Top fighters out of every country

[frankenfrank]

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

[THE THIRD MAN]

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

[frankenfrank]

My Rguments R a result of watching hundreds of fights (no Xageration) , especially not contemporary fights , and (2) devoutly learning history . Despite your possibly slight advantage in years of following d sport , u r clearly a long time casual fan , in contrast 2 d astute student of d sport that i m .

you might be a "student of the sport" but your knowledge is as bad as your grammar meaning you're flunking big time buddy

u mainly showed ignorance 2 this point . dissing Ramirez' record despite having almost every possible big name of his era and d next era on it and ranking some1 who hadn't fought anybody (Ricardo Lopez) ahead of him .

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

u r reading this ryte . 2 me , RBR scoring was only meant as a measure of deciding d winner in close affairs . But whenever some1 scored a KD and remains upright himself , he had his way in d fight unless (maybe) it is reversed . Think if it was 4 real , or if d times were "Dempsey's" times and d rules were "Dempsey era's" rules . D 1st 1 who went down would have probably had no much hope left .

Also , i repeat , of d little that i'vee watched of Castillo vs Olivares (i believe it was d 3rd) , Castillo was far from pummeled .

Based Xclusively on their per4mances against each other it is :
1. Castillo
2. Herera
3. Olivares

going from best 2 worst .

D only thing that might prevent me from clearly ranking them like this is their per4mances against others than each other .

[ElTerribleMorales]

My Rguments R a result of watching hundreds of fights (no Xageration) , especially not contemporary fights , and (2) devoutly learning history . Despite your possibly slight advantage in years of following d sport , u r clearly a long time casual fan , in contrast 2 d astute student of d sport that i m .

you might be a "student of the sport" but your knowledge is as bad as your grammar meaning you're flunking big time buddy

u mainly showed ignorance 2 this point . dissing Ramirez' record despite having almost every possible big name of his era and d next era on it and ranking some1 who hadn't fought anybody (Ricardo Lopez) ahead of him .

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

u r reading this ryte . 2 me , RBR scoring was only meant as a measure of deciding d winner in close affairs . But whenever some1 scored a KD and remains upright himself , he had his way in d fight unless (maybe) it is reversed . Think if it was 4 real , or if d times were "Dempsey's" times and d rules were "Dempsey era's" rules . D 1st 1 who went down would have probably had no much hope left .

Also , i repeat , of d little that i'vee watched of Castillo vs Olivares (i believe it was d 3rd) , Castillo was far from pummeled .

Based Xclusively on their per4mances against each other it is :
1. Castillo
2. Herera
3. Olivares

going from best 2 worst .

D only thing that might prevent me from clearly ranking them like this is their per4mances against others than each other .

so just cause Ramirez has a who's who of great fighters on his records even if all but 2 fights (should just be the one win against El Chapo) he's automatically one of the greatest fighter's to grace the earth? he fought the best and lost every time but once, you're smoking huge rocks bro, just cause the guy might be your favorite fighter doesn't make him a great, rewriting history to build up your boy and then I'm the one who's ignorant? lol

[THE THIRD MAN]

My Rguments R a result of watching hundreds of fights (no Xageration) , especially not contemporary fights , and (2) devoutly learning history . Despite your possibly slight advantage in years of following d sport , u r clearly a long time casual fan , in contrast 2 d astute student of d sport that i m .

you might be a "student of the sport" but your knowledge is as bad as your grammar meaning you're flunking big time buddy

u mainly showed ignorance 2 this point . dissing Ramirez' record despite having almost every possible big name of his era and d next era on it and ranking some1 who hadn't fought anybody (Ricardo Lopez) ahead of him .

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

u r reading this ryte . 2 me , RBR scoring was only meant as a measure of deciding d winner in close affairs . But whenever some1 scored a KD and remains upright himself , he had his way in d fight unless (maybe) it is reversed . Think if it was 4 real , or if d times were "Dempsey's" times and d rules were "Dempsey era's" rules . D 1st 1 who went down would have probably had no much hope left .

Also , i repeat , of d little that i'vee watched of Castillo vs Olivares (i believe it was d 3rd) , Castillo was far from pummeled .

Based Xclusively on their per4mances against each other it is :
1. Castillo
2. Herera
3. Olivares

going from best 2 worst .

D only thing that might prevent me from clearly ranking them like this is their per4mances against others than each other .

According to this bizarre reasoning JMM should never have got the draw against Pacman in the first fight? Maybe Joe Frazier who was knocked down twice against Bonavena in round 2 of their first fight should never have got the decision? The 3rd Olivares V Castillo fight was almost a shut out except for the 6th round knockdown. Olivares clearly won the fight over 15 rounds losing no more than 2 or 3 rounds along the way. You score a fight over the 12 rounds and it does not matter if you score 2 knockdowns in the same round if you lose all the other rounds you will lose the fight!

[frankenfrank]

so just cause Ramirez has a who's who of great fighters on his records even if all but 2 fights (should just be the one win against El Chapo) he's automatically one of the greatest fighter's to grace the earth? he fought the best and lost every time but once, you're smoking huge rocks bro, just cause the guy might be your favorite fighter doesn't make him a great, rewriting history to build up your boy and then I'm the one who's ignorant? lol

Ricardo Lopez has no1 in his resume , except from Alvarez whom beside of Lopez has no1 in his .
So both r just a little bit more than nobodies 2 me .
Jose Luis Ramirez showed that he could beat good fighters in Edwin Rosario , Alexis Arguello and Pernell Whitaker . Ricardo Lopez has no name which comes close 2 these . Had he been great he would've gone 3 lbs north and challenged Michael Carbajal but his handlers and possibly himself knew that Carbajal would've KOd him . As 4 Ramirez , i guess that he and his handlers feared no1 , and usually that feeling was well backed up in d ring .
U claim he only beat Rosario , but going by boxrec he also beat
Whitaker , and going by my scorecards he also beat Arguello . People far more knowledgeable than yourself who watched that fight scored it 4 Ramirez and i don't remember any1 claiming that Arguello deserved it . But u claim that Ramirez only ever beat Rosario . U R 1 big ignorant casual , didn't i already mention it ?
And u couldn't bring me 1 reasonable opponents whom Ricardo Lopez proved his "greatness" against . No1 . His best opponent was Rosendo Alvarez whom just like himself was far from being great and does not make even d all time top 10 of Mexico . U consider him great based on shadowboxing against cab drivers . Go watch RJJ highlights beating policemen .

Ramirez also KOd Cornellius Boza-Edwards and outpointed Terrence Ali , fighters whom at least had d balls d fight d best . Ricardo Lopez had no balls and would have been KOd by Carbajal if he had any . Usually i don't blame fighters 4 not wanting 2 fight fighters in a division above them , but Ricardo Lopez has 0 wins that counts . This is his true record : 0-0-2 .

According to this bizarre reasoning JMM should never have got the draw against Pacman in the first fight? Maybe Joe Frazier who was knocked down twice against Bonavena in round 2 of their first fight should never have got the decision? The 3rd Olivares V Castillo fight was almost a shut out except for the 6th round knockdown. Olivares clearly won the fight over 15 rounds losing no more than 2 or 3 rounds along the way. You score a fight over the 12 rounds and it does not matter if you score 2 knockdowns in the same round if you lose all the other rounds you will lose the fight!

Pacquiao massacred Marquez and if d 3 KD rule was in tact Marquez would have been stopped .
However it was not in tact and Marquez carried on and deserves some respect 4 it , but i don't think that he deserved 2 win against Pacquiao , not even a draw .
And yes , Frazier down twice vs Bonavena means that Bonavena was robbed by d judges who gave it 2 Frazier , at least 2 of them were criminals .

I know how scoring RBR works but i separate between it and a correct ruling of a fight .

[ElTerribleMorales]

so just cause Ramirez has a who's who of great fighters on his records even if all but 2 fights (should just be the one win against El Chapo) he's automatically one of the greatest fighter's to grace the earth? he fought the best and lost every time but once, you're smoking huge rocks bro, just cause the guy might be your favorite fighter doesn't make him a great, rewriting history to build up your boy and then I'm the one who's ignorant? lol

Ricardo Lopez has no1 in his resume , except from Alvarez whom beside of Lopez has no1 in his .
So both r just a little bit more than nobodies 2 me .
Jose Luis Ramirez showed that he could beat good fighters in Edwin Rosario , Alexis Arguello and Pernell Whitaker . Ricardo Lopez has no name which comes close 2 these . Had he been great he would've gone 3 lbs north and challenged Michael Carbajal but his handlers and possibly himself knew that Carbajal would've KOd him . As 4 Ramirez , i guess that he and his handlers feared no1 , and usually that feeling was well backed up in d ring .
U claim he only beat Rosario , but going by boxrec he also beat
Whitaker , and going by my scorecards he also beat Arguello . People far more knowledgeable than yourself who watched that fight scored it 4 Ramirez and i don't remember any1 claiming that Arguello deserved it . But u claim that Ramirez only ever beat Rosario . U R 1 big ignorant casual , didn't i already mention it ?
And u couldn't bring me 1 reasonable opponents whom Ricardo Lopez proved his "greatness" against . No1 . His best opponent was Rosendo Alvarez whom just like himself was far from being great and does not make even d all time top 10 of Mexico . U consider him great based on shadowboxing against cab drivers . Go watch RJJ highlights beating policemen .

Ramirez also KOd Cornellius Boza-Edwards and outpointed Terrence Ali , fighters whom at least had d balls d fight d best . Ricardo Lopez had no balls and would have been KOd by Carbajal if he had any . Usually i don't blame fighters 4 not wanting 2 fight fighters in a division above them , but Ricardo Lopez has 0 wins that counts . This is his true record : 0-0-2 .

According to this bizarre reasoning JMM should never have got the draw against Pacman in the first fight? Maybe Joe Frazier who was knocked down twice against Bonavena in round 2 of their first fight should never have got the decision? The 3rd Olivares V Castillo fight was almost a shut out except for the 6th round knockdown. Olivares clearly won the fight over 15 rounds losing no more than 2 or 3 rounds along the way. You score a fight over the 12 rounds and it does not matter if you score 2 knockdowns in the same round if you lose all the other rounds you will lose the fight!

Pacquiao massacred Marquez and if d 3 KD rule was in tact Marquez would have been stopped .
However it was not in tact and Marquez carried on and deserves some respect 4 it , but i don't think that he deserved 2 win against Pacquiao , not even a draw .
And yes , Frazier down twice vs Bonavena means that Bonavena was robbed by d judges who gave it 2 Frazier , at least 2 of them were criminals .

I know how scoring RBR works but i separate between it and a correct ruling of a fight .

no one but you has said that Ramirez legitimately beat Whitaker, for fucksake ESPN ranked it as one of the top 10 worst decisions in the history of the sport, dude you really are delusional, no point in arguing with you cause you're clueless the fact that you say that if a fighter is dropped he automatically loses a fight is laughable, Marquez was dropped 3 times in the first then then went on to fucking dominate, that's why he deserves respect, he clearly won the fight despite being dropped 3 times, you really need to get your headchecked and learn boxing, according to you Trinidad should have losses to a bunch of his opponents who got flash knockdowns on him, same would go for a hell of a lot of other fighters

[TitoFan]

Ricardo Lopez had no balls and would have been KOd by Carbajal if he had any . Usually i don't blame fighters 4 not wanting 2 fight fighters in a division above them , but Ricardo Lopez has 0 wins that counts . This is his true record : 0-0-2 .

You can say something like this, but I'm the casual fan?? Sorry bud..... but 1,000 out of 1,000 people will tell you you're full of shit. Again, read up on boxing history..... watch a few hundred old fights..... and get back to me when you're done.

[frankenfrank]

no one but you has said that Ramirez legitimately beat Whitaker, for fucksake ESPN ranked it as one of the top 10 worst decisions in the history of the sport, dude you really are delusional, no point in arguing with you cause you're clueless the fact that you say that if a fighter is dropped he automatically loses a fight is laughable, Marquez was dropped 3 times in the first then then went on to fucking dominate, that's why he deserves respect, he clearly won the fight despite being dropped 3 times, you really need to get your headchecked and learn boxing, according to you Trinidad should have losses to a bunch of his opponents who got flash knockdowns on him, same would go for a hell of a lot of other fighters

ESPN is a biased American TV station , like i care what they say . They cheered their homeboy but i watched d fight unlike u and have my own impressions . any1 who reads this , watch d fight and decide 4 yourself if u have any qualms about my claims .
I doubt that u watched this fight in its entirety in normal speed and even if u did (which i doubt) then u probably only watched it once and long ago and were deeply touched by d biased commentary / reading shit summaries on d fight .
Fights R not won by avoiding contact at all cost which is what Whitaker did there .

Ricardo Lopez had no balls and would have been KOd by Carbajal if he had any . Usually i don't blame fighters 4 not wanting 2 fight fighters in a division above them , but Ricardo Lopez has 0 wins that counts . This is his true record : 0-0-2 .

You can say something like this, but I'm the casual fan?? Sorry bud..... but 1,000 out of 1,000 people will tell you you're full of shit. Again, read up on boxing history..... watch a few hundred old fights..... and get back to me when you're done.

Xactly . U R a casual fan . I read boxing history , more than all of u combined ever did , i watched fights at least more than each 1 of u had , and this is Y I claim what i do . Tell me again , who did Ricardo Lopez ever fight , let alone beat ?
Your username alone implies your casualness . Your ludicrous arguing in favor of Ricardo Lopez , who fought nobody and beat nobody only solidify d impression on your casualness . what do u know about d history of d sport when u take a shit over d real warriors , real men who were fighting and willing 2 fight any1 , men like Ramirez and many others , by ranking n unproven , unknown quantity , a mystery like Ricardo Lopez whom wasn't willing 2 fight a man 3 lbs above him , whom was d only man that could count 4 him , above them ?