BoxRec

Max Molyneux wrote:1. Roy Jones
2. Joe Calzaghe
3. Nigel Benn
4. Chris Eubank
5. James Toney
6. Steve Collins
7. Sven Ottke
8. Frankie Liles
9. Chong Pal Park
10. Mikkel Kessler

Thats the list.

Like most things in boxing - it's always going to create discussions..!

That's just BM's opinion :)

jimmy the gent wrote:come on now max, how can you say that toney and gopkins haven't put in the dominant performances that calzaghe has?
not only have they done that but they have at a much higher level. I think it is pretty safe to say that joes most dominant performance was against lacy, which was fantastic, but then what. He wasn't exactly over dominant against woodhall, he was, some might say very fortunate to get away with a split decision win over reid, in which one judge gave it to reid 115-111.
Sheika though fair opposition at the time wasn't top shelf, eubank was a good four years past his best, not to down grade the victory cos it was a good one. Brewer performance was good but he wasn't exactly a toney, and although he done mitchall in two, we all know what happened there.

Hopkins dominant performances- glenn johnson, Holmes, Joppy, Trinidad, Eastman, de la hoya, Tarver.

Toney dominant performances- jirov, holyfield, barkley, dewitt.

It hardly compares does it?

As much as i do rate joe, toney would have been to hot for him and jones , forget about it!

Hops and Toney beat those guys but they never won every second of every round like Joe has. Joe's clearly more talented and I like Toney.

Barkley and DeWitt where already sparked by Benn and If we use the prime logic then we use It for Holyfield. So If you mention past their primes guys for Calzaghe think who you mention when talking about Toney or Hopkins.

Toney should never of got outboxed by Samuel Peter.

If you mention Calzaghe getting lucky against Reid then what about Toney Vs Tiberi?

Trinidad and De La Hoya are Hops best wins and they were blown up light middles at best. Eastman was never even world class anyway. He has to foul his way to win most performances.

So Sheika wasn't top shelf for Joe but was good enough for Beyer, Lucas and Lacy? I was pointing out Lacy's problems when Sheika hurt him but most were giving excuses now they downplay such a brilliant win when he smack downed Lacy. Calzaghe cut Sheika to pieces.

Yes Joe went down to Byron Mitchell and Joe blamed his own arrogance for It and glad he went down but other than the knockdown he battered Mitchell when Ottke struggled and took him the distance. Mitchell hit hard enough to spin Joe around, he has power If he downed the Iron chinned Calzaghe.

Jesus Max, your taking your arguement to extreme now. Yes, Hopkins won every round on my card against Joppy, Tarver, Trinidad and Eastman.

Did Joe win every second of every round against Reid, Woodhall, Bika, Brewer, Mitchell etc. Lacy was a terrific performance which no one can deny - he was electric - but essentially it so far has been a one off. Hopkins may never have been quite so perfect, but done it against MORE fighters ALL of Argueably better quality than Lacy. Joe put in a dominant performance, not performances.

He didn't lose more than 3 rounds against guys like Bika or Brewer. Lacy Is better than Eastman. He has put In dominant performances. Tarver did a Steve Collins and got Roy at the right time.

Extreme or not whats wrong with discussion?

If posters say Joe was lucky to win against guys like Reid then they should also point out Toney's wins against Tiberi.

There's different kinds of win. To praise Hopkins for beating a "great" fighter in DLH can be misleading due to DLH being a natural welter who hadn't been fighting well.

You don't have to beat a p4p ranked fighter for a "great" win IMO - beating an undefeated puncher who held a title and had captured a lot of US fight fans' imagination can still be an outstanding victory.

IF -and it's a big if - Joe beats Kessler, in an epic, fast paced, highly skilled give-and-take affair then I'd put that above any single win of Hopkins'. Hopkins has dominated a lot of guys but never really a genuine peer in his prime if we're being honest.

Max Molyneux wrote:He didn't lose more than 3 rounds against guys like Bika or Brewer. Lacy Is better than Eastman. He has put In dominant performances. Tarver did a Steve Collins and got Roy at the right time.

Extreme or not whats wrong with discussion?

If posters say Joe was lucky to win against guys like Reid then they should also point out Toney's wins against Tiberi.

I think only giving Brewer and Bika three rounds is harsh. A few boxrecers had it only 7-5 Calzaghe vs Bika, and I know a few guys who had it 7-5 Calzaghe vs Brewer. I had the Brewer fight 8-4, cannot remember how I scored the Calzaghe vs Bika fight - its on the archive here though.

Hopkins' greatest performance IMO was vs William Joppy - he was pretty much punch perfect that night.

I agree with you Autobarn, Hopkins dissapointed me vs DLH - Aside from one performance though vs Sturm he had been fighting well, and was giving Hopkins some questions. So much show that when it was rumoured they were having a rematch (instead they announced the partnership) I was actually pleased, cause I think had DLH fought a different fight - the fight many expected him to do - he might have hung on. He certainly would have lasted better than he did. A case could be made for DLH winning the fight when the KO happend. A decent, but not great win and a drab performance. I know I am a big DLH but I think the manner of Oscar's defeat actually earned him more fans than Hopkins that night.

Tito on the other hand was a GREAT win and an even better performance... okay in Hindsight we can say Tito was no Middle, but no-one was saying that after he dismantled Joppy.

Bika was there to spoil and survive.

autobarn, read my post again and tell me where in it do i downgrade joe's victory over lacy, the word i used was it was fantastic.

dewitt and barkley had already lost to benn. sheika had already lost to the great tony booth.

I'm not here to put joe down, as i think that he is a very good fighter. But putting his opponents and performances on the same level as Toney's and hopkins is a complete joke. come on max, how can you not see this. I gather that you are a massive calzaghe fan but you must see sense.

I'd like to see what would happen if joe ever moved up to heavy and fought samuel peter.

What has sheika being top shelf enough to fight; beyer, lucas, and lacy got to do with anything? I think that we all agree that joes is above those champions.

and Bika was hardly there to survive, he gave joe fits in that fight.[/quote]

I'm not here to put joe down, as i think that he is a very good fighter. But putting his opponents and performances on the same level as Toney's and hopkins is a complete joke. come on max, how can you not see this. I gather that you are a massive calzaghe fan but you must see sense.

Other than DLH, Tito and Wright who were undersized when he got them, Hops wins are average.

I do see sense, people just don't agree with me and assume I'm blinkered while there being hypocritical.

It;s not a joke at all.

I'd like to see what would happen if joe ever moved up to heavy and fought samuel peter.

He'd lose to Peter because he'd be unsized but he'd never get outboxed by Peter, Peter's overrated, took him two attempts to beat Toney cleany and he easily lost the 1st.

What has sheika being top shelf enough to fight; beyer, lucas, and lacy got to do with anything? I think that we all agree that joes is above those champions.

You brought Sheika Into the discussion using him as a name on Joe's list.

Fouling and surviving would make most good fighters look bad, thats what Bika was mostly doing.

'Fouling and surviving would make most good fighters look bad, thats what Bika was mostly doing.'


it didn't make lucian bute look bad.

'You brought Sheika Into the discussion using him as a name on Joe's list.'

you were talking about joe's most dominant performances at a good level.

'Other than DLH, Tito and Wright who were undersized when he got them, Hops wins are average.'

ODLH and wright were certainly undersized. Trinidad was proven after what he did to joppy. What hopkins did to Holmes, Joppy and Tarver( hopkins was undersized in that one) was not average.[/quote]

Bute looked bad as well.

Wright was a bigger Middleweight than Tito. Tito did a Hamed whenever he lost and just retired.

Max Molyneux wrote:Bute looked bad as well.

Wright was a bigger Middleweight than Tito. Tito did a Hamed whenever he lost and just retired.

Well Tito didn't retire after the Hopkins fight... neither did Hamed after the Barrera fight.

I'm not sure what that means as a criticism - Barry McGuigan did it and so have others. So Hopkins "retiring" Tito is a mark against him?

jimmy the gent wrote:autobarn, read my post again and tell me where in it do i downgrade joe's victory over lacy, the word i used was it was fantastic.

dewitt and barkley had already lost to benn. sheika had already lost to the great tony booth.

I'm not here to put joe down, as i think that he is a very good fighter. But putting his opponents and performances on the same level as Toney's and hopkins is a complete joke. come on max, how can you not see this. I gather that you are a massive calzaghe fan but you must see sense.

I'd like to see what would happen if joe ever moved up to heavy and fought samuel peter.

What has sheika being top shelf enough to fight; beyer, lucas, and lacy got to do with anything? I think that we all agree that joes is above those champions.

and Bika was hardly there to survive, he gave joe fits in that fight.

[/quote]didn't think you did downgrade the Lacy win to be honest.

Toney's best wins were vs sluggers Barkley & Williams, who are definitely comparable to guys like Lacy, Brewer, Mitchell. Of course, fights vs McCallum and Jirov certainly elevate Toney over Joe. But the lack of fitness and focus and the dreadful showings work against Toney very very badly.

Hopkins' wins are all very very solid. Nothing spectacular. His greatness is his longevity/focus/fitness. It does seem a strange thing to say Joe's wins aren't at the level of Hopkins'. Kessler - fit, prime, unbeaten, technically accomplished - is more difficult than a natural welter Trinidad for example. The Dane would be an outstanding win - just wait to see the level that this bout is going to be fought at. Has Hopkins even traded punches with a good fighter without blatantly fouling or holding them or running a mile? Sustained action is something absent from Bernard's record.

I'm not keen on "paper" arguments i.e. just comparing names.

if joe beats kessler his ratings would take a massive boost as that would easily be his best win on paper, even if not his best performance.
imo joe would be a difficult fight for anyone, because of his speed, heart and he has got a strong winners mentality.

stujones wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Bute looked bad as well.

Wright was a bigger Middleweight than Tito. Tito did a Hamed whenever he lost and just retired.

Well Tito didn't retire after the Hopkins fight... neither did Hamed after the Barrera fight.

I'm not sure what that means as a criticism - Barry McGuigan did it and so have others. So Hopkins "retiring" Tito is a mark against him?

He retired after the win he got after Hopkins and then makes a comeback and as soon as he's gets owned quits. That doesn't show good heart and know he's stupid enough to fight Jones who Is way bigger than him but Jones might get knackered making 170 so I guess he's not all that daft. He's still a quitter.

Hamed did the same after Calvo.

Discrediting one doesn't mean I do It to make someone else look better.

Hopkins didn't quit when he lost to Taylor twice In a row or Taver when Hop beat him. Lacy even come back after losing so badly too.

your last post really doesn't do your credibility any favors mate.

trinidad had an exceptional career, then lost emphatically to hop, he then won his next fight, retired, came back, battered mayorga then got severely outboxed by right, retired again to which i,m sure after his career people will except that he had nothing left to prove. now he's coming back again and you call him a quitter. Absolute nonsense.

And you compare him to lacy coming back after a bad loss, who hasn't had half the career that tito has had.

I didn't compare him to Lacy In any form I just said at least Lacy didn't retire after losing. Exceptional career or not he retires after a loss making a case for him not taking a loss well.

Who cares whos career was better I prefer boxers over one dimensional punchers.

I don't care about credibility on here, most posters nearly always misread my posts properly anyway and just resort to name calling.

Max Molyneux wrote:

stujones wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Bute looked bad as well.

Wright was a bigger Middleweight than Tito. Tito did a Hamed whenever he lost and just retired.

Well Tito didn't retire after the Hopkins fight... neither did Hamed after the Barrera fight.

I'm not sure what that means as a criticism - Barry McGuigan did it and so have others. So Hopkins "retiring" Tito is a mark against him?

He retired after the win he got after Hopkins and then makes a comeback and as soon as he's gets owned quits. That doesn't show good heart and know he's stupid enough to fight Jones who Is way bigger than him but Jones might get knackered making 170 so I guess he's not all that daft. He's still a quitter.

Hamed did the same after Calvo.

Part of the reason WHY Tito retired the first time was because he was struggling to get fights. The fans didn't particularly want to see an Hopkins rematch - Tito claimed he couldn't make 154. He impressed vs Cherifi to try and drum up interest for Hopkins 2 - it worked with the fans but not with Bernard who was talking crazy numbers.

DLH/Vargas/Mosley were not (at that time) planning on moving up, Tito was left in no mans land. It was a bit like Eubank after Collins.

Lacy has fought once after Calzaghe, so did Tito - maybe Lacy might call it a day also.

Lacy has a shoulder Injury thats healing though, read rumours he could be getting a fight with Manfredo according to ESB posters anyway. Maybe he will quit.

The WBO title has only really been considered something of a proper world title in the last year or so, but still lacks credibility.

Who considered Benn, Eubank, Hamed and Collins world champions outside of British ITV from 1990 to 1994 and British Sky TV from 1995 to 1997? Who considered Colin McMillan and Chris Pyatt 'champions of the world'? The WBO went down a few pegs when the likes of Carl Thompson and Johnny Nelson were winning it on Sky Sports 3 in front of 300 chavs.

Calzaghe wasn't a world champion until last year, and has made two joke defenses.

1)Eubank
2)Benn
3)Jones Junior
4)Joe C
5)Toney
6)Collins
7)Ottke
8)Liles
9)Nunn
10)Kessler

I put Eubank & Benn up top because of the Watson (2) and G-man fights, what each of them in their own right actually achieved those nights was incredible, to come back from the brink of defeat against near invincible opponents and somehow end up victorious through simply being stronger (mentally and physically) .They fought eachother to a standstill at Old Trafford in the most underrated fight of all time (watch it with the Radio Five Live commentary instead of OAP Reg Gutteridge and ever-negative Jim Watt) and fought the Galvanos and Rockys IN ITALY AND GERMANY with great performances:TU:

Crew2 wrote:I put Eubank & Benn up top because of the Watson (2) and G-man fights, what each of them in their own right actually achieved those nights was incredible, to come back from the brink of defeat against near invincible opponents and somehow end up victorious through simply being stronger (mentally and physically) .They fought eachother to a standstill at Old Trafford in the most underrated fight of all time (watch it with the Radio Five Live commentary instead of OAP Reg Gutteridge and ever-negative Jim Watt) and fought the Galvanos and Rockys IN ITALY AND GERMANY with great performances:TU:

Joe is clearly above Eubank and Benn. They have even said so themselves. That is not really up for much debate.

The debate that is still open is:
1. Does RJJ belong in any ranking at SMW? And if so how much credit can he get for his 5 fights there or so?

2. Where does Ottke rank? On paper he has perhaps the best resume of any fighter. However, how much should be deducted for the gifts he received towards the tail end of his carreer?

RJJ and Ottke are the only ones that can any claim to rival Joe as no. 1. However a reasonable case can be made for putting either (RJJ and Ottke) in the low end of a top 10. depending on how one sees the questions above turn out.

Eubank I believe has said Joe wouldn't have lived with the Eubank & Watson who fought at White Hart Lane (?) and Nigel said only a few wks back how he achieved much more than Joe while not being as good ..... and Ottke's resume isn't very good at all.!