Page 2 of 3
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 08:03
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
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 08:34
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)
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 10:07
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!

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 12:47
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?
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 13:40
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.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 16:34
by Captain Hook
Oscar v Tito
Morales v Barrera?
Naz v Soto
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 19:51
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!

![[icon_e_biggrin.gif] :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 20:49
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.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 20:51
by Dioufy
I stand corrected over Macca/Haye then.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 31 Dec 2008, 12:09
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...

Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 31 Dec 2008, 13:01
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....
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 31 Dec 2008, 14:09
by Autobarn
Yuoure not supposwed to pick on ppls' spelling & grammar on a fforum.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 01 Jan 2009, 05:50
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.....
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 01 Jan 2009, 16:55
by Horse
Captain Hook wrote:Don't listen to Horse, the "ratings" are the ones he comes up with in his bathroom...

My ratings are sound, and I mostly come up with them sat in front of a computer screen.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 01 Jan 2009, 17:18
by m1kee50
Horse wrote:Captain Hook wrote:Don't listen to Horse, the "ratings" are the ones he comes up with in his bathroom...

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.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 02 Jan 2009, 16:52
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
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 02 Jan 2009, 19:00
by Dioufy
I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 02 Jan 2009, 20:39
by stujones
Dioufy wrote:I know that, but people around him were getting beat (Mormeck, Cunningham and Bell).
Cunnigham?
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 05:40
by Dioufy
Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, although it was allegedly quite close and contentious.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 07:48
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).
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 07:48
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.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 07:57
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.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 14:44
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?
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 17:40
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.
Re: Fights between consensus 1 and 2 in the division
Posted: 03 Jan 2009, 18:52
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.