BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:(thanks Sugar Ray, you wanker)

beautiful!!!


Had there been 4 titles around in Monzons time , you can bet he would have really struggled to unify...

Mickey Duff would have had one of the belts in Europe!!!

All you can say is that both were recognised as number 1 for the majority if not all of their reign as "champion"

It still doesn't change what should and what shouldn't be! Every serious historian that I have ever spoke to, which includes the biggest percentage of the IBRO, like to call a champion a real champion and a real champion is the man who beat the man, not someone who won a title because there was an abundance of titles to win, it has cheapend the true meaning of what a world champion truly is when two, much less four men call themselves champion of one division.

In a perfect world when the man retires undefeated, then there should be a tournament to determine who the new man is just like Hopkins/Holmes and Trinidad did in 2001!

I know it wasn't Hopkins fault that he didn't have all of the titles, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't! All of these bogus titles are a big part of what is killing boxing and exactly why there are a lot of mismatches because a true contender wins a bogus belt and then defends against a fighter that should have no business being called a contender! Thank God there wasn't four titles when Monzon was fighting, boxing would probably be regarded as wrestling is today and that is the road that it is headed down right now!

We know Eastman's place now (especially after his post-fight comments). I think he should target the likes of Jermain Taylor (I'd make him healthy underdog) and maybe a Soliman rematch? He'd get a fight with both these guys because they'd both want to try and KO him to get one up on Hop.

Eastman was mooted to be a comeback opponent for Trinidad ages ago. There's a reason for that: he would get devastated before the half-hour mark (IMO). Trinidad is said to be a slow starter, but that kind of misses the point. What he is, is a chillingly accurate counterpuncher; in my opinion, the best off-the-ball sharpshooter since Cervantes.

Talk of him as some sort of come forward type who would bull into Eastman is strange. When have you ever seen him do that? In nearly every first round he calmly loads up and waits for the opening; practically does nothing until something happens (did he even throw a punch versus Kevin Lueshing?). The only time you'll see drama in a Trinidad opening round(s) is if (a) he catches the guy and stuns him, at which point you can expect him to rush in and follow up with combos, (b) he catches one himself and his oft-shoddy balance tips him over.

Look at Mayorga fight: doesn't throw anything till last 10/20 seconds when he catches him with one; look at Thiam fight where he opens up after catching him with left hook; look at Vargas/Joppy fights where he waits till he lands a stunner before opening up. In other words, he only rushes in when he catches you; he's not particularly great when you force him to come forward cf. Hopkins and DLH fights.

Eastman would inevitably get caught at some point during the opening two rounds (probably the first). He wouldn't get KO'd by a single punch, but likewise, talk of him surviving the fight because his chin is solid is ludicrous, when an elite fighter like Trinidad hits you with 6 or 10 shots in rapid succession you get hurt, doesn't matter how big you are - he'd have no trouble getting a fighter Eastman's weight into trouble.

You need to be a quality mover to beat Trinidad. Eastman and Calzaghe would come straight at him, and because Eastman has never had the most pristine of defences he'd likely get stunned sooner rather than later. Tito TKO 5-9.
Likewise Calzaghe with his ever-more-common, wide slap attacks, and increasingly dodgy punch resistence would get caught a few too many, get marked up, and his arse would go in the later rounds. Tito TKO 9-12.
The likes of Winky Wright, Hopkins, even a slim DLH would all have a way better chance at beating him than Eastman or Calzaghe.

For what it's worth I give Hopkins still the best chance of beating him, then DLH and Wright probably a tie for second. The reason being Hopkins would not fade in the later rounds and get sucked into Trinidad's radar as I think DLH would (might see the first head punch knockout of DLH here), and I also think he would be more slippery than Wright - who if Trinidad successfully makes the ring smaller against, will destroy. Otherwise, Wright UD.

lirva33 wrote:

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/ar ... d=12645055

crybaby sore loser!! you lost cause you did nothing!!

barry wrote:It still doesn't change what should and what shouldn't be! Every serious historian that I have ever spoke to, which includes the biggest percentage of the IBRO, like to call a champion a real champion and a real champion is the man who beat the man, not someone who won a title because there was an abundance of titles to win, it has cheapend the true meaning of what a world champion truly is when two, much less four men call themselves champion of one division.

In a perfect world when the man retires undefeated, then there should be a tournament to determine who the new man is just like Hopkins/Holmes and Trinidad did in 2001!

I know it wasn't Hopkins fault that he didn't have all of the titles, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't! All of these bogus titles are a big part of what is killing boxing and exactly why there are a lot of mismatches because a true contender wins a bogus belt and then defends against a fighter that should have no business being called a contender! Thank God there wasn't four titles when Monzon was fighting, boxing would probably be regarded as wrestling is today and that is the road that it is headed down right now!

So what about Larry Holmes then, is he just a footnote in boxing history, he never unified the belts.

You're missing an important difference here. Certain champions, whether they have all the belts or not, prove themselves to be the best of their era. Holmes did that, and so has Hopkins, unlike Joppy, who really at no time was considered the best middleweight in the world.

It's an imperfect world, deal with it! You have to make an assessment based on a fighters tenure, his opposition and his fighting style as to how you think he would have done in other eras, and what his standing is overall.

The alternative is the spurious road you're going down, which is to assume that anyone who fought in eras where there was only one or fewer belts, must therefore be better. I would rate Monzon and Hopkins in the same ball park myself, but there's so many other old timers who maybe were way better, Ketchel and Greb, Zale, Cerdan etc, it's all so subjective.

Anyone though who reigns as long as Hopkins has, and has been so dominant, you have to figure would have been able to hold his own with anyone, win or lose. Aside from the fastest men in the division, the Ray Robinson's and the all round boxers like Hagler, I'd give hopkins a shot against most people.

it's all conjecture, but it's no good throwing your hands in the air and despairing about the current scene, we have to try and be objective and work out who the best in each division is, it's not always easy, but in the case of the middleweight division, it couldn't be easier.

>>>>>So what about Larry Holmes then, is he just a footnote in boxing history, he never unified the belts. <<<<<


No, Holmes beat the man who beat the man, which is the only way to determine who the real champion of any division is! In a situation where the true champion retires undefeated then in order to get a “true” champion, then the titles need to be unified! It’s not a knock against great fighters that just never had the fortune of unifying a title, it’s just the way that the true champion of any division should be recognized. The CBZ has, what is in my opinion, the very best list of “true” lineal champions! Roy Jones is a good example of this! At Light Heavyweight Jones had stacks of title belts, everything except the WBO, which I am not calling the WBO better than the rest because I think they all suck, but the man holding the WBO, and for a short time the WBA & IBF title was Dariusz Michalczewski. I’m a huge Jones fan, but due to the fact that he never beat DM, then he wasn’t the “true” light heavyweight champion, but DM wasn’t either!


>>>>>>You're missing an important difference here. Certain champions, whether they have all the belts or not, prove themselves to be the best of their era. Holmes did that, and so has Hopkins, unlike Joppy, who really at no time was considered the best middleweight in the world.<<<<<<<


True, several fighters do prove themselves to be the best of the class and for the most part it is not their fault that title are never unified; that fault is predominately caused by all of the sanctioning bullshit alphabet titles! It’s not a matter of what fans should think, it’s a matter of what should be in the record books for future generations. Hopkins is the “true” middleweight champion and rightly so!


>>>>>>It's an imperfect world, deal with it! You have to make an assessment based on a fighters tenure, his opposition and his fighting style as to how you think he would have done in other eras, and what his standing is overall.<<<<<


What I’m talking about has nothing to do with anyone’s worth as a fighter! It’s about who, or what a true champion is and what it takes to become the “true” champion. Due to all of these bullshit and upstart organizations the true meaning of the phrase “World Boxing Champion” has been greatly diminished because there are so many fighters, who would be lucky to be a true top ten contender if there were only one champion per division, can go around and call themselves a world champion because the WBA, IBF, WBC, WBO, WBU, WBB, IBA, IBC, IBU, NBA, WBF say’s so!


>>>>>>The alternative is the spurious road you're going down, which is to assume that anyone who fought in eras where there was only one or fewer belts, must therefore be better. I would rate Monzon and Hopkins in the same ball park myself, but there's so many other old timers who maybe were way better, Ketchel and Greb, Zale, Cerdan etc, it's all so subjective.<<<<,,


Although I do think that it is true, where did I mention that the old fighters are superior to current fighters. Like I already said, it has nothing to do with which fighter was better, which like you said is purely subjective and impossible to come up with a completely accurate list! But determining a true lineal, or linear world champ is not subjective and is based on stats instead of opinion!


>>>>>Anyone though who reigns as long as Hopkins has, and has been so dominant, you have to figure would have been able to hold his own with anyone, win or lose. Aside from the fastest men in the division, the Ray Robinson's and the all round boxers like Hagler, I'd give hopkins a shot against most people.<<<<<<

Hopkins, in my opinion, has been a very solid professional fighter. He is sound in what he does and accomplishes wins using brain more so than brawn! He could certainly hold his own with most greats, but I don’t think he is an all-time top ten!


>>>>>it's all conjecture, but it's no good throwing your hands in the air and despairing about the current scene, we have to try and be objective and work out who the best in each division is, it's not always easy, but in the case of the middleweight division, it couldn't be easier.<<<<<


You are correct in that it does no good just throwing hands up and bitching about the current state of boxing, but it is a start! This is what I think: Boxing would not only become more popular and successful if all of the alphabet soup titles were eliminated, but it would regain a lot of the respectability that it has lost over the last twenty-five years by having only one champion per division! Personally, I am in favor of just having the traditional eight weight classes, but seventeen divisions is something that I could live with if there were only seventeen world boxing champions, but as it is there are over 100 fighters that call themselves a world boxing champion; sixty-eight from the big four, WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO! That is ridiculous and it is killing boxing! It’s certainly not the only ill in boxing, but if that was taken care of, then a lot of other things would fall into place!

Holmes didn't beat the man who beat the man. He won the vacant title by beating Norton. If you're talking about him beating Ali, then that is ludicrous as Ali was a spent ghost.

The traditional weight classes would not work any more.

Imagine you merged Light welter and Welter, it just wouldn't work. Anyone between 136-147 lbs would be eligible to fight, imagine you had someone weighing 136 against Hatton weighing in at 154 lbs come fight night, it would be fornicating murder. I think the weigh classes needed to be changed, admittedly it has diluted the talent pool, but you cannot have such a huge range of weights fighting one another.

How many fighters would want to enter the ring at 136 against someone weighing 147 or more, answer, fornicate all.....it's not going to happen. The sport doesn't need people getting hammered to death because they are outweighed by 20lbs on fight night.

Holmes beating Ali did make him the man, just like when Ezzard Charles beat Joe Louis to become the "true" heavyweight champion! It doesn't mean shit how old, or past his prime Ali was, he never lost the title in the ring! Ali was champion when he announced his retirement in 1979! Of course Holmes had won the WBC title the previous year in 1978, a couple of months before Ali regained the "true" title back from Spinks and Holmes' title was a paper title until Ali came out of retirement in 1980 and Holmes dominated him and to think of the "true" champion anyway else is ludicrous!

Fighters are being outweighed as much as 20 lbs the way things are now, so the advent of all the jr. division don't really mean shit because very rarely is the person ever fighting at the actual weight that they are suppose to!

barry wrote:Holmes beating Ali did make him the man, just like when Ezzard Charles beat Joe Louis to become the "true" heavyweight champion! It doesn't mean shit how old, or past his prime Ali was, he never lost the title in the ring! Ali was champion when he announced his retirement in 1979! Of course Holmes had won the WBC title the previous year in 1978, a couple of months before Ali regained the "true" title back from Spinks and Holmes' title was a paper title until Ali came out of retirement in 1980 and Holmes dominated him and to think of the "true" champion anyway else is ludicrous!

Fighters are being outweighed as much as 20 lbs the way things are now, so the advent of all the jr. division don't really mean shit because very rarely is the person ever fighting at the actual weight that they are suppose to!

See, this just proves what bollocks this whole linear thing is. If beating Ali is the mark of being linear champion, then it's horseshit. Ali had been retired and out of the ring for over a year, so even if he had been champ, he would have been stripped of his title by then.

Ask fighters if they want the return of the traditional weight classes

I'm sorry Barry, but you're living in the past mate, the linear title might have worked back in the days when it was sorted in the ring, but by your reckoning, Graciano Rocchigiani is still the man at light heavyweight!

If a fighter retires, then he can no longer be regarded as the linear champion in my eyes. The linear champ means nothing to me anyhow, all I am intersted is who is THE BEST. It was clear going into his fight with Holmes, that Ali was no longer the best. Hell it was clear BEFORE that, when he lost to Spinks he was no longer then force in the heavyweight division. By then Ali was just an icon, he'd ceased to be the best heavyweight in the world some time ago. People acuse Lewis of hanging around, but Ali hung about until well past his best, holding the title up. Leon Spinks had no business being a world heavyweight title challenger and everybody knew it. For me, the minute he lost to Spinks, the game was up. Beating spinks in the rematch only confirmed how far he had slipped because he still had his hands full against a very mediocre opponent.

>>>>See, this just proves what bollocks this whole linear thing is. If beating Ali is the mark of being linear champion, then it's horseshit. Ali had been retired and out of the ring for over a year, so even if he had been champ, he would have been stripped of his title by then.<<<<

If that was the case then Kostya Tszyu should not be champion, after all, he was out just as long, if not longer than Ali!



>>>>I'm sorry Barry, but you're living in the past mate, the linear title might have worked back in the days when it was sorted in the ring, but by your reckoning, Graciano Rocchigiani is still the man at light heavyweight!<<<<


How am I living in the past? What you are saying in how a true champion should be proclaimed is entirely subjective, whereas the correct way to go about it, which I and every other top historian that I know it is solid! The man who beat the man is champion, always has been and always will be! I don’t know what, or where you read different, but you are in a very small percentage, very small! It’s doesn’t even qualify as horseshit and I certainly won’t waste any time trying to argue something that I absolutely know that I am right about! You probably hate Ali, which is fine, but the way that I laid it out is exactly how it goes, whether you like it, or not!


>>>>>If a fighter retires, then he can no longer be regarded as the linear champion in my eyes. The linear champ means nothing to me anyhow, all I am intersted is who is THE BEST. It was clear going into his fight with Holmes, that Ali was no longer the best. Hell it was clear BEFORE that, when he lost to Spinks he was no longer then force in the heavyweight division. By then Ali was just an icon, he'd ceased to be the best heavyweight in the world some time ago. People acuse Lewis of hanging around, but Ali hung about until well past his best, holding the title up. Leon Spinks had no business being a world heavyweight title challenger and everybody knew it. For me, the minute he lost to Spinks, the game was up. Beating spinks in the rematch only confirmed how far he had slipped because he still had his hands full against a very mediocre opponent.<<<<<

So Tszyu cannot be the true champion in your eyes! If that is so, then you will never be taken serious in your argument, by anyone!

Eastman is an idiot end of story. He doesnt deserve a rematch after his 'no show' last month. How on earth was he robbed?

His comments lately before and after the fight have been ridiculous.

Taylor or Sturm would beat him.

Anyone saying Eastman beats Trinidad needs to reconsider. They're leagues apart, Trinidad would beat up and stop Eastman in the middle rounds. Really dont see how Eastman can beat Tito thats just stupid talk.

I thought this thread was going to be about his tea cosy going missing from his LA hotel room, he hasn't been robbed in any fight I've seen....

Oh please.

It is like he is trying to paint John Ruiz with Bernard Hopkins.

barry wrote:>>>>See, this just proves what bollocks this whole linear thing is. If beating Ali is the mark of being linear champion, then it's horseshit. Ali had been retired and out of the ring for over a year, so even if he had been champ, he would have been stripped of his title by then.<<<<

If that was the case then Kostya Tszyu should not be champion, after all, he was out just as long, if not longer than Ali!



>>>>I'm sorry Barry, but you're living in the past mate, the linear title might have worked back in the days when it was sorted in the ring, but by your reckoning, Graciano Rocchigiani is still the man at light heavyweight!<<<<


How am I living in the past? What you are saying in how a true champion should be proclaimed is entirely subjective, whereas the correct way to go about it, which I and every other top historian that I know it is solid! The man who beat the man is champion, always has been and always will be! I don’t know what, or where you read different, but you are in a very small percentage, very small! It’s doesn’t even qualify as horseshit and I certainly won’t waste any time trying to argue something that I absolutely know that I am right about! You probably hate Ali, which is fine, but the way that I laid it out is exactly how it goes, whether you like it, or not!


>>>>>If a fighter retires, then he can no longer be regarded as the linear champion in my eyes. The linear champ means nothing to me anyhow, all I am intersted is who is THE BEST. It was clear going into his fight with Holmes, that Ali was no longer the best. Hell it was clear BEFORE that, when he lost to Spinks he was no longer then force in the heavyweight division. By then Ali was just an icon, he'd ceased to be the best heavyweight in the world some time ago. People acuse Lewis of hanging around, but Ali hung about until well past his best, holding the title up. Leon Spinks had no business being a world heavyweight title challenger and everybody knew it. For me, the minute he lost to Spinks, the game was up. Beating spinks in the rematch only confirmed how far he had slipped because he still had his hands full against a very mediocre opponent.<<<<<

So Tszyu cannot be the true champion in your eyes! If that is so, then you will never be taken serious in your argument, by anyone!

Tszyu never retired. He was injured, big difference. And when he came back he completely destroyed his #1 challenger. Next!?

I used to think that you had some sense pertaining to boxing, but you have just proven me very wrong with that idiotic response...no wonder you, bubi and J are such pals, you all think very much alike!

Fortunately your opinion doesn't carry anywhere near as much conviction as your overinflated opinion of yourself would have you believe.

Well good, then perhaps now you will quit reading every thread that I post, or respond to!

Even better, perhaps you will stop posting so I don't feel the need to respond to your endless gibbering nonsense.

I'll end it with this...there is good reason why you do not get paid for writing articles, whatever you tell yourself that helps you get to sleep better because of it, just keep doing so, because if most of your views are like what you think makes a real champion, then I'm certainly not the only person laughing at you, many, many more are...I'm just someone that doesn't care to expose ignorance when I see it! Take that however you want!

barry wrote:I'll end it with this...there is good reason why you do not get paid for writing articles, whatever you tell yourself that helps you get to sleep better because of it, just keep doing so, because if most of your views are like what you think makes a real champion, then I'm certainly not the only person laughing at you, many, many more are...I'm just someone that doesn't care to expose ignorance when I see it! Take that however you want!

Being totally objective I would stab a guess that most think you are a twat actually.

While the 'beat the man' arguments ave some merit, the idea that holmes beating Ali made holmes the man is ludicrous, it seems a crazy position to ry and defend. If Lewis came back in a couple of years and lost to Mirovic, by your logic that would make mirovic the best out there. I think the 'beat the man' thing has to take into account that at some point a fighter stops being the man even if they are not beaten.

Goz,
All I need to say to you is look at your name!


bugs,
Lewis would not come back to fight Mirovic...if he came back it would be to fight Vitali, why, because that is what a lot of people have been clamoring for, so that we can have a true heavyweight champion! If Lewis does not, then the only other way to do that would be to uniufy the ntitles!I'm not the first to say that! I've read thwe same thing from just about every credible writer that covers boxing! Ali did not come back to fight Tex Cobb, he came back to fight Holmes, mostly so that we could have a true champion! Unlike some, Ali, and many other "true" champions had a sense of tradition and understood what it really meant to be a true world boxing champion!

barry wrote:I'll end it with this...there is good reason why you do not get paid for writing articles, whatever you tell yourself that helps you get to sleep better because of it, just keep doing so, because if most of your views are like what you think makes a real champion, then I'm certainly not the only person laughing at you, many, many more are...I'm just someone that doesn't care to expose ignorance when I see it! Take that however you want!

I've finally lost patience with you mate, you are a tool of the highest order. So who do you write for mate?

For your information, I've had a piece published in Boxing News, so technically speaking my work is good enough to be published, paid for and read in a national magazine. The only magazine you're likely to ever appear in is pudenda Weekly, probably on the cover as 'pudendum of the year.'

Whether or not I get paid, I am good enough at what I do to be published at maxboxing, which is, in my opinion, and many others one of the best boxing websites out there. My opinion seems to be respected by quite a few people, including plenty of well known journalists who I've spoken to. However unlike you, I don't rate myself as the be all and end all authority on boxing.

You in contrast are a no-mark, and don't even command the respect of the people on this forum, in fact, you are probably shunned by your own family, no doubt for starting fights with your wife/sister at the dinner table during grace.

You seem to think you're some sort of fornicating authority on boxing, just because you contribute records to boxrec. Well I've not news for you mate, any stupid pudendum, which you are, can fish out records and post them on a site. You are the perfect example of what is known as a 'knows all, but knows fornicate all.' It's evident that most people here think you're a wanker, so why don't you just fornicate off back to the current scene where the retards probably worship you as a god?

I've spoken with many boxing historians in the past, including Hank Kaplan, and in fact used to be a contributor the cyberboxingzone, writing articles in their historical section. Unlike you those people were courteous, polite, knowledgable and were prepared to entertain the notion that just because they had been studying boxing for 50 years, that didn't mean they knew everything.

So carry on clinging to your linear title, and stick your head up your dumb redneck ass. You are definetly the linear, undisputed pound for pound king of assholes.

Well James I have been asked to write for several different websites, of which The Cyber Boxing Zone is the only site that I write for because unlike most others, the CBZ has a true feel for boxing tradition and what is right and wrong with boxing! As to you writing for max boxing, why don't you get some of the credible writers like Thomas Gerbasi, Michale Katz, Doug Fischer or Steve Kim and see who's logic of a true world champion they choose, your belief, or mine, or would you rather that I ask them for you! Also, lets see how many historians that you can find that would back up your opinion of what we have been discussing, or my opinion! I'll ask some of the historians that I collaborate with from the IBRO and CBZ and you can ask whoever!

As to being the know all, end all of boxing, I've never said that I was, just you and some of your buddies proclaim that after I make you look like the idiots that you are because you can't do anything other than insults, and I can't help what you, or someone else says! James, you and a few others are very outspoken in your opinions, more so than me, but when someone questions your opinion, or shows it for the bollux that it really is, well you cannot handle that and then resort to name calling and insults which shows just how mature you really are! After all, I don't resort to name calling until you or someone else does, but it's not even necessary in this post to you, because you've done all of the work yourself! You can say all you want about me, but I'm certainly no hypocrite like you and some other of your buddies! I'm sorry that I wounded your fragile little ego and hope in the future that your panties don't get to wrinkled when someone challenges your opinions!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

barry wrote:The only magazine you're likely to ever appear in is pudenda Weekly, probably on the cover as 'pudendum of the year.'

I buy that magazine, and I have to say I would be very disappointed to see a guy on the cover...