Printable View
See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Compelling argument, as usual.
Nice chatting with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44Both fighters careers were over before the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHow do you work that out Einstein? they're totally different. Naz's loss to MAB was his first and only loss coming off a 35 fight winning streak and he was 27 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44bringing naz's loss to mab into a discussion is like bringing tysons loss to mcbride into a discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnerauh, own goal I think. Floyd has been ko'd in 0% of his fights . Naz didn't knock everyone out (if I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. :) ) .Infact he had an 86% stoppage record , which is very impressive, but his record against "Elite" fighters is fought 1 lost 1 . Mentally, he lost his aura and He couldn't handle that so he had to retire.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44floyds never been knocked out - what a fantastic analagy of the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraYeah, cos Floyd's always looked chinny and loads of people have KO'd him in the past haven't they ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
I couldn't give two fucks for either of them as people, just about pure boxing ability.
how about this - In his prime Naz knocked everyone out
1 nil to me
Like I've said before, don't think that the Floyd back then was like the Floyd of today. Naz was a very strong , good albeit unorthodox fighter that made an absolute killing back in the day , which he deserves respect for. But do you honestly believe that Corkscrew right from his toes would've got anywhere near the chin of a guy as skilled as Floyd , bearing in mind Barrera dealt with it very comfortably?
so with the own goal, that's 2-0 to me.
2 nil me
Tyson was 39, had been beaten by Danny Williams in his Previous fight , had done time , drugs and all sorts of shit.
I suppose it makes sense in your World.
Don't let the facts deter you though , you just keep dredging out the same old horseshit. :rolleyes:
Cummon maan, you'll look daft if you try and argue naz was prime against mab
Well... if Prince's career wasn't over before the fight, it was certainly over after the fight.
Barrera took his heart, then went on to fight 10 more years.
It's funny how nobody thought Naz's career was over before the MAB fight? The only reason it was over was because MAB took his invincibility away. He'd reached his level and couldn't accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44Both fighters careers were over before the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHow do you work that out Einstein? they're totally different. Naz's loss to MAB was his first and only loss coming off a 35 fight winning streak and he was 27 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44bringing naz's loss to mab into a discussion is like bringing tysons loss to mcbride into a discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnerauh, own goal I think. Floyd has been ko'd in 0% of his fights . Naz didn't knock everyone out (if I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. :) ) .Infact he had an 86% stoppage record , which is very impressive, but his record against "Elite" fighters is fought 1 lost 1 . Mentally, he lost his aura and He couldn't handle that so he had to retire.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44floyds never been knocked out - what a fantastic analagy of the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraYeah, cos Floyd's always looked chinny and loads of people have KO'd him in the past haven't they ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
I couldn't give two fucks for either of them as people, just about pure boxing ability.
how about this - In his prime Naz knocked everyone out
1 nil to me
Like I've said before, don't think that the Floyd back then was like the Floyd of today. Naz was a very strong , good albeit unorthodox fighter that made an absolute killing back in the day , which he deserves respect for. But do you honestly believe that Corkscrew right from his toes would've got anywhere near the chin of a guy as skilled as Floyd , bearing in mind Barrera dealt with it very comfortably?
so with the own goal, that's 2-0 to me.
2 nil me
Tyson was 39, had been beaten by Danny Williams in his Previous fight , had done time , drugs and all sorts of shit.
I suppose it makes sense in your World.
Don't let the facts deter you though , you just keep dredging out the same old horseshit. :rolleyes:
Cummon maan, you'll look daft if you try and argue naz was prime against mab
And if it was over before the MAB fight! when exactly was Naz's Prime? Because as good a career as he had till then, nothing stacks up to what Floyd has done. Back then, Floyd was a different fighter to what he is now. He would've schooled Naz for a few rounds and very possibly took his heart and either stopped Naz or made him quit "no mas" style. And he would've done this to the Naz before the MAB fight, or any time you consider as Naz's prime.
Naz at his best was stunning. I believe he would have stopped Floyd. The problem was which Naz would turn up for the fight. As much as I admired Naz, I predicted that Berrera would win. Naz was too interested in his hype and hairdo to prepare correctly for a serious fighter like Berrera. The demise of Naz was sad and denied fight fans a potential great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
absolutely solid argument you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Compelling argument, as usual.
Nice chatting with you.
Naz was absolutely no where near his best against barrera, hed stopped being a boxer long before that fight
that much is very clear, trying to base an argument on him losing to mayweather prime for prime because he lost to barrera that night is a bit daft
Just like saying tyson would have lost to ali prime for prime because tyson lost to mcbride
:)
Brenden Ingle didQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIt's funny how nobody thought Naz's career was over before the MAB fight? The only reason it was over was because MAB took his invincibility away. He'd reached his level and couldn't accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44Both fighters careers were over before the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHow do you work that out Einstein? they're totally different. Naz's loss to MAB was his first and only loss coming off a 35 fight winning streak and he was 27 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44bringing naz's loss to mab into a discussion is like bringing tysons loss to mcbride into a discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnerauh, own goal I think. Floyd has been ko'd in 0% of his fights . Naz didn't knock everyone out (if I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. :) ) .Infact he had an 86% stoppage record , which is very impressive, but his record against "Elite" fighters is fought 1 lost 1 . Mentally, he lost his aura and He couldn't handle that so he had to retire.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44floyds never been knocked out - what a fantastic analagy of the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraYeah, cos Floyd's always looked chinny and loads of people have KO'd him in the past haven't they ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
I couldn't give two fucks for either of them as people, just about pure boxing ability.
how about this - In his prime Naz knocked everyone out
1 nil to me
Like I've said before, don't think that the Floyd back then was like the Floyd of today. Naz was a very strong , good albeit unorthodox fighter that made an absolute killing back in the day , which he deserves respect for. But do you honestly believe that Corkscrew right from his toes would've got anywhere near the chin of a guy as skilled as Floyd , bearing in mind Barrera dealt with it very comfortably?
so with the own goal, that's 2-0 to me.
2 nil me
Tyson was 39, had been beaten by Danny Williams in his Previous fight , had done time , drugs and all sorts of shit.
I suppose it makes sense in your World.
Don't let the facts deter you though , you just keep dredging out the same old horseshit. :rolleyes:
Cummon maan, you'll look daft if you try and argue naz was prime against mab
And if it was over before the MAB fight! when exactly was Naz's Prime? Because as good a career as he had till then, nothing stacks up to what Floyd has done. Back then, Floyd was a different fighter to what he is now. He would've schooled Naz for a few rounds and very possibly took his heart and either stopped Naz or made him quit "no mas" style. And he would've done this to the Naz before the MAB fight, or any time you consider as Naz's prime.
Yeah , he did , and maybe he was right. But only cos Naz sacked him off.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44Brenden Ingle didQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIt's funny how nobody thought Naz's career was over before the MAB fight? The only reason it was over was because MAB took his invincibility away. He'd reached his level and couldn't accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44Both fighters careers were over before the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHow do you work that out Einstein? they're totally different. Naz's loss to MAB was his first and only loss coming off a 35 fight winning streak and he was 27 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44bringing naz's loss to mab into a discussion is like bringing tysons loss to mcbride into a discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnerauh, own goal I think. Floyd has been ko'd in 0% of his fights . Naz didn't knock everyone out (if I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. :) ) .Infact he had an 86% stoppage record , which is very impressive, but his record against "Elite" fighters is fought 1 lost 1 . Mentally, he lost his aura and He couldn't handle that so he had to retire.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44floyds never been knocked out - what a fantastic analagy of the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraYeah, cos Floyd's always looked chinny and loads of people have KO'd him in the past haven't they ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
I couldn't give two fucks for either of them as people, just about pure boxing ability.
how about this - In his prime Naz knocked everyone out
1 nil to me
Like I've said before, don't think that the Floyd back then was like the Floyd of today. Naz was a very strong , good albeit unorthodox fighter that made an absolute killing back in the day , which he deserves respect for. But do you honestly believe that Corkscrew right from his toes would've got anywhere near the chin of a guy as skilled as Floyd , bearing in mind Barrera dealt with it very comfortably?
so with the own goal, that's 2-0 to me.
2 nil me
Tyson was 39, had been beaten by Danny Williams in his Previous fight , had done time , drugs and all sorts of shit.
I suppose it makes sense in your World.
Don't let the facts deter you though , you just keep dredging out the same old horseshit. :rolleyes:
Cummon maan, you'll look daft if you try and argue naz was prime against mab
And if it was over before the MAB fight! when exactly was Naz's Prime? Because as good a career as he had till then, nothing stacks up to what Floyd has done. Back then, Floyd was a different fighter to what he is now. He would've schooled Naz for a few rounds and very possibly took his heart and either stopped Naz or made him quit "no mas" style. And he would've done this to the Naz before the MAB fight, or any time you consider as Naz's prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely solid argument you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Compelling argument, as usual.
Nice chatting with you.
Naz was absolutely no where near his best against barrera, hed stopped being a boxer long before that fight
that much is very clear, trying to base an argument on him losing to mayweather prime for prime because he lost to barrera that night is a bit daft
Just like saying tyson would have lost to ali prime for prime because tyson lost to mcbride
:)
Never mind Floyd.
Your claiming that:
1. Naz would've knocked out Barrera prime for prime, and
2. Naz was past his prime (at age 27) when he fought Barrera.....
Pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your boxing IQ.
ha brilliant, i know nothing about boxing, ha ah ah aaha ahahha, ha aha haha hahahahaha ha ha aahaha ha ha ha hahha haahhaa hahhQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely solid argument you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Compelling argument, as usual.
Nice chatting with you.
Naz was absolutely no where near his best against barrera, hed stopped being a boxer long before that fight
that much is very clear, trying to base an argument on him losing to mayweather prime for prime because he lost to barrera that night is a bit daft
Just like saying tyson would have lost to ali prime for prime because tyson lost to mcbride
:)
Never mind Floyd.
Your claiming that:
1. Naz would've knocked out Barrera prime for prime, and
2. Naz was past his prime (at age 27) when he fought Barrera.....
Pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your boxing IQ.
what an argument
going to tell me to go back to school or something next?
how about calling me a troll?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44ha brilliant, i know nothing about boxing, ha ah ah aaha ahahha, ha aha haha hahahahaha ha ha aahaha ha ha ha hahha haahhaa hahhQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely solid argument you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Compelling argument, as usual.
Nice chatting with you.
Naz was absolutely no where near his best against barrera, hed stopped being a boxer long before that fight
that much is very clear, trying to base an argument on him losing to mayweather prime for prime because he lost to barrera that night is a bit daft
Just like saying tyson would have lost to ali prime for prime because tyson lost to mcbride
:)
Never mind Floyd.
Your claiming that:
1. Naz would've knocked out Barrera prime for prime, and
2. Naz was past his prime (at age 27) when he fought Barrera.....
Pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your boxing IQ.
what an argument
going to tell me to go back to school or something next?
how about calling me a troll?
Why punch a guy who's busy slamming his own head against the wall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44ha brilliant, i know nothing about boxing, ha ah ah aaha ahahha, ha aha haha hahahahaha ha ha aahaha ha ha ha hahha haahhaa hahhQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely solid argument you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44See above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44see above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
naz would have KOed barera prime for prime
Really?? I thought Naz was pretty close to his prime when he got humiliated by MAB.
Yeah..... I see your point.
27 is pretty much an over-the-hill age for a fighter.
:rolleyes:
Compelling argument, as usual.
Nice chatting with you.
Naz was absolutely no where near his best against barrera, hed stopped being a boxer long before that fight
that much is very clear, trying to base an argument on him losing to mayweather prime for prime because he lost to barrera that night is a bit daft
Just like saying tyson would have lost to ali prime for prime because tyson lost to mcbride
:)
Never mind Floyd.
Your claiming that:
1. Naz would've knocked out Barrera prime for prime, and
2. Naz was past his prime (at age 27) when he fought Barrera.....
Pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your boxing IQ.
what an argument
going to tell me to go back to school or something next?
how about calling me a troll?
Why punch a guy who's busy slamming his own head against the wall?
awe what? you clearly know nothing about boxing!
ha ah ahahahahha a ahha a
funny
Naz dismantled fighters with ease but he lost his trainer, lacked discipline, relied too much on his power and fell in love with himself and gradually he was showing vulnerabilities in most of his fights before his loss to Barrera.
Naz was bloody good in his day.
Naz was good, no doubt about it. Some here go a little overboard with the love, though. Claiming Naz was over the hill when he fought Barrera is laughable to the point of nausea. Furthermore claiming that Naz would've knocked out Barrera prime for prime shows more than borderline stupidity, blatantly ignoring that Naz was fully in his prime when he got embarrassed by Barrera. To complicate matters for Naz fans, the guy folds up his tent and calls it a career. That has got to piss fans off for sure.