BoxRec

DaveyH wrote:

Autobarn wrote:Of course Davey H, every fighter is managed to go in a particular direction, with calculated risks and away from certain threats. But David Haye has heralded more of a gung-ho approach - going for the jugular, refusing to be denied the prize, calculated gamble - and we may be seeing this in Froch as well and hopefully John Murray if this Prescott fight ever happens.

Yes but just because a newer generation of fighters are finally doing it right, does not mean you can discredit a fighter from a previous era. My point was people pick on Calzaghe for the way his career panned initially out but neglect to mention all the dross that padded out Eubanks record etc. Plus the fights Eubank dodged were far worse than the ones Joe dodged. But Eubank is (rightly) regarded as a legend, because we focus on what he achieved. We should at least give Joe the same courtesy but all people seem to care about is that he he fought a few stiff mandatories.

I like your fair and balanced arguements.

I like the fact you have no argument

EDIT: Apologies, reading through the thread I see you might actually have been sincere with your remark, whereas initially I thought it was sarcasm

DaveyH wrote:Oh and your points regarding Ottke's age, it was a hypothetical comparison. The point was that Ottke never fought anyone better than what Calzaghe did during the "wilderness years." Which is why Ottke is never talked about as a great.

Regarding Mundine, he was a 10 fight novice who was widely winning the fight until he walked onto a big shot. Like I said earlier, speaks volumes about Mundines punch resistance and doesn't say a lot of good for Sven to be losing to a man with 10 fights on his record.

I don't think it is a hypothetical comparison. He could have faced Joe, He could have faced Beyer - but who could he have faced from the "new" generation? There was really nobody - even someone who proved to be substance - there was nobody really. Well there was a couple... like Mads Larsen.. Mundine.... Markussen also (Ottke beat these). They might not have been as good as certainly Kessler (I think the three of them would have beaten Lacy) - but they were really the equivalent of Kessler/Lacy in 2006 back in 2002/2003.

As for Mundine's chin - hang on.. the guy went the distance with Kessler, the guy didn't get hurt against a puncher like Green, the only time Mundine has been KO'd - was when he fought Ottke, and he's faced some pretty big punchers in his career. Mundine is NOT chinny.

Mundine might have been a 10 fight "Novice" - but just over a year after he would win the title, so he wasn't that novicy.

Ottke fought the better guys of his 20 defensives, than Joe did during his wilderness years. Some of Joe best wins in these years - Brewer, Mitchell - were beaten by Ottke before hand. I think that is a significant factor. He mugged Silvio Branco, just after Branco beat Reid. There's Glen Johnson, Thomas Tate and he had his fair share of dangerous fighters - who turned out shite (alal Sheika) such as James Crawford.

The term legend I think is generally over used - Eubank is no legend IMO. Well, only for his personality more than anything - certainly not his boxing accomplishments. He was a big fish in a little pond.

If you class Eubank as a legend, then Joe is also - but for me there have been alot of Legends from this recent generation - with 1 Brit in it. I would also omit guys like Winky Wright and Kostya Tszyu from such terminology also - so its not through Calzaghe bashing.

RJJ, Holyfield, Lewis, Oscar, Floyd, Ricardo Lopez, Hopkins, Mosley, Tito, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales - I think that is all who deserve to be called Legends. These can be discussed (not saying better, not saying worst) with any fighter from any era. I don't think Calzaghe belongs in that bracket - and certainly Eubank and Ottke don't.

stujones wrote:

DaveyH wrote:Oh and your points regarding Ottke's age, it was a hypothetical comparison. The point was that Ottke never fought anyone better than what Calzaghe did during the "wilderness years." Which is why Ottke is never talked about as a great.

Regarding Mundine, he was a 10 fight novice who was widely winning the fight until he walked onto a big shot. Like I said earlier, speaks volumes about Mundines punch resistance and doesn't say a lot of good for Sven to be losing to a man with 10 fights on his record.

I don't think it is a hypothetical comparison. He could have faced Joe, He could have faced Beyer - but who could he have faced from the "new" generation? There was really nobody - even someone who proved to be substance - there was nobody really. Well there was a couple... like Mads Larsen.. Mundine.... Markussen also (Ottke beat these). They might not have been as good as certainly Kessler (I think the three of them would have beaten Lacy) - but they were really the equivalent of Kessler/Lacy in 2006 back in 2002/2003.

As for Mundine's chin - hang on.. the guy went the distance with Kessler, the guy didn't get hurt against a puncher like Green, the only time Mundine has been KO'd - was when he fought Ottke, and he's faced some pretty big punchers in his career. Mundine is NOT chinny.

Mundine might have been a 10 fight "Novice" - but just over a year after he would win the title, so he wasn't that novicy.

Ottke fought the better guys of his 20 defensives, than Joe did during his wilderness years. Some of Joe best wins in these years - Brewer, Mitchell - were beaten by Ottke before hand. I think that is a significant factor. He mugged Silvio Branco, just after Branco beat Reid. There's Glen Johnson, Thomas Tate and he had his fair share of dangerous fighters - who turned out shite (alal Sheika) such as James Crawford.

The term legend I think is generally over used - Eubank is no legend IMO. Well, only for his personality more than anything - certainly not his boxing accomplishments. He was a big fish in a little pond.

If you class Eubank as a legend, then Joe is also - but for me there have been alot of Legends from this recent generation - with 1 Brit in it. I would also omit guys like Winky Wright and Kostya Tszyu from such terminology also - so its not through Calzaghe bashing.

RJJ, Holyfield, Lewis, Oscar, Floyd, Ricardo Lopez, Hopkins, Mosley, Tito, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales - I think that is all who deserve to be called Legends. These can be discussed (not saying better, not saying worst) with any fighter from any era. I don't think Calzaghe belongs in that bracket - and certainly Eubank and Ottke don't.

Totally agree, although I would say Eubank is a legend, not based on achievements, but his style of fighting, his absolutely huge heart and the manner of some of his wins.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Totally agree, although I would say Eubank is a legend, not based on achievements, but his style of fighting, his absolutely huge heart and the manner of some of his wins.

Johnny Tapia was a possible surprising choice I was thinking about - he was mustard as a flyweight and was a three weight world champion and with his story... touch and go for me should he deserve such a tag.

Of course, I wasn't classing guys like Tyson and Chavez in the category - I was considering them from the generation before.

DaveyH wrote:

Autobarn wrote:Of course Davey H, every fighter is managed to go in a particular direction, with calculated risks and away from certain threats. But David Haye has heralded more of a gung-ho approach - going for the jugular, refusing to be denied the prize, calculated gamble - and we may be seeing this in Froch as well and hopefully John Murray if this Prescott fight ever happens.

Yes but just because a newer generation of fighters are finally doing it right, does not mean you can discredit a fighter from a previous era. My point was people pick on Calzaghe for the way his career panned initially out but neglect to mention all the dross that padded out Eubanks record etc. Plus the fights Eubank dodged were far worse than the ones Joe dodged. But Eubank is (rightly) regarded as a legend, because we focus on what he achieved. We should at least give Joe the same courtesy but all people seem to care about is that he he fought a few stiff mandatories.

Oh the Eubank reign was filled with rubbish. Often Eubank didn't even do anything, and still got the decision. Often turned up, and seemed to think that was all he had to do, showmanship at the expense of a good game plan. This is really what started it all with the WBO title and easy defences. Benn on the other hand fouhgt good comp with the WBO on the line. I don't see Eubank as a legend - a star, yes; a guy who fought numerous classics (Benn 1, Watson 2, Thompson 1 & 2). At least, being a star, he had something bigger to protect hence no fights with McCallum, Nunn, RJJ.

I just don't like to see Calzaghe overrated. Yes he proved he was more than "just" a WBO champ, a Brit with a British world title. Lacy & Kessler wins awesome viewing. We need the big British names, but it has felt contrived and manufactured and I've found watching a lot of Joe's fights to be a bit of a waste of time. How long would he have lasted with a WBC, WBA or IBF title from the start...he would have retired far earlier due to wear and tear I believe.

However, I admit I never liked Lewis while he was active. Too ponderousm, too aloof in & out the ring. He seemed a twat before the 1st Rahman fight, going on about being a movie star and meeting Julia Roberts...then timber! My respect for Lewis has been in retrospect. If only Joe had pursued bigger fights as Lewis did; if only Lewis could have fought as though someone lit a fire up his arse as Joe often did.

The problem with this though, Autobarn, is that Calzaghe never had a true chance to show his worth pre Lacy. Seriously, would you cut the guy a bit of slack if he beat Ottke, Beyer, or even a Hopkins determined to stay at Middle and fight Robert Allen over and over? Personally I don't think those fights are so important that they are the difference between Joe being great or a complete wannabe. I think some people are determined to knock him and twist his achievements for whatever reason.
But seriously, if Calzaghe was at his peak in 1993 onwards do you think he would have avoided the top dogs? Personally, I don't think he would. Just my opinion of course but I think Joe would have put a dent in the division back then. Probably not undefeated but then again who was?
I don't think Calzaghe was the best ever, but I appreciate what he achieved. It just seems many on here refuse to accept Joe achieved anything, so there's a hole in their argument before they even type.

Achievements ?

So lets say the following retired, would you put Joe above them ?


Marco Antonio Barrera
Shane Mosely
Manny Pacquiao

G0mez wrote:Achievements ?

So lets say the following retired, would you put Joe above them ?


Marco Antonio Barrera
Shane Mosely
Manny Pacquiao

No, No, No.... sorry - but I don't think the likes of Ken Buchanon, Conteh, McGuigan, Naz, or Eubank compare to these three either.

DaveyH wrote:The problem with this though, Autobarn, is that Calzaghe never had a true chance to show his worth pre Lacy. Seriously, would you cut the guy a bit of slack if he beat Ottke, Beyer, or even a Hopkins determined to stay at Middle and fight Robert Allen over and over? Personally I don't think those fights are so important that they are the difference between Joe being great or a complete wannabe. I think some people are determined to knock him and twist his achievements for whatever reason.
But seriously, if Calzaghe was at his peak in 1993 onwards do you think he would have avoided the top dogs? Personally, I don't think he would. Just my opinion of course but I think Joe would have put a dent in the division back then. Probably not undefeated but then again who was?
I don't think Calzaghe was the best ever, but I appreciate what he achieved. It just seems many on here refuse to accept Joe achieved anything, so there's a hole in their argument before they even type.

He could have gone to the states at around 2001-ish.

he would have had twice as more opportunities then than in 2008

Joe Calzaghe’s retirement from boxing last Thursday night triggered the inevitable post-mortem to a remarkably successful - and remarkably public – career dating back to 1993. The 36-year-old Welshman, who turned pro on the Lennox Lewis-Frank Bruno bill in Cardiff, won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award in 2007 and a couple of big fights in the States last year. He decides to bow out with a perfect 46-0 record, three short of Rocky Marciano’s indelible 49-0, his legacy seemingly assured.
Or is it? Traditionalists have long-debated Marciano’s greatness and the latter will also apply to Calzaghe. Some have gone as far as to hail Calzaghe as the greatest British fighter ever; others, a wasted talent. Calzaghe never beat anyone like 37-year-old Joe Louis but he beat Chris Eubank, Mikkel Kessler, Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones, among many, many others. He won more major world title fights than any British fighter in history.
One can only imagine what he would have done to someone like Kelly Pavlik, thrashed by Hopkins six months after Hopkins had lost to Joe, or Sven Ottke, or Glen Johnson, or Clinton Woods or Dariusz Michaelczweski… There lies the crux of the matter. For each huge win, there are two or three others that could and perhaps should have happened for the gifted southpaw.
Undeniably, the man had it all. He was super-quick, hit hard, had great movement, boasted a fantastic engine and took a good shot, when he did get caught. He leaves the game totally unmarked.
The man was the Phil Taylor of boxing – he just kept winning.

G0mez wrote:Achievements ?

So lets say the following retired, would you put Joe above them ?


Marco Antonio Barrera
Shane Mosely
Manny Pacquiao

No.

I would.He is the same class as them. Remember, Mosley got found out by Forest and Wright and Manny p has been outboxed by Morales (the first time) and twice by Juan Manuel Marquez. Calzaghe beat everyone put in front of him. Its remarkable.he also beat a prime Hopkins in the middle of 3 of Hopkins greatest wins against, Pavlick, Tarver and Wright.

stujones wrote:

DaveyH wrote:Oh and your points regarding Ottke's age, it was a hypothetical comparison. The point was that Ottke never fought anyone better than what Calzaghe did during the "wilderness years." Which is why Ottke is never talked about as a great.

Regarding Mundine, he was a 10 fight novice who was widely winning the fight until he walked onto a big shot. Like I said earlier, speaks volumes about Mundines punch resistance and doesn't say a lot of good for Sven to be losing to a man with 10 fights on his record.

I don't think it is a hypothetical comparison. He could have faced Joe, He could have faced Beyer - but who could he have faced from the "new" generation? There was really nobody - even someone who proved to be substance - there was nobody really. Well there was a couple... like Mads Larsen.. Mundine.... Markussen also (Ottke beat these). They might not have been as good as certainly Kessler (I think the three of them would have beaten Lacy) - but they were really the equivalent of Kessler/Lacy in 2006 back in 2002/2003.

As for Mundine's chin - hang on.. the guy went the distance with Kessler, the guy didn't get hurt against a puncher like Green, the only time Mundine has been KO'd - was when he fought Ottke, and he's faced some pretty big punchers in his career. Mundine is NOT chinny.

Mundine might have been a 10 fight "Novice" - but just over a year after he would win the title, so he wasn't that novicy.

Ottke fought the better guys of his 20 defensives, than Joe did during his wilderness years. Some of Joe best wins in these years - Brewer, Mitchell - were beaten by Ottke before hand. I think that is a significant factor. He mugged Silvio Branco, just after Branco beat Reid. There's Glen Johnson, Thomas Tate and he had his fair share of dangerous fighters - who turned out shite (alal Sheika) such as James Crawford.

The term legend I think is generally over used - Eubank is no legend IMO. Well, only for his personality more than anything - certainly not his boxing accomplishments. He was a big fish in a little pond.

If you class Eubank as a legend, then Joe is also - but for me there have been alot of Legends from this recent generation - with 1 Brit in it. I would also omit guys like Winky Wright and Kostya Tszyu from such terminology also - so its not through Calzaghe bashing.

RJJ, Holyfield, Lewis, Oscar, Floyd, Ricardo Lopez, Hopkins, Mosley, Tito, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales - I think that is all who deserve to be called Legends. These can be discussed (not saying better, not saying worst) with any fighter from any era. I don't think Calzaghe belongs in that bracket - and certainly Eubank and Ottke don't.

How can you criticise Calzaghe and say Lopez is a legend? Who did he fight? Small gaps between divisions, with the promotion he had behind him, he could have easily cleaned up at flyweight and below, but didn't. Most people could barely name anyone he fought and his "great" fight to become a two-weight champion was Will Grigsby. Of the others, Hopkins did exactly what Calzaghe is accused of - sticking in a weak division and hand-picking opponents - Trinidad could not carry his weight up and his career petered out badly, Morales was in a great group but was clearly the worst of the three (or four), while Mosley was found out too many times and is a drugs cheat, which, as his best wins were over De La Hoya, cannot be ignored (or maybe Ben Johnson should be one of the great sprinters).

stujones wrote: RJJ, Holyfield, Lewis, Oscar, Floyd, Ricardo Lopez, Hopkins, Mosley, Tito, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales - I think that is all who deserve to be called Legends. These can be discussed (not saying better, not saying worst) with any fighter from any era. I don't think Calzaghe belongs in that bracket - and certainly Eubank and Ottke don't.

How can you criticise Calzaghe and say Lopez is a legend? Who did he fight? Small gaps between divisions, with the promotion he had behind him, he could have easily cleaned up at flyweight and below, but didn't. Most people could barely name anyone he fought and his "great" fight to become a two-weight champion was Will Grigsby. Of the others, Hopkins did exactly what Calzaghe is accused of - sticking in a weak division and hand-picking opponents - Trinidad could not carry his weight up and his career petered out badly, Morales was in a great group but was clearly the worst of the three (or four), while Mosley was found out too many times and is a drugs cheat, which, as his best wins were over De La Hoya, cannot be ignored (or maybe Ben Johnson should be one of the great sprinters).

Also RJJ was ridiculously overrated by the boxing press and fans, the only win that stands out on his record is Toney. Nobody had ever heard of Hopkins back then who wouldn't peak until his mid 30's, McCallum was way past his prime and the win for the "world heavyweight title" was a joke because Lewis was the champion at that time, all Roy did was beat the slowest and most limited of the heavyweight "champs"

gobbles wrote:

stujones wrote: RJJ, Holyfield, Lewis, Oscar, Floyd, Ricardo Lopez, Hopkins, Mosley, Tito, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales - I think that is all who deserve to be called Legends. These can be discussed (not saying better, not saying worst) with any fighter from any era. I don't think Calzaghe belongs in that bracket - and certainly Eubank and Ottke don't.

How can you criticise Calzaghe and say Lopez is a legend? Who did he fight? Small gaps between divisions, with the promotion he had behind him, he could have easily cleaned up at flyweight and below, but didn't. Most people could barely name anyone he fought and his "great" fight to become a two-weight champion was Will Grigsby. Of the others, Hopkins did exactly what Calzaghe is accused of - sticking in a weak division and hand-picking opponents - Trinidad could not carry his weight up and his career petered out badly, Morales was in a great group but was clearly the worst of the three (or four), while Mosley was found out too many times and is a drugs cheat, which, as his best wins were over De La Hoya, cannot be ignored (or maybe Ben Johnson should be one of the great sprinters).

Hopkins didn't do what Calzaghe did, thats the whole point. Name me one Middleweight Hopkins didn't fight that he should have. Okay, breifly Harry Simon - and thats it. Joe didn't fight the guy a fair few thought should have been classed #1 for 8 of Joe's 10 years at the top. Did Hopkins do that - no.... Yes, had Hopkins not faced the likes of Holmes, Joppy, Eastman (even) etc - then there could be an arguement... but he did. Sure he had his fair share of bums - but you can name over 10 opponent Joe SHOULD have faced, just as a SUper Middle.... you cannot for Hopkins. Thats cleaning up the devision.

Same with Ricardo Lopez..... and Resondo Alvarez would have been an all timer if it wasn't for Lopez. Resonda Alvarez was his natural rival.... Ottke was Joe.

Morales was a 3 weight world champion with wins over Pacquiao and Barerra. He should have been the first four weight world champion from Mexico but was robbed by the judges.

Trinidad unified the Welterweight devision at a time when it was loaded with talent. He also won Light Middleweight and Middleweight world titles. Ask Ricardo Mayorga if he couldn't carry his power.

Mosley - well if someone officially does discredit his win over DLH and a few others, then yes you might have a point - but untill then, its kind of like the FLO JO situation. The world knows she was a cheat, but the IAAF still count the record as she wasn't caught. Shane wasn't caught. Again though a man who seeked challenged above his weight and became "the man" at three different devisions... prior to his Margarito win I would have agreed with you, but now I think he does hit the legendary status - sometimes a fighter just goes above their weight devision, and this is what Mosley did when he moved to Light Middle, just like Hatton is no Welter. Even so, he did win the title there - it could be argued he has suffered just one (avenged) defeat at Welter and below.

Lopez was an awesome puncher and beautiful technician however strawweight must be the worst most shallow weight ever. Lopez had one defining fight, the rematch with Alvarez. One of the best boxing displays I've seen. Ricardo was kept away from Carbajal, Tapia I believe. Which should then count big time against him. Because there were big fights above him that he never went for when he could have. Carbajal and Chiquita brought the money to the lower weights. ppl complained that Christy Martin got paid for that Lopez, but Lopez could have gone for the Carbajals etc.

Calzaghe is a plonker but not a fraud, he did beat some good ex champs with a lot of fight in 'em, before unifying which proved his legitimacy, before the dull cash ins. But cash in he did, and while it's sad that these fights - RJJ, Hopkins - were the "big ones", the reality is these were the fights that paid, allowing Joe to get out on his own terms. In other words his 2 megafights were vs old spoilers which didn't really flatter him. Joe surely had one great performance left, but left boxing. He never showed us his best (IMO 175 the natural weight, he looks big and fast at this weight), didn't go that extra mile for the PPV throne when he could have. He is recognized by Ring mag at 2 weights which is something, I guess. I feel that Joe is lacking a couple of good contenders on the way up, but many probably were waiting for him to retire. Ineed they ALL have been fighting of recent (Froch-Pascal, Balzsay-Inkin etc). On the cautious terms of European boxing, Calzaghe HAS achieved a lot.

I just don't see all this "Hopkins did this, Joe didn't" or "Jones did all this, Joe didn't." They were all as bad, or as good, as each other. Lengthy reign, waited for the lucrative bouts. Hopkins may have fought every mandatory - Echols x2, Allen x3 - but Joe will have made a lot more money beating Woodhall, Reid, Brewer, Mitchell. Jones multiweight champ, but had a shifty route to title himself at 175 (his main weight), vacant title fight v McCallum, title stolen from Rocchigiani, never fought Michalczewski ( a beast around '96-'00, the lineal champ, should have been Ring champ if the mag had followed their own policy!). Arguing over pennies. All 3 -in fact 4, if you count DM which you should - had very cautious long title runs, making their money their own way.

Some good points. I guess its all do with terminology at the end. You might call Joe a plonker, personally I think - he's minted, some regrad him a a legend and the greatest of his generation, and his faculties are in tacked. For me, he is the best managed fighter ever and far for a plonker.

Essentially a plonker would have been someone with Joe skills - very good, but I feel (personally) there have been better in his generation, and indeed around his weight class, who fought RJJ or Bhopkins around 2000/2001. Yes... us anoraks would have been championing him as one tough SOB - but he would have ended up with a pretty convincing loss (IMO) - there goes the P4P standing (possibly for ever), there goes the legendary status, and there goes the future earnings.

Us anoraks would say its better that Joe would have fought prime Ottke, prime Hopkins, prime Jones etc... just like we have championed Hatton for taking on Mayweather and soon to be Pacquiao. However, really - its better to have not fought them, or waited till they were past it, and declare yourself a legend (and a legend killer for beating two old men) than to have done what Ricky did to Floyd! Whose the most popular, Ricky - but whose won sports personality - Joe.

To me, it just seems a characteristic of the higher weights - especially 160-175 - that they have the lengthy title runs & cash in (or cash out) on their own terms. None of these guys have to fight each other in their primes, or they're too conscious of what they have to lose rather than going for the big prize. Most annoying of all, for me, is Hopkins-Jones 2 when both were supposed to be p4p #1, a massive fight that didn't happen. That's when I became disillusioned about boxing. When I realised - shock, horror! - some guys won't risk it unless the money's right. Even for revenge (Hopkins).

Joe did beat 2 good fighters in their prime (Lacy, Kessler) when Joe was about 35, which is around the age that Hopkins unified his weight.

When Joe beat Hopkins and Jones, they were at the spoiler stage. So that will have made him look lesser. I don't think Joe even faced counter punchers till the end - technically, I think he's at his best now - having favced counter punchers who have a lot of knowledge - as you could see him still learning stuff in those 2 last fights.

It has been too cautious, and I think that has affected the pace at which his skills could develop. But I still think he would have found the p4p top 10 if he'd been matched more aggressively. He would have learned faster, IMO. He wouldn't have been bashed up ala Hatton if he'd had a big fight sooner. I think something bad would have happened to him if he didn't have that career lifting win over Lacy. Someone may have twatted a Joe who had been looking increasinlgy disinterested and sloppy. To me that was the danger area.

Horse wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:Joe Calzaghe is announcing his retirement from boxing on tonight's BBC news.

Pussy!

Ridiculous comment Horse, who do you think he'll listen to? A bunch of moaners and groaners on the internet or his family?

I quit the army because my girlfriend asked me to, does that make me a pussy for doing what the woman who I love wished for?

Herol wrote:Calzaghe can slag Froch off all he likes, but Froch has a much more attractive partner than Calzaghe.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

stujones wrote: Resondo Alvarez would have been an all timer if it wasn't for Lopez.

That is probably the most ridiculous clutch at straws comment I have ever read.

gobbles wrote:

stujones wrote: Resondo Alvarez would have been an all timer if it wasn't for Lopez.

That is probably the most ridiculous clutch at straws comment I have ever read.

Nah, stu can do much better than that. 8)

gobbles wrote:

stujones wrote: Resondo Alvarez would have been an all timer if it wasn't for Lopez.

That is probably the most ridiculous clutch at straws comment I have ever read.

Seen him fight? Clearly not. A champion in his own right for 8 years in two devisions... at the lowest weight devisions. Thats something - they don't usually last as long down there... and he was absolutely mustard in his prime. The man lost 3 times - one was DQ, one to Lopez and the other was when he was past it.

What I meant was if there was no Lopez he would have been the #1 in the devision for 8 years, no hesistation - then you must consider him among the greatest in that devision ever