Gonzalez takes Erdei rematch on 5 weeks notice

[Axe]

getting held to a draw by a scrub like rayco saunders is apparently how santiago got his title shot...rayco's biggest claim to fame was being shown on the front page of USA TODAY as the poster boy for the "dont snitch" movement started up by gangbangers, drug dealers & other ghetto predators to convince local folks not to testify in criminal cases that target their law-breaking "homeboys" in the 'hood!!

Rayco may have made some mistakes outside of the ring but inside it he was a very good figther when in shape (which wasn't until his last 2 fights). Fighting 200 lb guys is difficult for a natural Lightheavy. He was a solid boxer on the national/fringe-world level.

Of course, he should get blown out by the elite at the weight, and thus showed us that Santiago is more than just a little ways from being a top Lightheavy.

(For a prospect like Chris Henry though, the Saunders fight was a particularly nice win, especially since it came right after the controversial Santiago draw.)

[Blue]

They continue to throw him into eliminators when he's not done anything since the first fight with Erdei.

Beating Montell Griffin is a better comp than anything I see on Adamek’s record.
Once a boxer has earned top level he should not be dropped for losing to a
higher rated contender just to make room for a new face who beat a new face.
Especially by so called “experts” using any subjective criteria. Accomplishments
are what counts, if U want a guy out of the top ten, then make a fight with him
& your boxer so he can try to take his place.

Mind you, Woods could hardly complain if Gonzalez was recycled. Clinton sat at the top of the IBF rankings for a fair old while.

That's a fair point. It's like being stuck in a bloody loop at lightheavy at the moment. The sooner some of the younger fighters come through to title level the better.

That “bloody loop” is called top contenders. Hopkins, Tarver, Woods, Johnson,
Jones, Erdei, and Gonzalez, have accomplished victories over a champion or top
recognized fighter in the past 3 years.
There is no objective evidence to support rating any one else above the “bloody loop”.

[glittermonkey]

They continue to throw him into eliminators when he's not done anything since the first fight with Erdei.

Beating Montell Griffin is a better comp than anything I see on Adamek’s record.
Once a boxer has earned top level he should not be dropped for losing to a
higher rated contender just to make room for a new face who beat a new face.
Especially by so called “experts” using any subjective criteria. Accomplishments
are what counts, if U want a guy out of the top ten, then make a fight with him
& your boxer so he can try to take his place.

Losing eliminators and title fights should not automatically get you another eliminator or title shot straight away. Gonzalez had his shot after beating Griffin. After losing against Woods he goes straight into another eliminator for the same title? Against a man who was also beaten by Woods, and who's last three opponents before his eliminator had lost 25 fights? Give me a break. Once you've got the ranking you have to fight to stay there, you can't just beat a journeyman, lose against the man above you, beat a journeyman, lose against the man above you......etc. It should not be a case of beating the guy above you on the ladder to take his place if all he's doing is either losing against a champ, or else just marking time 'till the next time he gets turned over by the man at the top. If we followed logic like yours, all we'd get is the same fights between old men over and over again.

Mind you, Woods could hardly complain if Gonzalez was recycled. Clinton sat at the top of the IBF rankings for a fair old while.

That's a fair point. It's like being stuck in a bloody loop at lightheavy at the moment. The sooner some of the younger fighters come through to title level the better.

That “bloody loop” is called top contenders. Hopkins, Tarver, Woods, Johnson,
Jones, Erdei, and Gonzalez, have accomplished victories over a champion or top
recognized fighter in the past 3 years.
There is no objective evidence to support rating any one else above the “bloody loop”.

No, and there never will be while people like you clamour for the next Erdei/Gonzalez match-up. That "bloody loop" is just stagnation. A group of old men, all past their best by a good margin, fighting each other, helped by the governing bodies to exclude anyone on the outside who looks remotely dangerous (or less than marketable), is not the best thing for the division. The best thing for the division is younger, more hungry fighters like Adamek and Dawson up against each other, because none of the men you named want to chance their arm against anyone outside the clique at the top of light heavyweight.

And don't spout out that "top contenders" crap. I think we've all seen enough of those men to judge whether or not they each deserve more tilts at one of the titles.

Anyway, the argument is academic as it looks like Gonzalez is off the menu.

[shoutout]

getting held to a draw by a scrub like rayco saunders is apparently how santiago got his title shot...rayco's biggest claim to fame was being shown on the front page of USA TODAY as the poster boy for the "dont snitch" movement started up by gangbangers, drug dealers & other ghetto predators to convince local folks not to testify in criminal cases that target their law-breaking "homeboys" in the 'hood!!

Rayco may have made some mistakes outside of the ring but inside it he was a very good figther when in shape (which wasn't until his last 2 fights). Fighting 200 lb guys is difficult for a natural Lightheavy. He was a solid boxer on the national/fringe-world level.

Of course, he should get blown out by the elite at the weight, and thus showed us that Santiago is more than just a little ways from being a top Lightheavy.

(For a prospect like Chris Henry though, the Saunders fight was a particularly nice win, especially since it came right after the controversial Santiago draw.)

sorry axe...i know we agree on a lot, but this is clearly not one of those times!!

it comes down to looking at the glass as 1/2 empty or 1/2 full...to me saunders' mistakes in the ring match those outside the ring...even giving away dougle-digit weight disadvantages is no excuse for losing to C-level fighters like nwodo & gomez!! you see a "solid boxer on the national/fringe-world level" (and show your mastery of syntactical punctuation in the process)!! i see a journeyman who exposed santiago as a has-been who never recovered form back2back KO losses to C-level torres & rivera and exposed chris henry as an overhyped prospect...only time will tell which one of us is closer to being correct...that's what i love about boxing...every bout unfolds into a new chapter in the career of every fighter and thus reveals much about his abilities!!

[Autobarn]

How is beating Montell Griffin better than anything on Adamek's record?

Two wins over Briggs pisses on almost ANYTHING Gonzalez has achieved. Knocking out Ulrich in Germany is better than beating an old Griffin.

Plus, Gonzalez won that fight on cuts, big deal.

[Blue]

Montell Griffin won a title beating the best lightheavy & pfp’der of the 90’s.
Gonzalez beat the next best 175’er of the 90’s and took his title.

So far every time Briggs & Ulrich have stepped up; they’ve flunked!

Oh yes…I forgot, the expert “subjective reasoning”…they’re old.
(Like George Forman was when he won his title.)

Briggs & Ulrich coulda, woulda, shoulda…But so far nada.
So the only thing the camp followers have left is to slag the deserving fighters.

[Blue]

Losing eliminators and title fights should not automatically get you another eliminator or title shot straight away. Gonzalez had his shot after beating Griffin. After losing against Woods he goes straight into another eliminator for the same title? Against a man who was also beaten by Woods, and who's last three opponents before his eliminator had lost 25 fights? Give me a break. Once you've got the ranking you have to fight to stay there, you can't just beat a journeyman, lose against the man above you, beat a journeyman, lose against the man above you......etc. It should not be a case of beating the guy above you on the ladder to take his place if all he's doing is either losing against a champ, or else just marking time 'till the next time he gets turned over by the man at the top. If we followed logic like yours, all we'd get is the same fights between old men over and over again.

Agreed that losing eliminators and title fights should not automatically get you another
eliminator or title shot straight away. I took issue with your statement “Julio's not done
anything since the first fight with Erdei” which was false.

Didn’t see any post from U protesting DeLisle’s 2nd shot at Woods right after he lost the
eliminator with Gonzalez. How did he get his shot first after losing the eliminator? Woods
never even had to fight an eliminator to get his 2nd shot after being totally outclassed by
Jones in his first title fight. Nor did Adamek or Briggs fight anyone of note before they
fought for the vacant WBC title. They should have fought some one in the loop before they
got a title shot.

As I’ve said before;
The system of ranking by merit allows a former title challenger to re-establish his career,
or at minimum allow for a few paydays before retirement. It encourages good fights.
It also prevents an over protected fighter from moving up a ranking without a defining fight.

No, and there never will be while people like you clamour for the next Erdei/Gonzalez match-up. That "bloody loop" is just stagnation. A group of old men, all past their best by a good margin, fighting each other, helped by the governing bodies to exclude anyone on the outside who looks remotely dangerous (or less than marketable), is not the best thing for the division. The best thing for the division is younger, more hungry fighters like Adamek and Dawson up against each other, because none of the men you named want to chance their arm against anyone outside the clique at the top of light heavyweight.

On the contrary, A governing body (WBC) allowed Adamek-Briggs to fight for the the title
without either boxer meeting a top contender. Be more specific instead of vague inuendos
& post a link to a source on exactly which of the top guys refused Adamek.

The best thing for the division is younger, more hungry fighters like Adamek and Dawson up against each other, because none of the men you named want to chance their arm against anyone outside the clique at the top of light heavyweight.

I agree Adamek-Dawson match up is a good one but disagree on your take on why Adamek
doesn’t have a better comp. It is the usual camp followers propaganda used by protected
fighters to avoid paying their dues. All of the fighters I mentioned have earned their status
by having defining fights in the past 3 years. (In the meantime Tomasz has only had 5 fights
against other wana-bees.) No one should take that away from them by subjective reasoning
such as “my guy s better, yer guy is shot”, “my guy is young, and your guy is not”.

And don't spout out that "top contenders" crap. I think we've all seen enough of those men to judge whether or not they each deserve more tilts at one of the titles.

WE? U can only speak for yourself and your fellow camp followers.
Watching the 2nd Adamek-Briggs fight, I don’t think that any of those “old men” would have
let Adamek off the hook when he tasted the canvas.
Subjective reasoning such as woulda shoulda & coulda have no place in determining a title shot;
only actual accomplishments should count.

That’s why “official decisions” are rendered.

[glittermonkey]

Agreed that losing eliminators and title fights should not automatically get you another
eliminator or title shot straight away. I took issue with your statement “Julio's not done
anything since the first fight with Erdei” which was false.

No, the statement is perfectly true. Gonzalez, since the Erdei loss, has fought four journeymen, DeLisle, Griffin, and Woods. That is nothing at all to write home about. Especially considering that he lost against Woods, DeLisle had been stopped by Woods and then proceded to be matched very conservatively, and Griffin was an old man who hadn't won a meaningful fight for two and a half years.

Didn’t see any post from U protesting DeLisle’s 2nd shot at Woods right after he lost the
eliminator with Gonzalez. How did he get his shot first after losing the eliminator? Woods
never even had to fight an eliminator to get his 2nd shot after being totally outclassed by
Jones in his first title fight. Nor did Adamek or Briggs fight anyone of note before they
fought for the vacant WBC title. They should have fought some one in the loop before they
got a title shot.

No, you won't have seen any post from me on any subject between March 2005, and November 2006. For what it's worth, yes that fight shouldn't have happened. DeLisle didn't deserve the second shot at Woods. In exactly the same way that Gonzalez didn't deserve to walk right into an eliminator after his loss to Woods.

Who should Adamek have fought? As I've said, he can't fight anybody in the loop because Hopkins, Tarver, and the rest are either interested in big money matches or (in the case of Gonzalez) taking easy options and waiting for another eliminator to be thrown their way.

As I’ve said before;
The system of ranking by merit allows a former title challenger to re-establish his career,
or at minimum allow for a few paydays before retirement. It encourages good fights.
It also prevents an over protected fighter from moving up a ranking without a defining fight.

This is your own personal system of merit then? It sounds fine to me, but it's a real shame that it has no bearing on what actually happens. Instead you have former title challengers taking easy marking-time fights against opposition that is placed nowhere near the top of any reasonable rankings system. You have the same fights over and over despite the fact that the fights were (for the most part) poor to watch, and produced clear winners in the first place.

It's clear to me that your above paragraph is a "perfect world" scenario.

On the contrary, A governing body (WBC) allowed Adamek-Briggs to fight for the the title
without either boxer meeting a top contender. Be more specific instead of vague inuendos
& post a link to a source on exactly which of the top guys refused Adamek.

It's only a refusal in terms of the fact that the fighters in the loop never even mention the likes of Adamek. Tough to pick out quotes when Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson, and the rest act like he doesn't exist. To be fair to them, what is to be gained by taking on dangerous fighters like Adamek, when there are so many easier fights worth more money? It's hardly a new scenario.

I agree Adamek-Dawson match up is a good one but disagree on your take on why Adamek
doesn’t have a better comp. It is the usual camp followers propaganda used by protected
fighters to avoid paying their dues. All of the fighters I mentioned have earned their status
by having defining fights in the past 3 years. (In the meantime Tomasz has only had 5 fights
against other wana-bees.) No one should take that away from them by subjective reasoning
such as “my guy s better, yer guy is shot”, “my guy is young, and your guy is not”.

All the fighters you've mentioned have earned their status, but as I've said before that status doesn't and shouldn't last forever. You have to do something to maintain your standing. Jones for example, has lost three of his last four, two by stoppage. You can't seriously claim that Jones still deserves to be ranked right up at the top. Oh, but I forgot, your perfect system of merit allows for a fighter to go up against the big names for a few paydays, regardless of whether or not he's more deserving of a title shot than the next fighter.

You can't claim that someone else is using subjective reasoning, and then talk about "defining" fights. Who decides what qualifies as a defining fight? You?

WE? U can only speak for yourself and your fellow camp followers.
Watching the 2nd Adamek-Briggs fight, I don’t think that any of those “old men” would have
let Adamek off the hook when he tasted the canvas.
Subjective reasoning such as woulda shoulda & coulda have no place in determining a title shot;
only actual accomplishments should count.

That’s why “official decisions” are rendered.

You seem to have jumped on a misguided notion that I'm some sort of Adamek tub-thumper. Simply not true I'm afraid. Adamek is just an example of the type of fighter I'd like to see the so called bigger names at this weight go after. Alas, they are far from interested in that sort of thing.

Saying that you don't think that any of your list of top contenders would have let Adamek off the hook is yet another example of the subjective reasoning you so despise. If it has no place in your reasoning, why bother making remarks like that? And I disagree with the sentiment anyway. Hopkins, Tarver, and Gonzalez, are hardly what you'd term natural finishers. They've all had fighters in trouble and let them escape. Several times in the case of Hopkins.

You are right about facts being the only thing that should count when determining whether or not a fighter gets a shot at a title. Which is why I commented on Gonzalez apparently getting another chance in the first place. Fact is; he hasn't beaten a fighter of note since the back end of 2003. Even if you include Griffin (I wouldn't), who was right at the tail end of his career, and even then, it's one decent win in your three year period. Nothing subjective about that, it's just not good enough for another shot.

[Axe]

shoutout2u--it's always nice to agree to disagree on occasion. With Saunders it's all hindsight, so we could argue about how many fights that ended up being losses for Rayco did he have a realistic chance of winning (given the weight/preparation disadvantages)? Imo, not many, so their not a real shame for the guy. Admittedly, my friend sparred with him last year--for Santiago--and has talked him up quite a bit (and maintains that Rayco was robbed with that draw).

With Henry all lies in the future, he won the fight so good on him, yes he had some rough times but now that Ive seen the fight (and also by pugilistic prof's account) he finished strong and had Rayco on queer street in the last round. Can he make an impact at 175, time will tell.

How is beating Montell Griffin better than anything on Adamek's record?

Two wins over Briggs pisses on almost ANYTHING Gonzalez has achieved. Knocking out Ulrich in Germany is better than beating an old Griffin.

Plus, Gonzalez won that fight on cuts, big deal.

Dont listen to blue, all the independent rankings had Ulrich and Briggs ahead of Griffin at the time they fought Adamek, and and their ranks at the time were much higher than Griffin's when Griffin was stepping in with Gonzalez.

Gonzo and especially Griffin are done and old news. Gonzo is still a good fighter but is sliding and was never much anyway. Ulrich and Briggs would tear both these guys up, simply on the age factor (although thanks to Adamek's right hand, Ulrich seems to be on the slide as well now).

Blue is obviously still just hating on Adamek, even after a year has gone by since we pissed on his "ratings".

[steve689]

Zsolt Erdei stopped Danny Santiago in eight rounds, knocking his man down in the second and eighth rounds. Denis Boytsov won in a round on the only other undercard fight of note.

[jomothepure]

Steve, I think your post is the very first post-fight comment about Erdei - probably in the world, let alone the boxrec forums. He is fast becoming the Hungarian Calzaghe, and really needs to stop treading water and take a meaningful fight before he is forgotten completely outside a three mile radius of Düsseldorf

[steve689]

I totally agree, after the fight Erdei was quoted as saying:

"I would like to fight a big name in the US next, or a unification fight"

Let's hope so Zsolt, Let's hope so.