Terence wrote:Hello Stu, I was unsure what you meant by this:
stujones wrote: I still think Maussa is world class, even though he was a pretty poor champion - like Baldomir if Maussa fights and loses in his next few fights then I'll have to reconsider.
Whether Baldomir needed more attempts to be world-class despite beating Zab and fulfilling your criteria or whether he will get beaten by Gatti and need 2 fights to prove he is/was world-class even though he will probably drop like a stone. I wasn't sure what you were driving at.
I don't class Maussa as world-class, call me a snob if you will but if he'd have beaten Hatton via a cut by your criterion he'd be pushing for elite class and that is poor.
I think that Collazo and Maussa are acceptable level opponents but not world-class and time will tell. Hatton is staying busy and is showing logic in his two fights, both closed of potential roads for Floyd. A Hatton-Floyd clash will sort the men from the boys, I did say that world-class is rare and can at best support maybe a couple of fighters per division, not the entire top ten. I'm not jumping on that 'golden age' nonsense but we don't have the strength in depth to support so many world-class fighters so-called. For me it means the best in the world at the weight, otherwise why call it world-class? Hatton-Floyd are the best at their weight at the mo' and will square off to really draw a line under their credentials.
My argument is that many of these guys are in contention, win titles and then can sit back and lapse into a comfort zone, they see themselves as being the top dog and have zero incentive to fight one another. What is that? Is that good? We have over-inflated the egos of these guys by over-egging their standing. You will end up with a load of Joe Calzaghe type 'He's not in my league' fighters refusing fights with guys because they are both over-blown and both demand a) big purses b) star billing. We've gone way to far and blown guys like Shane into legends, all in a desperate effort to legitimise our era.
My argument is that solid fighters grab a title, fight and lose in the space of a few years (plus this process in itself is flawed, they fight 1-2 times a year and do not reign for long, why? Because they are decent fighters mixing in with other decent fighters, only we think they are P4P all-timers). We over-egg them and can argue about them but many of these guys, if denoted as world-class, represent a nadir for world-class boxing.
You skipped Gonzales out of the Tszyu resume and continue to overlook the points I made about Judah-Tszyu, both went for world-class and one guy ended-up showing lower class in more ways than one.
I talked previously about the nature of Gatti's win over Patterson who for my money was in decline, it seems that this age stick only bears fruit when you wield it! As for Ruelas, I remember Rafael as the better boxer, a big loss to Oscar does not affect that.
We could probably argue all day but consider:
I never stated that Tszyu resume was lousy. I stated that you shouldn't think Gatti;s/Judah's/Spinks wasn't either if you want to compare. Gatti's wins over Patterson, Reulas (the better brother - not the one anhilated by DLH!!!), Dorrin, Leija etc is comparable to Tszyu's resume. As for saying Chavez was still decent, so that makes Willy Wise decent also! Kostya Tszyu never beat the recognised number #1 in the devision. He became the number #1 through good performances and cemented his position by beating the #2 and #3 guys.... Both Spinks and Judah beat the number #1 guy at Welterweight a guy who had unified the belt - and beat them well (Spinks over Mayorga, Judah of Spinks). What more do you want. Thats all Hatton has done (and there were a certain Miguel Cotto and Floyd Mayweather lurking) - yet he is already world class. PLUS (and I think its a huge factor that you seem to be downplaying).... Tszyu was over the hill, inactive and talking of retirment.
How can Floyd lurk by jumping to a higher division. Lurking is static.
You say Spinks got his spurs by beating the #1 guy, who beat the #1 guy who beat the #1 guy and unifying. From Spinks back to Oscar right? So what of the fact that Oscar was the #2 guy at welterweight? In my parallel universe the welterweight box-off for #1 saw Tito with his hands raised and gave him legitimacy. By the time Oscar fought Shane the #1 welterweight was dipping his toes into higher waters, you must subscribe to the simplistic 'lets make this man (who LOST to the man) the #1 because the man is gone and we are too lazy to wait for a true heir.' That kind of logic gets Vitali Klitschko recognised at the #1 at heavyweight despite a loss to a true world-class guy. Now, you see how confusing it is when you look at things this way?
As for Tszyu, well you are stretching back Spinks' linear heritage and at best it matches my reckoning about Tszyu-Judah sans consistency and defences (these guys average one defence), Oscar was #2 at welterweight because he lost to the #1. So does he get bumped-up automatically? No, not even when he achieved the feat of beating Coley. So the win over Shane crowned the #1 and set the chain up that led to Spinks right? The Shane who was new to the division and had proved himself against, yes, Willy Wise. Maybe you rate Willy more highly than you previously thought. Suddenly a guy new to a weight beats the prior #2 for a vacant title and he legitimises the next three title-holders? Not by my reckoning. You may scoff at the criteria setting-up Tszyu after the Judah fight but it is far better than the welterweight mess.
Spinks-Mayorga brought three belts together yet the fact that they were immediately broken-up when Judah became custodian, for me, adds credence to what I said all along, these guys are contenders with belts.
One final thing you overlook, all this talk of ring records can be done by anyone. For me Tszyu looked hot versus Mitchell, taken as a stand-alone that was an impressive result AND performance. When you now take and add it to the Hatton fight it becomes an old-man beating an overblown challenger in Mitchell. Tszyu was made old by Hatton, all the factors you talk about never came out before he fought Hatton, people got wise after the fact (I'm not sure who you went for, if Kostya then salutations to you.)
I don't see inconsistency on my side, I see it on yours and vice versa. Think about it, when people do P4P lists or talk about the best fighters in the world the phrase destroys itself. How can ten people be the best at one thing or in one division? They can't so you invent Super Champions or Emeritus Champions to get out of the mess. Your logic is alphabet boy in my opinion.
I hope Gatti wins despite the fact a loss may strengthen me, he deserves it and the milage he got with the crossroads fights with Ward, but neither man was world-class or is world-class, if they were Gatti would not look so out of depth at the top(world)-level.
We both have our ways of doing things, I just feel that mine is more flexible and less hyperbolic.
Spinks is a good fighter with patchy form, both guys will predictably lose in shortly and we'll have another unheralded, undeserving potential great in the making and HOF bound.