Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 21:42:39 GMT
He was 56-5. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/odd.gif) That's the greatest boxer of All-Time? ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif) Uhh, you do realize that Sugar Ray Robinson is hands down considered the greatest boxer that ever lived (he was) and he had...uhhh, 19 loses. Don't get hung up on record. That dopey Bill Parcells quote -- "You are what your record says you are" -- is the most idiotic thing ever said by a human. Joe Calzaghe ended his career with a record of 46-0...and the seven year old little girl up the block I fear more than Slappy Joe. Ali is overrated because the biggest sporting event in the history of the world, the most highly anticipated sporting event ever....uhh, Ali didn't win it. He lost. Joe Frazier won the world's biggest sporting event....Muhammad Ali lost the world's biggest sporting event. A loser of that magnitude can never be the greatest at anything...except greatest loser of a big event. And Ali ties Tom "18 And 1" Brady for that title. 19 losses should not equate to anybody being in the conversation of greatest boxer ever. i'm sure he was a warrior and quite talented. but 19 losses = somebody got the better of you 19 times and you should not be considered the top dog and very best of your sport
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 21:52:04 GMT
Uhh, you do realize that Sugar Ray Robinson is hands down considered the greatest boxer that ever lived (he was) and he had...uhhh, 19 loses. Don't get hung up on record. That dopey Bill Parcells quote -- "You are what your record says you are" -- is the most idiotic thing ever said by a human. Joe Calzaghe ended his career with a record of 46-0...and the seven year old little girl up the block I fear more than Slappy Joe. Ali is overrated because the biggest sporting event in the history of the world, the most highly anticipated sporting event ever....uhh, Ali didn't win it. He lost. Joe Frazier won the world's biggest sporting event....Muhammad Ali lost the world's biggest sporting event. A loser of that magnitude can never be the greatest at anything...except greatest loser of a big event. And Ali ties Tom "18 And 1" Brady for that title. 19 losses should not equate to anybody being in the conversation of greatest boxer ever. i'm sure he was a warrior and quite talented. but 19 losses = somebody got the better of you 19 times and you should not be considered the top dog and very best of your sport It was a bit different back in his day, he fought over 200 times, and I think he avenged most his losses. These days you are lucky if a top boxer fights once every 6 months. The only thing really comparable today is if you look at a boxer's amateur record (and those records aren't always entirely accurate), virtually everyone loses in the amateurs... multiple times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 21:58:10 GMT
19 losses should not equate to anybody being in the conversation of greatest boxer ever. i'm sure he was a warrior and quite talented. but 19 losses = somebody got the better of you 19 times and you should not be considered the top dog and very best of your sport It was a bit different back in his day, he fought over 200 times, and I think he avenged most his losses. These days you are lucky if a top boxer fights once every 6 months. The only thing really comparable today is if you look at a boxer's amateur record (and those records aren't always entirely accurate), virtually everyone loses in the amateurs... multiple times. ok - but let's do the math here - that's pretty much 20 losses on 200 fights. so 1 loss in every 10 fights. meh - which kind of brings up my earlier points. why isn't de la hoya or roy jones jr talked about in terms as the best ever more prevelant. or a guy like joe calzaghe who went undefeated. what make these 20 losses so special and and Ali's 5. i get the argument of the era these guys fought in. but i can argue De La Hoya fought in a rather tough era himself. trinidad, mosely, chavez, hopkins, whitaker - the list goes on and on and he never ducked anybody - these boxers were no slouches. 1 loss in every 10 fights seems rather 'pedestrian' to me as far as Robinson goes...........one can argue he was the 3rd best 'Sugar' behind Leonard and Mosely ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 22:21:41 GMT
It was a bit different back in his day, he fought over 200 times, and I think he avenged most his losses. These days you are lucky if a top boxer fights once every 6 months. The only thing really comparable today is if you look at a boxer's amateur record (and those records aren't always entirely accurate), virtually everyone loses in the amateurs... multiple times. ok - but let's do the math here - that's pretty much 20 losses on 200 fights. so 1 loss in every 10 fights. meh - which kind of brings up my earlier points. why isn't de la hoya or roy jones jr talked about in terms as the best ever more prevelant. or a guy like joe calzaghe who went undefeated. what make these 20 losses so special and and Ali's 5. i get the argument of the era these guys fought in. but i can argue De La Hoya fought in a rather tough era himself. trinidad, mosely, chavez, hopkins, whitaker - the list goes on and on and he never ducked anybody - these boxers were no slouches. 1 loss in every 10 fights seems rather 'pedestrian' to me as far as Robinson goes...........one can argue he was the 3rd best 'Sugar' behind Leonard and Mosely ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif) De La Hoya never avenged any of his defeats, so you can't even really call him the best of his era... let alone the best of all time. If someone wants to say Roy Jones Jnr is the best of all time, really, I'm not gonna argue with them. The only thing I'd say about Joe Calazaghe though, is he fought Chris Eubank Snr way past his prime to win a vacant title, Eubank actually stepped in at the last second following the retirement of Steve Collins, and then the super-middleweight division wasn't really that strong for a long time afterwards. Not really Calzaghe's fault though, but he flew pretty much under the radar for almost 9 years after that fight, even here in Britain, until he fought Lacy, Hopkins, Kessler and Roy Jones Jnr right at the tail end of his career, which at least put some names on his CV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 22:38:41 GMT
ok - but let's do the math here - that's pretty much 20 losses on 200 fights. so 1 loss in every 10 fights. meh - which kind of brings up my earlier points. why isn't de la hoya or roy jones jr talked about in terms as the best ever more prevelant. or a guy like joe calzaghe who went undefeated. what make these 20 losses so special and and Ali's 5. i get the argument of the era these guys fought in. but i can argue De La Hoya fought in a rather tough era himself. trinidad, mosely, chavez, hopkins, whitaker - the list goes on and on and he never ducked anybody - these boxers were no slouches. 1 loss in every 10 fights seems rather 'pedestrian' to me as far as Robinson goes...........one can argue he was the 3rd best 'Sugar' behind Leonard and Mosely ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif) De La Hoya never avenged any of his defeats, so you can't even really call him the best of his era... let alone the best of all time. If someone wants to say Roy Jones Jnr is the best of all time, really, I'm not gonna argue with them. The only thing I'd say about Joe Calazaghe though, is he fought Chris Eubank Snr way past his prime to win a vacant title, Eubank actually stepped in at the last second following the retirement of Steve Collins, and then the super-middleweight division wasn't really that strong for a long time afterwards. Not really Calzaghe's fault though, but he flew pretty much under the radar for almost 9 years after that fight, even here in Britain, until he fought Lacy, Hopkins, Kessler and Roy Jones Jnr right at the tail end of his career, which at least put some names on his CV. What do you think about De La Hoya taking down and dethroning who was once considered one of the greatest All-Time fighters in Julio Cesar Chavez though - or do you think Chavez was just a shell of his former self even though he had a ridiculous amount of wins (like the Robinson argument) . I think by the time De La Hoya fought Money and Pac he was shot. Would have loved to see him get another crack at Hopkins and Trinidad - sadly after losing 2 to Mosely and Sugar was just a dull fighter with no personality - nobody wanted to see a trilogy. But I thought his Vargas war was tremendous and early on in his career he was 'must see tv' as far as boxers ala Tyson. He wasn't the type to run and hide and stick and move for 12 Rounds. He had his fair share of haters - but always stood toe to toe slugging it out which is why I have a great deal of respect for the guy - he always put on a show and was tough as nails despite his haters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 0:38:09 GMT
De La Hoya never avenged any of his defeats, so you can't even really call him the best of his era... let alone the best of all time. If someone wants to say Roy Jones Jnr is the best of all time, really, I'm not gonna argue with them. The only thing I'd say about Joe Calazaghe though, is he fought Chris Eubank Snr way past his prime to win a vacant title, Eubank actually stepped in at the last second following the retirement of Steve Collins, and then the super-middleweight division wasn't really that strong for a long time afterwards. Not really Calzaghe's fault though, but he flew pretty much under the radar for almost 9 years after that fight, even here in Britain, until he fought Lacy, Hopkins, Kessler and Roy Jones Jnr right at the tail end of his career, which at least put some names on his CV. What do you think about De La Hoya taking down and dethroning who was once considered one of the greatest All-Time fighters in Julio Cesar Chavez though - or do you think Chavez was just a shell of his former self even though he had a ridiculous amount of wins (like the Robinson argument) . I think by the time De La Hoya fought Money and Pac he was shot. Would have loved to see him get another crack at Hopkins and Trinidad - sadly after losing 2 to Mosely and Sugar was just a dull fighter with no personality - nobody wanted to see a trilogy. But I thought his Vargas war was tremendous and early on in his career he was 'must see tv' as far as boxers ala Tyson. He wasn't the type to run and hide and stick and move for 12 Rounds. He had his fair share of haters - but always stood toe to toe slugging it out which is why I have a great deal of respect for the guy - he always put on a show and was tough as nails despite his haters. Was that the one where Chavez's eyebrow was hanging off after the first punch because of a cut in training? Well no one can deny De La Hoya wasn't a great boxer... but he never quite captured the imagination of the great British public, which is really the true mark of a legend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 0:48:45 GMT
What do you think about De La Hoya taking down and dethroning who was once considered one of the greatest All-Time fighters in Julio Cesar Chavez though - or do you think Chavez was just a shell of his former self even though he had a ridiculous amount of wins (like the Robinson argument) . I think by the time De La Hoya fought Money and Pac he was shot. Would have loved to see him get another crack at Hopkins and Trinidad - sadly after losing 2 to Mosely and Sugar was just a dull fighter with no personality - nobody wanted to see a trilogy. But I thought his Vargas war was tremendous and early on in his career he was 'must see tv' as far as boxers ala Tyson. He wasn't the type to run and hide and stick and move for 12 Rounds. He had his fair share of haters - but always stood toe to toe slugging it out which is why I have a great deal of respect for the guy - he always put on a show and was tough as nails despite his haters. Was that the one where Chavez's eyebrow was hanging off after the first punch because of a cut in training? Well no one can deny De La Hoya wasn't a great boxer... but he never quite captured the imagination of the great British public, which is really the true mark of a legend. if memory serves - you'd probably know better than me.... the first fight was stopped because of a gash on Chavez and De La Hoya was ahead on points (he was winning the fight handily) rematch. De La Hoya butchered him. Scenes of an old warrior just being decimated. The Vargas/De La Hoya match is what I find intriguing. So much hatred there. People would bash De La Hoya for being a 'pretty boy'. I never got it. You'd see that look in his eyes and like I said - he'd stand there and go toe to toe - and just annihilate somebody. Fans bashed De La Hoya for not being a true 'Mexican' -whatever that means - after dismantling Chavez and then he did the same to Vargas (who put on a great valiant show). To a lesser extent - he did the same to Mayorga - running his mouth and De La Hoya went in there not like a 'pretty boy' being disrespected about his heritage - he kicked the living you know what out of him. own his fight collection. find him an intriguing individual with rising/falling/rising and getting back on his feet - just like tyson
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 0:57:33 GMT
Was that the one where Chavez's eyebrow was hanging off after the first punch because of a cut in training? Well no one can deny De La Hoya wasn't a great boxer... but he never quite captured the imagination of the great British public, which is really the true mark of a legend. if memory serves - you'd probably know better than me.... the first fight was stopped because of a gash on Chavez and De La Hoya was ahead on points (he was winning the fight handily) rematch. De La Hoya butchered him. Scenes of an old warrior just being decimated. The Vargas/De La Hoya match is what I find intriguing. So much hatred there. People would bash De La Hoya for being a 'pretty boy'. I never got it. You'd see that look in his eyes and like I said - he'd stand there and go toe to toe - and just annihilate somebody. Fans bashed De La Hoya for not being a true 'Mexican' -whatever that means - after dismantling Chavez and then he did the same to Vargas (who put on a great valiant show). To a lesser extent - he did the same to Mayorga - running his mouth and De La Hoya went in there not like a 'pretty boy' being disrespected about his heritage - he kicked the living you know what out of him. own his fight collection. find him an intriguing individual with rising/falling/rising and getting back on his feet - just like tyson Yeah, I think he did bust him up in both fights, although I do think in the first one the initial cut was probably caused mainly by something pre-fight. But you could argue Chavez was shot by then just like De La Hoya was at the end when he got beat by Mayweather and Pac Man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 1:00:49 GMT
if memory serves - you'd probably know better than me.... the first fight was stopped because of a gash on Chavez and De La Hoya was ahead on points (he was winning the fight handily) rematch. De La Hoya butchered him. Scenes of an old warrior just being decimated. The Vargas/De La Hoya match is what I find intriguing. So much hatred there. People would bash De La Hoya for being a 'pretty boy'. I never got it. You'd see that look in his eyes and like I said - he'd stand there and go toe to toe - and just annihilate somebody. Fans bashed De La Hoya for not being a true 'Mexican' -whatever that means - after dismantling Chavez and then he did the same to Vargas (who put on a great valiant show). To a lesser extent - he did the same to Mayorga - running his mouth and De La Hoya went in there not like a 'pretty boy' being disrespected about his heritage - he kicked the living you know what out of him. own his fight collection. find him an intriguing individual with rising/falling/rising and getting back on his feet - just like tyson Yeah, I think he did bust him up in both fights, although I do think in the first one the initial cut was probably caused mainly by something pre-fight. But you could argue Chavez was shot by then just like De La Hoya was at the end when he got beat by Mayweather and Pac Man. ever see what happened to Meldrick Taylor? fighter out of Philly? fight against Chavez was stopped with like 2 seconds to go? think Richard Steele was the ref? tragic story story where you think - if a couple of seconds had just gone the other way - how much different would somebody's life turn out.
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on May 26, 2017 14:18:12 GMT
It was a bit different back in his day, he fought over 200 times, and I think he avenged most his losses. These days you are lucky if a top boxer fights once every 6 months. The only thing really comparable today is if you look at a boxer's amateur record (and those records aren't always entirely accurate), virtually everyone loses in the amateurs... multiple times. ok - but let's do the math here - that's pretty much 20 losses on 200 fights.
so 1 loss in every 10 fights.meh - which kind of brings up my earlier points. why isn't de la hoya or roy jones jr talked about in terms as the best ever more prevelant. or a guy like joe calzaghe who went undefeated.
what make these 20 losses so special and and Ali's 5. i get the argument of the era these guys fought in. but i can argue De La Hoya fought in a rather tough era himself. trinidad, mosely, chavez, hopkins, whitaker - the list goes on and on and he never ducked anybody - these boxers were no slouches. 1 loss in every 10 fights seems rather 'pedestrian' to me as far as Robinson goes...........one can argue he was the 3rd best 'Sugar' behind Leonard and Mosely ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif) Dude, no offense, but you sound like a child. Your reasoning is that of a ten year old. Joe Calzaghe at 48-0 means he is one of the greatest of all time? Just those numbers prove it? Uhh, that's what a ten year old would see and say. 48 wins no loses...bestest ever! A thinking man would ANALYZE that 48-0 record. Who did he fight, when did he fight them? Literally any boxer can go undefeated. Fuck, Butterbean was actually 72-1 at one point in his boxing career! I guess you would make Butterbean the second greatest boxer that ever lived. A ten year old would...so would you. ![](http://www.sherdog.com/image_crop.php?image=http://www.origin.sherdog.com/_images/fighter/20141225014253_IMG_4337.JPG&&width=200&&height=300) Real boxers and boxing fans do not get hung up on records. Best analogy I ever heard about a boxer's record is it is similar to a baseball pitcher's record. Sure Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver and Whitey Ford had some savage loses on their records. Did they go undefeated? A loss for a boxer is like a loss for a pitcher in a season. A pitcher loses a game, so what, right? Loses to a fighter are like that. Especially back in Ray Robinson's day when he was fighting 30 times a year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 14:56:45 GMT
ok - but let's do the math here - that's pretty much 20 losses on 200 fights.
so 1 loss in every 10 fights.meh - which kind of brings up my earlier points. why isn't de la hoya or roy jones jr talked about in terms as the best ever more prevelant. or a guy like joe calzaghe who went undefeated.
what make these 20 losses so special and and Ali's 5. i get the argument of the era these guys fought in. but i can argue De La Hoya fought in a rather tough era himself. trinidad, mosely, chavez, hopkins, whitaker - the list goes on and on and he never ducked anybody - these boxers were no slouches. 1 loss in every 10 fights seems rather 'pedestrian' to me as far as Robinson goes...........one can argue he was the 3rd best 'Sugar' behind Leonard and Mosely ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif) Dude, no offense, but you sound like a child. Your reasoning is that of a ten year old. Joe Calzaghe at 48-0 means he is one of the greatest of all time? Just those numbers prove it? Uhh, that's what a ten year old would see and say. 48 wins no loses...bestest ever! A thinking man would ANALYZE that 48-0 record. Who did he fight, when did he fight them? Literally any boxer can go undefeated. Fuck, Butterbean was actually 72-1 at one point in his boxing career! I guess you would make Butterbean the second greatest boxer that ever lived. A ten year old would...so would you. ![](http://www.sherdog.com/image_crop.php?image=http://www.origin.sherdog.com/_images/fighter/20141225014253_IMG_4337.JPG&&width=200&&height=300) Real boxers and boxing fans do not get hung up on records. Best analogy I ever heard about a boxer's record is it is similar to a baseball pitcher's record. Sure Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver and Whitey Ford had some savage loses on their records. Did they go undefeated? A loss for a boxer is like a loss for a pitcher in a season. A pitcher loses a game, so what, right? Loses to a fighter are like that. Especially back in Ray Robinson's day when he was fighting 30 times a year. I love Butterbean! ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/biggrin.gif) It is difficult to really place Calzaghe, he never had any so called superfights after he won his first world title when he was at his peak or his opponents were at their peak. I'm looking at his CV at the moment, he beat a couple of decent (ish) domestic fighters, Richie Woodhall and Robin Reid (but Robin Reid was more interested in modelling than boxing) and he beat Charles Brewer and Byron Mitchell, they're okay names to have on your CV, but most those guys I've never heard of, some of them don't even have a wikipedia page! This was when he was world champ. It wasn't till the very end he started having some big fights against guys whose best days were probably behind them. Except maybe Kessler. His promoter, Frank Warren, said in an interview a couple of years ago that he wasn't ambitious enough during his career, that he could have unified the belts at earlier stages but declined, although it should be said that Frank Warren and Calzaghe did split and have a High Court battle before Calzaghe's last fight when Calzaghe decided to promote his own fight (Calzaghe won the High Court case), so perhaps Frank Warren isn't going to be glowing with praise for his former fighter. I do think though Calazaghe's aggression and high work rate would have made him a handful for any boxer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 15:05:00 GMT
ok - but let's do the math here - that's pretty much 20 losses on 200 fights.
so 1 loss in every 10 fights.meh - which kind of brings up my earlier points. why isn't de la hoya or roy jones jr talked about in terms as the best ever more prevelant. or a guy like joe calzaghe who went undefeated.
what make these 20 losses so special and and Ali's 5. i get the argument of the era these guys fought in. but i can argue De La Hoya fought in a rather tough era himself. trinidad, mosely, chavez, hopkins, whitaker - the list goes on and on and he never ducked anybody - these boxers were no slouches. 1 loss in every 10 fights seems rather 'pedestrian' to me as far as Robinson goes...........one can argue he was the 3rd best 'Sugar' behind Leonard and Mosely ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif) Dude, no offense, but you sound like a child. Your reasoning is that of a ten year old. Joe Calzaghe at 48-0 means he is one of the greatest of all time? Just those numbers prove it? Uhh, that's what a ten year old would see and say. 48 wins no loses...bestest ever! A thinking man would ANALYZE that 48-0 record. Who did he fight, when did he fight them? Literally any boxer can go undefeated. Fuck, Butterbean was actually 72-1 at one point in his boxing career! I guess you would make Butterbean the second greatest boxer that ever lived. A ten year old would...so would you. ![](http://www.sherdog.com/image_crop.php?image=http://www.origin.sherdog.com/_images/fighter/20141225014253_IMG_4337.JPG&&width=200&&height=300) Real boxers and boxing fans do not get hung up on records. Best analogy I ever heard about a boxer's record is it is similar to a baseball pitcher's record. Sure Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver and Whitey Ford had some savage loses on their records. Did they go undefeated? A loss for a boxer is like a loss for a pitcher in a season. A pitcher loses a game, so what, right? Loses to a fighter are like that. Especially back in Ray Robinson's day when he was fighting 30 times a year. so a guy that loses 1 out of every 10 fights should be talked about as the best ever ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 15:13:59 GMT
Yeah, I think he did bust him up in both fights, although I do think in the first one the initial cut was probably caused mainly by something pre-fight. But you could argue Chavez was shot by then just like De La Hoya was at the end when he got beat by Mayweather and Pac Man. ever see what happened to Meldrick Taylor? fighter out of Philly? fight against Chavez was stopped with like 2 seconds to go? think Richard Steele was the ref? tragic story story where you think - if a couple of seconds had just gone the other way - how much different would somebody's life turn out. I don't think I ever saw that fight, I'll have to youtube it or find a copy! 2 seconds to go. Wow!
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on May 26, 2017 17:06:42 GMT
Dude, no offense, but you sound like a child. Your reasoning is that of a ten year old. Joe Calzaghe at 48-0 means he is one of the greatest of all time? Just those numbers prove it? Uhh, that's what a ten year old would see and say. 48 wins no loses...bestest ever! A thinking man would ANALYZE that 48-0 record. Who did he fight, when did he fight them? Literally any boxer can go undefeated. Fuck, Butterbean was actually 72-1 at one point in his boxing career! I guess you would make Butterbean the second greatest boxer that ever lived. A ten year old would...so would you. ![](http://www.sherdog.com/image_crop.php?image=http://www.origin.sherdog.com/_images/fighter/20141225014253_IMG_4337.JPG&&width=200&&height=300) Real boxers and boxing fans do not get hung up on records. Best analogy I ever heard about a boxer's record is it is similar to a baseball pitcher's record. Sure Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver and Whitey Ford had some savage loses on their records. Did they go undefeated? A loss for a boxer is like a loss for a pitcher in a season. A pitcher loses a game, so what, right? Loses to a fighter are like that. Especially back in Ray Robinson's day when he was fighting 30 times a year. so a guy that loses 1 out of every 10 fights should be talked about as the best ever ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) As I said, you think like a ten year old. Trying to explain things to you is just like trying to explain things to a ten year old. I tried to give you some credit...but I see you ain't that bright. Oh, by the way, Sandy Koufax - record of 165–87 - is considered a top three pitcher of all time. Did he lose one out of ten? Nah, he lost one out of every two he pitched! Kid, you clearly don't understand sports. 48-0...you feel Joe Calzaghe is better than Sugar Ray Robinson. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) What an idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 17:13:18 GMT
ever see what happened to Meldrick Taylor? fighter out of Philly? fight against Chavez was stopped with like 2 seconds to go? think Richard Steele was the ref? tragic story story where you think - if a couple of seconds had just gone the other way - how much different would somebody's life turn out. I don't think I ever saw that fight, I'll have to youtube it or find a copy! 2 seconds to go. Wow! Great theater - and tragic. Taylor was a Gold Medalist. It would have been Chavez's first career loss. Taylor had the fight in control. With 2 seconds left after being rattled, Steele called the fight after asking a dazed Taylor if he was OK. Apparently Taylor didn't respond according to Steele. 2 seconds left as Taylor was on his feet after putting on an epic performance and was going to knock off the legendary Chavez. Taylor eventually got a rematch years later - but many argue this fight just severely mentally and emotionally damaged him.
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on May 26, 2017 17:19:01 GMT
BUTTERBEAN!
O man, Im a big wrestling fan, I remember when they did "Tough Enough," and wanted Dr. Death Steve Williams to win and give him a push. Well, he didnt, Bart Gunn won, they put him against Butterbean, BOOM, bye Bart. No one won in that Tough Enough nonsense.
Yea, I gotta agree you cant get hung up on records. If you look at Ali's record, remember, this man only lost 2 fights....his last 4....he went 1-3. How does a man only lose to in 50+ fights...but goes 1-3 at the end?
Spinks was a Split decision, Ali won btw by UD.
Now the Norton fight, the one he lost, HE WAS OUT OF SHAPE, 221 pounds, Norton WAS NOT. Here is a good article from wikipedia:
Norton was a guy imo who just had Alis number, but Ali beat him twice to Nortons one.
Im dont need to go into Frazier/Ali trilogy. (Norton-Ali wasnt as mainstream imo Frazier-Ali).
So "3" loses, avenged them all, some twice. Spinks, he was near the end, but he avengeds his loss.
Now lets do the sad last two.
Well it's obvious, he was past his prime. I saw a documentary, and there were grown men commentators who loved Ali, who cried during the Holmes fight. They didnt wanna see that. Even the boxing commentator was like,"please end this."
Go watch a prime Ai, please, PLEASE, someone sell me in ALIS PRIME he wouldnt have taken apart Holmes.
Berbick, really, really!? 49-11-1 guy, he just wanted to take advantage of an older, slower Ali for his own personal gain. Im glad Tyson knocked his @$$ out.
Holmes was a 69-6 guy, 48-0, until he lost to Michael Spinks twice and next Tyson (3 in a row).
Next loss to Holyfield (No shame in that.)
He also lost to O. McCall/B. Nielson.
So Holmes was a legit fighter....but I dont see him beating a PRIME Ali. I give more respect to Holmes > Berbick. He imo didnt want what happened. "Holmes seemed to show signs of regret, or at least sadness, in punishing Ali so much during the fight. He appeared in a post-fight interview with tears in his eyes. When asked why he was crying, he said that he respected Ali "a whole lot" and "he fought one of the baddest heavyweights in the world today, and you cannot take credit from him."
I honestly think he didnt wanna do what he did. I cant hate him for what he did, I think he legit thought he was gonna fight a still good Ali, but he realized this was it, Ali wasnt the same.
I stand by F*** Berbick. If my memory serves me right even Holmes thought what Berbick did was bs. It should have never happened, and I stand by honestly....the Holmes fight shouldnt have either.
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on May 26, 2017 17:19:50 GMT
ever see what happened to Meldrick Taylor? fighter out of Philly? fight against Chavez was stopped with like 2 seconds to go? think Richard Steele was the ref? tragic story story where you think - if a couple of seconds had just gone the other way - how much different would somebody's life turn out. I don't think I ever saw that fight, I'll have to youtube it or find a copy! 2 seconds to go. Wow! Dude, uhh, it is one of the most famous fights in boxing history. You follow boxing and never saw that fight? That's like saying you like sex and you've never even gotten laid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 17:25:06 GMT
BUTTERBEAN! O man, Im a big wrestling fan, I remember when they did "Tough Enough," and wanted Dr. Death Steve Williams to win and give him a push. Well, he didnt, Bart Gunn won, they put him against Butterbean, BOOM, bye Bart. No one won in that Tough Enough nonsense. Yea, I gotta agree you cant get hung up on records. If you look at Ali's record, remember, this man only lost 2 fights....his last 4....he went 1-3. How does a man only lose to in 50+ fights...but goes 1-3 at the end? Spinks was a Split decision, Ali won btw by UD. Now the Norton fight, the one he lost, HE WAS OUT OF SHAPE, 221 pounds, Norton WAS NOT. Here is a good article from wikipedia: Norton was a guy imo who just had Alis number, but Ali beat him twice to Nortons one. Im dont need to go into Frazier/Ali trilogy. (Norton-Ali wasnt as mainstream imo Frazier-Ali). So "3" loses, avenged them all, some twice. Spinks, he was near the end, but he avengeds his loss. Now lets do the sad last two. Well it's obvious, he was past his prime. I saw a documentary, and there were grown men commentators who loved Ali, who cried during the Holmes fight. They didnt wanna see that. Even the boxing commentator was like,"please end this." Go watch a prime Ai, please, PLEASE, someone sell me in ALIS PRIME he wouldnt have taken apart Holmes. Berbick, really, really!? 49-11-1 guy, he just wanted to take advantage of an older, slower Ali for his own personal gain. Im glad Tyson knocked his @$$ out. Holmes was a 69-6 guy, 48-0, until he lost to Michael Spinks twice and next Tyson (3 in a row). Next loss to Holyfield (No shame in that.) He also lost to O. McCall/B. Nielson. So Holmes was a legit fighter....but I dont see him beating a PRIME Ali. I give more respect to Holmes > Berbick. He imo didnt want what happened. "Holmes seemed to show signs of regret, or at least sadness, in punishing Ali so much during the fight. He appeared in a post-fight interview with tears in his eyes. When asked why he was crying, he said that he respected Ali "a whole lot" and "he fought one of the baddest heavyweights in the world today, and you cannot take credit from him." I honestly think he didnt wanna do what he did. I cant hate him for what he did, I think he legit thought he was gonna fight a still good Ali, but he realized this was it, Ali wasnt the same. I stand by F*** Berbick. If my memory serves me right even Holmes thought what Berbick did was bs. It should have never happened, and I stand by honestly....the Holmes fight shouldnt have either. 'The Easton Assassin' had a deadly jab. Talk about pitting fighters from one era from the next against each other. Would have loved to see Holmes vs. Lewis. Or the Klitschkos. Or Bowe (I seem to be the only Bowe fan here).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 17:29:52 GMT
I don't think I ever saw that fight, I'll have to youtube it or find a copy! 2 seconds to go. Wow! Dude, uhh, it is one of the most famous fights in boxing history. You follow boxing and never saw that fight? That's like saying you like sex and you've never even gotten laid. Well I was 8 or 9 years old at the time, I was into boxing but I wouldn't have stayed up to 4am to watch a fight in America at that age and at that time in my life, and plus that wouldn't have been box office here in Britain. If it had involved a British fighter or a household name like Tyson, then it might have been box office, but it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by runie on May 26, 2017 17:35:11 GMT
It doesn't matter how great you are as long as you are good and entertaining.. That is what brings the viewers and of course the money, and a platform to talk about your ideology.
|
|