BoxRec

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:05

gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:36
Ricky Burns for instance is a 3 weight World Champion, and I don't think he's ever been one of the Top 5 guys in any weight class he's ever competed in at any point.

Yes he has, just haven't beaten them. He lost to Crawford.

I know that. I don't recall Burns ever being considered to be one of the Elite fighters in his weight class at any point in his career. That's why I say he's proof that being a Multiple division World Champion isn't the accolade that it used to be.

If you have the backing of a promoter, you can win a belt. Hell they'll make up one to give to you if they have to.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:12

Ricky_ wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:44

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:33

well, for me one of the criteria to be an all-time great is you have to be the man in your division for awhile, at the very least 1 point in time.

cotto was always top 5 when he was at super lightweight and welterweight, but he was never the man, but he was marketable and did provide a good payday to those who fought him

cotto was good for boxing and great for his time, but not an all time great to me.

Who was 'the man' at 140 circa 2004?

I think Kostya Tszyu was if i remember correctly

You do remember correctly.

burns was easily top 3 at 130.weak division then and at the time guys like mzonke fana were near the very top.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:12

Ricky_ wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:44

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:33

well, for me one of the criteria to be an all-time great is you have to be the man in your division for awhile, at the very least 1 point in time.

cotto was always top 5 when he was at super lightweight and welterweight, but he was never the man, but he was marketable and did provide a good payday to those who fought him

cotto was good for boxing and great for his time, but not an all time great to me.

Who was 'the man' at 140 circa 2004?

I think Kostya Tszyu was if i remember correctly

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:01

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:33

well, for me one of the criteria to be an all-time great is you have to be the man in your division for awhile, at the very least 1 point in time.

cotto was always top 5 when he was at super lightweight and welterweight, but he was never the man, but he was marketable and did provide a good payday to those who fought him

cotto was good for boxing and great for his time, but not an all time great to me.

Not that I agree with the criteria, but he was 'the man' after he beat Mosley.

i forgot about that, that was actually a good win against a pretty good version of Mosely.

i'd say he was close, but not exacly the man at that point, Mayweather was also pretty big at the time as well and just had fights with Hatton and Oscar.

2008 on the other hand, was supposed to be Cotto's year to really establish dominance but then the Margarito fight sort of derailed that.

No wonder you don't rate Cotto as an ATG, you forgot about his best win (over another potential ATG). Just depends on your threshold i guess.

haha, i didn't forget it completely, but i forgot the timeframe of when it happened.

at first i thought it was against a shot mosely, but it was actually a win over a solid mosely

anyway i have no problem if anyone thinks Cotto is an atg, since i've always been a Cotto fan tbh.

i'm just not sure if he meets that quota, but i think it's debatable at least.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:33

Ricky_ wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:25

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 13:23 good fighter with a fan-friendly style, drew-in the puerto rican market

not an all time great though

and yea sergio was just looking for a final payday in that fight and pretty much gave cotto the mideleweight belt.
didn't hurt martinez's legacy since we all know prime sergio would most likley KO cotto

What's your standard for ATG? Cotto is a 4 weight world champion.

well, for me one of the criteria to be an all-time great is you have to be the man in your division for awhile, at the very least 1 point in time.

cotto was always top 5 when he was at super lightweight and welterweight, but he was never the man, but he was marketable and did provide a good payday to those who fought him

cotto was good for boxing and great for his time, but not an all time great to me.

I think Cotto possibly was number one at Light welterweight before he moved up. Definitely top 2 with Hatton.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:12

Ricky_ wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:44

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:33

well, for me one of the criteria to be an all-time great is you have to be the man in your division for awhile, at the very least 1 point in time.

cotto was always top 5 when he was at super lightweight and welterweight, but he was never the man, but he was marketable and did provide a good payday to those who fought him

cotto was good for boxing and great for his time, but not an all time great to me.

Who was 'the man' at 140 circa 2004?

I think Kostya Tszyu was if i remember correctly

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:01

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:33

well, for me one of the criteria to be an all-time great is you have to be the man in your division for awhile, at the very least 1 point in time.

cotto was always top 5 when he was at super lightweight and welterweight, but he was never the man, but he was marketable and did provide a good payday to those who fought him

cotto was good for boxing and great for his time, but not an all time great to me.

Not that I agree with the criteria, but he was 'the man' after he beat Mosley.

i forgot about that, that was actually a good win against a pretty good version of Mosely.

i'd say he was close, but not exacly the man at that point, Mayweather was also pretty big at the time as well and just had fights with Hatton and Oscar.

2008 on the other hand, was supposed to be Cotto's year to really establish dominance but then the Margarito fight sort of derailed that.

Mayweather was retired.

he was in 2008, yes. which is why i said that could have been cotto's year to take over.

but in 2007 maywaethers wins over oscar and hatton kind of outshined cotto's win over mosely, which is why i wouldn't say he was the man to beat at welter at that time.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 19:02 he was in 2008, yes. which is why i said that could have been cotto's year to take over.

but in 2007 maywaethers wins over oscar and hatton kind of outshined cotto's win over mosely, which is why i wouldn't say he was the man to beat at welter at that time.

He was probably the man to beat at Light welterweight though before he moved up

ewenhay wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 19:07

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 19:02 he was in 2008, yes. which is why i said that could have been cotto's year to take over.

but in 2007 maywaethers wins over oscar and hatton kind of outshined cotto's win over mosely, which is why i wouldn't say he was the man to beat at welter at that time.

He was probably the man to beat at Light welterweight though before he moved up

yea Cotto and Hatton were the top 140 fighters in 2006 for sure. Cotto was probably briefly #1 there when he fought Malignaggi which was around the same time Hatton moved up and fought Collazo at welterweight. The #1 guy Hatton moves up briefly which gives the #2 guy Cotto the top spot, who also moves up in weight right afterwards.

Yea maybe i was wrong, Cotto was the man at one point, but it was super brief though, and not exactly the same as taking the spot from someone. But he probly was the man at 140 in that mid 2006 period.

I enjoy watching Cotto, defo think the Margarito fight changed him. That really was a disgrace. Still he bounced back, arguably gave Mayweather one of his toughest fights and is still winning 10 years later.

I hope he does retire, he has nothing left to prove and I wish him well!

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 19:02 he was in 2008, yes. which is why i said that could have been cotto's year to take over.

but in 2007 maywaethers wins over oscar and hatton kind of outshined cotto's win over mosely, which is why i wouldn't say he was the man to beat at welter at that time.

Who was?

after mayweather retired, i thought the division was up for grabs tbh

you COULD say Cotto was the man to beat after may retired i guess, since he had the best resume after him.

but you also had Paul Williams, Berto, Margarito, Mosley and Joshua Clottey in top form back then too.

i felt it was too stacked just to give it to Cotto who didn't beat the last top guy to take it, but it is understandable if anyone considered him the man to beat at welter after May retired. The Margarito fight happend not long after so it wasn't a long reign.

btw i felt mayweather was tentatively the man at welter at the time before the brief retirement.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 19:51

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 19:02 he was in 2008, yes. which is why i said that could have been cotto's year to take over.

but in 2007 maywaethers wins over oscar and hatton kind of outshined cotto's win over mosely, which is why i wouldn't say he was the man to beat at welter at that time.

Who was?

Mayweather was the man to beat in 2007. Floyd beat Hatton a month after Cotto beat Mosley.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 20:09 after mayweather retired, i thought the division was up for grabs tbh

you COULD say Cotto was the man to beat after may retired i guess, since he had the best resume after him.

but you also had Paul Williams, Berto, Margarito, Mosley and Joshua Clottey in top form back then too.

i felt it was too stacked just to give it to Cotto who didn't beat the last top guy to take it, but it is understandable if anyone considered him the man to beat at welter after May retired. The Margarito fight happend not long after so it wasn't a long reign.

Not only did Floyd retire, but he fought Oscar at 54 and was going to have a rematch before he tossed it in.

And really, I have to question if Cotto was really the man to beat in 2008 as he lost to Margarito midway. From Floyd's "retirement"after Hatton to the Margarito fight is only like 8 months. And even then, I get the feeling that Cotto and Margarito were fighting for the spot to be "the man" as oppposed to Cotto being the man to beat.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:36

Ricky_ wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:25

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 13:23 good fighter with a fan-friendly style, drew-in the puerto rican market

not an all time great though

and yea sergio was just looking for a final payday in that fight and pretty much gave cotto the mideleweight belt.
didn't hurt martinez's legacy since we all know prime sergio would most likley KO cotto

What's your standard for ATG? Cotto is a 4 weight world champion.

So is Adrien Broner, and Broner's not even a great in his own time.

Cotto is definitely an ATG don't get me wrong, but how many weight classes a guy won a World Title in doesn't mean what it used to in the era of Cracker Jack Box titles.

Ricky Burns for instance is a 3 weight World Champion, and I don't think he's ever been one of the Top 5 guys in any weight class he's ever competed in at any point.

I'm a Scotsman and in the past I've been bias where Burns is concerned but I don't really see him as a three weight champ. His belt at 140 was a secondary nonsense title. Not disrespecting his achievements or anything but facts are facts. He was a legitimate title holder at lightweight and at super feather Martinez was considered by many as top man when Burns beat him so I think you're being a little unfair to him there man.

Cotto is a future hall of famer and was a good watch but I wouldn't say he was great! I wish him and Hatton would've fought at 140! Not sure on who'd of won but that would've been a proper war!

I respect Ricky Burns, and I acknowledge he was a good fighter, it's just ridiculous to call him a 3 weight World Champion because it implies he's better than he was.

In a world where there were only 1 World Champion per division, he'd have never won a title.

phillykid wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 18:41 haha, i didn't forget it completely, but i forgot the timeframe of when it happened.

at first i thought it was against a shot mosely, but it was actually a win over a solid mosely

anyway i have no problem if anyone thinks Cotto is an atg, since i've always been a Cotto fan tbh.

i'm just not sure if he meets that quota, but i think it's debatable at least.

Don't cave man, you're absolutely right. Mosely is also in my top 5 overrated fighters in this generation. Mosely won his biggest fight while admittedly on steriods. The rest of his career, he lost to the same people Cotto couldn't beat. So no, i'm with you.

To me, to be an all time great, you either have to beat some all time great fighters or trounce the competition so badly because he was clearly above the rest of the fighters ability. Cotto was a GREAT entertainer. But an all time great fighter he was not.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 01:31 I respect Ricky Burns, and I acknowledge he was a good fighter, it's just ridiculous to call him a 3 weight World Champion because it implies he's better than he was.

In a world where there were only 1 World Champion per division, he'd have never won a title.

That's a little harsh Gilgamesh. I think his belt at super featherweight is legitimate and he was up there for a while at Lightweight. I agree completely about light welterweight, a paper title there.

ewenhay wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:01

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 01:31 I respect Ricky Burns, and I acknowledge he was a good fighter, it's just ridiculous to call him a 3 weight World Champion because it implies he's better than he was.

In a world where there were only 1 World Champion per division, he'd have never won a title.

That's a little harsh Gilgamesh. I think his belt at super featherweight is legitimate and he was up there for a while at Lightweight. I agree completely about light welterweight, a paper title there.

It's not harsh at all. It's the truth. The truth ain't always nice.

I'll give it to you that Martinez was a good victory at the time. If there were only 1 Champion per division Martinez would've never held a World Title either.

I'm not insulting Burns by what I'm saying. I'm simply saying they've watered down the concept of what being a World Champion means. Burns is, and always been a very solid contender in my eyes. Not a Champion. There's no shame in that. Most fighters aren't even legitimate contenders. You have to be one of the better boxers in the world in your weight class to have gotten the chances, and the opportunities that Burns has.

Contender is not a dirty word. In the era when everybody that popped into Boxing for a cup of coffee wasn't just handed a title belt, the word Contender used to mean something.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:02

ewenhay wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:01

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 01:31 I respect Ricky Burns, and I acknowledge he was a good fighter, it's just ridiculous to call him a 3 weight World Champion because it implies he's better than he was.

In a world where there were only 1 World Champion per division, he'd have never won a title.

That's a little harsh Gilgamesh. I think his belt at super featherweight is legitimate and he was up there for a while at Lightweight. I agree completely about light welterweight, a paper title there.

It's not harsh at all. It's the truth. The truth ain't always nice.

The Martinez win at super featherweight was completely legitimate and a performance worthy of winning a World title.

ewenhay wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:04

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:02

ewenhay wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:01

That's a little harsh Gilgamesh. I think his belt at super featherweight is legitimate and he was up there for a while at Lightweight. I agree completely about light welterweight, a paper title there.

It's not harsh at all. It's the truth. The truth ain't always nice.

The Martinez win at super featherweight was completely legitimate and a performance worthy of winning a World title.

It was worthy of a win. I'll give ya that much.

I don't really remember how deep the 130 pound division was in 2010, not very if Burns was its' Champion though I can tell ya that.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:08

ewenhay wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:04

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 12:02

It's not harsh at all. It's the truth. The truth ain't always nice.

The Martinez win at super featherweight was completely legitimate and a performance worthy of winning a World title.

It was worthy of a win. I'll give ya that much.

I don't really remember how deep the 130 pound division was in 2010, not very if Burns was its' Champion though I can tell ya that.

That's fair enough. Plenty of fighters have held world titles at weaker times between spells where divisions have been rich with talent or ruled by an ATG. Doesn't mean their titles weren't legitimate though.