what is better dominating one division or winning belts in many??

[El Chicano]

The only thing that really matters is the quality of your opponents and how dominant the fighter is against his opposition. A fighter can win 5 titles in 5 divisions but if he fights all bums, then what's it worth. If a fighter stays in his weight and beats everybody who is a somebody, then he is more dominant im my book.

[THE REED]

what i dont like about getting titles in many divisions is that the quality of competition may not be up to par. each division could have a weak champion ready for the taking. when you dominate a division, you basically clean out everyone worth a damn in there. unless of course, you are in a weak division.

i was about to say... but then you covered yourself... good man.

[warp1432]

That's the thing though, when you dominate for a long time, you are usually consider in a weak division.

[THE REED]

That's the thing though, when you dominate for a long time, you are usually consider in a weak division.

hopkins, calzaghe, jones(lhw)... dominated weak divisions

[Boofdatruth]

Agreed there. But the question was never answered by you. Cotto moves up from jr. welter anyhoo. He's fighting Margarito, taking risks, fought Mosley, Zab, Quintana...damn he's fought more quality guys than Mayweather has the past 5 years...damn. Don't forget the question. Mayweather is not really DOMINATING the division, he beat Baldy yes...Because Baldy beat up on Zab (who let's face it, is a disappointment) who needed two fights to beat Spinks Jinkx Corey, who got past Mayorga, who beat Vernon, who beat up Shane twice. Mayweather should have fought Shane to redeem himself.

Shane was 36 years old. He wasn't close to the shane that he used to be, but still an ok fighter. Quintana showed that he is an up and down fighter, and is now more down than up. I don't look at who did what at welter when it comes to Floyd because he was the true welter champ. He fought dlh at 154, and hatton at 147. Now like any other champ, hatton wanted to come up in weight to fight floyd. Boxing allowed that. Hatton was pfp, and after he lost, was ridiculed for being a small guy floyd fought. Why? Did arguello get ridiculed after being stopped in 13 by pryor? Shane, as good as he was fought like a 36 year old fighter against cotto. Quintana somehow lucked into a title shot beating an up and coming joel julio never proving himself. Cotto fans use quintana as good comp now because he beat williams. When quintana lost to cotto, they called Q a straight yellow back coward. Talk about some of these 2 faced cotto fans. Using quintana for their agenda. In the rematch, quintana showed his worth by lasting half a full half a round. When i look at cotto and floyd, i see a division where neither guy has done anything to call themselves the best welter. Floyd was the best fighter in the world before he came to welter, so that carries weight. I feel you when you say floyd has not dominated the division. If anything, margs has done more than both at welter, winning and losing. Floyd has left it up to these guys so that hopefully, he can get his hunger back for the sport. He has had a full career. Almost all of the greats have handpicked big fights after a great success in their careers. IF cotto is lucky to do what floyd has done in the ring, he will do the same too. All of the greats do.

[Boofdatruth]

hopkins, calzaghe, jones(lhw)... dominated weak divisions

So did Bob foster. Those champs did what they had to do. When you don't have great comp to fight, you dominate them. And those guys did.

[warp1432]

hopkins, calzaghe, jones(lhw)... dominated weak divisions

See common misconception. Hopkins, Calzaghe, and Jones actually had good (good, not great) opposition. It's just they dominated them and they never got a chance to prove either beforehand or afterwards just really how good they were at that division or higher because when they moved up, they had to face another monster. It's where the saying "Make em look like nobody" comes from because that's what it was.

Calzaghe's got a bit more chance to prove because Calzaghe didn't have all the belts. Jones' opposition looked more impressive when he moved up or when they looked good against DM or someone.

That or when they faced someone good coming up from another division, they were "blown up"

[THE REED]

So did Bob foster. Those champs did what they had to do. When you don't have great comp to fight, you dominate them. And those guys did.

oh im not disagreeing...

See common misconception. Hopkins, Calzaghe, and Jones actually had good opposition. It's just they dominated them and they never got a chance to prove either beforehand or afterwards just really how good they were at that division or higher because when they moved up, they had to face another monster. It's where the saying "Make em look like nobody" comes from because that's what it was.

Calzaghe's got a bit more chance to prove because Calzaghe didn't have all the belts. Jones' opposition looked more impressive when he moved up or when they looked good against DM or someone.

That or when they faced someone good coming up from another division, they were "blown up"

I think when you compare it to good comp... which to me is the 80s fab four... and the 70s heavyweight division... THATS good competition...

I give roy more credit, not tryin to be nuthuggerish here... but hopkins and calzaghe just fought comfortably at their divisions for 10 yrs... roy beat bernard for mw... then moved up to fight 44-0 toney at smw... then moved up and fought mccallum at lhw... cleaned out MOST of the division, and then fought a HW titleholder... i think thats more impressive than what hopkins has done...


altho i give credit to BOTH hopkins for moving from MW to LHW at age 40 successfuly... and for joe, coming across the pond at 36, and altho a 43 yr old, still beating a slick champion in bernard.. lacy doesnt do anytihng for me, kessler is a good win, not a great one

[mcentepede]

Common Boxing terms and their real meanings Part I:
*JOURNEY-MAN = A BOXER WITH MORE LOSSES THAN NUMBER OF TOES
*BOXER-PUNCHER=A BOXER WHO HAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF KO'S & TECHNICAL SKILLS.
*BRAWLER= A BOXER WITH FEW TECHNICAL SKILLS
*SLICKSTER=RUNS AND DANCES ALOT
*FEATHER-FISTED=CAN'T BREAK AN EGG WITH A HAMMER IN HIS HAND
*PAST HIS PRIME = OLD
*MANDATORY CHALLENGER=UNRANKED/UNKNOWN BOXER EXPECTED TO LOSE
*WBC=WHY BOX CONTENDERS
*IBF=INTERNATIONAL BOXING FRAUDS
*WBO= WEAK BOXERS ONLY
*STRIPPED OF TITLE=DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH BRIBES.
*SPLIT DECISION=1 JUDGE GOT PAID OFF.
*FIGHT ENDS IN DRAW=PROMOTERS WANNA MAKE MORE MONEY IN REMATCH

[Boofdatruth]

oh im not disagreeing...



I think when you compare it to good comp... which to me is the 80s fab four... and the 70s heavyweight division... THATS good competition...

I give roy more credit, not tryin to be nuthuggerish here... but hopkins and calzaghe just fought comfortably at their divisions for 10 yrs... roy beat bernard for mw... then moved up to fight 44-0 toney at smw... then moved up and fought mccallum at lhw... cleaned out MOST of the division, and then fought a HW titleholder... i think thats more impressive than what hopkins has done...


altho i give credit to BOTH hopkins for moving from MW to LHW at age 40 successfuly... and for joe, coming across the pond at 36, and altho a 43 yr old, still beating a slick champion in bernard.. lacy doesnt do anytihng for me, kessler is a good win, not a great one

Good post. But Cal has showed his worth by dominating those 2 undefeated fighters fighters you mentioned. His resume at 168 is better than decent with eubank, mitchell, sheika, brewer, bika, reid, lacy, kessler, and finally hop at 175. Hop and brewster are the only fighters who made cal look average.