Kostya Tszyu-where does he rank?

[Humean]

Tszyu doesn't really have that great of a signature win or an intense rivalry with anyone to really elevate his career like some others have but he is a top 10 140 pounder for me. Particular credit for managing to unify the titles twice and therefore have 3 of the belts. Enjoyable style too.

[soul_survivor]

Kostya Tszyu was one of my favorites and had a stellar career. One of the few champions in the last twenty years to be undisputed. Where would he be in the all time 63 Kg rankings?

I have him just below Chavez and above Pryor at number 2.

As someone already mentioned, if you keep it to guys who strictly spent large chunks.of their career at 140 then tszyu ranks high, but if you take in guys who have stopped over at 140, he'd get beat by many, Oscar and a tough fight with floyd. Khan and Bradley would make great fights too.

[BennyST]

Tszyu doesn't really have that great of a signature win or an intense rivalry with anyone to really elevate his career like some others have but he is a top 10 140 pounder for me. Particular credit for managing to unify the titles twice and therefore have 3 of the belts. Enjoyable style too.

Which at the time was Undisputed because the WBO wasn't an official title yet. It had no standing and was just like the IBO is thought of now....ie not thought of much at all.

The official world titles, if you want to call them that, were the WBA, WBC, and IBF and he held all. Lineal, undisputed champion.

[Cardinal Buck]

Overrated. The Oktay Urkal fight says all you need to know.

[BennyST]

Overrated. The Oktay Urkal fight says all you need to know.

I've never understood this reasoning. Out of a 30+ fight career over nearly two decades, with 80% at the championship level you pick out one fight, which was still against a number one rated contender and multiple title challenger, you base his whole career off that one fight.

It's like saying 'Floyd Mayweather: totally overrated. Just see the Augustus fight. Tells you everything'

'Pacquiao: overrated. See Hussein fight. Tells you everything about every fight he ever had. Overrated'

'Wladimir Klithscko: see Purrity fight for a breakdown of his whole career. Overrated.'

Hopkins: overrated! Mercado fight tells you everything you need to know about his overrated career'

Ali: overrated. See Spinks fight. Tells you how overrated his whole career is in one fight!'

So, despite fighting an undefeated, top contender and winning the fight comfortably, if not spectacularly, you base his whole career off that one fight, that he won, clearly?

When you're the top guy and everyone wants what you have have and you have to fight guys who are actually rated fighters, you're going to find some of them are actually pretty good and give a tough outing. Every mandatory isn't a walk in the park. See Garcia for another example recently. He arguably lost that fight though. Are you going to base his entire career in another fifteen years and many, many more title fights off that one single close fight?

[New England]

I've never understood this reasoning. Out of a 30+ fight career over nearly two decades, with 80% at the championship level you pick out one fight, which was still against a number one rated contender and multiple title challenger, you base his whole career off that one fight.

It's like saying 'Floyd Mayweather: totally overrated. Just see the Augustus fight. Tells you everything'

'Pacquiao: overrated. See Hussein fight. Tells you everything about every fight he ever had. Overrated'

'Wladimir Klithscko: see Purrity fight for a breakdown of his whole career. Overrated.'

Hopkins: overrated! Mercado fight tells you everything you need to know about his overrated career'

Ali: overrated. See Spinks fight. Tells you how overrated his whole career is in one fight!'

So, despite fighting an undefeated, top contender and winning the fight comfortably, if not spectacularly, you base his whole career off that one fight, that he won, clearly?

When you're the top guy and everyone wants what you have have and you have to fight guys who are actually rated fighters, you're going to find some of them are actually pretty good and give a tough outing. Every mandatory isn't a walk in the park. See Garcia for another example recently. He arguably lost that fight though. Are you going to base his entire career in another fifteen years and many, many more title fights off that one single close fight?

[Cardinal Buck]

I've never understood this reasoning. Out of a 30+ fight career over nearly two decades, with 80% at the championship level you pick out one fight, which was still against a number one rated contender and multiple title challenger, you base his whole career off that one fight.

It's like saying 'Floyd Mayweather: totally overrated. Just see the Augustus fight. Tells you everything'

'Pacquiao: overrated. See Hussein fight. Tells you everything about every fight he ever had. Overrated'

'Wladimir Klithscko: see Purrity fight for a breakdown of his whole career. Overrated.'

Hopkins: overrated! Mercado fight tells you everything you need to know about his overrated career'

Ali: overrated. See Spinks fight. Tells you how overrated his whole career is in one fight!'

So, despite fighting an undefeated, top contender and winning the fight comfortably, if not spectacularly, you base his whole career off that one fight, that he won, clearly?

When you're the top guy and everyone wants what you have have and you have to fight guys who are actually rated fighters, you're going to find some of them are actually pretty good and give a tough outing. Every mandatory isn't a walk in the park. See Garcia for another example recently. He arguably lost that fight though. Are you going to base his entire career in another fifteen years and many, many more title fights off that one single close fight?

I think you're talking that a little too literally, but I think that fight is a good example of why Zoo was a very good but kind-of limited fighter and not an atg. He struggled a lot in that fight against a so-so fighter, and his limitations were shown.

Zoo has zero wins over future HOF fighters, unless you count the corpse of Chavez.

He was stopped by Vince Phillips and quit against Hatton at a time when, contrary to internet-forum belief, he wasn't shot. How that loss gets subtracted from his resume is beyond me. He never avenged either.

His career defining win was against Judah, who turned out not be quite as good as everyone thought anyway. Judah schooled him for the first round and was never given a rematch.

The rest of his resume is very unspectacular. Mitchell had knee issues in those fights…so that probably leaves Hurtado as the next best win.

He also had one of the worst mullets in boxing.

I rank prime Hatton higher.

[soul_survivor]

Agreed with that guy, Tszyu isn't quite an ATG but there's no denying his credentials at light welter and the ability he had. Power and a keen boxing brain coupled with some good technical skills.

Those losses, which he never tried to avenge do hurt him though.

[Humean]

Which at the time was Undisputed because the WBO wasn't an official title yet. It had no standing and was just like the IBO is thought of now....ie not thought of much at all.

The official world titles, if you want to call them that, were the WBA, WBC, and IBF and he held all. Lineal, undisputed champion.

Well in Britain and perhaps Europe as a whole the WBO title was respected then but irrespective of that Tszyu was clearly the 140 pound king for at least a few years.

I think you're talking that a little too literally, but I think that fight is a good example of why Zoo was a very good but kind-of limited fighter and not an atg. He struggled a lot in that fight against a so-so fighter, and his limitations were shown.

Zoo has zero wins over future HOF fighters, unless you count the corpse of Chavez.

He was stopped by Vince Phillips and quit against Hatton at a time when, contrary to internet-forum belief, he wasn't shot. How that loss gets subtracted from his resume is beyond me. He never avenged either.

His career defining win was against Judah, who turned out not be quite as good as everyone thought anyway. Judah schooled him for the first round and was never given a rematch.

The rest of his resume is very unspectacular. Mitchell had knee issues in those fights…so that probably leaves Hurtado as the next best win.

He also had one of the worst mullets in boxing.

I rank prime Hatton higher.

Whether a fighter does or does not, deserves too or deserves not to get into the modern section of the International Boxing Hall of fame is pretty irrelevant to how good a fighter is. You even provide evidence of the foolishness of that argument with your sentence about Chavez.

Tszyu wasn't 'shot' against Hatton but he was an old champion with some injury problems up against a quality younger fighter at the apex of his career development. A classic case of the quality older fighter passing the torch to the next generation. On top of that he was fighting in Hatton's own backyard, with everything that entailed in regards to advantageous refereeing. None of that is an excuse for why he lost, it is just the reality of things but this loss is also not a strong argument against Tszyu's career.

Judah 'schooled' him in the first round? Come on, he loses the first round of a fight and then knocks the opponent out in the second and you think that is evidence against Tszyu? I agree that with hindsight Judah was not as good as many believed around the time of the Tszyu fight, too many were blinded by his speed as if fast hands equates to high skill (Gary Russell effect?) however Judah has been a fine fighter and Tszyu surely defeated the best version of him.

What makes Hatton rank higher?

[Cardinal Buck]

Well in Britain and perhaps Europe as a whole the WBO title was respected then but irrespective of that Tszyu was clearly the 140 pound king for at least a few years.



Whether a fighter does or does not, deserves too or deserves not to get into the modern section of the International Boxing Hall of fame is pretty irrelevant to how good a fighter is. You even provide evidence of the foolishness of that argument with your sentence about Chavez.

Tszyu wasn't 'shot' against Hatton but he was an old champion with some injury problems up against a quality younger fighter at the apex of his career development. A classic case of the quality older fighter passing the torch to the next generation. On top of that he was fighting in Hatton's own backyard, with everything that entailed in regards to advantageous refereeing. None of that is an excuse for why he lost, it is just the reality of things but this loss is also not a strong argument against Tszyu's career.

Judah 'schooled' him in the first round? Come on, he loses the first round of a fight and then knocks the opponent out in the second and you think that is evidence against Tszyu? I agree that with hindsight Judah was not as good as many believed around the time of the Tszyu fight, too many were blinded by his speed as if fast hands equates to high skill (Gary Russell effect?) however Judah has been a fine fighter and Tszyu surely defeated the best version of him.

What makes Hatton rank higher?

Hatton's resume is similar quality--he was an underdog against Tsyzu btw. If you want to say it's worse, fine. I just have more belief in Hatton's ability to deliver at his best. With Tszyu, there was a lot less consistency. I also favor Hatton over any version of Tsyzu in a fight.