Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Autobarn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16093
Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 13:01

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Autobarn »

stujones wrote:
Autobarn wrote:JMM-Pac 1?

Spinks-Mayorga
I would argue that maybe Forrest was still ranked above Spinks given the closeness of Mayorga vs Forrest 2.

Was Morales still classed as a Featherweight at the time of JMM vs MP 1?
not sur,e hence the question mark
Mensa07
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 618
Joined: 14 Mar 2006, 06:12

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Mensa07 »

Jones/Tarver?

am trying to think of ones where there was a definite #1 and an obvious or consensus #2, as in Cal/Kessler, whereas for some like Jones/Tarver there may be a question mark on it?

Hopkins/Taylor must be one.
Tszyu/Judah.
Hatton/Paulie (only after the L was Paulie questioned)
sockdolager
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1455
Joined: 17 Jun 2005, 08:57

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by sockdolager »

kevo wrote:
Asterix wrote:Pavlik vs Taylor II :??
I think that fight was at Super Middle, so they won't have been classed as the consensus 1 & 2
eff off back to the Other Sports forum you know nothing prick! :wink:
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27512
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by stujones »

Mensa07 wrote:Jones/Tarver?

am trying to think of ones where there was a definite #1 and an obvious or consensus #2, as in Cal/Kessler, whereas for some like Jones/Tarver there may be a question mark on it?

Hopkins/Taylor must be one.
Tszyu/Judah.
Hatton/Paulie (only after the L was Paulie questioned)
Tszyu vs Judah for certain.

Hopkins vs Taylor - I would say so, maybe a case for Abraham/Sturm back then also.

Hatton vs Paulie - Again I would say so, but not clear cut even at the time. Judah, Bradley might have a case.

What about Hatton vs Castillo?
Asterix
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7128
Joined: 02 Nov 2007, 10:42

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Asterix »

kevo wrote:
Asterix wrote:Pavlik vs Taylor II :??
I think that fight was at Super Middle, so they won't have been classed as the consensus 1 & 2
Ah, I forgot about that.
Captain Hook
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4730
Joined: 07 May 2007, 09:40

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Captain Hook »

Oscar v Tito
Morales v Barrera?
Naz v Soto
kevo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6559
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 14:30

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by kevo »

sockdolager wrote:
kevo wrote:
Asterix wrote:Pavlik vs Taylor II :??
I think that fight was at Super Middle, so they won't have been classed as the consensus 1 & 2
eff off back to the Other Sports forum you know nothing prick! :wink:
:D
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Horse »

Hatton vs Malignaggi - No, Holt and Bradley both had a very good claim to the number two spot, especially after Malignaggi struggled against Ngoudjo and N'dou.

Calzaghe vs Lacy - Kessler was generally rated as the number two after his win against Mundine, and Beyer even had a claim to be rated higher than Lacy as well.

Haye vs Maccarinelli - Maccarinelli was never the number two: Cunningham, Mormeck and Bell all had a better claim.


According to my ratings at the time: None of these fights were between the number one and two in the division.
Dioufy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7351
Joined: 16 Sep 2006, 23:09

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Dioufy »

I stand corrected over Macca/Haye then.
Captain Hook
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4730
Joined: 07 May 2007, 09:40

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Captain Hook »

Horse wrote:Hatton vs Malignaggi - No, Holt and Bradley both had a very good claim to the number two spot, especially after Malignaggi struggled against Ngoudjo and N'dou.

Calzaghe vs Lacy - Kessler was generally rated as the number two after his win against Mundine, and Beyer even had a claim to be rated higher than Lacy as well.

Haye vs Maccarinelli - Maccarinelli was never the number two: Cunningham, Mormeck and Bell all had a better claim.


According to my ratings at the time: None of these fights were between the number one and two in the division.
Don't listen to Horse, the "ratings" are the ones he comes up with in his bathroom...
:TU:
Khaosai-Galaxy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2739
Joined: 29 Apr 2007, 12:15

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Khaosai-Galaxy »

lefthook82 wrote:I was talking with my slightly uninformed friend about Joe Calzaghe as he as raving about hi performance against Roy Jones Jr. I was saying that his win against Kessler is his best win and that he should check it out on youtube. Obviouly he ddnt know who Kessler was so I told him he was at he very least seen as the number 2 super middlleight after Joe and is now seen as the number 1

It got me thinking, so I am here asking how many fights in the new millenium have been between the consensus number 1 and 2 in the division?

Now I know conensus is a contentious word becase boing, more than any sport, is about opinions. but lets just build up a list and then e can debate what we diagree with and of alternative figfhters ho may have been top 2 at the time of the fight

I'll start. Joe v Kessler
For such an "informed" bloke, your spelling is truly atrocious....
Autobarn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16093
Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 13:01

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Autobarn »

Yuoure not supposwed to pick on ppls' spelling & grammar on a fforum.
lefthook82
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1837
Joined: 07 Mar 2008, 04:33

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by lefthook82 »

Seriously @ Khaosai-Galaxy what is up with you?

I was just trying to get a debate started. The spelling was clear enough for people to understand what I was asking for

Besides, what has being 'informed' about boxing have to do with my ability to spell or not

Happy New Year to you anyways. I apologise for offending your eyes with my spelling and grammar and I'll use a spellcheck next time. Perhaps after that you might actually contribute positively to a thread. Here's hoping anyway.....
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Horse »

Captain Hook wrote:Don't listen to Horse, the "ratings" are the ones he comes up with in his bathroom...
:TU:
My ratings are sound, and I mostly come up with them sat in front of a computer screen.
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by m1kee50 »

Horse wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:Don't listen to Horse, the "ratings" are the ones he comes up with in his bathroom...
:TU:
My ratings are sound, and I mostly come up with them sat in front of a computer screen.
this is probably true. Porn on one half of the screen, ratings system on the other. The man just gets a bit distracted.
brian13
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1853
Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 15:01

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by brian13 »

Dioufy wrote:I always thought Enzo Macc was second, with Cunningham a very close third. But I suppose you could argue that Mormeck was still right up there too, so I will retract my statement. But in my opinion Haye was first and Macca was second.
If you hold a WBO title and that is the only title you have held you will not be number 2
Dioufy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7351
Joined: 16 Sep 2006, 23:09

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Dioufy »

I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27512
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by stujones »

Dioufy wrote:I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
Cunnigham?
Dioufy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7351
Joined: 16 Sep 2006, 23:09

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Dioufy »

Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, although it was allegedly quite close and contentious.
Autobarn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16093
Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 13:01

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Autobarn »

Dioufy wrote:I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
what, because tey were actually fighting each other.

If Cunningham had a WBO title and Mac had an IBF, Mac would have probably got beaten by someone in the IBF top 10.

Some fighters get an easier schedule.

Have to say, things look rosy for Mac if Warren could, say, deliver IBF and Ring champ Adamek. Same recognition as Haye fight, vs a man much smaller than Haye (Adamek up from light heavy).
Autobarn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16093
Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 13:01

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Autobarn »

Dioufy wrote:Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, although it was allegedly quite close and contentious.
I frelt Cunningham just lost that first fight - he was quite poor in it - but well won the rematch, with Wlod down and feeling sorry for himself through much o the contest.
Dioufy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7351
Joined: 16 Sep 2006, 23:09

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Dioufy »

Autobarn wrote:
Dioufy wrote:I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
what, because tey were actually fighting each other.
I have since said I stand corrected on the issue of Enzo Macc being second only to Haye at the time of their fight. I just put down a fact, that Haye beat Mormeck, Mormeck beat Bell, and lost, and Cunningham lost to Wlodarczyk (deservedly you say). All the time, Enzo remained unbeaten holding his "world title", but I have now realised that wasn't enough to get him second spot, because he was fighting bums like Azzoui and Gunn. Really thinking about it now, I think Enzo was probably third or fourth.
chinny
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1536
Joined: 18 Jun 2007, 09:33

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by chinny »

This is a good thread but isn't it depressing that we're scratching around having found just a handful of times in EIGHT years and SEVENTEEN weight classes when the two best fighters in a division have actually fought?
Autobarn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16093
Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 13:01

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by Autobarn »

Dioufy wrote:
Autobarn wrote:
Dioufy wrote:I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
what, because tey were actually fighting each other.
I have since said I stand corrected on the issue of Enzo Macc being second only to Haye at the time of their fight. I just put down a fact, that Haye beat Mormeck, Mormeck beat Bell, and lost, and Cunningham lost to Wlodarczyk (deservedly you say). All the time, Enzo remained unbeaten holding his "world title", but I have now realised that wasn't enough to get him second spot, because he was fighting bums like Azzoui and Gunn. Really thinking about it now, I think Enzo was probably third or fourth.
Yeah, I think Enzo was #3.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27512
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division

Post by stujones »

Autobarn wrote:
Dioufy wrote:Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, although it was allegedly quite close and contentious.
I frelt Cunningham just lost that first fight - he was quite poor in it - but well won the rematch, with Wlod down and feeling sorry for himself through much o the contest.
Disagree, Cunnigham was a little negative but well won the first fight also.
Post Reply