BoxRec

keithmoonhangover wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Boxrec isn't the be all and end all. I agree with Horse, Hatton was never p4p number two, but was elite.

The Ring had him at #2 as well.

They had Joe as number 2 or 3 at one point. I don't remember Hatton being so high. This is after his win against Kosta?

It's an interesting subject. Sadly David must feel like he's walked into an English pub wearing a Uruguay shirt.

There's a lot of statistics being thrown up by our patriotic posters. Very little reason or analysis to go with those precious stats sadly.

daviddee wrote:What about elite journeymen?? I'm going for Kristian Laight as the only one as he's mr reliable :)

There are loads of reliable journeymen but what would make a journeyman Elite!!! Expand on this Davie, what would be the criteria? Peter Buckley must be Elite surely?

clopixolacuphase wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Boxrec isn't the be all and end all. I agree with Horse, Hatton was never p4p number two, but was elite.

The Ring had him at #2 as well.

They had Joe as number 2 or 3 at one point. I don't remember Hatton being so high. This is after his win against Kosta?

It was before the Mayweather or Pac fight.

David McAllister wrote:David Haye at Cruiser was Elite, but Naz, Joe, Ricky and Carl imo didn't or couldn't beat the best in there divisons.

Joe, if he had beat a Super Middleweight version of Roy Jones jr or Bernard Hopkins I would have classed him as Elite

Haye is elite and Calzaghe isn't? You're wrong to think that.

Jones Jr left the super middleweight division before Calzaghe won the WBO title. Hopkins never competed in that division.

David McAllister wrote:Maybe I am being too picky but that is my definition of Elite, I respect all other opinions on this and that is why I started the thread not to have people say mine or others opinions are wrong, but to hear other ideas on this especially on the older fighters that I have not seen as much of.

You are being too picky.

keithmoonhangover wrote:It was before the Mayweather or Pac fight.

Hatton was never the real P4P No. 2.

i can't see how lennox is an elite fighter and calzaghe or hamed aren't joe or naz never got sparked out once never mind twice by average fighters like lewis did ....what did lennox do better than joe beat an old past it tyson , jones was less shot than tyson was when he fought calzaghe , tyson was 15 years past it by then and lewis should of beat the much smaller and past it holyfield easier than he did.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:It was before the Mayweather or Pac fight.

Hatton was never the real P4P No. 2.

Based on what?

stevedoc wrote:i can't see how lennox is an elite fighter and calzaghe or hamed aren't joe or naz never got sparked out once never mind twice by average fighters like lewis did ....what did lennox do better than joe beat an old past it tyson , jones was less shot than tyson was when he fought calzaghe , tyson was 15 years past it by then and lewis should of beat the much smaller and past it holyfield easier than he did.

Lennox was the best heavyweight on the planet for years and guys like George Foreman think he's the best ever. He had shows built around him in Vegas where he was the main attraction and the man to beat. No other Brit is held in that kind of regard.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Based on what?

Reality.

Was he No. 2 in your P4P rankings?

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Based on what?

Reality.

Was he No. 2 in your P4P rankings?

at one point in his career, yes.

why is it that you use Boxrec rankings to support your claims on Chisora, but not on this?

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's an interesting subject. Sadly David must feel like he's walked into an English pub wearing a Uruguay shirt.

There's a lot of statistics being thrown up by our patriotic posters. Very little reason or analysis to go with those precious stats sadly.

Is Hopkins not considered elite, even now?

keithmoonhangover wrote:at one point in his career, yes.

why is it that you use Boxrec rankings to support your claims on Chisora, but not on this?

I used other rankings as well. BoxRec's rankings were the least important rankings I used as evidence.

Hatton was only No. 2 in my British Top 30 P4P rankings behind Calzaghe before the Mayweather and Pacquiao fights. There is no way he was No. 2 in the world at those times.

Think anyone can spin it to suit their allegiances.... people questioning Haye for not beating some of the top cruiserweight names... but seemingly forgetting that a year before Joe fought Hopkins, Bernard retired, and stayed retired for a year and Chad Dawson had partially unified the title. Joe was only fighting for the IBO title (or something like that).

You could easily question how authentic Joe's Light Heavyweight reign was. You certainly cannot dispute his Super middleweight reign after Kessler - but really only after Kessler... for most of his Super Middle reign was disputed with Ottke.

For me, a good P4P top ten should include all fighters who could at least mix or be competitive with ANY fighter of their weight division at any time. Maybe lose everytime, but could win a few rounds and hold their own. Usually that means they've score wins at elite level also.

For me, Joe (despite only having Hopkins as an elite win) and Ricky Hatton (with no true elite win) are part of that bracket - Not enough was known about Naz for me to be confident. Yes, we could say he achieved that against Barrera - but did he "really" win those round, did he ever have any period of any of his rounds where he looked like he could pull it off. Was it more a case of Barrera, comfortably ahead, being a bit more cautious - playing it safe. So I would say, Hamed had the talent to be elite but not enough known about him at that level.

Haye - again not enough known about him. Sure he beat the #1 Cruiser, but Mormeck himself was probably not in the P4P top twenty at the time of the fight.

Froch - needs more if you ask me.

surely if someone is #1 in their division, it makes them an elite fighter?

Sklar wrote:

stevedoc wrote:i can't see how lennox is an elite fighter and calzaghe or hamed aren't joe or naz never got sparked out once never mind twice by average fighters like lewis did ....what did lennox do better than joe beat an old past it tyson , jones was less shot than tyson was when he fought calzaghe , tyson was 15 years past it by then and lewis should of beat the much smaller and past it holyfield easier than he did.

Lennox was the best heavyweight on the planet for years and guys like George Foreman think he's the best ever. He had shows built around him in Vegas where he was the main attraction and the man to beat. No other Brit is held in that kind of regard.

well lewis was a heavy weight of course he's going to be bigger that's just how it goes (other than floyd) .. it shouldn't make any difference if some one fights in vegas or pakistan as to how good they are . and it just shows that ex fighters aren't the best judges on boxers . and i've seen lewis a few times and he looked lazy to me .

one fighter no one has mentioned i think is lloyd honeyghan and before someone check his record and mention some late loses he was the undisputed world welter weight champion after beating P4Pno1 don curry who at the time was rated above hagler .

stevedoc wrote:one fighter no one has mentioned i think is lloyd honeyghan and before someone check his record and mention some late loses he was the undisputed world welter weight champion after beating P4Pno1 don curry who at the time was rated above hagler .

Great call. If he wasn't 'elite' after beating Curry, then god knows what is.

Sklar wrote:

Horse wrote:Being a world top 10 P4P ranked fighter isn't enough to qualify as elite?

Depends on the interpretation of 'elite'.

I know what the OP is getting at.

Nobody but Lennox has been a real world champ in the modern era. (Brit)

This.

Edit: Actually I'd say Hatton was a "real" world champ; he beat the genuine, lineal number 1 in his division.

Calzaghe won a vacant title vs a weight drained Eubank. Though it was clear he was the no.1 at a point in time; he never actually proved it by "cleaning up" the division.

Froch won a vacant title vs at the time unheralded Jean Pascal.

Naz beat Steve Robinson - again Nas was probably the no.1 featherweight at a point in time but if there was no superfeatherweight or superbantamweight and proliferation of alphabet titles, he would have had to beat a Barrera, Morales, Prime Junior Jones or the like to win a world title.

David Haye was the best crusierweight around in my opinion and he did beat the lineal no.1 in Mormeck. But crusierweight has always been a poor division as it's relatively new. Takes some of the shine off the accomplishment - that and he never cleaned up by beating Cunningham. He would have beaten him well in my opinion; wish he did though.


For me, world champion means you are best in your division period without question and not open to interpretation. Not owning belt and beating some contenders.

As much as I love him and I don't think Stevo was ever number #1 featherweight in the world. I would have loved to have seen him fight the other champions mind.

Sklar wrote:

Horse wrote:

Sklar wrote:Nobody but Lennox has been a real world champ in the modern era. (Brit)

Calzaghe won The Ring, Lineal, WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO titles at super middleweight.

In what way wasn't he a real world champion?

Super middleweight isn't a division with credence and historical significance, same with cruiserweight and others.

Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Middleweight, Welterweight, Lightweight, Featherweight, Bantamweight, Flyweight are the real divisions in my book, the rest is fluff.

Wtf? So a division has less worth because it doesn't have decades upon decades of depth and history. Surely it has more to do with the fighters competing within it at any given time frame?

Final round wrote:

Sklar wrote:Super middleweight isn't a division with credence and historical significance, same with cruiserweight and others.

Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Middleweight, Welterweight, Lightweight, Featherweight, Bantamweight, Flyweight are the real divisions in my book, the rest is fluff.

Wtf? So a division has less worth because it doesn't have decades upon decades of depth and history. Surely it has more to do with the fighters competing within it at any given time frame?

Totally agree.

where would duke mckenzie rate 3 weight world champ but never the no1 or even top 3 at any weight ,great boxer

Final round wrote:Wtf? So a division has less worth because it doesn't have decades upon decades of depth and history. Surely it has more to do with the fighters competing within it at any given time frame?

I don't really disagee and that's my point. The new divisions rarely have the best fighters -unless it's a whistle stop- and even when they might do (e.g. Ward) there are few decent tests.

Elite fighters in my eyes is every fighter who steps in the ring with the intensions in winning! We all know boxing is a bit of a joke and very corrupt at times but I don't see how we couldn't class Calzaghe, Hatton, Naz, Burns, Harrisson as Elite fighters!!! These guys give 100% and they were world champions! 12 rounds ain't easy ;)