BoxRec

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:A agree that Jones was the better fighter and probably would have won a had they fought. however, tot hink that Jones would have won 100 times out 100 is just silly. At the very least DM would have had a punchers chance.
Jones should have been screaming for a fight wioth DM; it was the only challenge for him in the lightheavyweight division. The divison was very weak outside of Jones and DM. Instead we were treated to mismatch after mismatch against one incompetent opponent after another. There are many lightheavyweights throughout history who would have easily beaten the lightheavyweight opponents that Jones did.

It's true that DM didn't seem eager to fight Jones either. Still some of the blame has to go to Jones. If he really wanted this fight to happen it would have. If he was that much better than DM, he should have been willing to fight in Germany. An fight with DM would have given us a better idea of just how good Jones really was.

I don't know. Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill, Lou del Valle, Clinton Woods, Julio Gonzales -- these names would look good on anyone's resumee. People are a bit harsh with RJJ here. Isn't the truth rather that prime RJJ was so good that almost any opponent would look incompetent against him? I reckon prime RJJ would have boxed off DM's ears too, even though DM was the clear #2.

MCallum was a great Jr Middleweight, but he was an old and way out of his best weight class when Jones beat him. Hill was also past his prime and really was that great even when he was in his prime. The rest of the guys weren't that good. This was one of the weakest eras in the history of the lightheavyweight division. A lot of lightheavyweights in other eras would have dominated these guys. It's easy to look great when your competition is that bad.
For years DM was the only decent opponent out there for Jones.

I edited the wiki page about Michalczewski-Hill bout and the IBF title issue, added information from several sources from 1997. This should clear up some things.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:A agree that Jones was the better fighter and probably would have won a had they fought. however, tot hink that Jones would have won 100 times out 100 is just silly. At the very least DM would have had a punchers chance.
Jones should have been screaming for a fight wioth DM; it was the only challenge for him in the lightheavyweight division. The divison was very weak outside of Jones and DM. Instead we were treated to mismatch after mismatch against one incompetent opponent after another. There are many lightheavyweights throughout history who would have easily beaten the lightheavyweight opponents that Jones did.

It's true that DM didn't seem eager to fight Jones either. Still some of the blame has to go to Jones. If he really wanted this fight to happen it would have. If he was that much better than DM, he should have been willing to fight in Germany. An fight with DM would have given us a better idea of just how good Jones really was.

I don't know. Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill, Lou del Valle, Clinton Woods, Julio Gonzales -- these names would look good on anyone's resumee. People are a bit harsh with RJJ here. Isn't the truth rather that prime RJJ was so good that almost any opponent would look incompetent against him? I reckon prime RJJ would have boxed off DM's ears too, even though DM was the clear #2.

MCallum was a great Jr Middleweight, but he was an old and way out of his best weight class when Jones beat him. Hill was also past his prime and really was that great even when he was in his prime. The rest of the guys weren't that good. This was one of the weakest eras in the history of the lightheavyweight division. A lot of lightheavyweights in other eras would have dominated these guys. It's easy to look great when your competition is that bad.
For years DM was the only decent opponent out there for Jones.

Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson, Eric Harding were "decent oponents". In fact, DM's own resumee is basically built on beating three fighters: Griffin, Hill, and Graciano Rocchigiani. If Griffin, Hill plus one can elevate DM to ATG status, Griffin, Hill, plus 2 or 3 can certainly establish a pretty decent l-h record for RJJ.

Besides, even DM wouldn't have added that much to RJJ's overall resumee. Toney or Hopkins are bigger names. Sure, these achievements were at 168 and 160, but that doesn't make them any less significant.

I guess you want to see a name on RJJ l-h record that would compare to Archie Moore for Ezzard Charles or to Harry Greb for Gene Tunney. Sure, this kind of opponent wasn't around when RJJ was at 175 -- but neither with nor without DM.

barry wrote:>>>Sorry, barry, but it was the other way round. DM held three belts but each federation wanted him to fight a different opponent, the WBA within 6 (!) weeks. DM (and therefore a RJJ-DM matchup) fell victim to boxing politics, the IBF and (especially) WBA thought DM as title holder wouldn't sell.<<<

The WBO has only came to be considered along-side the WBA, WBC and IBF during the past few years...When DM fought Hill the WBO was considered like the WBU is considered today. And the orgs did not want him to fight within six weeks, they just wanted him to make the matches within six weeks...he could have fought a half a year later...all they wanted was for DM to make the fights, which he decided not to and dumped the two "respectable" belts for the lowly WBO. The WBC was still out there, it was ignored, but there was still a champion who had just as much right to be called champ as Hill, or DM did. The fact that the WBC was ignored throws a wrench in any lineal claim. It's like Calzaghe and Kessler today...neither man is the actual lineal champion and neither man will be unless they fight. Same goes back when DM and Hill fought. DM had a little better claim than the WBC champion, but to fairly be the true lineal champ DM would have had to beat the WBC champion, who at the time was I believe Tiozzo, which he didn't beat the WBC champ...in fact Tiozzo stopped DM later on in they're careers!

You could also argue that Jones couldn't be called the linear light heavyweight champion without going through Dariusz because Dariusz was the rightful WBA and IBF champion, and any other fighter who held the title after him without beating him is merely a paper champion. I don't take winning all the titles into account, for me if the linear title is vacant and the top two guys in the division fight each other (Hill and Maske when they fought), then the winner is the true champion. Jones was the best light heavyweight in the world, but he never beat the champion, and he can't possibly have any claim to the linear title without going through Dariusz.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote: I don't know. Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill, Lou del Valle, Clinton Woods, Julio Gonzales -- these names would look good on anyone's resumee. People are a bit harsh with RJJ here. Isn't the truth rather that prime RJJ was so good that almost any opponent would look incompetent against him? I reckon prime RJJ would have boxed off DM's ears too, even though DM was the clear #2.

MCallum was a great Jr Middleweight, but he was an old and way out of his best weight class when Jones beat him. Hill was also past his prime and really was that great even when he was in his prime. The rest of the guys weren't that good. This was one of the weakest eras in the history of the lightheavyweight division. A lot of lightheavyweights in other eras would have dominated these guys. It's easy to look great when your competition is that bad.
For years DM was the only decent opponent out there for Jones.

Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson, Eric Harding were "decent oponents". In fact, DM's own resumee is basically built on beating three fighters: Griffin, Hill, and Graciano Rocchigiani. If Griffin, Hill plus one can elevate DM to ATG status, Griffin, Hill, plus 2 or 3 can certainly establish a pretty decent l-h record for RJJ.

Besides, even DM wouldn't have added that much to RJJ's overall resumee. Toney or Hopkins are bigger names. Sure, these achievements were at 168 and 160, but that doesn't make them any less significant.

I guess you want to see a name on RJJ l-h record that would compare to Archie Moore for Ezzard Charles or to Harry Greb for Gene Tunney. Sure, this kind of opponent wasn't around when RJJ was at 175 -- but neither with nor without DM.

I'm not blaming Jones for not fighting an Archie Moore or someone out there because there wasn't out like that for him to fight. However, he should have fought and he had plenty of time to do it.

DM wasn't an ATG but he certainly showed that he was much better than the other lightheavyweights of the time. Griffin, a past his prime Hill, Johnson, Harding etc. would not have been considered contenders in many other eras.

The wins over Toney and Hopkins are nice wins (though overblown) when rating Jones on pound for pound basis. They shouldn't be considered at all when rating Jones as a lightheavyweight.

Had Jones fought DM and won impressively, I and others would have more respect for him.

Ambling Alp wrote: I'm not blaming Jones for not fighting an Archie Moore or someone out there because there wasn't out like that for him to fight. However, he should have fought and he had plenty of time to do it.

DM wasn't an ATG but he certainly showed that he was much better than the other lightheavyweights of the time. Griffin, a past his prime Hill, Johnson, Harding etc. would not have been considered contenders in many other eras.

The wins over Toney and Hopkins are nice wins (though overblown) when rating Jones on pound for pound basis. They shouldn't be considered at all when rating Jones as a lightheavyweight.

I disagree with this. It's nonsensical to split a fighter's career depending on whether he carried a few pounds or not. This is like Brockton rating Tunney lowly at both heavyweight and light-heavyweight 'cause he only considers Tunney's careers at either weight and compares this with full careers of other fighters, even thouhg Tunney was near unbeatable at either weight class. This is the defintnion of rating bias -- it's even worse, you punish a fighter for stepping and suceeding at several weight classes rather than recoginzing this as the extraordinary feat it is.

The proper approach imo can only be: settle for one weight at which you want to list a fighter, and then consider his entire career. I listr RJJ as al -h, and of course the Toney and Hopkins wins matter for his rating.

Had Jones fought DM and won impressively, I and others would have more respect for him.

Again, a win over DM would surely have been nice, but in the end it wouldn't have added terribly much to RJJ's overall career.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: I'm not blaming Jones for not fighting an Archie Moore or someone out there because there wasn't out like that for him to fight. However, he should have fought and he had plenty of time to do it.

DM wasn't an ATG but he certainly showed that he was much better than the other lightheavyweights of the time. Griffin, a past his prime Hill, Johnson, Harding etc. would not have been considered contenders in many other eras.

The wins over Toney and Hopkins are nice wins (though overblown) when rating Jones on pound for pound basis. They shouldn't be considered at all when rating Jones as a lightheavyweight.

I disagree with this. It's nonsensical to split a fighter's career depending on whether he carried a few pounds or not. This is like Brockton rating Tunney lowly at both heavyweight and light-heavyweight 'cause he only considers Tunney's careers at either weight and compares this with full careers of other fighters, even thouhg Tunney was near unbeatable at either weight class. This is the defintnion of rating bias -- it's even worse, you punish a fighter for stepping and suceeding at several weight classes rather than recoginzing this as the extraordinary feat it is.

The proper approach imo can only be: settle for one weight at which you want to list a fighter, and then consider his entire career. I listr RJJ as al -h, and of course the Toney and Hopkins wins matter for his rating.

Had Jones fought DM and won impressively, I and others would have more respect for him.

Again, a win over DM would surely have been nice, but in the end it wouldn't have added terribly much to RJJ's overall career.

The funny thing is, Roy was probably one of the best 168 pounders ever, but he only stayed for like 6 fights. He was absolutely fantastic to watch at that level. However, he would never get rated as a SMW.

Mattyp151 wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: I'm not blaming Jones for not fighting an Archie Moore or someone out there because there wasn't out like that for him to fight. However, he should have fought and he had plenty of time to do it.

DM wasn't an ATG but he certainly showed that he was much better than the other lightheavyweights of the time. Griffin, a past his prime Hill, Johnson, Harding etc. would not have been considered contenders in many other eras.

The wins over Toney and Hopkins are nice wins (though overblown) when rating Jones on pound for pound basis. They shouldn't be considered at all when rating Jones as a lightheavyweight.

I disagree with this. It's nonsensical to split a fighter's career depending on whether he carried a few pounds or not. This is like Brockton rating Tunney lowly at both heavyweight and light-heavyweight 'cause he only considers Tunney's careers at either weight and compares this with full careers of other fighters, even thouhg Tunney was near unbeatable at either weight class. This is the defintnion of rating bias -- it's even worse, you punish a fighter for stepping and suceeding at several weight classes rather than recoginzing this as the extraordinary feat it is.

The proper approach imo can only be: settle for one weight at which you want to list a fighter, and then consider his entire career. I listr RJJ as al -h, and of course the Toney and Hopkins wins matter for his rating.

Had Jones fought DM and won impressively, I and others would have more respect for him.

Again, a win over DM would surely have been nice, but in the end it wouldn't have added terribly much to RJJ's overall career.

The funny thing is, Roy was probably one of the best 168 pounders ever, but he only stayed for like 6 fights. He was absolutely fantastic to watch at that level. However, he would never get rated as a SMW.

Here you go.

pundit wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

pundit wrote: I disagree with this. It's nonsensical to split a fighter's career depending on whether he carried a few pounds or not. This is like Brockton rating Tunney lowly at both heavyweight and light-heavyweight 'cause he only considers Tunney's careers at either weight and compares this with full careers of other fighters, even thouhg Tunney was near unbeatable at either weight class. This is the defintnion of rating bias -- it's even worse, you punish a fighter for stepping and suceeding at several weight classes rather than recoginzing this as the extraordinary feat it is.

The proper approach imo can only be: settle for one weight at which you want to list a fighter, and then consider his entire career. I listr RJJ as al -h, and of course the Toney and Hopkins wins matter for his rating.
Again, a win over DM would surely have been nice, but in the end it wouldn't have added terribly much to RJJ's overall career.

The funny thing is, Roy was probably one of the best 168 pounders ever, but he only stayed for like 6 fights. He was absolutely fantastic to watch at that level. However, he would never get rated as a SMW.

Here you go.

?

Mattyp151 wrote:

pundit wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote: The funny thing is, Roy was probably one of the best 168 pounders ever, but he only stayed for like 6 fights. He was absolutely fantastic to watch at that level. However, he would never get rated as a SMW.

Here you go.

?

Believe it or not, but I agreed with you.

pundit wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

pundit wrote: Here you go.

?

Believe it or not, but I agreed with you.

Haha, it had to happen some point in the past two days.

But you're right, splitting peoples career up based on weight class is a way to skew results without technically adding personal bias into it.

Not many fighters stick to one weight...

Hopkins and Calzaghe are two of the names that come right out, but even Bernard is talking about moving up to heavyweight for a crack at a title. Taking into consideration he spent the large majority of his career at 160, that is something that needs to be commended.

If you take weight jumping by itself, guys like James Toney and Oscar De La Hoya never ever would get the recognition they truly deserve in the grand scheme of things. These are two guys who had large success at pretty much every weight they fought at (both were lacking at the heaviest weights by comparison). Guys like Mayweather, who made his name at 130, became a star at 135, and became p4p at 140, is looking to become "the man" at 147 in November....where do you rate him, and how would you rate each stage of his career in itself? You can't.

When rating a certain weight class, you should rate a fighter by what he did at that weight class. What he did at other weight classes should not count. This is basic logic. I don't understand why you guys would disagree with this.

If you are going to count Jones' wins over Hopkins (which was at 160) and over Toney (which was at 168) toward how you rate him at lightheavyweight, you have to do that with everybody.

When rating heavyweights, do you take into consideration what Evander Holyfield did at Cruiserweight? If you do, you would have to rate Holyfield extremely high at heavyweight, certainly top 5, which is higher than most people would rate him.
Do you really count Michael Spinks' loss to Tyson when ranking Spinks at lightheavyweight?
Do you really factor in Leonard's win over Hagler when rating Leonard at welterweight?

I don't mean these to be rhetorical questions. I would like you guys to answer them.


It may seem unfair to guys who don't stay around long at a weight class, but that is simply the way it has to be. (Incidentally, Tunney did enough at lightheavyweight to be in the top 5 and at heavyweight to be top 15) If a fighter only has a few fights at a given weight class, it has to count against him at that weight class because he didn't fight a variety of top opponents at that weight class. Most fighters are better at certain weight classes than they are at others. A fighter like Thomas Hearns for example, should be rated differently depending on which weight he fought at.
It's different if you are making a list of all time great fighters including all weight classes. Then you should consider the entire body of work of fighter.

Decagon wrote:When Hill defended against Michalczewski with only six weeks left before he was mandated a title shot, Guthrie sued the IBF, and a judge decided that no matter what, Guthrie would be fighting for the IBF title at the given time.

Not quite correct. As I pointed out at wiki, Guthrie sued them several months prior to Hill-Michalczewski fight actually taking place, the ruling was issued 3 months prior to the fight. It was the judge who set up a deadline of July 19, not the IBF.

Ambling Alp wrote:When rating a certain weight class, you should rate a fighter by what he did at that weight class. What he did at other weight classes should not count. This is basic logic. I don't understand why you guys would disagree with this.

This is not "basic logic". This is one way to rate fighters, and a biased one. This is why I disagree.

It may seem unfair to guys who don't stay around long at a weight class, but that is simply the way it has to be.

It neither has to nor should it be this way.

Alp, would you hold it against Bernard Hopkins if he went after the top guy at light heavyweight and won, and then went and beat 1 of the 4 heavyweight champions....

He didn't fight a variety of opponents, but he was efficient with who he fought, you can't NOT mention that when talking Bernard Hopkins, just like you can't NOT mention Jones Jr's domination of Ruiz. Also, you can't discount Roy's work, expecially his fight where he blew out Toney, because he spent the majority of his career at 175. It's just wrong and gives the ability to skew results against fighters you may not have liked.

Ambling Alp wrote:When rating a certain weight class, you should rate a fighter by what he did at that weight class. What he did at other weight classes should not count. This is basic logic. I don't understand why you guys would disagree with this.

If you are going to count Jones' wins over Hopkins (which was at 160) and over Toney (which was at 168) toward how you rate him at lightheavyweight, you have to do that with everybody.

When rating heavyweights, do you take into consideration what Evander Holyfield did at Cruiserweight? If you do, you would have to rate Holyfield extremely high at heavyweight, certainly top 5, which is higher than most people would rate him.
Do you really count Michael Spinks' loss to Tyson when ranking Spinks at lightheavyweight?
Do you really factor in Leonard's win over Hagler when rating Leonard at welterweight?

I don't mean these to be rhetorical questions. I would like you guys to answer them.


It may seem unfair to guys who don't stay around long at a weight class, but that is simply the way it has to be. (Incidentally, Tunney did enough at lightheavyweight to be in the top 5 and at heavyweight to be top 15) If a fighter only has a few fights at a given weight class, it has to count against him at that weight class because he didn't fight a variety of top opponents at that weight class. Most fighters are better at certain weight classes than they are at others. A fighter like Thomas Hearns for example, should be rated differently depending on which weight he fought at.
It's different if you are making a list of all time great fighters including all weight classes. Then you should consider the entire body of work of fighter.

Alp

I'm basically in agreement with you but there are a few grey areas for me.

If 1 of the many reasons you rate a guy highly at say 147 is because of his durability then if he does not get stopped at 160 or 168 or 175 then surely that shows just how durable he would have been at 147. So when ranking Mickey Walker as a welter I take into account his fights at 147. His achievements at higher weights don't really count but the fact that he was only stopped when he met top notch Heavies tells me that I can be pretty sure that nobody at 147 will stop him.

Does this make sense?

Those were exact quotes from Sunday Mail and The People.

Matty,
No I don't hold it against Hopkins that he won the lightheavyweight title. I just don't factor it in when rating Hopkins as a middleweight.
Whether he wins the heavyweight tiel or not, it's not relevant to how good of a middleweight he was.
This had nothing to do with whether I like a certain fighter or not. I like Tommy Herans and I rate him the same way.

Pundit,
I would expect you guys to agree with me on. I have never known anyone who doesn't. It's just common sense. When rating a lightheavyweight, you consider what he did at lightheavyweight, not at a different weight class.

I will ask you guys again to answer these questions:
Do you really consider Holyfield's Crusierweight career when rating heavweights?
Do you really count Michel Spinks loss against Tyson when rating lightheavyweights?
Does Leonard's win over Hagler count when you rate welterweights?

Here are a couple more:
Archie Moore was a much better lightheavyweight than middleweight. However, when rating him at lightheavyweight, do you guys really count all his losses at middleweight? this would include not just Charlie Burley, Jack Chase, and Shorty hogue, but also Billy Adams, Johnny romero, and Aaron Wade.
If you do, how can Moore be even in the top 10 lightheavyweights of all time?

When rating lightheavyweights, do you really count Tommy Hearns wins over Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez at Jr Middleweight?

Ezzard- I do agree that as most things, there are gray areas, but as a rule of thumb when rating a fighter at a certain weight you should only count what the fighter did at that weight.

Often a fighter will be better at one weight than another. If you are counting all of a given fighter's fights in other weights, than you have to conclude that a fighter was exactly the same at each weight, which is often not the case. eg- Tommy Hearns would have to the same at welterweight and lightheavyweight since we are always factoring in all of his fights when determing how good of a welterweight he was and how good of lightheavyweight he was. Common sense will tell you that Hearns was much better at Welterweight.

Pundit and Matty,
I really do want you guys to answer the questions that I asked this time.

If Jones beat Dariusz no one would've remembered. It was still the weakest light heavyweight division in about 100 years.

I will ask you guys again to answer these questions:
Do you really consider Holyfield's Crusierweight career when rating heavweights?
Do you really count Michel Spinks loss against Tyson when rating lightheavyweights?
Does Leonard's win over Hagler count when you rate welterweights?

Yes. It is part of their record, their history. Would I rate Spinks down because he lost to Tyson, a lifer at heavyweight? If he lasted more than 91 seconds, no. Would I rate Leonard a little higher because of his ability to jump and get a W against Hagler? Yes. Each situation demands particular attention. You can't generalize a basic list from the way you look at it just at face value. You can't say a fighter is a bad heavyweight because he lost to Tyson. You could maybe he was better off at LHW because he showed he didn't belong with the top guns and got blown out. But either way, every fight has to effect the rating of a fighter. Just because a guy doesn't spend life at one division doesn't mean he should be penalized at the one he is known for.

Here's a question for you to question your logic....

Where would you rate De La Hoya and Mayweather Jr?

I'm very sceptical about RJJ.

The steroid issue has always bugged me with him.

He got off quite lightly IMO.

Ambling Alp wrote: I will ask you guys again to answer these questions:
Do you really consider Holyfield's Crusierweight career when rating heavweights?
Do you really count Michel Spinks loss against Tyson when rating lightheavyweights?
Does Leonard's win over Hagler count when you rate welterweights?

etc etc.

The short answer: yes, yes, yes.

A bit more detail is warranted though: what a man did at a lower weight classes rarely lifts his rating at a higher weight-class very much -- hence I don't really rate Holy higher as a heavyweight because he was a superb Cruiser champ. But for his rating at Cruiser -- boy of course it counts that he didn not only dominate this division but was able to mix with the very best of the really big guys too.

Same with the other examples. Spinks loss to Tyson doesn't hurt him for the l-h rating -- after all what natural l-h weight would not have lost to Tyson. But Leonard's win over Hagler does very much elevate him, setting him apart fom weltwerweights who were great at 147 but never stepped, up such as Napoles.

The trickiest case you bring up is Archie Moore. No, his middlweight losses don't reduce his 5 ATG light-heavyweight rating. But this has nothing to to with 160/175. It's because when I rate fighters I look mostly at their primes, not at the fights when they were greenhorns or over the hill. Had Moore had these losses at 175 early in his career, it wouldn't diminuish his l-h status either.

Cheers,
P

Mattyp151 wrote:

I will ask you guys again to answer these questions:
Do you really consider Holyfield's Crusierweight career when rating heavweights?
Do you really count Michel Spinks loss against Tyson when rating lightheavyweights?
Does Leonard's win over Hagler count when you rate welterweights?

Yes. It is part of their record, their history. Would I rate Spinks down because he lost to Tyson, a lifer at heavyweight? If he lasted more than 91 seconds, no. Would I rate Leonard a little higher because of his ability to jump and get a W against Hagler? Yes. Each situation demands particular attention. You can't generalize a basic list from the way you look at it just at face value. You can't say a fighter is a bad heavyweight because he lost to Tyson. You could maybe he was better off at LHW because he showed he didn't belong with the top guns and got blown out. But either way, every fight has to effect the rating of a fighter. Just because a guy doesn't spend life at one division doesn't mean he should be penalized at the one he is known for.

Here's a question for you to question your logic....

Where would you rate De La Hoya and Mayweather Jr?

I will answer your question first.
I rate De La Hoya at #17 at welterweight and #20 at lightweight. I have Mayweather at #38 at lightweight. I don't rate him at welterweight yet because he has only defeated two welterweight fights so far.

Since you are taking into considerations Holyfields career at heavyweight, you must have him what #3 or # 4 all time at heavyweight?
Why would Spinks fight with Tyson count when rating him as a lightheavyweight? He was a much different fighter at 212 then he was at 175.
What do you have Leonard at welterweight? No other welterweight beat anyone as good as Hagler.

I understand to a point that everytime a fighter steps into the ring it has to count for something. If you are just rating fighters in all weight classes then for example Spinks performance against Tyson should be factored in.
I guess my main point is that often a fighter just isn't the same fighter at one weight class as another.
Take Tommy Hearns. At welterweight and Jr Middle his power seemed awesome. However, as moved up in weight class, his power had less and less effect on his opponents. His didn't have the big height and reach advantages at lightheavy that he had at Welter and Jr Middle.
However, if we are supposed to count every performance of his career when rating him at lightheavy, we are supposed to think that he still had those advantages, when he wouldn't. The punches that crushed Cuevas and Duran didn't have that effect on lightheavyweights.

A fighter has to prove himself at each weight class to be considered great at that weight class. The more fights against quality opponents the better.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: I will ask you guys again to answer these questions:
Do you really consider Holyfield's Crusierweight career when rating heavweights?
Do you really count Michel Spinks loss against Tyson when rating lightheavyweights?
Does Leonard's win over Hagler count when you rate welterweights?

etc etc.

The short answer: yes, yes, yes.

A bit more detail is warranted though: what a man did at a lower weight classes rarely lifts his rating at a higher weight-class very much -- hence I don't really rate Holy higher as a heavyweight because he was a superb Cruiser champ. But for his rating at Cruiser -- boy of course it counts that he didn not only dominate this division but was able to mix with the very best of the really big guys too.

Same with the other examples. Spinks loss to Tyson doesn't hurt him for the l-h rating -- after all what natural l-h weight would not have lost to Tyson. But Leonard's win over Hagler does very much elevate him, setting him apart fom weltwerweights who were great at 147 but never stepped, up such as Napoles.

The trickiest case you bring up is Archie Moore. No, his middlweight losses don't reduce his 5 ATG light-heavyweight rating. But this has nothing to to with 160/175. It's because when I rate fighters I look mostly at their primes, not at the fights when they were greenhorns or over the hill. Had Moore had these losses at 175 early in his career, it wouldn't diminuish his l-h status either.

Cheers,
P

I don't understand your thinking Pundit.
You kept saying that fights in other weight classes should count when rating a fighter at a specific weight. (Which I strongly disagree with)
You gave credit to Jones for beating Hopkins at middleweight and Toney at Super Middle when rating Jones as a light-heavyweight.
You count Tunney's wins over light-heavies when rating him as a heavyweight.
However, you don't count Holyfield's career at Cruiser when rating him at heavyweight?! That makes no sense.

As for Archie Moore, he wasn't always a greenhorn when he lost at middleweight. I suppose you could throw out his 18th fight when he lost to Billy Adams, who was in his 2nd fight. I suppose you could also be generous and not count his loss to Johhny Romero in his 27th fight. However, you have to count his other losses at middleweight. He was in 55th fight when he lost to Shorty Hogue, and even had more experience when he lost to Aaron Wade,Charlie Burley and Jack Chase. If you count these losses, then it's hard to amke a case that Moore should be in the top 10 all time as a lightheavyweight.

I don't consider Moore's losses at middleweight when rating him as a lightheavyweight. He was simply much better as a lightheavyweight. Some guys are better at a higher weight, and some aren't.
Therefore I do rank Moore as one of the best lightheavyweights ever.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: I will ask you guys again to answer these questions:
Do you really consider Holyfield's Crusierweight career when rating heavweights?
Do you really count Michel Spinks loss against Tyson when rating lightheavyweights?
Does Leonard's win over Hagler count when you rate welterweights?

etc etc.

The short answer: yes, yes, yes.

A bit more detail is warranted though: what a man did at a lower weight classes rarely lifts his rating at a higher weight-class very much -- hence I don't really rate Holy higher as a heavyweight because he was a superb Cruiser champ. But for his rating at Cruiser -- boy of course it counts that he didn not only dominate this division but was able to mix with the very best of the really big guys too.

Same with the other examples. Spinks loss to Tyson doesn't hurt him for the l-h rating -- after all what natural l-h weight would not have lost to Tyson. But Leonard's win over Hagler does very much elevate him, setting him apart fom weltwerweights who were great at 147 but never stepped, up such as Napoles.

The trickiest case you bring up is Archie Moore. No, his middlweight losses don't reduce his 5 ATG light-heavyweight rating. But this has nothing to to with 160/175. It's because when I rate fighters I look mostly at their primes, not at the fights when they were greenhorns or over the hill. Had Moore had these losses at 175 early in his career, it wouldn't diminuish his l-h status either.

Cheers,
P

I don't understand your thinking Pundit.
You kept saying that fights in other weight classes should count when rating a fighter at a specific weight. (Which I strongly disagree with)
You gave credit to Jones for beating Hopkins at middleweight and Toney at Super Middle when rating Jones as a light-heavyweight.
You count Tunney's wins over light-heavies when rating him as a heavyweight.
However, you don't count Holyfield's career at Cruiser when rating him at heavyweight?! That makes no sense.

OK, you force me to be more concise than I really want...

I do count Holy's cruiser wins for his heavy rating but they simply don't add much -- it doesn't get better than beating Bowe and Tyson.

In contrast, RJJ's career at l-h isn't littered with highlights, as you rightly say. Hence in his case the Toney and Hopkins wins at lower weightclasses do add something.

I'm not saying I ahve it worked out perfectly, but the resulting glitches are certainly smaller than rating fighters gbased on half-careers or even smaller fractions.

As for Archie Moore, he wasn't always a greenhorn when he lost at middleweight. I suppose you could throw out his 18th fight when he lost to Billy Adams, who was in his 2nd fight. I suppose you could also be generous and not count his loss to Johhny Romero in his 27th fight. However, you have to count his other losses at middleweight. He was in 55th fight when he lost to Shorty Hogue, and even had more experience when he lost to Aaron Wade,Charlie Burley and Jack Chase. If you count these losses, then it's hard to amke a case that Moore should be in the top 10 all time as a lightheavyweight.

I don't consider Moore's losses at middleweight when rating him as a lightheavyweight. He was simply much better as a lightheavyweight. Some guys are better at a higher weight, and some aren't.
Therefore I do rank Moore as one of the best lightheavyweights ever.

I don't consider these fights because Moore wasn't in his prime, independent of the weight class.