You criticise Mayaorga but Oscar Delahoyas biggest win in years has been against Ricardo!.... so how does that make Oscar a real fighter?. Many of Oscars fights have been very carefully picked... has he fought Roman Karmazin?.... has he fought Winky Wright??... is this because they are not 'world class'?.... Oscar is indeed a outstanding fighter, but to claim that he has fought everyone and has never picked his spots is very misguided...Terence wrote:I'd disagree, if a journeyman gets a title shot and makes the champ look bad is he raised from being a journeyman or nearly man into world-class? Eastman looked alright versus Joppy and even Hopkins yet Howard has no work rate, is one-paced and dimensional with poor stamina and slow hands. If that is world-class you can keep it thank you very much. Godoy went the distance with Louis but his skills were not world-class, going the distance could be equivalent to acquitting yourself well but how hard is it to KO a fighter who has his mind set on this? Cooper acquitted himself well versus Ali but was not world-class.
I'm not a huge fan, his style never settled as a pro, but look to De La Hoya for a god example. He'd go into a division and seek out the world-class fighter. He has fought and beat a fair few guys who had a claim on the division(s). For all his faults Oscar is a proper fighter.
We need to set a standard for w-c or else the thinning of the quality at the HOF will become insane down the line. We'll reach a nadir when inducting Mayorga. Beating a world-class guy should get you a stripe but you need to earn more by clearing out as many names as you can get to. Calzaghe is world-class, he is not great, not yet. Think about Shane, Oscar, Vernon, Tito and Mayorga all beating on one another with '0's' being dropped along the way, they have all been labelled great at some point but are they great? Or in another era would they be contender level fighters beating one another lower down the ladder?
In the modern era if a fighter produces a good fight we call him great, what is wrong with tactically astute or a work in progress? Are we that insecure about the quality of our era we water it down in a misconceived effort to legitimise it with the 'great' fighters who do not deserve that accolade? I think we've got a 1970's/1950's inferiority complex.
Consider: By the various criteria listed the following are worthy of world-class status. Wlad Klitschko, John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, Valuev, Rahman, Maskaev, Brewster, Golota, fook me we'll even throw in Briggs and Peter (the next 'great' heavyweight until we found he could not box a lick). So with all these 'world-class' fighters vying for 'greatness' why the fook is everyone whingeing about how poor the heavies are? It is brimming with world-class.
Terence wrote:He pretty much fought everyone he could fight, he did jump about a fair bit but when he did he went for the big names. Look at his resume, he avoided Wright to fight Hopkins, I feel we can forgive him for that. He has fought everyone he couldpossibly get, only 'nerds look at Boxrec and throw-up fight after fight that a fighter ducked, pragmatics gets involved a lot of the time, people get beat, they get tied to contracts and a myriad of circumstances, Oscar fought as many top-level guys as he could. I criticise him but have to give him his dues.silkov wrote:You criticise Mayaorga but Oscar Delahoyas biggest win in years has been against Ricardo!.... so how does that make Oscar a real fighter?. Many of Oscars fights have been very carefully picked... has he fought Roman Karmazin?.... has he fought Winky Wright??... is this because they are not 'world class'?.... Oscar is indeed a outstanding fighter, but to claim that he has fought everyone and has never picked his spots is very misguided...Terence wrote:I'd disagree, if a journeyman gets a title shot and makes the champ look bad is he raised from being a journeyman or nearly man into world-class? Eastman looked alright versus Joppy and even Hopkins yet Howard has no work rate, is one-paced and dimensional with poor stamina and slow hands. If that is world-class you can keep it thank you very much. Godoy went the distance with Louis but his skills were not world-class, going the distance could be equivalent to acquitting yourself well but how hard is it to KO a fighter who has his mind set on this? Cooper acquitted himself well versus Ali but was not world-class.
I'm not a huge fan, his style never settled as a pro, but look to De La Hoya for a god example. He'd go into a division and seek out the world-class fighter. He has fought and beat a fair few guys who had a claim on the division(s). For all his faults Oscar is a proper fighter.
We need to set a standard for w-c or else the thinning of the quality at the HOF will become insane down the line. We'll reach a nadir when inducting Mayorga. Beating a world-class guy should get you a stripe but you need to earn more by clearing out as many names as you can get to. Calzaghe is world-class, he is not great, not yet. Think about Shane, Oscar, Vernon, Tito and Mayorga all beating on one another with '0's' being dropped along the way, they have all been labelled great at some point but are they great? Or in another era would they be contender level fighters beating one another lower down the ladder?
In the modern era if a fighter produces a good fight we call him great, what is wrong with tactically astute or a work in progress? Are we that insecure about the quality of our era we water it down in a misconceived effort to legitimise it with the 'great' fighters who do not deserve that accolade? I think we've got a 1970's/1950's inferiority complex.
Consider: By the various criteria listed the following are worthy of world-class status. Wlad Klitschko, John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, Valuev, Rahman, Maskaev, Brewster, Golota, fook me we'll even throw in Briggs and Peter (the next 'great' heavyweight until we found he could not box a lick). So with all these 'world-class' fighters vying for 'greatness' why the fook is everyone whingeing about how poor the heavies are? It is brimming with world-class.
As for Mayorga, I knew Ricardo had fook all for Oscar to fear, it was not a big win for me when you consider Ricardo's meagre recent form and poundage, it must have been a huge fight for the likes of your good self who gave Mayorga a chance, it was a sight-lining excercise for Oscar, as it was for Tito.
) so it was no surprise to me when he won, though the manner of the victory was more one sided than I'd expected... (I didnt predict Lacy to ko Calzaghe either!!!.. . I guess Jeff wasnt 'world class' after all!... 
)and no it wasnt a particularly huge fight for me as Ricardo has been on the wane now for a while and is not exactly the hardest trainer or cleanest liver... regarding Oscars opposition, how many divisions did he unify?.... why should we admire him for avoiding Wright?... Oscars proved himself a good fighter but the best at every division he has fought in?.... I think not!... regarding Oscars fight with Hopkins I have reservations about that fight, lets just say money was made all round and everyone exited happy...that's essentially the same thing i said above & i accept the likelihood of 15 world-class WWs, but am hard-pressed to find even 3 world class HWs!!lvlarc_uk wrote:Agreed Stu. Some confusing world class with elite. Take most/all of the top 5 HW's for e.g. All world class, but none are elite.
If you look at 140-147 though, there are maybe 15 world class.
wlad just happens to be the best of a VERY BAD CURRENT CROP of heavies---some say the worst EVER!! 
Well the rankings aren't biased and rate Journymen like J.D Chapman above Williams and give Americans a higher rating for beating Audley second.computerrank wrote:Top30 in BoxRec's Ratings in every weight division.
This is the stuff, title bouts should be made of.
Look at IBO's ratings also including all boxers with same requirements.
Williams Who is rated higher than J.D. Chapman, please?Max Molyneux wrote:Well the rankings aren't biased and rate Journymen like J.D Chapman above Williams and give Americans a higher rating for beating Audley second.computerrank wrote:Top30 in BoxRec's Ratings in every weight division.
This is the stuff, title bouts should be made of.
Look at IBO's ratings also including all boxers with same requirements.
But you get boxrec posters trying to justify it by saying Guinn is better!
I'd probably have alll mentioned, except Williams, in the world class bracket cause I'd give all of them a realistic chance at winning a world title against the current champions, based on past performances. Although, if Rahman smashes Maskaev then maybe not him. Ruiz is a former two time champion who has beaten one of the champs, and the other close. Brewester has beaten one of the champions and had a decent, if short, reign as WBO champion. Brock has beaten some decent fringe contendors, and Byrd was up untill the Wlad fight the #1 in the devision. Fres Oquendo is possibly close to that list given the closeless of his Byrd fight on top of previous wins and close defeats.lvlarc_uk wrote:True but I see world class as best crop of fighters in each division, say for e.g if there was no Wlad, Liakhovich, Rahman, Toney, Valuev.
Then the bunch below them, Brock, Brewster, Williams, Byrd, Ruiz, Maskaev etc could be considered world class since they would be favourites against other opp. I'm using HW for e.g but I really don't follow this division much anymore......far more talent at lower weights including some elite fighters.
So world class means top bunch of fighters at each div, regardless the quality of era.
that's what american schools call GRADING ON THE CURVE!! (top 10% of class gets an A, even if they get only 50% right)...also referred to as "dumbing down"...lvlarc_uk wrote:True but I see world class as best crop of fighters in each division, say for e.g if there was no Wlad, Liakhovich, Rahman, Toney, Valuev.
Then the bunch below them, Brock, Brewster, Williams, Byrd, Ruiz, Maskaev etc could be considered world class since they would be favourites against other opp. I'm using HW for e.g but I really don't follow this division much anymore......far more talent at lower weights including some elite fighters.
So world class means top bunch of fighters at each div, regardless the quality of era.
of the general boxing community, when referring to world-class we probably BOTH have about 50% backing!! So Lacy aquitted himself well vs Calzaghe? Tito vs Wright?Terence wrote:I'd disagree, if a journeyman gets a title shot and makes the champ look bad is he raised from being a journeyman or nearly man into world-class? Eastman looked alright versus Joppy and even Hopkins yet Howard has no work rate, is one-paced and dimensional with poor stamina and slow hands. If that is world-class you can keep it thank you very much. Godoy went the distance with Louis but his skills were not world-class, going the distance could be equivalent to acquitting yourself well but how hard is it to KO a fighter who has his mind set on this?