Tarver was the only bigger man he beat. Making middleweights come up to fight him at 170 didn't score him any points on the weightclass front.
Double L's a stand up geezer. I like that he has different perspectives on some things & will argue for them, it stimulates thought, debate, fun....
And BTW, I wasn't necessarily comparing Hamed to Tyson in my original post - just saying that similar principals apply in gauging just how good...
I'm always curious how heavyweight achievements get weighted versus smaller guys. I mean, a featherweight wins a title, beats a great bantamweight...
Exactly. It's kinda like Tyson, IMO. By the time either fought anyone good they had declined. So it's totally subjective how good they were at...
This is pretty much the nail on the head. I'd rank Oscar, Marquez & Lopez together in a special 'very, very near great but not quite' category, I...
Yup. I'd consider Cotto a counter puncher, personally. He looks for openings, looks to pattern his opponent, time them etc. He doesn't go forcing...
Me too! Fightbeat rules!:partie:
I'm sure Double L is touched.:Thumbs::TLC:
Oh jeez not another efued.:scared: Whats this about?
Longevity's overrated, anyway. You prove what you prove, who cares how long or how short you manage to do it in.
You'd have to be to walk the streets with a hair-do like that. Same reason I never mess with a guy with a non-ironic tache.
Froch & Ward>Calzaghe.:cheer:
Double L isn't afraid to swim against the tide! I love fightbeat! :bears:
That'd be a good scenario.
If it's just 'Khan' announcing it, be sure it'll be a joke of an opponent. Prescott at best. Can't wait to see Bradley beat Khan's ass :crafty:
It was quite abstract and pleasing. I like a bit of garnish on my steak on occasion.
I like this one. It was evocative and made me both horny and vomitous simultaneously!:bears:
Exactly. Great fighters, and especially great fighters 2 divisions and 7 years past their best only ever lose to great fighters.:bears:
I dunno, maybe Im just arguing for the sake of it :lol:
Fair enough. I can understand that point of view, but to me (now :lol:) the point in a resume isn't about adding up every win like computer game...
They were good wins. But he doesn't get points for beating bigger men, because Pavlik & Wright were Middleweights. And by that stage of Hopkins...
So one win over Antonio Tarver is enough to settle this debate? Really?
The fact that Leonard was bigger scores him points yeah. Just like beating Tarver who was a bigger scores Hopkins points. But it's the wins that...
Well for me, Duran's greatness was as a lightweight but his victory over Leonard DEMONSTRATED that greatness at the very, very highest level. But...
I think at his best he was better. A tiny, little bit better. I don't put as much weight on multi-division accomplishments as many. Some guys...
Ah fuck it, I just rewatched the last couple of rounds of the Lalonde fight. Leonard, Leonard, Leonard. That's fucking bad assery, right there.
I actually don't know about this one, though reflexively I'd lean towards Leonard. Taylor would force a much faster pace on Leonard than Hagler...
Hagler. I'm a huge Hopkins fan, but Hagler.
That would be fine. As would Ortiz.
Separate names with a comma.
