Got to be the klitchko brothers!! Yes there technically good boxers ie jabbing to tko's but does anyone honestly think they'd of stood a chance with a prime ali,forman or tyson? Think there two good heavy wieghts amongst loads of bad ones!!
Printable View
Got to be the klitchko brothers!! Yes there technically good boxers ie jabbing to tko's but does anyone honestly think they'd of stood a chance with a prime ali,forman or tyson? Think there two good heavy wieghts amongst loads of bad ones!!
I won't be convinced on Pryor. Are we really calling Cervantes an ATG? I mean he was a good fighter, probably a hall of famer, but an ATG? If we are then let's add him to my list of heavily overrated 140lbers. I mean look at Cervantes defences, was there any good reason for him to fight the mighty Carlos Gimenez twice? A guy who made Pongsaklek look like Ray Robinson when it comes to comp. I also think Cervantes was past his sell-by date by then. A win over Blackmoore doesn't convince me of anything. For me, Cervantes is probably a step below Tszyu & I think his best days went in his effort against Benitez.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
Arguello was a great fighter, but he'd seen better days & a win over Kevin Rooney (admittedly was a great win) doesn't convince me that he was a light-welter.
I can definitely see the comparison with Tyson in fact it is apt with a win over a faded fighter (Holmes/Cervantes) & another over a smaller guy (Spinks/Arguello). I almost made that point earlier, but I thought I'd gone on enough as it is. Lewis & Holmes have slightly better resumes for me based on their overall opp being better, but their top wins are comparable & Arguello was a better fighter than Vitali or Norton.
But, I think Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather have much better resumes. Roy has wins over a prime James Toney & Bernard Hopkins, while I think Mayweather has the most underrated resume in the sport & I personally feel it shits all over Pryor's. Not to mention that for me, both guys beat their opposition far more dominantly. Pryor is by far the most exciting of the three, but his achievements are very weak in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, Pryor is great to just chill back & watch & he'd just about make the borderline of greatness for me, but I think when people talk about him beating up guys who are real ATGs for me, I think their letting their admiration for the excitement he created cloud their judgement. Like I said, he's a mini-Tyson ;)
I love RJJ he is one of my favourite fighters of all time, but B-Hop was not in his prime. Phyiscally maybe but he certainly hadn't learnt his craft the way he had when he destroyed Felix Trinidad.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinI won't be convinced on Pryor. Are we really calling Cervantes an ATG? I mean he was a good fighter, probably a hall of famer, but an ATG? If we are then let's add him to my list of heavily overrated 140lbers. I mean look at Cervantes defences, was there any good reason for him to fight the mighty Carlos Gimenez twice? A guy who made Pongsaklek look like Ray Robinson when it comes to comp. I also think Cervantes was past his sell-by date by then. A win over Blackmoore doesn't convince me of anything. For me, Cervantes is probably a step below Tszyu & I think his best days went in his effort against Benitez.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
Arguello was a great fighter, but he'd seen better days & a win over Kevin Rooney (admittedly was a great win) doesn't convince me that he was a light-welter.
I can definitely see the comparison with Tyson in fact it is apt with a win over a faded fighter (Holmes/Cervantes) & another over a smaller guy (Spinks/Arguello). I almost made that point earlier, but I thought I'd gone on enough as it is. Lewis & Holmes have slightly better resumes for me based on their overall opp being better, but their top wins are comparable & Arguello was a better fighter than Vitali or Norton.
But, I think Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather have much better resumes. Roy has wins over a prime James Toney & Bernard Hopkins, while I think Mayweather has the most underrated resume in the sport & I personally feel it shits all over Pryor's. Not to mention that for me, both guys beat their opposition far more dominantly. Pryor is by far the most exciting of the three, but his achievements are very weak in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, Pryor is great to just chill back & watch & he'd just about make the borderline of greatness for me, but I think when people talk about him beating up guys who are real ATGs for me, I think their letting their admiration for the excitement he created cloud their judgement. Like I said, he's a mini-Tyson ;)
I just found this......Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinI won't be convinced on Pryor. Are we really calling Cervantes an ATG? I mean he was a good fighter, probably a hall of famer, but an ATG? If we are then let's add him to my list of heavily overrated 140lbers. I mean look at Cervantes defences, was there any good reason for him to fight the mighty Carlos Gimenez twice? A guy who made Pongsaklek look like Ray Robinson when it comes to comp. I also think Cervantes was past his sell-by date by then. A win over Blackmoore doesn't convince me of anything. For me, Cervantes is probably a step below Tszyu & I think his best days went in his effort against Benitez.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
Arguello was a great fighter, but he'd seen better days & a win over Kevin Rooney (admittedly was a great win) doesn't convince me that he was a light-welter.
I can definitely see the comparison with Tyson in fact it is apt with a win over a faded fighter (Holmes/Cervantes) & another over a smaller guy (Spinks/Arguello). I almost made that point earlier, but I thought I'd gone on enough as it is. Lewis & Holmes have slightly better resumes for me based on their overall opp being better, but their top wins are comparable & Arguello was a better fighter than Vitali or Norton.
But, I think Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather have much better resumes. Roy has wins over a prime James Toney & Bernard Hopkins, while I think Mayweather has the most underrated resume in the sport & I personally feel it shits all over Pryor's. Not to mention that for me, both guys beat their opposition far more dominantly. Pryor is by far the most exciting of the three, but his achievements are very weak in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, Pryor is great to just chill back & watch & he'd just about make the borderline of greatness for me, but I think when people talk about him beating up guys who are real ATGs for me, I think their letting their admiration for the excitement he created cloud their judgement. Like I said, he's a mini-Tyson ;)
Junior Welterweight Fighter of Century as chosen by a five-member panel for The Associated Press in 1999:
1. Aaron Pryor
2. Barney Ross
3. Tony Canzoneri
4. Wilfred Benitez
5. Antonio Cervantes
Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument. My point is to say Kostya doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as these guys is ridiculous. Sure you may be able to argue that they are all better, but there are many cases to be made that suggest Kostya was better than some of them as well. He deserves to be mentioned with and compared to all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
Scroll through and try to read that string on a phone :-X my eyes are bleeding
It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
I AM logical. YOU are giving weight to the term "champion" when it has ZERO meaning in the alphabet world.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
How long after Wlad beat 13 did it take the WBA to create a new title? Three days?
Know how many middleweights in the world right now hold alphabet straps? SEVEN!
They are MEANINGLESS! Sergio Martinez is the one and only middleweight champion and he doesn't stop until he is beaten, moves up or retires.
Now, was Kostya THE MAN at 140? Damned straight. But not because some silly belts given and taken by corrupt organizations said so. It was because of what he did in the ring.
It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HPlaying devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.
It's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HPlaying devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.
Well in response to that try this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HPlaying devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
He is saying becoming lineal champ is better than unifying the belts. How can this be though?
Because A) If you are beating all the other champs, one of them should be the lineal champ so in reality unifying means becoming lineal champ.
or B) If the lineage has been broken, unifying effectively means you are the new lineal champ, as its hard to fight the lineal champ if there is none.
If you hold all the belts you are the champion no matter how the bodies define it as you have beaten everyone really.
All those quotes are giving me a headache, so i'll just say quickly. That i think style wise Aaron Pryor beats Kostya Tszyu just my opinion.
I agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
If Tszyu was not lineal champ after unifiying the belts who was? That should clear up the recent argument.
I think Aaron Pryor had better single wins, but Kostya Tszyu did unify and had a longer reign so that probably makes it about even.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
At least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HIt's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HPlaying devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.
I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)
Thankyou for looking at it with some logic. People on this thread have been acting like i'm comparing the records of Manny Pac to Bobby Pac or something! Good to be back on Saddo's.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBI think Aaron Pryor had better single wins, but Kostya Tszyu did unify and had a longer reign so that probably makes it about even.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Let's be REALLY clear. Thae argument was Canzoneri, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Pryor. Four of those aren't really debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
The Hawk defeated HOFers three times. Kostya once. Good size difference there. And the clincher in my view.
There is no prefect answer. But whilst sport is about money there will always be coruption and having a lineal champion 'crowned' by virtue of a judging decision in a fight he clearly hasn't won, negates the 'function of what happens in the ring' partQuote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiAt least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HIt's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HPlaying devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.
I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)
Well answer this, if Kostya was not lineal champ at 140 after unifying who was?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiAt least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HIt's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HPlaying devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIt DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HBy lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleSorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiUNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleAgain I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWhat exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiLook I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleWell back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HWhat a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.
It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.
Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.
Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins
Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.
Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.
Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?
Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.
It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.
Who the hell is Calcavante??????
ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!
There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.
I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)
P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!
Yea i haven't seen you for awhile last conversation i remember having with you, was debating about Hatton/Mayweather that was ages ago. I haven't been on at all myself really, i've recently comeback because i've been way behind on my boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleThankyou for looking at it with some logic. People on this thread have been acting like i'm comparing the records of Manny Pac to Bobby Pac or something! Good to be back on Saddo's.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBI think Aaron Pryor had better single wins, but Kostya Tszyu did unify and had a longer reign so that probably makes it about even.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleI agree with you, but thats not the point the others are making. It has been said on here that Tszyus record should not even be compared to Pryors as its so inferior. When in reality they are very similiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
But THAT's not true either!Quote:
Well in response to that try this.
He is saying becoming lineal champ is better than unifying the belts. How can this be though?
Because A) If you are beating all the other champs, one of them should be the lineal champ so in reality unifying means becoming lineal champ.or B) If the lineage has been broken, unifying effectively means you are the new lineal champ, as its hard to fight the lineal champ if there is none.
If you hold all the belts you are the champion no matter how the bodies define it as you have beaten everyone really.
What belt did Michael Spinks own when he was the reigning lineal heavyweight champion and fought Gerry Cooney and Mike Tyson? None. He had given up the IBF strap. Was he now not really the heavyweight champion? Of course not!
Yes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
This is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBYes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
Look Marbleheadmaui, if Kostya was not lineal champ at 140 after unifying who was? What else could he have done to become lineal champ?
Its all in good fun. No use contributing to a third of it then complaining :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HThis is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBYes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
Kostya had done enough to create a new line utterly independent of "unification" of straps. Him becoming THE MAN had ZERO to do with "unifying" alphabet belts. It was ENTIRELY because he beat the top fighters in the division, Had they not owned ANY belts, Kostya would still have done that and still have created a new line. Had he NOT fought Chavez and Zab and Sharmba because others owned the belts and ebaten the others instead? It would NOT have been enough to begin a new line.Quote:
Well answer this, if Kostya was not lineal champ at 140 after unifying who was?
And had these silly organizations stripped him for not paying their extortion? He STILL would have been champion until he was beaten, retired, or moved up. I mean was Kostya any less a champion when the WBA and WBC stripped him? By your argument the answer is yes.
Lol, no I meant the multiquotes that are making threads unreadable. Is that not happening for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleIts all in good fun. No use contributing to a third of it then complaining :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HThis is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBYes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
Yes, Victory! Earlier you said one of the main reasons Pryor's record was better was because he had become lineal champ and Kostya had not. Now you have said Kostya had done. So it just proves how even their recors were and that Tszsyu deserves to be mentioned in the same 'league; as Pryor. Thank you argument over.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
There is no prefect answer. But whilst sport is about money there will always be coruption and having a lineal champion 'crowned' by virtue of a judging decision in a fight he clearly hasn't won, negates the 'function of what happens in the ring' part[/QUOTE]Quote:
I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)
Not in a million years it doesn't. It detracts from it. But it hardly negates it. Boxing is a subjectively judged sport. I don't know what can be done about that. Attempts to make the amateurs more objective have caused more harm than good as far as the pro sport goes.
I agree there is no perfect answer. But it is IMPOSSIBLE for the alphabet gangs to be part of a good one ;)
Yeah i know but i meant you were involved in the multiquotes. My brain hurts more trying to follow some of the thoeries on here. Including my own!:oQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG HLol, no I meant the multiquotes that are making threads unreadable. Is that not happening for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleIts all in good fun. No use contributing to a third of it then complaining :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HThis is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBYes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I NEVER said Kostya wasn't a lineal champion. What part of 3 HOFers vs one do you not understand???????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by eagleYes, Victory! Earlier you said one of the main reasons Pryor's record was better was because he had become lineal champ and Kostya had not. Now you have said Kostya had done. So it just proves how even their recors were and that Tszsyu deserves to be mentioned in the same 'league; as Pryor. Thank you argument over.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And just so we're clear here's a quote from the post where I compared them
Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.
Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.
So I treated them the same on that point.
NOW the argument is over :)
Thanks for your thoughts I'm out!
Lennox Lewis manhandled him in the amateurs and Bowe never fought anyone that was all that great of a puncher. People think the Klitschko's have a size advantage now...just look at who Bowe fought! Holyfield and Golota guys much smaller than Riddick gave him absolute hell. Had Bowe fought Mercer, Morrison, Moorer, Tyson(yes even after prison), Briggs, Ruddock et al he more than likely would have lost and lost by KO! Bowe had size and he had skill but he was very flawed as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiBowe is one of those "I saw him with my eyes" guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
On one of his best three nights (about all he had) he gives any heavyweight in history a battle.
Any other night? eer, um, not so much ;)
Arturo Gatti is overrated in his skill from his many battles but as a blood and guts warrior not many measure up to him.
The day Briggs beats a Holyfield part 1 type Bowe is the day I eat both my boots. Shoot this thread screams Briggs ;D.....minus the controversially part