Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Well then I don't know what to say. Honestly, I don't rank to many of the lower weights to high with the exception of fighters like Rafael Marquez who have been through multiple divisions because the individual divisions are quite shallow sometimes, so it takes multiple divisions to be P4P. But...
What does Israel Vazquez have to do with anything? No one is saying he is a top 10 fighter right now, but to say you enjoy watching him fight like you do a bum is...I don't know what to say Bilbo. Have you seen him take on Jhonny Gonzalez? I mean that was no less impressive then any win by Cotto, Hatton or Castillo who all have the same stalking styles? I don't get it.
It's one thing to say you don't want to watch them because the lower weights don't appeal to you, but it's an entirely different thing to discredit them entirely based off of how big they are. I'm dumbfounded Bilbo I really am.
Ok maybe I was being a bit harsh. I don't mean to say they are talentless. What I mean is that because they are small people seem to value it more when they have a real tear up, you know the commentator will say how brave they are and what a fantastic show they are putting on etc in a way that they just don't with bigger fighters.
The bumfight comment was over the top I admit it and apologise but the reference to women's MMA or women's boxing for that matter isn't at all.
There are people on this thread who are lambasting me for being a fool and a heretic for daring to speak negatively about the little guys but I'm sure a healthy proportion of you all, and maybe some who have posted on this thread would be only to glad to denounce women's boxing as a travesty.
I know many of you hate woman's boxing but what makes them less deserving? Do they not show the same commitment? Do they not give 100% also?
So why the discrimination?
Why criticise me for saying that the real small guys fighting is something of a sideshow, a circus act if you will, whilst you could happily say the very same thing about women's boxing?
I'm sure there are women fighters out there who are extrememely talented and the bigger ones I have no doubt could beat some of the lower ranked men.
Should they be on the p4p list too and if not why not?
Cool click Bilbo - quality thread fella ;D
Glad you enjoyed it, cc returned, my posts are very much love or hate it seems much like marmite
I do tend to agree with you on this one but not solely for the reasons you stated. I think the lower weight divisions are generally a bit of a grey area for a lot of boxing fans so if one commentator or writer likes a particular fighter, fans catch on purely relying on what they have been told by a third party. I get this impression with the Marquez brothers in the sense that most folk on here had them both top 5/6 p4p without really knowing much about their opposition.
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Well then I don't know what to say. Honestly, I don't rank to many of the lower weights to high with the exception of fighters like Rafael Marquez who have been through multiple divisions because the individual divisions are quite shallow sometimes, so it takes multiple divisions to be P4P. But...
What does Israel Vazquez have to do with anything? No one is saying he is a top 10 fighter right now, but to say you enjoy watching him fight like you do a bum is...I don't know what to say Bilbo. Have you seen him take on Jhonny Gonzalez? I mean that was no less impressive then any win by Cotto, Hatton or Castillo who all have the same stalking styles? I don't get it.
It's one thing to say you don't want to watch them because the lower weights don't appeal to you, but it's an entirely different thing to discredit them entirely based off of how big they are. I'm dumbfounded Bilbo I really am.
Ok maybe I was being a bit harsh. I don't mean to say they are talentless. What I mean is that because they are small people seem to value it more when they have a real tear up, you know the commentator will say how brave they are and what a fantastic show they are putting on etc in a way that they just don't with bigger fighters.
The bumfight comment was over the top I admit it and apologise but the reference to women's MMA or women's boxing for that matter isn't at all.
There are people on this thread who are lambasting me for being a fool and a heretic for daring to speak negatively about the little guys but I'm sure a healthy proportion of you all, and maybe some who have posted on this thread would be only to glad to denounce women's boxing as a travesty.
I know many of you hate woman's boxing but what makes them less deserving? Do they not show the same commitment? Do they not give 100% also?
So why the discrimination?
Why criticise me for saying that the real small guys fighting is something of a sideshow, a circus act if you will, whilst you could happily say the very same thing about women's boxing?
I'm sure there are women fighters out there who are extrememely talented and the bigger ones I have no doubt could beat some of the lower ranked men.
Should they be on the p4p list too and if not why not?
Cool click Bilbo - quality thread fella ;D
Glad you enjoyed it, cc returned, my posts are very much love or hate it seems much like marmite
I do tend to agree with you on this one but not solely for the reasons you stated. I think the lower weight divisions are generally a bit of a grey area for a lot of boxing fans so if one commentator or writer likes a particular fighter, fans catch on purely relying on what they have been told by a third party. I get this impression with the Marquez brothers in the sense that most folk on here had them both top 5/6 p4p without really knowing much about their opposition.
Ah see someone who see what I'm getting at! It's all very well telling us that R Marquez has beating more Ring top 10 fighters than anyone else but how many of us have seen the opponents of all these Ring top 10 guys?
Only the big names are televised so unless you have access to East Asian Sports Central how you possibly going to know who these guys are?
I'm fairly sure that I'm correct when I say the vast majority of boxers fighting below bantamweight especially are part timers, as there just isn't the money to be made at those weights. Thats not to knock their commitment or potential but lets be honest there is a world of difference between Manchester United and Forest Green football clubs now isn't there?
Beating up on a host of part timers doesn't make you p4p. I know the elite guys, the ones we hear about, the R Marquez, I Vaszquez, Arce etc are all full time, but they are the stars, Most of their opponents arn't full time boxers it's just a fact.
Nobody makes the p4p list in the middleweight division for beating Antony Bonsante and they shouldn't be given that favouritism in the lower weights either.
I'm not saying that small fighters can't be p4p, Morales, Barrera etc they all deserve their spots. But to be p4p you need to have won titles in many wieght class imo.
Nobody EVER considers a heavyweight fighter for the p4p rankings, even someone like Klitschko who has beaten Ring top 10 fighters like Sam Peter twice, Chris Bryd and Calvin Brock because we are familiar with the current state of the heavies and know that the standard is low.
But if he would have the exact same results but in the 120 lb division he would be knocking on the p4p door, it just doesn't make sense to me.
a true p4p star would be able to beat any < 130 lb man imo, else they just ain't p4p.
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
If PBF isn't the #1 then the rankings are useless.....
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Damn I always thought the Ring rankings were at least credible. This is bullshat.
How has Winky fallen so far to be demoted, considering he's not lost a fight for years and most people thought he beat Taylor?
It seems the Ring have shown what they felt about Taylor's decisions by dropping him below Hopkins who he beat twice in a row and has lost 2 of his last 3 ???
But it's the absurdity of sticking R Marquez at number 3 jthat really pisses me off. >:mad
I know El Gamo practically feeds off of Marquez's 'milk' but come on, number 3, you gotta be kidding me?
Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume.
If your p4p one of the best fighters in the whole entire world you should be able to pound out any 130 lb man in the world imo.
People love these puny little guys for some reason that is beyond me. I know Gamo will come on here now and bash me for my stupidity and hating citing that R Marquez has beaten more ring top 10 guys than anyone else but it's really meaningless.
He beat top ranked ring guys in the bantamweight divisions, for which read less than 9 st F****** pgymy men.
They are virtually all little phillipino fishermen or poor south american 'coca' growers because they are the only kind of people small and impoverished enough to make that weight.
I'm sure there are heavyweights out there who have beaten loads of Ring top 10 ranked fights in the heavyweight division but we all disregard them because we know the heavyweights all suck.
The difference with the little weights is that you just don't ever see these little guys fights. Sure you watch the top guys like R Marquez and Israel Vasquez, but the vast majority of their Ring top 10 ranked 'opponents' are all part timers who train in between harvesting their crops or hauling in a big catch on some shitty little raft cobbled together with a few sheets of bamboo.
Ok so they are in the top ten of the pissants division but they could still be beaten up by virtually any professional athlete from football, track and field and rugby so who cares?
Hell if Laila Ali or Ann Wolfe were to fight R Marquez's past opponents my money would be on the girls to butcher them all so why don't they make the p4p list?
If you can't discriminate against a male boxer based on the fact that he's a F****** 5 ft 3 in 115 lb runt then surely someone who could kick their asses whilst having the handicap of being born female should be rated even higher?
Anyway I feel better now I've got it off my chest.
Rant over, sad click away if it makes you feel better but you guys know what I'm saying is the truth.
Classic writting and ranting.
Cool Click.
I was laughing my ass off.
I wont debate, nor argue, nor agree, nor disagree.
But I will say it was a very entertaining read.
;D
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
I can't believe the BS I'M reading in this this thread. basically,you are saying becuase they are small,they should not be P4P or not as high up. Thats bullshit. As Mick said,doesn't the name Ricardo Lopez mean anything....And it's P4P,it's irrelevant whether he could beat up the man on the road ::** ::** ::**
And secondly,to say that people just follow the writers is stupid,especially on this website. WE have hardcore fans who alot of shit about the lower weights so just because you don't doesn't necessarily mean others dont either.
I think Bilbo and anyone who agrees needs to go and watch some tapes of the lighter weights because ou evidently lack knowledge in this area and that comes across in your points,they don't have substance.
It's you who has no knowledge about these fighters.
I'll take Rafale Marquez as an example. He has beaten as many Top 10 RING ranked fighters as anyone in the P4P lists,has beaten 2 HALL OF FAMERS,and is a superb boxer/puncher who if he was the same size as others in the P4P list,would KTFO most of them. But according to your thinking he should not be in there because um...he's smalll..... ::** ::** ::** :-X
And your analogy with womens boxing is the worst ever...what relevance does it have?
Bro,you're one of my fave posters here but this is P4P one of the worst statements I have ever read here:"Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume."
Honestly,I really don't know what to say about that. You are a lost cause my friend. :-\ ;D ;) I wouldn't mind if you made some valid points,I'd admit it but you dont!! It just boils down to,you don't watch lighter weights because they are too small,and they couldnt KO the man on the street... ::**
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
:coolclick: returned, Thanks buddy it sure made me feel better to get it off my chest!
Suprised El Gamo hasn't responded. Getting him all worked up quoting me a dozen fighter names and telling me how very very wrong I am was going to be half of the fun ^-^
:EDIT: hahah just as I posted this..............sure enough,
My work here is done :P
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
I can't believe the BS I'M reading in this this thread. basically,you are saying becuase they are small,they should not be P4P or not as high up. Thats bullshit. As Mick said,doesn't the name Ricardo Lopez mean anything....And it's P4P,it's irrelevant whether he could beat up the man on the road ::** ::** ::**
And secondly,to say that people just follow the writers is stupid,especially on this website. WE have hardcore fans who alot of S*** about the lower weights so just because you don't doesn't necessarily mean others dont either.
I think Bilbo and anyone who agrees needs to go and watch some tapes of the lighter weights because ou evidently lack knowledge in this area and that comes across in your points,they don't have substance.
It's you who has no knowledge about these fighters.
I'll take Rafale Marquez as an example. He has beaten as many Top 10 RING ranked fighters as anyone in the P4P lists,has beaten 2 HALL OF FAMERS,and is a superb boxer/puncher who if he was the same size as others in the P4P list,would KTFO most of them. But according to your thinking he should not be in there because um...he's smalll..... ::** ::** ::** :-X
And your analogy with womens boxing is the worst ever...what relevance does it have?
Bro,you're one of my fave posters here but this is P4P one of the worst statements I have ever read here:"Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume."
Honestly,I really don't know what to say about that. You are a lost cause my friend. :-\ ;D ;) I wouldn't mind if you made some valid points,I'd admit it but you dont!! It just boils down to,you don't watch lighter weights because they are too small,and they couldnt KO the man on the street... ::**
Calm down my little Mexican loving friend, does the phrase HOOK, LINE and SINKER mean anything to you :-*
C'mon man I referenced you all the way through, how you'd come on, quote the he's beaten more top 10 ranked fighters, Hall of fame yada yada and still you couldn't help but bite. I was actually going to call this the EL Gamo windup thread but thought that might be too obvious ;)
Don't worry though I know just how good Ricardo Lopez was, he was awesome, could beat every man under 108 lbs in the
world.
And every women under 140 lbs ;D
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
I can't believe the BS I'M reading in this this thread. basically,you are saying becuase they are small,they should not be P4P or not as high up. Thats bullshit. As Mick said,doesn't the name Ricardo Lopez mean anything....And it's P4P,it's irrelevant whether he could beat up the man on the road ::** ::** ::**
And secondly,to say that people just follow the writers is stupid,especially on this website. WE have hardcore fans who alot of S*** about the lower weights so just because you don't doesn't necessarily mean others dont either.
I think Bilbo and anyone who agrees needs to go and watch some tapes of the lighter weights because ou evidently lack knowledge in this area and that comes across in your points,they don't have substance.
It's you who has no knowledge about these fighters.
I'll take Rafale Marquez as an example. He has beaten as many Top 10 RING ranked fighters as anyone in the P4P lists,has beaten 2 HALL OF FAMERS,and is a superb boxer/puncher who if he was the same size as others in the P4P list,would KTFO most of them. But according to your thinking he should not be in there because um...he's smalll..... ::** ::** ::** :-X
And your analogy with womens boxing is the worst ever...what relevance does it have?
Bro,you're one of my fave posters here but this is P4P one of the worst statements I have ever read here:"Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume."
Honestly,I really don't know what to say about that. You are a lost cause my friend. :-\ ;D ;) I wouldn't mind if you made some valid points,I'd admit it but you dont!! It just boils down to,you don't watch lighter weights because they are too small,and they couldnt KO the man on the street... ::**
Calm down my little Mexican loving friend, does the phrase HOOK, LINE and SINKER mean anything to you :-*
C'mon man I referenced you all the way through, how you'd come on, quote the he's beaten more top 10 ranked fighters, Hall of fame yada yada and still you couldn't help but bite. I was actually going to call this the EL Gamo windup thread but thought that might be too obvious ;)
Don't worry though I know just how good Ricardo Lopez was, he was awesome, could beat every man under 108 lbs in the
world.
And every women under 140 lbs ;D
LMFAO!!! I tried,I really did. I thought,let him keep going,Amat is dealing with his points but I just couldnt help! You are very charismatic,your posts are entertaining though and yeah,you got to me again!!! I really need to stop,I think I'll promise myself,no more responding to Bills 130 and below are crap threads! Never again shall you bait me in! :laugh: ;D ;D :D Bastard"!! :lickish: CC in 24¬
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
I can't believe the BS I'M reading in this this thread. basically,you are saying becuase they are small,they should not be P4P or not as high up. Thats bullshit. As Mick said,doesn't the name Ricardo Lopez mean anything....And it's P4P,it's irrelevant whether he could beat up the man on the road ::** ::** ::**
And secondly,to say that people just follow the writers is stupid,especially on this website. WE have hardcore fans who alot of S*** about the lower weights so just because you don't doesn't necessarily mean others dont either.
I think Bilbo and anyone who agrees needs to go and watch some tapes of the lighter weights because ou evidently lack knowledge in this area and that comes across in your points,they don't have substance.
It's you who has no knowledge about these fighters.
I'll take Rafale Marquez as an example. He has beaten as many Top 10 RING ranked fighters as anyone in the P4P lists,has beaten 2 HALL OF FAMERS,and is a superb boxer/puncher who if he was the same size as others in the P4P list,would KTFO most of them. But according to your thinking he should not be in there because um...he's smalll..... ::** ::** ::** :-X
And your analogy with womens boxing is the worst ever...what relevance does it have?
Bro,you're one of my fave posters here but this is P4P one of the worst statements I have ever read here:"Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume."
Honestly,I really don't know what to say about that. You are a lost cause my friend. :-\ ;D ;) I wouldn't mind if you made some valid points,I'd admit it but you dont!! It just boils down to,you don't watch lighter weights because they are too small,and they couldnt KO the man on the street... ::**
Calm down my little Mexican loving friend, does the phrase HOOK, LINE and SINKER mean anything to you :-*
C'mon man I referenced you all the way through, how you'd come on, quote the he's beaten more top 10 ranked fighters, Hall of fame yada yada and still you couldn't help but bite. I was actually going to call this the EL Gamo windup thread but thought that might be too obvious ;)
Don't worry though I know just how good Ricardo Lopez was, he was awesome, could beat every man under 108 lbs in the
world.
And every women under 140 lbs ;D
LMFAO!!! I tried,I really did. I thought,let him keep going,Amat is dealing with his points but I just couldnt help! You are very charismatic,your posts are entertaining though and yeah,you got to me again!!! I really need to stop,I think I'll promise myself,no more responding to Bills 130 and below are crap threads! Never again shall you bait me in! :laugh: ;D ;D :D B******"!! :lickish: CC in 24¬
We'll see................... 8)
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
I can't believe the BS I'M reading in this this thread. basically,you are saying becuase they are small,they should not be P4P or not as high up. Thats bullshit. As Mick said,doesn't the name Ricardo Lopez mean anything....And it's P4P,it's irrelevant whether he could beat up the man on the road ::** ::** ::**
And secondly,to say that people just follow the writers is stupid,especially on this website. WE have hardcore fans who alot of shit about the lower weights so just because you don't doesn't necessarily mean others dont either.
I think Bilbo and anyone who agrees needs to go and watch some tapes of the lighter weights because ou evidently lack knowledge in this area and that comes across in your points,they don't have substance.
It's you who has no knowledge about these fighters.
I'll take Rafale Marquez as an example. He has beaten as many Top 10 RING ranked fighters as anyone in the P4P lists,has beaten 2 HALL OF FAMERS,and is a superb boxer/puncher who if he was the same size as others in the P4P list,would KTFO most of them. But according to your thinking he should not be in there because um...he's smalll..... ::** ::** ::** :-X
And your analogy with womens boxing is the worst ever...what relevance does it have?
Bro,you're one of my fave posters here but this is P4P one of the worst statements I have ever read here:"Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume."
Honestly,I really don't know what to say about that. You are a lost cause my friend. :-\ ;D ;) I wouldn't mind if you made some valid points,I'd admit it but you dont!! It just boils down to,you don't watch lighter weights because they are too small,and they couldnt KO the man on the street... ::**
I do watch the lower weigh fighters....they produce the most entertaining fights but its blindingly obvious that it is a grey area on this board. I say this because there was a time when we all did our p4p lists and a lot of folk were putting the marquez brothers in the top ten. Not that they don't deserve it. They do but folk were getting them both mixed up and/or admitting they had never seen them fight but had heard great things. If it wasn't a grey area there would be threads about minimum weight etc everyday. If it wasn't a grey area we wouldn't have been so shocked to see Arce get completely schooled by Mijares.
If it's not a grey area how come you don't see hardly any 8 stone fighters headlinging cards?
I admit you probably know a lot more about the smaller guys then i do but i really don't think i am alone on this.
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Oh yeah and :coolclick: for falling for it. I could see what Bilbo was doing and thought it would be funny to show a little support. Turns out it was funny ;D
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Women's boxing hasn't had a significant fight in years, actually the most significant was probably made tonight with Holm earning the right to face Mary Jo. But women's boxing has a very long way to go to achieve any sort of legitimacy.
You can speak negatively about the little guys, hell, I did not start following under 125 until probably about a year ago and am still behind the curve so to speak. But I don't think they are given favorable treatment at all and this is where I completely lose you.
Who says the little guys get favorable treatment? Before Marquez (who I think should be at 4 not 3, if that matters), who was the last little guy to garner any sort of acclaim? And if anyone earned it, it's Rapha.
You can say the little guys boxing is a side show of sorts, that's fine even though I don't agree, a lot of people share that view. But you've been slighting the talent of the guys and I don't get that.
If you look at the best boxers under 125, you have some very good boxers. I mean, Fernando Monteil is a real smooth boxer. Always calm and fluid in the ring. Israel Vazquez is a very good stalking fighter with a very high workrate and serious pop. Raphael Marquez is one of the more complete fighters in all of the game. Sure they are small, but their skills are serious and if you watched you could see that.
The other guys who are stars, Jorge Arce and Vic Darchynian (I'll agree, he is a sideshow >:mad) are very exciting to watch. They aren't saying those two are exciting or the other guy's have skills because they are small, it's because it's true.
Sure the lower divisions are shallow. That is a fair criticism but I don't think that's what you're getting at at all.
Actually I'm glad you mentioed Arce. Arce is another little guy being built up by HBO to be one of the future superstars and a potential p4p star and what happens? He gets an absolute beatdown from a guy who nobody had ever heard of and even worse is the spitting image of that geeky kid from Road Trip.
Don't believe me check for yourself...........
http://www.thecinemasource.com/movie...e_and_Flow.jpg
http://i.oem.com.mx/6f8b14d5-cfac-47...770fc2cfee.jpg
Sorry but any guy who gets busted up by someone who looks like that don't deserve to be anywhere near the top 10 p4p.
Face it Arce wasn't a big star because he has an abundance of talent, it's because he's a tiny Mexican cowboy with a lollipop act who gets in scraps. Circus entertainment. If he weighed 147 what you think Cotto or Floyd would do to him? Exactly.
That is priceless, Baggins.
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Women's boxing hasn't had a significant fight in years, actually the most significant was probably made tonight with Holm earning the right to face Mary Jo. But women's boxing has a very long way to go to achieve any sort of legitimacy.
You can speak negatively about the little guys, hell, I did not start following under 125 until probably about a year ago and am still behind the curve so to speak. But I don't think they are given favorable treatment at all and this is where I completely lose you.
Who says the little guys get favorable treatment? Before Marquez (who I think should be at 4 not 3, if that matters), who was the last little guy to garner any sort of acclaim? And if anyone earned it, it's Rapha.
You can say the little guys boxing is a side show of sorts, that's fine even though I don't agree, a lot of people share that view. But you've been slighting the talent of the guys and I don't get that.
If you look at the best boxers under 125, you have some very good boxers. I mean, Fernando Monteil is a real smooth boxer. Always calm and fluid in the ring. Israel Vazquez is a very good stalking fighter with a very high workrate and serious pop. Raphael Marquez is one of the more complete fighters in all of the game. Sure they are small, but their skills are serious and if you watched you could see that.
The other guys who are stars, Jorge Arce and Vic Darchynian (I'll agree, he is a sideshow >:mad) are very exciting to watch. They aren't saying those two are exciting or the other guy's have skills because they are small, it's because it's true.
Sure the lower divisions are shallow. That is a fair criticism but I don't think that's what you're getting at at all.
Actually I'm glad you mentioed Arce. Arce is another little guy being built up by HBO to be one of the future superstars and a potential p4p star and what happens? He gets an absolute beatdown from a guy who nobody had ever heard of and even worse is the spitting image of that geeky kid from Road Trip.
Don't believe me check for yourself...........
http://www.thecinemasource.com/movie...e_and_Flow.jpg
http://i.oem.com.mx/6f8b14d5-cfac-47...770fc2cfee.jpg
Sorry but any guy who gets busted up by someone who looks like that don't deserve to be anywhere near the top 10 p4p.
Face it Arce wasn't a big star because he has an abundance of talent, it's because he's a tiny Mexican cowboy with a lollipop act who gets in scraps. Circus entertainment. If he weighed 147 what you think Cotto or Floyd would do to him? Exactly.
That is priceless, Baggins.
But Mijares called it. He said while Arce is out there signing autographs and doing the promotions, I will be in the gym day and night and that is why I am going to win. The fame took Arce out of the game and Mijares saw it and called it.
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono
Oh yeah and :coolclick: for falling for it. I could see what Bilbo was doing and thought it would be funny to show a little support. Turns out it was funny ;D
LMAO,so you were in it too!!!! >:mad ;D :D ;) You guys got me good! CC bacl brother.
Re: The new ring rankings suck, and here's why!
i think super bantamweight is a strong division nd if the likes of marquez, cabellero nd vazques were to step up in weight they could do some real damage. I never used to watch much of the lowerweights so i didnt no alot of the fighters people were talking about but after the last couple of years ive watched more nd more lighterweight fights nd less of the heavier divisions as i think there is more talent there aswell as more exciting fights so i think they deserve wot ranking they have also i dont think size should have a bearing on the rankings.
