Top fighters out of every country

[frankenfrank]

Hernandez doesn't deserve to be ahead of any of the fighters I named, so you can't use Boxrec as evidence of Lopez being overrated then go ahead and say that the Boxrec rankings are flawed, they're flawed in every sense especially if they have Ricardo Lopez that low, as for blasting Sanchez, well he's basically IMO on the same level of someone like Ramirez, always fought the best but didn't beat the best, and I do read your posts and stop half way cause it's not the truth all I read is biased ignorant bullshit, all you seem to post is farfetched opinions that are based on opinions rather than FACT, ffs you said that Morales given his resume doesn't belong in the top 10 due to the fact that he has 2 stoppage losses, regardless of the fact that A) it was against Manny Pacquiao and B) that Morales was passed his best, you seriously need to LEARN what you're trying to talk about cause you're just coming off sounding clueless

Sanchez' not like Ramirez , because Sanchez lost always by stoppage (Xcept 4 Calderon when he uncharacteristically lost by decision) . Ramirez won against Rosario and Whitaker and deserved 2 win vs Arguello as well and at least a draw in d 1st Rosario fight . "El Nene" always got his S drilled then handed 2 him . Ramirez was only stopped 1ce when he still was a novice from n Olivares body punch (and no1 2 verify if it was legit and not low) . "El Nene" made himself a name by being Sascha Grey like if u know what i mean . Then consider that d "best" that Ramirez fought were much better than d "best" that "El Nene" fought , sometimes beat and was never humiliated , except maybe 1 time , and "El Nene" , well , he was d Bukkake of his division .


Show me where i claimed that Morales does not belong in Mexico's top 10 so i can edit and fix it .
Would u ?

Whose posts r u replying 2 ? seemingly not some1 who posted in this thread .

[ElTerribleMorales]

Hernandez doesn't deserve to be ahead of any of the fighters I named, so you can't use Boxrec as evidence of Lopez being overrated then go ahead and say that the Boxrec rankings are flawed, they're flawed in every sense especially if they have Ricardo Lopez that low, as for blasting Sanchez, well he's basically IMO on the same level of someone like Ramirez, always fought the best but didn't beat the best, and I do read your posts and stop half way cause it's not the truth all I read is biased ignorant bullshit, all you seem to post is farfetched opinions that are based on opinions rather than FACT, ffs you said that Morales given his resume doesn't belong in the top 10 due to the fact that he has 2 stoppage losses, regardless of the fact that A) it was against Manny Pacquiao and B) that Morales was passed his best, you seriously need to LEARN what you're trying to talk about cause you're just coming off sounding clueless

Sanchez' not like Ramirez , because Sanchez lost always by stoppage (Xcept 4 Calderon when he uncharacteristically lost by decision) . Ramirez won against Rosario and Whitaker and deserved 2 win vs Arguello as well and at least a draw in d 1st Rosario fight . "El Nene" always got his S drilled then handed 2 him . Ramirez was only stopped 1ce when he still was a novice from n Olivares body punch (and no1 2 verify if it was legit and not low) . "El Nene" made himself a name by being Sascha Grey like if u know what i mean . Then consider that d "best" that Ramirez fought were much better than d "best" that "El Nene" fought , sometimes beat and was never humiliated , except maybe 1 time , and "El Nene" , well , he was d Bukkake of his division .


Show me where i claimed that Morales does not belong in Mexico's top 10 so i can edit and fix it .
Would u ?

Whose posts r u replying 2 ? seemingly not some1 who posted in this thread .

hahaha so now without seeing a single fight of his you can determine just on paper that Sanchez was no good, he was far from great just like Ramirez but was decent enough and only lost to top guys, difference though his wins were all his, unlike the gift given to Ramirez in France against Whitaker, the fact that you try to build up Ramirez to be better than Morales in any sense is an insult, seeing how Morales was a notch higher in every department, skill, talent, and resume, Vargas lost every fight he had by TKO (besides his loss to Mayorga), does that make him a bum? simply put I'm done going in circles cause well there's no point in arguing with someone who has no logic, and sir that's exactly what you are =/

[frankenfrank]

Hernandez doesn't deserve to be ahead of any of the fighters I named, so you can't use Boxrec as evidence of Lopez being overrated then go ahead and say that the Boxrec rankings are flawed, they're flawed in every sense especially if they have Ricardo Lopez that low, as for blasting Sanchez, well he's basically IMO on the same level of someone like Ramirez, always fought the best but didn't beat the best, and I do read your posts and stop half way cause it's not the truth all I read is biased ignorant bullshit, all you seem to post is farfetched opinions that are based on opinions rather than FACT, ffs you said that Morales given his resume doesn't belong in the top 10 due to the fact that he has 2 stoppage losses, regardless of the fact that A) it was against Manny Pacquiao and B) that Morales was passed his best, you seriously need to LEARN what you're trying to talk about cause you're just coming off sounding clueless

Sanchez' not like Ramirez , because Sanchez lost always by stoppage (Xcept 4 Calderon when he uncharacteristically lost by decision) . Ramirez won against Rosario and Whitaker and deserved 2 win vs Arguello as well and at least a draw in d 1st Rosario fight . "El Nene" always got his S drilled then handed 2 him . Ramirez was only stopped 1ce when he still was a novice from n Olivares body punch (and no1 2 verify if it was legit and not low) . "El Nene" made himself a name by being Sascha Grey like if u know what i mean . Then consider that d "best" that Ramirez fought were much better than d "best" that "El Nene" fought , sometimes beat and was never humiliated , except maybe 1 time , and "El Nene" , well , he was d Bukkake of his division .


Show me where i claimed that Morales does not belong in Mexico's top 10 so i can edit and fix it .
Would u ?

Whose posts r u replying 2 ? seemingly not some1 who posted in this thread .

hahaha so now without seeing a single fight of his you can determine just on paper that Sanchez was no good, he was far from great just like Ramirez but was decent enough and only lost to top guys, difference though his wins were all his, unlike the gift given to Ramirez in France against Whitaker, the fact that you try to build up Ramirez to be better than Morales in any sense is an insult, seeing how Morales was a notch higher in every department, skill, talent, and resume, Vargas lost every fight he had by TKO (besides his loss to Mayorga), does that make him a bum? simply put I'm done going in circles cause well there's no point in arguing with someone who has no logic, and sir that's exactly what you are =/

Xactly , "El Nene" was no good , and trying 2 seriously equate him 2 Ramirez is n insult .
Ramirez was rightfully awarded d decision over Whitaker .
Vargas was not a bum but far from great . I'd consider Vargas a lot better than Alex Sanchez and a lot worse than Ramirez .

[ElTerribleMorales]

Hernandez doesn't deserve to be ahead of any of the fighters I named, so you can't use Boxrec as evidence of Lopez being overrated then go ahead and say that the Boxrec rankings are flawed, they're flawed in every sense especially if they have Ricardo Lopez that low, as for blasting Sanchez, well he's basically IMO on the same level of someone like Ramirez, always fought the best but didn't beat the best, and I do read your posts and stop half way cause it's not the truth all I read is biased ignorant bullshit, all you seem to post is farfetched opinions that are based on opinions rather than FACT, ffs you said that Morales given his resume doesn't belong in the top 10 due to the fact that he has 2 stoppage losses, regardless of the fact that A) it was against Manny Pacquiao and B) that Morales was passed his best, you seriously need to LEARN what you're trying to talk about cause you're just coming off sounding clueless

Sanchez' not like Ramirez , because Sanchez lost always by stoppage (Xcept 4 Calderon when he uncharacteristically lost by decision) . Ramirez won against Rosario and Whitaker and deserved 2 win vs Arguello as well and at least a draw in d 1st Rosario fight . "El Nene" always got his S drilled then handed 2 him . Ramirez was only stopped 1ce when he still was a novice from n Olivares body punch (and no1 2 verify if it was legit and not low) . "El Nene" made himself a name by being Sascha Grey like if u know what i mean . Then consider that d "best" that Ramirez fought were much better than d "best" that "El Nene" fought , sometimes beat and was never humiliated , except maybe 1 time , and "El Nene" , well , he was d Bukkake of his division .


Show me where i claimed that Morales does not belong in Mexico's top 10 so i can edit and fix it .
Would u ?

Whose posts r u replying 2 ? seemingly not some1 who posted in this thread .

hahaha so now without seeing a single fight of his you can determine just on paper that Sanchez was no good, he was far from great just like Ramirez but was decent enough and only lost to top guys, difference though his wins were all his, unlike the gift given to Ramirez in France against Whitaker, the fact that you try to build up Ramirez to be better than Morales in any sense is an insult, seeing how Morales was a notch higher in every department, skill, talent, and resume, Vargas lost every fight he had by TKO (besides his loss to Mayorga), does that make him a bum? simply put I'm done going in circles cause well there's no point in arguing with someone who has no logic, and sir that's exactly what you are =/

Xactly , "El Nene" was no good , and trying 2 seriously equate him 2 Ramirez is n insult .
Ramirez was rightfully awarded d decision over Whitaker .
Vargas was not a bum but far from great . I'd consider Vargas a lot better than Alex Sanchez and a lot worse than Ramirez .

yea Ramirez was as rightfully rewarded the decision as Bradley was against Pacquiao, as Casamayor was against Santa Cruz, and as Chavez was against well Whitaker, again you're saying that Sanchez was "no good" without having seen a single fight of his yet you try to build yourself up as an expert on Mexican and Puerto Rican fighters because you've seen a couple Ramirez fights, claiming that we haven't seen the fights you've mentioned just cause well we don't agree with your claims that Ramirez is anywhere close to being top 5 best at anything, keep fooling yourself bro cause the fact that no one here agrees with you just speaks volumes

[THE THIRD MAN]

It's early morning here in OZ and i haven't had a drink in a week, so i'm sober, no hangover, i've got a bit of a head cold, but apart from that i feel pretty good until i read some of these posts by frankenfrank about Ramirez beating Whitaker!!
Now unless you are downing a bottle of Jack a day there is no possible sane way you could lay claim to Ramirez beating Whitaker in that first fight. It is one of the worst decisions ever, Whitaker won at least 9 maybe 10 rounds, it's on a par with the Chavez draw as a bad decision.

[frankenfrank]

yea Ramirez was as rightfully rewarded the decision as Bradley was against Pacquiao, as Casamayor was against Santa Cruz, and as Chavez was against well Whitaker, again you're saying that Sanchez was "no good" without having seen a single fight of his yet you try to build yourself up as an expert on Mexican and Puerto Rican fighters because you've seen a couple Ramirez fights, claiming that we haven't seen the fights you've mentioned just cause well we don't agree with your claims that Ramirez is anywhere close to being top 5 best at anything, keep fooling yourself bro cause the fact that no one here agrees with you just speaks volumes

Bradley against Pacquiao was a bad decision , d rest u mentioned i haven't watched yet but i doubt that u had , because i don't count watching highlights , skipping parts and fast 4warding as watching a fight . A man who systematically proven as being unable 2 defend himself is not good . I haven't seen just a couple of Ramirez fights , but u obviously haven't even watched "a couple" of Ramirez' fights . I M flattered 2 being disagreed with with PPL whom post such ignorant replies . It's a positive feedback 4 me .

[ElTerribleMorales]

yea Ramirez was as rightfully rewarded the decision as Bradley was against Pacquiao, as Casamayor was against Santa Cruz, and as Chavez was against well Whitaker, again you're saying that Sanchez was "no good" without having seen a single fight of his yet you try to build yourself up as an expert on Mexican and Puerto Rican fighters because you've seen a couple Ramirez fights, claiming that we haven't seen the fights you've mentioned just cause well we don't agree with your claims that Ramirez is anywhere close to being top 5 best at anything, keep fooling yourself bro cause the fact that no one here agrees with you just speaks volumes

Bradley against Pacquiao was a bad decision , d rest u mentioned i haven't watched yet but i doubt that u had , because i don't count watching highlights , skipping parts and fast 4warding as watching a fight . A man who systematically proven as being unable 2 defend himself is not good . I haven't seen just a couple of Ramirez fights , but u obviously haven't even watched "a couple" of Ramirez' fights . I M flattered 2 being disagreed with with PPL whom post such ignorant replies . It's a positive feedback 4 me .

unlike you buddy I actually know boxing, am on here pretty much for every meaningful fight posting while watching the fight live, thing is the only one here rambling on like an ignorant retard is you , if the only thing you base as being a great fighter is durability then fuck me you must have Tommy Hearns at the bottom of the barrel, Bradley/Pacquiao decision was just as bad as Whitaker/Ramirez I, if anything less so because at least Bradley was competitive with Manny, Ramirez at no point was competitive against the man who boxed circles around him and made him look like an amateur or as you put it a cab driver

[frankenfrank]

unlike you buddy I actually know boxing, am on here pretty much for every meaningful fight posting while watching the fight live, thing is the only one here rambling on like an ignorant retard is you , if the only thing you base as being a great fighter is durability then fuck me you must have Tommy Hearns at the bottom of the barrel, Bradley/Pacquiao decision was just as bad as Whitaker/Ramirez I, if anything less so because at least Bradley was competitive with Manny, Ramirez at no point was competitive against the man who boxed circles around him and made him look like an amateur or as you put it a cab driver

So u R somewhat more than just a casual fan , a wrong choice of words on my part , u r a follower of d sport . Still there's a difference between following d sport , which i believe u do more than i , and knowing its history since b4 u started following . Watching every "fab 4" fight 3 times doesn't make even a mediocre historian out of 1 , just like skipping their majority due 2 knowing d facts behind them doesn't reduce 1 2 being a mediocre historian of d sport . Understand ?
Bradley was competitive with Manny , yes . But avoiding contact at all cost (including not landing 1's punches) is not making d other 1 looking like n amateur . Arguably Whitaker wasn't competitive against Ramirez . D sport is not just about not getting hit , it's also about hitting , which Whitaker did not do more than getting hit . Whitaker hadn't "boxed circles" , he fled in all sorts of ways and did no damage while doing so .
Regarding Hearns , i rank him somewhere near where i rank Barkley , slightly below Robbie Sims , Michael Nunn and Sumbu Kalambay i guess .