BoxRec

Agree or not that Johnny Nelson is the 3rd best cruiserweight champ ever?

3) Johnny Nelson – 14.5 Points
Record: 45-12-2, 29 KO
Titles: WBO (1999-2005, 14 Defenses)
Titlists/Champions Faced – 7: (Havnaa, Carlos De Leon, Bott, Warring, Thompson, Dominguez, Jones)

Whether he was lucky to skate past Jones or not, six-years and fourteen defenses are hard to ignore from another Sheffield product. While scoring the same as Haye, his higher volume of champions faced nets him the tie-breaker here. Nelson was not, to say the least, everyone’s cup of tea. With an awkward style learned from the king of teaching them, the same Brendan Ingle who schooled Herol Graham, Nassem Hamed, and Junior Witter, Nelson alternated between exciting and sleep inducing for years. Whatever the effect on the audience, for the last nine years of his career he never saw the losers circle in stark contrast to a career which began 0-3 in 1986. Nelson began to show serious development in 1990 with a draw against then-WBC champion De Leon and a final round stoppage of a then-undefeated Bott. Three straight losses, including a decision against Warring, seemed to derail his progress and a Heavyweight experiment from 1993-95 was fraught with disaster. Showing instead that defeat can be education, Nelson’s return to Cruiserweight in 1996 marked a turn to lasting triumphs. A fifth-round stoppage of Thompson for the WBO belt in 1999 led to his noted and impressive title-reign statistics and included a unanimous decision over Dominguez. Altogether, it adds up to one of the best of all Cruiserweight resumes

full article:

http://www.BS.com/?m=show&id=18179

Just want to point out, the list is based on points/achievements and is not an opinion. It shows that Holyfield did quite a bit at Cruiserweight.

Anyway, regardless of the criteria, and all the hard work/research, there's no credit in the bore draw with De Leon.

I just think it's preposterous that Nelson - a good fighter, a skilled title holder - can be listed as the 3rd best ever. After stopping Thompson it became a dismal run, which saw Nelson completely unwilling to take the lead in bouts.

I don't care for umpteen WBO title defences. Obviously Nelson had some success as a sportsman, but top 3 don't kid me. Haye did more in his European and world title fights IMO than Nelson.

Technically Marciano, Dempsey and even Joe Louis would be crusers, I'd rank them slightly above the 'Entertainer'

Just in the modern era there is James Toney, Holyfield, Haye, Mormeck, Qawi and probably a few I've forgot. Maybe Nelson was good enough to unify and beat Virgil Hill, Jirov or someone, who knows...remember when he was calling out Roy Jones?

The scoring system is flawed of course (Rocchigiani above Thompson for one ) but the article is a good read. I would say Nelson is defiantly within the top 10 and he could have been higher If he had a bit more self-belief.

he was only 3rd best when he was still active.....i can remember both Jirov and J C Gomez holding titles during Nelson's WBO reign

Yeah i'd rank him 3rd behind Warring and De Leon!

His laughable WBO reign is something to rank him among the best?

His two actual world title fights give a clearer indication of how he fares on the big stage.

Besides Warring and DeLeon, Holyfield, Qawi, Ossie Ocasio, Orlin Norris, Jirov, Juan Carlos Gomez all handle him. I'm sure plenty others.

Nelson was incredibly frustrating. He had all these game efforts against heavyweights like Akinwande and Sanders, then he drops to cruiser to beat up a long line of WBO stiffs when he could have been trying to get his name out, get bigger fights.

He was talented IMO, but I think he knew because of his boring style he's be a hard sell and made do with the payday route with Warren, also he didn't seem to want the big fights anyway.

Autobarn wrote:Anyway, regardless of the criteria, and all the hard work/research, there's no credit in the bore draw with De Leon.

I just think it's preposterous that Nelson - a good fighter, a skilled title holder - can be listed as the 3rd best ever. After stopping Thompson it became a dismal run, which saw Nelson completely unwilling to take the lead in bouts.

I don't care for umpteen WBO title defences. Obviously Nelson had some success as a sportsman, but top 3 don't kid me. Haye did more in his European and world title fights IMO than Nelson.

Absolutely correct.

The WBO title just allowed fighters to build up 'impressive' resumes without ever actually proving a real point.

There is no way that Johnny Nelson is the 3rd best CW ever; Carlos Deleon & James Warring will surely tell you that.

As pointed out, Nelson was never better than third best cruiser during his whole career IMO. So third best ever? No way.

No Adamek in the top 20?

Adamek is in the top 5 right now, IMO.

Axe wrote:No Adamek in the top 20?

Adamek is in the top 5 right now, IMO.

I would disagree very strongly. He has had just five fights in the division with his best win coming as the knockout of Bell, who had lost his last fight. His only championship win was a SD and he won because of a couple knockdowns, he lost the majority of the rounds.

One championship win, debated and in which he almost definetly lost more rounds than he lost does not make someone one of the best 5 in the division of all time.

Axe wrote:No Adamek in the top 20?

Adamek is in the top 5 right now, IMO.

I think he will be if he carries on like he is, because Cunningham is a very good scalp. Adamek really seems to only just have got started.

tobyh5 wrote:

Axe wrote:No Adamek in the top 20?

Adamek is in the top 5 right now, IMO.

I would disagree very strongly. He has had just five fights in the division with his best win coming as the knockout of Bell, who had lost his last fight. His only championship win was a SD and he won because of a couple knockdowns, he lost the majority of the rounds.

One championship win, debated and in which he almost definetly lost more rounds than he lost does not make someone one of the best 5 in the division of all time.

Not true - at all. He didn't lose the majority of rounds at all. Many writers had it 116-111. Three knockdowns of the slci, tough Steve Cunningham is an achivement in itself. Adamek boxed well, he made Steve reach in and countered with shots that hurt the American.

I had Adamek winning at least 6 rounds. And Cunningham winning no more than 5. The reason some had it closer is because the 2nd knockdown he scored was in a round where he was hurt badly so he may not have won that session 10-8.

So he's beaten a very good title holder, in an epic war, picked up the Ring belt in his 1st cruiser title fight, and before that stopped former undisputed champ Bell. Adamek's well on his way. Not there yet, but he can get there. Today's fighters have an advantage due to King's unification fights from 2004. Fighters are taking part in more meaningful fights than they used to be.

It's an absolute cliche that Adamek did nothing but score 3 knockdowns.

Autobarn wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

Axe wrote:No Adamek in the top 20?

Adamek is in the top 5 right now, IMO.

I would disagree very strongly. He has had just five fights in the division with his best win coming as the knockout of Bell, who had lost his last fight. His only championship win was a SD and he won because of a couple knockdowns, he lost the majority of the rounds.

One championship win, debated and in which he almost definetly lost more rounds than he lost does not make someone one of the best 5 in the division of all time.

Not true - at all. He didn't lose the majority of rounds at all. Many writers had it 116-111. Three knockdowns of the slci, tough Steve Cunningham is an achivement in itself. Adamek boxed well, he made Steve reach in and countered with shots that hurt the American.

I had Adamek winning at least 6 rounds. And Cunningham winning no more than 5. The reason some had it closer is because the 2nd knockdown he scored was in a round where he was hurt badly so he may not have won that session 10-8.

So he's beaten a very good title holder, in an epic war, picked up the Ring belt in his 1st cruiser title fight, and before that stopped former undisputed champ Bell. Adamek's well on his way. Not there yet, but he can get there. Today's fighters have an advantage due to King's unification fights from 2004. Fighters are taking part in more meaningful fights than they used to be.

It's an absolute cliche that Adamek did nothing but score 3 knockdowns.

Without trying to be just disagreeing for the sake of it I will answer that and it is only my personal thoughts.
1. He won the Ring belt in his first cruiser title fight? Yes he did, so what. We have a crap system of loads of titles. Until a few years ago there was only one title and so everyone who won a title in thier first attempt won a respected/lineal/true title straight off the bat. Just because we live in an alphabet age do not confuse it and think that part of his accomplishment is something impressive. There is ONE world and being World Champion suggests a man is the best in the world. The Champion of the whole world. Just because boxing is weak with titles does not make winning a "real" title (Ring) some big deal, sorry, not buying that.
2. Cunningham had accomplished what exactly? Good fighter, probably the best around at 200lb or perceived to be at that time but not a real accomplished champion. He beat solid guys leading up to winning the title then won a weakened, tarnished belt (at the second time of asking) and defended it against one unproven guy.
3. You say he (Adamek) won at least six rounds, which means in your eyes he also may have failed to win six rounds (half the fight). That is not a comprehensive victory in anyones eyes.
4. Bell may have been a former champion BUT he was also a fighter coming off a loss, a close lose but a loss nevertheless.

He may go down as a great champion, I have no idea at this time, I think he potentially could. However you cannot rate a guy on potential but on what he has actually done. Thus far he has done little and if he does no more for the rest of his career, he has not done enough to merit a top five ranking.

Another dodgy journalist or set of statistics, that take things totally out of proportion.

Nelson was a decent cruiserweight, who made the most of his abilities, but he was around in a very poor era and to make a statement that he was the 3rd best cruiserweight ever is plain ridiculous.

It's not worth much comment, because it's self evidently written by a person who either has an agenda, is biased towards the Brendan Ingle stable or just lacks basic boxing knowlegde.

Not even in my top ten

I'm not saying I'd put Adamek in any list yet. He is still an active fighter and hasn't been long at the weight.

Adamek-Cunningham: It was a gruelling struggle and a hard eared win over Cunningham. It was not controversial in the sligtest, that was my issue. These were 2 very good fighters, back and forth action, and Adamek punished Cunningham big time for the couple of technical errors he made. 3 knockdowns can make an otherwise close fight, a clear win. (This wasn'yt like Campbell-Funeka i.e. Campbell sharp start, early KD, then loses about 9 rds in a row, before scoring a late KD and escaping with win). Cunningham IS good - wins over Rothmann in SA, Guillermo Jones (future WBA champ), Wodarczyk in Poland (after losing 1st fight), Huck in Germany (brilliant performance). This is a big win for a cruiserweight. They were the 1 and 2 at the weight and the winner got recognition as The Man; this is fair.

Adamek has a dangerous 1st defence vs Jon Banks. Banks looked shit when we saw him, no way around that. However, a big cruiser, with a big punch, and will surely be in better shape. The Banks of the Rossito fight looked like fighters I've seen who have been called in at late notice when out of shape ala Glen Johnson v Sheika/Ottke/Branco (sharp start, then no stamina after 5 rds)...Whether Banks is good or not we'll see. The main thing is this gets Adamek on Showtime where he can get the big fights at 220-pounds. Tomasz is about 32 now, and while he is a KO risk (easy to hit) he can get a few big wins, and a few big wins is enough to be one of the better cruiserweight champs!

He could make a series of fights of it vs Cunningham. He could fight the Contender winner (hopefully Troy Ross, if Ross can make something of his career). If the Bansk fight is entertaining, a natural rematch. Macca seems like he might be frozen out if he's suffering from the Warren/Calzaghes split. But there's WBO Interim champ Victor Ramirez, heavy handed and tough (can Adamek steal another Enzo opponent?). Lots of dangerous, exciting fights out there.

Johnny Nelson is a legend.

I'm a big fan of Johnny's both as a bloke and boxer.To me, the real art of boxing is to hit and not get hit.Johnny was the master of making people fight his own fight at his own pace -and that is not easy to do -particualrly when every opponent knows that if they beat you, they will be world champion and recieve big paydays.To be world champion for 6 years and make 13? defenses is remarkable.Ive said it before, people always confuse not enjoying his style with not being good. He was the top end of world class for a very long time, so for me he is definitely a top 3 cruiser.Many people don't know that he played with Jirov in sparring, who wanted know part of him in a real match.

twenty six wrote:Johnny Nelson is a legend.

He is in Sheffield.....

Out of all the top boxers our wondefrul city has produced, Graham, Anderson,Hamed, Rhodes etc, Johnny is perhaps the most popular and well respected. To say that he lost his first three professional fights and went on to do what he did, was fantastic and a credit to him.

I read Johnny's autobiography recently and really enjoyed it

Ps Was'nt Herol born in Nottingham ?

big lennox wrote:I'm a big fan of Johnny's both as a bloke and boxer.To me, the real art of boxing is to hit and not get hit.Johnny was the master of making people fight his own fight at his own pace -and that is not easy to do -particualrly when every opponent knows that if they beat you, they will be world champion and recieve big paydays.To be world champion for 6 years and make 13? defenses is remarkable.Ive said it before, people always confuse not enjoying his style with not being good. He was the top end of world class for a very long time, so for me he is definitely a top 3 cruiser.Many people don't know that he played with Jirov in sparring, who wanted know part of him in a real match.

Hey Lennox, nice to see another Shefiield lad...

Who else is from the steel city ? I know twenty-six is and obviously yourself

Ps Do you know Johnny ?

Iv'e met him a few times and the first time was way back at the weigh in at Josephine's nightclub, for Lennox Lewis' fight in Sheffield. That sunday morning at Jose' i saw Johnny, Naz (about 15 years old) and Silky Jones, who i knew at school and spoke to........Happy times

BIGMARK wrote:

Quixall wrote:

twenty six wrote:Johnny Nelson is a legend.

He is in Sheffield.....

Out of all the top boxers our wondefrul city has produced, Graham, Anderson,Hamed, Rhodes etc, Johnny is perhaps the most popular and well respected. To say that he lost his first three professional fights and went on to do what he did, was fantastic and a credit to him.

I read Johnny's autobiography recently and really enjoyed it

Ps Was'nt Herol born in Nottingham ?

the Nelson book is a good one with that i would have to agree

That must be the 12,476th boxing book you have read Mark

3rd !!!! No way, he is without doubt the world's most boring "champion"...bar none.

And to think, after boring the crap out of us on SkySports during his farcical "reign", he now gets to pick holes in exciting up and coming boxers as a pundit .

I definitely admit Nelson was world class, and a very good defensive boxer. However the dreadful fights he had for titles other than the WBO should bea massive blemish. Johnny beat a world class fighter for the WBO title - Carl Thompson -, Johnny was well winning the fight. But it was a controversial stoppage and the rematch never happened. Johnny has good wins over Dominguez, Sellers, but some of the title defences were dreadful - i.e. Aurino, Guillermo Jones. He had some solid wins away from home toward the end, but these were really Euro class, and he was fighting away likely because his last fight in the UK was so poor.

Johnny didn't get a big fight with the rival champs - JC Gomez (WBC holder), Jirov (IBF etc). And when there became an undisputed champ he wasn't involved either, i.e. Mormeck, Bell. Nelson has more title wins than Mormeck and Bell but they were in tougher matchups because they were unification fights. Would Johnny have schooled them? Would he have melted down mentally and domne nothing? We will never know.

IMO the cruiserweight title bouts have become more meaningful. You've had the Bell/Mormeck unifications, then David Haye won the main belts and blew out WBO champ Macca (& world #3) for good measure. Haye didn't fight world #2 Cunningham, but Adamek - after stopping Bell in an elim - did. So Adamek is rightly the man. Fights like Guillermo Jones v Arslan and Macca-Ramirez and Fragomeni v Wlodarczyk aren't going to upset the apple cart enough to make ppl think, "hey Adamek needs those guys to be #1."

Best, most meaningful, most marketable fights for Adamek. Adamek brings the Ring title - and it's not easy for a foreign fighter to get recognition - and Showtime:

Cunningham rematch or even trilogy (Cunn has to get by Braithwaite, no doubt another some time title holder will be on the "USS" record)
Banks rematch if their fight this Fri is a thriller (and if Banks proves any good)
Wlodarczyk - provided he wins the WBC title from Frago - all Polish unification. Big in Poland.
Contender winner (and former Commonwealth champ) Troy Ross. Classy southpaw. Ross needs to take on some fringe guys/decent contenders.