Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
I didn't really see much wrong with your earlier posts Tito, although there may have been some mis-communication. I think Fenster was trying to point out that Hunter has a better record at heavy than Jennings (correct me if I'm of base). If that is the case, then I agree, but there is not really much in it at this stage. Looking at Jenning's record only Dimitrenko, Perez and Szpilka are note worthy at best. Hunter has Bakole, Ustinov, Kuzmin and I thought he beat Povetkin, but a draw against a top 10 guy none the less, and he has only been at heavy for 2 years roughly. Jenning has been a career heavy for roughly 10 years.

I appreciate that, Alpha. Let's leave it at that, for obvious reasons... but thanks.

About Jennings versus Hunter, I just think Jennings is the more impressive scalp between the two (comparing Povetkin and Ortiz opponents). Jennings was a seasoned fighter in what turned out to be his peak as a boxer. He had just gone 12 with Klitschko, and before that had handed Perez his first loss. It's easy to dismiss him now, and that's the problem with people trying to build cases for or against their favorite (or not) fighters. Not saying you do that, but many conveniently take fighters' careers out of historical context to advance their argument. Jennings is a has-been now, while Hunter is (to me) still unproven enough. Between Bakole, Ustinov and Kuzmin... Bakole is the one I'd rate the most, as Ustinov has turned out less than impressive and Kuzmin was a non-entity before facing Hunter. It's amazing how just 4-5 years ago people were singing Jennings praises as the new American hope... and now to some he was never worth anything. (Again... not you). It's all about context and convenience.