Does JC surpass Hopkins' legacy if he beats Kessler?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 15 Jul 2007, 06:14

So what has Jeff Lacy done to say he "pisses" all over William Joppy?

Hopkins had too look down because there was no major names and particularly great comp in his devision. However, he still beat absolutely EVERYBODY you can think of in his devision. What MORE could Hopkins have done.

Yes, comp for comp the 1998- at Super Middle is better than Hopkins' Middleweights. So if Joe had beaten all the major contenders and pretenders in his devision, then of course his title legacy would have been better.... However, he didn't.

There are two glaring ommitions from Joe's title reign that mean he will NEVER equal Hopkins in terms of reign for reign. One was a champion who made 21 defences of his title - whether you like him or not, you simply cannot ignore that. The other who a champion off and on (mainly on) for 8 of Joe's 10 year reign. Thats Ottke and Beyer.

THEY were Joe's main rivals... whether you think Kessler and Lacy, Reid, Mitchell whoever were better - these were Joe's main rivals. I don't care if everyone thinks Joe would have beaten both at a canter- these were the two that Joe should have faced. Hopkins faced EVERYONE he could.

I know I sounded pretty negative towards Joe this weekend, but to put into perspective. I think Joe's reign is better than any individual reign that Roy Jones has had (Michaelswecki his GLARING ommition at Light Heavy, Collins/Benn/Eubank his glaring ommitions at Super Middle).

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 15 Jul 2007, 07:11

Of course my argument goes tits up if Joe loses to Kessler and doesn't follow with two more good wins. Sadly, Joe has put himself in this position that if something DOESN'T happen, his rep will suffer. However, he has "saved himself" (unwittingly, IMO) for a very exciting era of super middles/middles moving up.

IMO another peaking champion (Kessler, after beating Lacy), a young man in his prime (Pavlik ideal, if he wins middle crown and moves up), and a mandatory (skilled pressure fighter Inkin, a guy vastly superior to Hanshaw who lost to Jones last night) should do the trick.

Or if it's a great fight, a rematch/trilogy with Kessler. Finding a great rival would be another terrific way.

Hopkins right now is a more proven great but I still believe Joe can surpass him, make the good he's done look better and the bad more forgivable only if he is brilliant against world class opposition.If he beats Kessler, Ottke doesn't really matter - many believe Sven was a master boxer, some critics feel he was a glorified ama that got gifts in big fights...Kessler is superior to Ottke. We're now in an era in which the barriers are all coming down so Calzaghe aside, this is very good for boxing

J · Post by J » 17 Jul 2007, 09:56

no! Hopkins cleared up the middleweight divison and all those worthy of a shot.

Calzaghe hasnt/ didnt simple as.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 17 Jul 2007, 10:56

stujones wrote: Hopkins had too look down because there was no major names and particularly great comp in his devision. However, he still beat absolutely EVERYBODY you can think of in his devision. What MORE could Hopkins have done.
.

No he didn't. He comprehensively lost to the best fighter he faced at middleweight in roy Jones Jr. He was then offered 40% of the purse (he wasnt worth 40%) to rematch Jones and turned it down. He turned down a fight with Calazage too.

The rest of his competition was very weak. I'd like someone to argue against this point:

Tito - small 1 dimensional fighter, very good win - but great? No
Joppy - good win but Eastman should have beat him
Glen Johnson - good win but Johnson isn't great
Allen - average
Vanderpool - good boxer, Lacy took him out a few years later
Brown - small unproven at MW and beat solidly in his biggest fights
Delahoya - Sturm leftovers, most Middleweights walk through Delahoya at 160 hes too small.

These are P4P below:

Kessler
Lacy
Mitchell
Reid
Brewer
Woodhall
Eubank

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:00

stujones wrote:Even after Kessler Calzaghe needs Bute/Froch to completely clean out the devision.

That's like saying, after unification, Lewis didn't clear out the heavyweight division until he beat Grant and Tua.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:33

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
stujones wrote: Hopkins had too look down because there was no major names and particularly great comp in his devision. However, he still beat absolutely EVERYBODY you can think of in his devision. What MORE could Hopkins have done.
.
No he didn't. He comprehensively lost to the best fighter he faced at middleweight in roy Jones Jr. He was then offered 40% of the purse (he wasnt worth 40%) to rematch Jones and turned it down. He turned down a fight with Calazage too.

The rest of his competition was very weak. I'd like someone to argue against this point:

Tito - small 1 dimensional fighter, very good win - but great? No
Joppy - good win but Eastman should have beat him
Glen Johnson - good win but Johnson isn't great
Allen - average
Vanderpool - good boxer, Lacy took him out a few years later
Brown - small unproven at MW and beat solidly in his biggest fights
Delahoya - Sturm leftovers, most Middleweights walk through Delahoya at 160 hes too small.

These are P4P below:

Kessler
Lacy
Mitchell
Reid
Brewer
Woodhall
Eubank

Alot of Should have and could have in the post... Joppy should have beaten Eastman... but he didn't (and anyway Hop dealt with Eastman)... I don't give a whoots what happend to at the negotating table - the original question was regarding the reign of the two.

Bernard wasn't middleweight champion when Jones beat him.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:34

oliverfennell wrote:
stujones wrote:Even after Kessler Calzaghe needs Bute/Froch to completely clean out the devision.
That's like saying, after unification, Lewis didn't clear out the heavyweight division until he beat Grant and Tua.

Yep, and these were fantastic legacy boosting wins... Grant, Tua and Klitchsko were the 3 fighters (with Wlad for a long period) hyped as the champion in waiting... oh Ike.

Lewis beat them and it boost his legacy - more so than a win over old Mike.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:43

Yes they DID help his legacy, but the "clearing out" was done in unification. As good as those wins were, they didn't mean as much as beating Holyfield for the three belts.

So, beating Bute and Froch would be very valuable wins, but not on a par with beating Lacy and Kessler. Those are unification matches in all but name and, as such, are "clearing out" jobs.

And anyway, there can never really be a clear-out, because of the cyclical nature of any sport. After Lacy, there was Kessler, afer Kessler, there'll be Bute and Froch, after them....

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:54

Yeah, a fighter can do little more than unify the titles, as far as he can, by facing the acknowledged no.2 (if of course he's considered no1).

To say that he then has to beat other young up and coming fighters who haven't won a world title, whilst admirable, is excessive IMO.

A new generation of fighter may come after Froch and Bute and, and in terms fulfilling a legacy a fighter's work would never be done on that strict criteria.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:54

oliverfennell wrote:Yes they DID help his legacy, but the "clearing out" was done in unification. As good as those wins were, they didn't mean as much as beating Holyfield for the three belts.

So, beating Bute and Froch would be very valuable wins, but not on a par with beating Lacy and Kessler. Those are unification matches in all but name and, as such, are "clearing out" jobs.

And anyway, there can never really be a clear-out, because of the cyclical nature of any sport. After Lacy, there was Kessler, afer Kessler, there'll be Bute and Froch, after them....

After them there is nobody... Nobody coming through - the winner of Taylor vs Pavlik aside. Seriously though, there is nobody other than these three.

Like with Lewis - when he beat Klitchsko... he had completely cleared out the devision... Officially Byrd was highly ranked, but no-one gave Byrd a chance, John Ruiz... sorry, no chance. All Lewis had left was some well managed mandatories who didn't have a chance... even when they officially became champions, no-one wanted to see them and Lewis fight.

Its a bit like Joe fighting Berrio after Kessler - no-one wants to see that even though he is a champion.

Problem for Joe though is that for the most part of his reign (unless he goes on for another 7-8 years) Ottke and Beyer were credible, viable rivals that Joe needed to have faced.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:55

It's up to Joe how he wants to be remembered. The messy guy of Starie, Salem, Bika. The world class warrior of Lacy, Woodhall and Brewer bouts. It seems it will ALL rest on one fight because of a number of fighters he didn't feel compelled to take on.

He could really regret leaving it so late because Kessler has two good hands despite being injury prone himself. This fight will be decided on a knife edge and if Joe's hand goes...

The Taff can win, but if he loses, he won't be much without his title/unbeaten record.

I'll say this again. Bute must be from Canada via Romania via Arkansas. Because his passivity is worrying - I haven't decided if it's Guinn level or Taylor level. Bute is not a factor and hey he went for the easy belt (Berrio) so who cares about him?

Mundine is talented but bloody hell, what is he doing with that regular belt??

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 17 Jul 2007, 20:29

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/6903699.stm

Lacy said the same.