Great or very good?

Some guys are unquestionable all time greats: Pac, Floyd, Roy, Whitaker, Leonard, Hopkins, ect.

Others fit into a grey area where we often dispute whether they should be categorized as greats, or merely "very good."

The following guys, would you consider great or just VG?

Tszyu
Hamed
Norris
Cotto
Froch

 

My personal opinion.

Tszyu & Hamed = Greats.

Cotto & Froch = Very goods.

Norris = Tough one. Very tough. He's right on the borderline.

 

Tsyzu= Great

Norris, Cotto, Froch & Hamed: Very good

 

Thats fair enough.

 

I think Hamed did enough from 95-00 to go down as a great. But I won't argue toooo much with those who disagree.

 

Norris had the most talent of any guy on this list, but he's also the only one on the list with a MAJOR MAJOR flaw.

 

Tszyu and Hamed were great.

Cotto was very good

Froch very good.

Prime Norris was close to great.

 

Cotto is basically the epitome of 'Very Good' in my eyes. He's like the watermark I judge the quality of fighters on when deciding if they're great or not.

 

Yeah Cotto, and another example being Vargas. Two "very good" guys who came up short against greats.

 

I just don't see how someone can rate Tzsyu above Cotto. Miguel is clearly not an ATG but neither is Tzsyu and he has a far stronger resume and better accomplishments.

 

Me too. Tszyu is the only one I would consider great and that’s within the parameters of the jnr welterweight division.

 

Well, he had two if we’re talking about chin and temperament.

 

none great

 

Personally, I'd have Cotto as a great and probably Hamed too. Just a shade below Great I'd have Froch and Tszyu. Norris I don't feel I can judge properly as he came before I started watching boxing but gun to my head, I'd say in the very good just as Froch and Tzsyu.

 

None of these guys are ATGs. I already established the bar for ATG in the opening.

Tszyu peaked higher than Cotto, unified and dominated what was, at the time, considered one of the deeper divisions in the sport.

He dispatched of a prime Judah in 2.

Cotto needed 11 grueling rounds to dispatch of an older Judah.

 

Though I would disagree, your position is reasonable.

 

Not sure I agree Tzsyu fought a better version of Judah than Cotto. He simply wasn't exposed yet. And even if he did, it wasn't by a big margin and that's the best win in Kostya's resume by far (maybe you can argue for Mitchell beinf somewhat close). While for Cotto, it's not in his top 3

 

If you wanna argue Cotto for great, or better than Tszyu, that's fine. That's why I opened the thread. I think it's all pretty arguable.

I also think accomplishments and peak aren't the same here.

For example, Froch had a very deep resume, but I don't think he peaked anywhere near as high as Hamed did in 95-97.

 

If P4P holds any weight here, then a pro for Norris is that he's the only guy who was legitimately argued as the top P4P in his day.

Circa 92, the P4P #1 debate was between Whitaker, Chavez, and Norris.

I don't think any other guy on the list was ever considered the possible P4p #1.

 

Froch was by FARRR the least talented guy here, but also the toughest - physically and mentally.

Tszyu, Hamed, Cotto, and Norris were all to some extent, mental midgets.

 

I think in terms of talent, I'd rank them:

#1. Hamed
#2. Norris
#3. Cotto
#4. Tsyzu
#5. Froch

But in terms of toughness, I'd have it:

#01. Froch
#02. Tsyzu
#03. Hamed
#04. Cotto
#05. Norris

Overall, Norris was clearly the worst of the group and achieved the least IMO.

 

Tszyu was a better talent than Cotto, but we're splitting hairs.

 

Nah, I don't think he was. Cotto was a far better athlete IMO, Tsyzu was just a lot tougher.

 

Tszyu had faster hands, bigger power, and better reflexes. He also had quicker feet - in his young days he closed the gap very quickly. Not Duran or Tyson quickly, but a lot quicker than Cotto could.

 

I don't think he had quicker hands or feet. Power, for sure but Cotto is definitely the quicker of the two IMO. Neither had good defensive reflexes, but Cotto was faster at taking advantage of openings, which is apart of reflexes.

His toughness and resilience is why he was a better fighter, but it was very close between the two of them IMO.

 

Tszyu went backwards and became more of a straight up rigid, stalking power puncher even before he unified the titles or lost to Phillips imo. As an amateur and early days pro I tend to think he was more refined and expansive in terms of talent and technique but lost a good bit of his subtlety and roundedness as he went on. I agree with X though, he was a better fighter than Cotto for me in terms of both talent and technique.

I really liked Cotto from early doors too. He was heavily hyped and shrewdly managed at key points for the most part while somewhat contradictarily also taking risks and not being afraid to tackle the best at the same time, which helped him to both achieve a lot and build a record that flatters to deceive at the same time relative to his statistical standing and winning titles in multiple divisions etc. He just had too many serious juxtaposing flaws and limitations imo for a pressuring fighter of that style to even be in the tier below great imo, which sounds ridiculous for a lineal middleweight champion who won his first title at light welter, but it's honestly how I look at him. An average chin while being unable to consistently slip or block good offensive output, tighten up defensively and retain your composure under serious pressure etc is always going to put the clappers on any quest for elite historical standing in the sport. If he'd had real one punch ko power it would have helped, but he was more of a heavyish handed cumulative type than a Cuevas and not an undeterrable forward moving anvil either who could quickly brush off taking hard shots face first despite being brave. Typically very well schooled from an offensive stand point in the usual Puerto Rican fashion - nice form, accuracy and sharp offensive timing with a good range of punch variety up and down etc but still very methodical and non-creative in his application next to an atg offensive operator like Duran or Robinson.

What ironically impressed me in the end was his ability to recover from two such horrible, prolonged tramplings in his prime to continue winning titles and giving a good account of himself versus Mayweather. Especially because of how demoralised and broken he appeared to be during those fights despite bravely fighting back physically when mentally beaten. The man had heart without a doubt.

 

I'm sort of with Neil that arguably none of them were great though. I've always considered Tszyu borderline or a bit less but with willingness to entertain an argument for greatness. Hamed a bit lower than that probably. He's a fighter who my views on are complicated and nebulous. The same for Norris. Both were flawed, flat track bullies with big strengths and big flaws rolled into one.

Cotto and Froch are both between my roughly visualized tiers of good and excellent. Probably somewhere around the very good borderline.

Good.
Very good.
Excellent.
Near great.
Great.

All with their own internal mini tiers and between-spaces.

 

Cotto was naturally compared to Trinidad, but stylewise I think he fought more like Jose Torres.

 

Excellent post, as per usual.

And glad we agree on Tszyu & Cotto. Accomplishments aside, I just think a lot of facets of the game came more naturally to Tszyu than they did Cotto. Tszyu was more of a prodigy.

Cotto is a guy who had to work very hard at his craft, because if compared to his countrymen, he lacked the awesome physical talent of a Gomez, Trinidad, Benitez, Camacho.

 

Maybe I'm bias, because I do love watching Miguel Cotto. Funnily enough, I actually prefer to watch his boxing rather than him as a pressure fighter. Just a very tidy boxer.

I think he's broadly overrated, though. I mean, the large majority of casual boxing fans consider him an all-time great.