at all. why you can't understand this is imcomphrensible.
Seyna13 seems to consider fighters pre 1990's fighters to be inferior, at least middleweights.
I really don't know how many times do I have to reiterate the fact that I rate Marvin Hagler (pre-1990 fighter) at #1, and Carlos Monzon (pre-1990 fighter) at #3 and Ray Robinson (pre-1990 fighter) at #5.
True, but you have issued many opinons that show a bias for more recent fighters. Reggie Johnson better than Benny Briscoe for example.
Interesting since there hasn't bea great fight at 160 in 20 years).
You would be very surprised to know how many fights that are considered great or significant now (in hindsight) weren't considered as such at the time they happened.
-It's true that some fights don't get their respect until long after they happened. However, usually a great fight is noticed soon after it it happens. If not right away, almost always with 20 years. There have some great fights in other weight classes in the last 20 years. Why is it that there hasn't been a great middleweight fight in that entire time? This is another indication that the division hasn't been strong in during this time.
Jones win over almost 40 year old McCallum is considered a big deal
I actually was using the Ring's policy of ranking fighters' placement in history in this or that weight division, to come to the conclusions I described above. The one where they rank Greb and Walker at middleweight, and Tunney and Charles at heavyweight. Earnie Shavers was once ranked at #10 in the 175lb division (for his victory over ranked light heavyweight 191lb Vicente Rondon), so that I now have all rights to claim Earnie Shavers was the hardest hitting light heavyweight of all time.
-
This would explain some of your silly comments. That is a horrible way to go about ranking fighters.
This clearly wasn't McCallum's best weight class anyway.
This clearly wasn't Jones' best weight class either.
- Regardless of whether this was Jones best weight class, Jone s certainly didn't beat a great middleweight when he beat mCCallum.
-However, he refers to Griffith as "washed up" when Monzon beat him. Griffith was past his his best, but he surely wasn't washed up. Griffith was 33, which is huge difference from 39.
Based on evaluating other great fighters' careers at the age around 32-34, and considering Griffith's career up to that point (he had had plenty of fights at top level), and using the same arguments everyone has been telling me whenever I start telling them B/ Leonard, Charles, Robinson, Pep, and other great fighters started to lose fights around this age, that they were ring-worn.
-Some fighters are washed up by their early 30's, some aren't. A lot depends on how many fights a fighter has and how much punishment a fighter has taken. Griffith, while not at his absolute best, was certainly far from being washed up. With a few rare exceptions, almost all fighters are well past their best when they are 39, McCallum included.
Griffith had won his last 10 fights, and was still considered one of the top 3 middleweights in the world.
Where I pointed out that in that time span the only win over great fighter was when 30-year old Griffith beat a 41-year old Dick Tiger. Whatever other "10 last fights" there were, they were against opposition that wasn't on same level.
-During your time frame losses that Griffith had before Monzon fought him were a loss to Naploes and close loss to Benvenuti, both great fighters. He won 10 in a row before the first Monzon fight, some against legitimate contenders. This doesn't indicate a washed up fighter at all.
He trys to claim that Monzon's title defenses over Valdez,Benvenuti and Brisco were almost not that impressive.
Are we supposed to believe that any of Hopkins title defenses are more impressive?
If you took time to read my posts, you'd know that I gave Monzon a win over 1 Top25 middleweight (Benvenuti), whereas I gave Hopkins 0 (zero) such wins.
-Yet you belittle achievements and praise Hopkins. You also don't mention Monzon beating Griffith, which you should.
Or that Jones one title title defense (against Thomas Tate) was more impressive that Monzon beat those guys??
I never made claim about his defense vs Thomas Tate having any significance.
-My point is that you criticize other middleweight champions' records in middleweight title fights. You praise Jones and call him easily a top 10 middleweight. However, if you look at Jones record in middleweight title fights, Jones only had one title defense (in a fight that you say has no significance).
This is more evidence that Jones shouldn't be considered a great middleweight.
-Seyna13 rips several other middleweight champions middleweight title fights.
I simply listed those fights against clearly inferior opposition (often much-much worse than Thomas Tate), and posted comments about a couple of fights that were written in newspapers
when those fights took place.
However, he doesn't even mention Jones' middleweight title fights.
Jones only had 2.
I see no need to mention what every one knows already.
-Then don't criticize other middleweights' records in title fights.
He won the vacant IBF title, and had a grand total of one title defense. Many, many other middleweights did more in middleweight title defenses.
This I addressed when I listed Greb's and Walker's middleweight title fights, if that list of defenses was impressive, then I must not understand something. While none of them have a win of Jones-Hopkins caliber (with Hopkins' greatness estimated in hindsight; similar to how Greb's victory over Walker was claimed to be great, whereas it was considered totally meaningless at the time the fight took place).
-Once again, you are overrating Jones win over Hopkins. What you don't seem to understand is that it's important at what
time in a fighters career that the fight took place.
Had Hopkins beat anyone even worth mentioning before he fought Jones? I say no.(If you can name someone, then by all means do)
So there is no proof in Hopkins career before he fought Jones that Hopkins was any good yet.
Further proof that Hopkins wasn't that good yet, is that Hopkins only got a draw against a mediocre fighter a year after he fought Jones. Hopkins simply wasn't a great fighter at the
time that he fought Jones. That is crucial. If Jones would have fought a mcuh improved Hopkins in say 2000-2003, then it would mean a lot more.
Walker won a decison over the lightheavyweight champion about 6 months before he fought Greb. (It was a title fight by the way. Walker had to kncout McTigue to win the title) McTigue was very good fighter. (Certainly better than anyone Hopkins beat before he fought Jones). I am convinced that Mctigue fought his best. This is evidence that Walker was already a very good middleweight at the time Greb beat him. You underestimate some of Grebs opponents before he won the title and during his title reign. that is possibly becasue the top contenders didn't all have unbeaten or close to unbeaten records like they usually do now adays. that is becasue back then, contenders fought each other, often multiple times. There the top fighters usually had more losses than they do now.
Walker won the title against Tiger Flowers, a great fighter. Some thought Flowers should have won, but most thought it was a great fight.
Greb and Jones should be judged the same way. If you count the fights when they were over 160, Greb's victories were more impressive; if don't count them Greb was still more impressive.
I totally agree that Greb and Jones should be judged the same way. That's why I say Greb's fights at other weights shouldn't count for his legacy at 160lb, no matter that the Ring magazine listed him at middleweight ratings while he was fighting above that weight.
OR, if we want to count those fights for him at middleweight, then Jones' wins over James Toney, Mike McCallum and Reggie Johnson (all former middleweight champions) should count for his middleweight legacy, even though they took place at other weights.
-I always say that when rating a fighter at a certain weight class, he should only be judged only in the fights that he fought in that weight class. To me that is common sense and I have explained the many reasons why other threads.
So Greb's fights against people like Loughran,Gibbons,Tunney etc. shouldn't count when rating him strictly as a middleweight, because he weighed well over 160 when he won those fights. If he could have done that when he was a middleweight, then of course he would #1 of all time. However, he need to bulk up a little to beat bigger opponents. Still, if you take a hard look at what Greb did when he was a middleweight, he has to be considered one of the top middleweights of all time.
-Therefore Jones career as a middleweight ended after he fought Thomas Tate. No other fights (including Toney or McCallum) should count. So if you just judge Jones by what he did in fights when he wasn't over 160, you really only have 2 fights that have any significance at all. That is the one against Hopkins, which as mentioned before was long before Hopkins became great. A nice win, but nothing that special. Tate was the 2nd best middleweight that Jones beat, ne was decent but certainly nothing special. After that, Jones opponents at middleweight aren;t impressive at all . This just isn't nearly enough to rank Jones as an all time great middleweight. Many other other middleweights throughout history beat far tougher competition at middleweight.
What I was saying was that Hopkins wasn't nearly the fighter that he would become.
This has been addressed multiple times, I'm not gonna spend time repeating the arguments and counter-arguments yet again.
-Ok. But you have not explained why Hopkins was a great fighter at the
time that he fought Jones. This is crucial.
-On the other hand, Senya13 trys to say that Greb's win over Walker's doesn't mean anything.
They weren't my own words, they were the words taken from newswire article printed in multiple US newspapers the next day after the fight.
Well, Walker had just won a newspaper decision over the lightheavyweight champion 6 months previously. If there would have been judges, Walker probably would have won the lightheavyweight title.
Again, if you took time to read the newspapers reports about that fight, you'd be aware that McTigue chose to fight at 160lb weight limit on purpose, so that his light heavyweight title wouldn't be at stake. He was never in danger in that fight, it was clear after a couple of rounds that Walker couldn't do anything to him, couldn't hurt him and neutralize his defensive tactics. Walker won the fight on doing a lot more, of course. Had the title been on stake, McTigue would be weighing close to 175lb and fighting a completely different kind of fight.
-The title was at stake. McTigue was always small for a lightheavyweight. The bottom line is that he was a very good fighter, this is certainly a respectable result for Walker. This happened before before he fought Greb. Walker beating McTigue is certainly more impressive than anyone Hopkins beat before he fought Jones.
Walker had to be at least close to his potential at the time that Greb beat him.
Walker was very good welterweight at the time. At middleweight he wasn't considered anything, but another meaningless sculp in Greb's record.
-On the contrary, Walker was a better middlweight than he was a welterweight.
Lo and behold, the top 4 consists of Greb,Monzon,Hagler, and Robinson!
With three of these four, being in my Top5 as well.
- I'm sorry. I didn't see the comment where you ranked Monzon,Hagler and Robinson. you belittled Monzon and Hagler so much, I didn't think you thought much of them.
He is obviously not rating Jones the same way as he rates others.
I'll say it different, everyone rates Jones using different set of rules than they use for more famous (and popular) old-timers.
