Thread: Top 5 of USA, Mexico, Philippines, and Puerto Rico

Can anyone find anything on these top 5 lists that they can righteously argue with? I can explain my rankings. I won't fold under questioning. Sorry if this is old hat.

USA
1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Pep
4. Greb
5. B. Leonard
(Kills me to leave Ali and Louis out)

Mexico
1. Chavez
2. Finito
3. Sanchez
4. Zarate
5. Canto

Puerto Rico
1. Ortiz
2. Gomez
3. Benitez
4. Trinidad
5. Cotto

Philippines
1. Pac
2. Villa
3. Elorde
4. Little Dado
5. Villaflor

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Can anyone find anything on these top 5 lists that they can righteously argue with? I can explain my rankings. I won't fold under questioning. Sorry if this is old hat.

USA
1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Pep
4. Greb
5. B. Leonard
(Kills me to leave Ali and Louis out)

Mexico
1. Chavez
2. Finito
3. Sanchez
4. Zarate
5. Canto

Puerto Rico
1. Ortiz
2. Gomez
3. Benitez
4. Trinidad
5. Cotto

Philippines
1. Pac
2. Villa
3. Elorde
4. Little Dado
5. Villaflor

On the USA that is certainly a respectable list. There are about 8 guys with good arguments for the top five and you got five of them.

On Mexico there is a flagrant miss and that is Ruben Olivares who, in my view cannot be lower than #2 and may be number 1. I think Morales may have a claim. But again the exclusing on Olivares is the only obvious flaw.

On PR one could quibble with the order and I think one could replace Cotto with Camacho or Jose Torres and have as good a list, but overall pretty good.

On the Phillipines I think one could arguably replace Dado and Villaflor with Montana or Cefarino or Espinsoa and have as good a list. But again, these are quibbles.

All in all I think you've done good work here.

On the USA that is certainly a respectable list. There are about 8 guys with good arguments for the top five and you got five of them.

On Mexico there is a flagrant miss and that is Ruben Olivares who, in my view cannot be lower than #2 and may be number 1. I think Morales may have a claim. But again the exclusing on Olivares is the only obvious flaw.

On PR one could quibble with the order and I think one could replace Cotto with Camacho or Jose Torres and have as good a list, but overall pretty good.

On the Phillipines I think one could arguably replace Dado and Villaflor with Montana or Cefarino or Espinsoa and have as good a list. But again, these are quibbles.

All in all I think you've done good work here.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Rockabye Ruben. Might have been an oversight. It's just such a deep group. I think Zarate was more dominant as a bantamweight champ against a more demanding group. That's a judgment call, but I never thought Zarate lost at 118, the Pintor decision being a bad one. Olivares was less peerless at 118 if that makes any sense. Preferring Olivares' more voluminous body of work is a very understandable take.

The #5 spot for PR can be taken by a number of fighters. I prefer Cotto's more complete list of wins over the more limited accomplishments of Torres and Camacho. Again, arguments can be made both ways.

For the Philippines, it gets really messy after the top 3. There's a gaggle of great flyweights who fought more or less in the same era (the Dados, Montana) and it's hard to comb through the results to determine the best. For me, Little Dado's best wins and the fact that he didn't lose a ton of fights in his prime like the others seems to give him an edge. I think Ceferino's resume is a little dicey. Luisito had some big wins, but along the way frequently lost to guys he should have beaten, which drops him down a peg. But to put Espinoza ahead of Villaflor is a move I might make. He was just a more special talent, even if Villaflor has a period of dominance that Espinoza never achieved.

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

On the USA that is certainly a respectable list. There are about 8 guys with good arguments for the top five and you got five of them.

On Mexico there is a flagrant miss and that is Ruben Olivares who, in my view cannot be lower than #2 and may be number 1. I think Morales may have a claim. But again the exclusing on Olivares is the only obvious flaw.

On PR one could quibble with the order and I think one could replace Cotto with Camacho or Jose Torres and have as good a list, but overall pretty good.

On the Phillipines I think one could arguably replace Dado and Villaflor with Montana or Cefarino or Espinsoa and have as good a list. But again, these are quibbles.

All in all I think you've done good work here.

Yeah, Rockabye Ruben. Might have been an oversight. It's just such a deep group. I think Zarate was more dominant as a bantamweight champ against a more demanding group. That's a judgment call, but I never thought Zarate lost at 118, the Pintor decision being a bad one. Olivares was less peerless at 118 if that makes any sense. Preferring Olivares' more voluminous body of work is a very understandable take.

The #5 spot for PR can be taken by a number of fighters. I prefer Cotto's more complete list of wins over the more limited accomplishments of Torres and Camacho. Again, arguments can be made both ways.

For the Philippines, it gets really messy after the top 3. There's a gaggle of great flyweights who fought more or less in the same era (the Dados, Montana) and it's hard to comb through the results to determine the best. For me, Little Dado's best wins and the fact that he didn't lose a ton of fights in his prime like the others seems to give him an edge. I think Ceferino's resume is a little dicey. Luisito had some big wins, but along the way frequently lost to guys he should have beaten, which drops him down a peg. But to put Espinoza ahead of Villaflor is a move I might make. He was just a more special talent, even if Villaflor has a period of dominance that Espinoza never achieved.

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Zarate's best wins were Zamora, Farerri, Rodolfo Martinez, Benicio Sosa and Dvila. Is that fair? Pretty good group!

Puas' were Sal Burruni, Octavio Gomez, an aging but still formidable Jose Medel, Kanazawa twice, Sakurai, Lionel Rose, Chucho Castillo twice, Pimintel, Bobby Chacon (twice), Art Hafey and JL Ramirez.

I think I'm being fair in saying Puas' conquests were deeper and at the top aren't Rose and Chacon the equal of Zamora and Fererri?

Those are good points.

I still think Zarate was the better bantamweight champion.

Look at Rodolfo Martinez' body of work before Zarate blasted him out. He ruined fighters whose subsequent lack of success was related to the beating Zarate gave them. For 3 years he reigned dominantly and violently until they robbed him against Pintor and he left the sport. I think you can say Olivares' opponents at the top of his list are a slightly deeper group, but Zarate usurps that a bit with his utter dominance.

Not to imply Olivares wasn't dominant. Or violent. But he reigned for only a year before getting stopped by Chucho. He won the return and a year later was stopped again by Herrera, ending his days at 118. That's a pretty unfair characterization of Olivares' reign, but I'm just pointing out that his dominance over his peers was not as pronounced as Zarate's. And no one will say the late-70's was a weak era at 118.

So what's more important, a few more good fighters on your "good wins" list or clearer dominance? It's a matter of personal tastes, but I can't get around the fact that Zarate was as dominant a force at 118 that I ever saw in my limited time on this planet. You certainly make a good case, but I'm gonna go with Zarate.

But if you think Olivares' work outside the bantamweight division was compelling nough to nose him ahead of Zarate in an all-time sense, I can definitely see that.

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Those are good points.

I still think Zarate was the better bantamweight champion.

Look at Rodolfo Martinez' body of work before Zarate blasted him out. He ruined fighters whose subsequent lack of success was related to the beating Zarate gave them. For 3 years he reigned dominantly and violently until they robbed him against Pintor and he left the sport. I think you can say Olivares' opponents at the top of his list are a slightly deeper group, but Zarate usurps that a bit with his utter dominance.

Not to imply Olivares wasn't dominant. Or violent. But he reigned for only a year before getting stopped by Chucho. He won the return and a year later was stopped again by Herrera, ending his days at 118. That's a pretty unfair characterization of Olivares' reign, but I'm just pointing out that his dominance over his peers was not as pronounced as Zarate's. And no one will say the late-70's was a weak era at 118.

So what's more important, a few more good fighters on your "good wins" list or clearer dominance? It's a matter of personal tastes, but I can't get around the fact that Zarate was as dominant a force at 118 that I ever saw in my limited time on this planet. You certainly make a good case, but I'm gonna go with Zarate.

That was one whale of a post! It is awfully hard to argue with much of it. As much as I loved Puas, few men in history ever left quite as much wreckage in their wake as Zarate did. Now I'm gonna go watch the Zarate-Martinez fight again!

The one argument I will make is while the Zarate era was a formidable one? The Cuevas era was as tough at the top and deeper. I'm not arguing Zrate doesn't belong in the top five, only that Puas does as well.

You've made a great case regarding the bantam comparison! I learned a couple oif things, thanks!

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

But if you think Olivares' work outside the bantamweight division was compelling nough to nose him ahead of Zarate in an all-time sense, I can definitely see that.

I hadn't watched the Zarate-Rodolfo Martinez fight in in maybe 30 years. Very high quality fight. Little clinching, short punches, good movement, complex punching choices etc. The things that jumped out at me were (in no order)

Did Cuyo Harnandez EVER train a fighter who didn't have a magnificent left hand? Jab, hook to the body, hook to the head, uppercut?

I had forgotten just how physically strong Carlos was. When he didn't like Rodolfo's distance? He simply shoved him (like George Foreman did) and boom! Three feet of distance.

Zarate was also pretty damned ring savvy. The first time Martinez turns southpaw he lands a sweeping left hand. When he tries it again in the fifth round Zarate lands a booming left hook, batters him all over the ring and puts him through the ropes. When Rodlfo makes his final, gallant stand in the eighth Zarate recognizes it for what it is, weather's the storm, digs repeatedly to the body and lets the strom dissipate.

Finally, Zarate had every punch in the book. What he didn't have was a pattern of combinations. Matinez never knew what the NEXT punch was going to be. Carlos could throw any combo he wanted. The KO shots, left to the belly and a right uppercut may have been the first time he threw that all night. Before a left to the belly either ended a combination or was followed by a straight right hand or a hook to the head.

Marvelous!

Marblehead, that was a great breakdown of the Zarate-Martinez fight. And I apreciate the nudge in the right direction with Olivares. I might have to dump poor Miguel Canto from the top 5. Mexico is TOUGH. It has a cross-section of all the different pillars of greatness upon which fighters can be deemed great: fast and furious reigns of destruction, longer reigns where champs face less-demanding comp (with a few nuggets sprinkled in as well) while building great records, young greats dying young, fighters whose stars shine brighter than their resumes might, etc.

It's a challenge. And a top 5 is a one way of leaving Barrera, Morales, and Marquez off the list. As history shakes it all out, it's gonna be hard ranking those guys accordingly. I can seemingly make a case for each guy. A top 10 would be brutal. Thank you for insight.

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Marblehead, that was a great breakdown of the Zarate-Martinez fight. And I apreciate the nudge in the right direction with Olivares. I might have to dump poor Miguel Canto from the top 5. Mexico is TOUGH. It has a cross-section of all the different pillars of greatness upon which fighters can be deemed great: fast and furious reigns of destruction, longer reigns where champs face less-demanding comp (with a few nuggets sprinkled in as well) while building great records, young greats dying young, fighters whose stars shine brighter than their resumes might, etc.

It's a challenge. And a top 5 is a one way of leaving Barrera, Morales, and Marquez off the list. As history shakes it all out, it's gonna be hard ranking those guys accordingly. I can seemingly make a case for each guy. A top 10 would be brutal. Thank you for insight.

As you rightly note, criteria is everything in trying to figure these things out. For me? Extended title reigns (and I mean REAL title reigns, not some Orlando Canizales defending a strap 15+ times against largely unranked guys) are very powerful. Canto's 15 or so defenses as THE MAN at 112 is very powerful. though only perhaps 10 of those were high quality defenses.

You know who falls out for me [gritting teeth]? The guy who, had he lived might have ended up the concensus number one, Chava Sanchez. Yes he beat HOFers on four occasions as well as Castillo and LaPorte and Castanon. He is the finest feather I have seen in my lifetime in terms of who I think would win a round robin of the guys I've seen. But he just died too young to have the overall body of work of the other guys.

You, of course raise the central point with regard to Mexico. I could make credible cases for JCC, Olivares, Canto, Sanchez, Lopez, Zarate, Sadlivar, Morales, MAB, both Marquez brothers, Kid Azteca, Baby Arizmendi, Chuiquita Gonzales and maybe even Pipino Cuevas and Daniel Zaragoza being in the top ten. That's 16 guys! You pick the criteria and I'll tell you who the top ten are. Trying to get to five? Impossible!

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Marblehead, that was a great breakdown of the Zarate-Martinez fight. And I apreciate the nudge in the right direction with Olivares. I might have to dump poor Miguel Canto from the top 5. Mexico is TOUGH. It has a cross-section of all the different pillars of greatness upon which fighters can be deemed great: fast and furious reigns of destruction, longer reigns where champs face less-demanding comp (with a few nuggets sprinkled in as well) while building great records, young greats dying young, fighters whose stars shine brighter than their resumes might, etc.

It's a challenge. And a top 5 is a one way of leaving Barrera, Morales, and Marquez off the list. As history shakes it all out, it's gonna be hard ranking those guys accordingly. I can seemingly make a case for each guy. A top 10 would be brutal. Thank you for insight.

As you rightly note, criteria is everything in trying to figure these things out. For me? Extended title reigns (and I mean REAL title reigns, not some Orlando Canizales defending a strap 15+ times against largely unranked guys) are very powerful. Canto's 15 or so defenses as THE MAN at 112 is very powerful. though only perhaps 10 of those were high quality defenses.

You know who falls out for me [gritting teeth]? The guy who, had he lived might have ended up the concensus number one, Chava Sanchez. Yes he beat HOFers on four occasions as well as Castillo and LaPorte and Castanon. He is the finest feather I have seen in my lifetime in terms of who I think would win a round robin of the guys I've seen. But he just died too young to have the overall body of work of the other guys.

You, of course raise the central point with regard to Mexico. I could make credible cases for JCC, Olivares, Canto, Sanchez, Lopez, Zarate, Sadlivar, Morales, MAB, both Marquez brothers, Kid Azteca, Baby Arizmendi, Chuiquita Gonzales and maybe even Pipino Cuevas and Daniel Zaragoza being in the top ten. That's 16 guys! You pick the criteria and I'll tell you who the top ten are. Trying to get to five? Impossible!

Since you just mentioned Sanchez. I would like to point this out. I remember in the other thread where you said Roy Jones beating Hopkins was not impressive at all, whereas everyone has given Sanchez and I think maybe you would too although you haven't stated for beating hall of famers like let's say Azumah Nelson that was still very green at that part of his career, even more so than Bernard?

I would just like a clarification. Wouldn't the same standard hold for Sanchez for beating guys like Nelson who was still pretty much green? And Nelson wasn't even ranked. The same argument you used that Hopkins was not a great victory for Jones (even though he was ranked top 10 when he fought Jones).

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Marblehead, that was a great breakdown of the Zarate-Martinez fight. And I apreciate the nudge in the right direction with Olivares. I might have to dump poor Miguel Canto from the top 5. Mexico is TOUGH. It has a cross-section of all the different pillars of greatness upon which fighters can be deemed great: fast and furious reigns of destruction, longer reigns where champs face less-demanding comp (with a few nuggets sprinkled in as well) while building great records, young greats dying young, fighters whose stars shine brighter than their resumes might, etc.

It's a challenge. And a top 5 is a one way of leaving Barrera, Morales, and Marquez off the list. As history shakes it all out, it's gonna be hard ranking those guys accordingly. I can seemingly make a case for each guy. A top 10 would be brutal. Thank you for insight.

As you rightly note, criteria is everything in trying to figure these things out. For me? Extended title reigns (and I mean REAL title reigns, not some Orlando Canizales defending a strap 15+ times against largely unranked guys) are very powerful. Canto's 15 or so defenses as THE MAN at 112 is very powerful. though only perhaps 10 of those were high quality defenses.

You know who falls out for me [gritting teeth]? The guy who, had he lived might have ended up the concensus number one, Chava Sanchez. Yes he beat HOFers on four occasions as well as Castillo and LaPorte and Castanon. He is the finest feather I have seen in my lifetime in terms of who I think would win a round robin of the guys I've seen. But he just died too young to have the overall body of work of the other guys.

You, of course raise the central point with regard to Mexico. I could make credible cases for JCC, Olivares, Canto, Sanchez, Lopez, Zarate, Sadlivar, Morales, MAB, both Marquez brothers, Kid Azteca, Baby Arizmendi, Chuiquita Gonzales and maybe even Pipino Cuevas and Daniel Zaragoza being in the top ten. That's 16 guys! You pick the criteria and I'll tell you who the top ten are. Trying to get to five? Impossible!

Since you just mentioned Sanchez. I would like to point this out. I remember in the other thread where you said Roy Jones beating Hopkins was not impressive at all, whereas everyone has given Sanchez and I think maybe you would too although you haven't stated for beating hall of famers like let's say Azumah Nelson that was still very green at that part of his career, even more so than Bernard?

I would just like a clarification. Wouldn't the same standard hold for Sanchez for beating guys like Nelson who was still pretty much green? And Nelson wasn't even ranked. The same argument you used that Hopkins was not a great victory for Jones (even though he was).

[sigh]

I am as guilty as anyone of giving Sanchez the benefit of the doubt on many things, including Azumah, because, well, he died on a midnight pussy run at 23! So a lot of us, me included, look at him and say look at the names around him when he died available for fights. Rematches with Azumah, Bazooka and LaPorte, Pedroza, Lockridge and up at 130 Camacho, Chacon, Navarette and Boza Edwards. So I illogically and unfairly say "well he would have beaten at least SOME of those guys" so rewarding him for Azumah is perhaps just.

Now to be clear on the Roy-BHOP debate. What was at issue in THAT discussion was NOT whether it was a great win. In hindsight it is Jones second most important. The issue was could one reasonably call Jones 160 champion based on that fight. My answer remains NO! One doesn't become a legit champ by beating the #9 ranked guy.

I once did an alternate career for Sanchez had he lived? And interestingly I had his first defeat (going forward) being in a rematch with Azumah two years after they'd first fought.

Is that enough of an answer?

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Marblehead, that was a great breakdown of the Zarate-Martinez fight. And I apreciate the nudge in the right direction with Olivares. I might have to dump poor Miguel Canto from the top 5. Mexico is TOUGH. It has a cross-section of all the different pillars of greatness upon which fighters can be deemed great: fast and furious reigns of destruction, longer reigns where champs face less-demanding comp (with a few nuggets sprinkled in as well) while building great records, young greats dying young, fighters whose stars shine brighter than their resumes might, etc.

It's a challenge. And a top 5 is a one way of leaving Barrera, Morales, and Marquez off the list. As history shakes it all out, it's gonna be hard ranking those guys accordingly. I can seemingly make a case for each guy. A top 10 would be brutal. Thank you for insight.

As you rightly note, criteria is everything in trying to figure these things out. For me? Extended title reigns (and I mean REAL title reigns, not some Orlando Canizales defending a strap 15+ times against largely unranked guys) are very powerful. Canto's 15 or so defenses as THE MAN at 112 is very powerful. though only perhaps 10 of those were high quality defenses.

You know who falls out for me [gritting teeth]? The guy who, had he lived might have ended up the concensus number one, Chava Sanchez. Yes he beat HOFers on four occasions as well as Castillo and LaPorte and Castanon. He is the finest feather I have seen in my lifetime in terms of who I think would win a round robin of the guys I've seen. But he just died too young to have the overall body of work of the other guys.

You, of course raise the central point with regard to Mexico. I could make credible cases for JCC, Olivares, Canto, Sanchez, Lopez, Zarate, Sadlivar, Morales, MAB, both Marquez brothers, Kid Azteca, Baby Arizmendi, Chuiquita Gonzales and maybe even Pipino Cuevas and Daniel Zaragoza being in the top ten. That's 16 guys! You pick the criteria and I'll tell you who the top ten are. Trying to get to five? Impossible!

Since you just mentioned Sanchez. I would like to point this out. I remember in the other thread where you said Roy Jones beating Hopkins was not impressive at all, whereas everyone has given Sanchez and I think maybe you would too although you haven't stated for beating hall of famers like let's say Azumah Nelson that was still very green at that part of his career, even more so than Bernard?

I would just like a clarification. Wouldn't the same standard hold for Sanchez for beating guys like Nelson who was still pretty much green? And Nelson wasn't even ranked. The same argument you used that Hopkins was not a great victory for Jones (even though he was).

[sigh]

I am as guilty as anyone of giving Sanchez the benefit of the doubt on many things, including Azumah, because, well, he died on a midnight pussy run at 23! So a lot of us, me included, look at him and say look at the names around him when he died available for fights. Rematches with Azumah, Bazooka and LaPorte, Pedroza, Lockridge and up at 130 Camacho, Chacon, Navarette and Boza Edwards. So I illogically and unfairly say "well he would have beaten at least SOME of those guys" so rewarding him for Azumah is perhaps just.

Now to be clear on the Roy-BHOP debate. What was at issue in THAT discussion was NOT whether it was a great win. In hindsight it is Jones second most important. The issue was could one reasonably call Jones 160 champion based on that fight. My answer remains NO! One doesn't become a legit champ by beating the #9 ranked guy.

I once did an alternate career for Sanchez had he lived? And interestingly I had his first defeat (going forward) being in a rematch with Azumah two years after they'd first fought.

Is that enough of an answer?

Cool just wanted a clarification bro. I'm not trying to bust your chops like Mafiajoey and hornyfinger. lol

BTW, Sanchez died on a midnight pussy run?

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by Gallegos Boxing Gym

Marblehead, that was a great breakdown of the Zarate-Martinez fight. And I apreciate the nudge in the right direction with Olivares. I might have to dump poor Miguel Canto from the top 5. Mexico is TOUGH. It has a cross-section of all the different pillars of greatness upon which fighters can be deemed great: fast and furious reigns of destruction, longer reigns where champs face less-demanding comp (with a few nuggets sprinkled in as well) while building great records, young greats dying young, fighters whose stars shine brighter than their resumes might, etc.

It's a challenge. And a top 5 is a one way of leaving Barrera, Morales, and Marquez off the list. As history shakes it all out, it's gonna be hard ranking those guys accordingly. I can seemingly make a case for each guy. A top 10 would be brutal. Thank you for insight.

As you rightly note, criteria is everything in trying to figure these things out. For me? Extended title reigns (and I mean REAL title reigns, not some Orlando Canizales defending a strap 15+ times against largely unranked guys) are very powerful. Canto's 15 or so defenses as THE MAN at 112 is very powerful. though only perhaps 10 of those were high quality defenses.

You know who falls out for me [gritting teeth]? The guy who, had he lived might have ended up the concensus number one, Chava Sanchez. Yes he beat HOFers on four occasions as well as Castillo and LaPorte and Castanon. He is the finest feather I have seen in my lifetime in terms of who I think would win a round robin of the guys I've seen. But he just died too young to have the overall body of work of the other guys.

You, of course raise the central point with regard to Mexico. I could make credible cases for JCC, Olivares, Canto, Sanchez, Lopez, Zarate, Sadlivar, Morales, MAB, both Marquez brothers, Kid Azteca, Baby Arizmendi, Chuiquita Gonzales and maybe even Pipino Cuevas and Daniel Zaragoza being in the top ten. That's 16 guys! You pick the criteria and I'll tell you who the top ten are. Trying to get to five? Impossible!

Since you just mentioned Sanchez. I would like to point this out. I remember in the other thread where you said Roy Jones beating Hopkins was not impressive at all, whereas everyone has given Sanchez and I think maybe you would too although you haven't stated for beating hall of famers like let's say Azumah Nelson that was still very green at that part of his career, even more so than Bernard?

I would just like a clarification. Wouldn't the same standard hold for Sanchez for beating guys like Nelson who was still pretty much green? And Nelson wasn't even ranked. The same argument you used that Hopkins was not a great victory for Jones (even though he was).

[sigh]

I am as guilty as anyone of giving Sanchez the benefit of the doubt on many things, including Azumah, because, well, he died on a midnight pussy run at 23! So a lot of us, me included, look at him and say look at the names around him when he died available for fights. Rematches with Azumah, Bazooka and LaPorte, Pedroza, Lockridge and up at 130 Camacho, Chacon, Navarette and Boza Edwards. So I illogically and unfairly say "well he would have beaten at least SOME of those guys" so rewarding him for Azumah is perhaps just.

Now to be clear on the Roy-BHOP debate. What was at issue in THAT discussion was NOT whether it was a great win. In hindsight it is Jones second most important. The issue was could one reasonably call Jones 160 champion based on that fight. My answer remains NO! One doesn't become a legit champ by beating the #9 ranked guy.

I once did an alternate career for Sanchez had he lived? And interestingly I had his first defeat (going forward) being in a rematch with Azumah two years after they'd first fought.

Is that enough of an answer?

Cool just wanted a clarification bro. I'm not trying to bust your chops like Mafiajoey and hornyfinger. lol

BTW, Sanchez died on a midnight pussy run?

First off I enjoy our conversations immensely, so don't ever be shy about calling me out if you see a hole in a position I take. It is one of the ways I learn.

As far as Sanchez's death, I heard the pussy run story perhaps 20 years ago at Gleason's. I have no idea if it really is true...but it would explain things wouldn't it?