Quote Originally Posted by brucelee
But thats not what i was trying to say i was saying Mayweather's era has as many quality fighters than in any other Welterweight era except the 90s the subject is not about who Mayweather fought or who Robinson fought even though i have answered all your questions

If I can recall correctly, it was you who asked the names of who Robinson, Duran, Basilio and Leonard fought that's worth mentioning. I've answered your question coz I thought that was what you were trying to argue with me. Now you're trying to change the content of our debate coz I did give you names.[/b]

Your focusing this too much on Mayweather the subject was is Welterweight division today better than ever the subject was not about Mayweather and the Welterweight division has more quality fighters than any other era like i said only other era that has as many quality fighters is the 90s Welterweight era.

I am focusing on Mayweather as the subject coz that was the content of my argument. I said. "With Floyd as the current champion, NO WAY". You accepted my preposition by saying " Why not ?? he is probably one the best defensive fighters of all time probably even better than Pernell Whitaker P4P Mayweather has speed, power, he has won 5 World titles in 5 different weight divisions not even the great Sugar Ray Robinson achieved that just because he isn't to everyones taste he is without a doubt the best Welterweight out there."

So you're trying to say now that the content of our debate is about the quality and number of fighters in the welterweight today?

So you're saying that these fighters (Paul Williams,Miguel Cotto,Shane Mosley,Antonio Margarito,Kermit Cintron,Ricky Hatton,Zab Judah,Andre Berto,Joshua Clottey) are quality fighters. I do not disagree about it ( in their own way, they are good). Now let me ask you, how many of these fighters you have mentioned will be remembered by history like the way boxing history remembers Robinson, Duran, Basilio and Leonard?

So you accept the fact that the 90's era is equal in number in terms of quality fighters? Since the topic is about welterweight better now than before, you should know that I am entitled to claim the 90's era.

Let me then qualify your era. Your era is about NOW..... with Mayweather as the champion. Do not confuse our eminent judges.


The only good name you mentioned there was Kid Gavilan.

Tommy Bell record was 53 wins, 32 KO, 29 losses, not a good record is it ?? and how many good fighters did Bell beat ??

Henry Brimm are you kidding me ?? 26 wins, 11 KO, 17 losses, and you slate Mayweathers opposition ??

Charley Fusari 65 wins 38 KO 12 losses thats an ok record but who did Fusari beat ?? if you actually look he lost all his big fights and even lost to some average opposition aswell.


George Costner 73 wins, 44 KO, 10 losses, not a bad record but it was a padded record and yet again just like Charley Fusrari he lost all his big fights except he beat Kid Gavilan but Gavilan was totally robbed so if you want to count that as a good victory go ahead.

If Mayweather would of fought these guys in his era you would of slated him just as you do now ask any boxing fan if they have even heard of any of these names except for Gavilan.[/b]

I specifically identified these fighters coz they are the ones who stood out in history and who have been relevant to Robinson's fame in the welterweight. By the way, there are no fighters that really stood out during Robinson's time because of Robinson's greatness. Fighters were simply overshadowed. Remember the pound for pound title was created because of Robinson.

Can you say something like that to Mayweather?

And Robinson ducked Charles Burley the man who sparked him out twice in sparring and as for Margarito ?? he wasn't worth it at the time Margarito hadn't fought any names and if Mayweather would of fought Margarito then people would be saying he was ducking Baldomir Mayweather fought the Welterweight champion of the world for the same money aka Carlos Baldomir.

Ducked Charles Burley? It was the mafia who decided who will fight whom. Charles happened to be in the wrong time when discrimination was so high in boxing that the Mafia can not tolerate anymore any black fighter excelling in boxing aside from Robinson. Robinson can not do anything about Charles.

a.k.a the sluggish Baldomir?

So you’re really questioning now the legacy of Robinson. Let me clear this up. So you mean Robinson does not deserve to be one of the all-time greats?

Just to give you an idea that I know what I’m saying, let me answer your query regarding these people:

Tommy Bell record was 53 wins, 32 KO, 29 losses, not a good record is it ?? and how many good fighters did Bell beat ??

Tommy Bell fought LaMotta and Robinson in 1945 and in 1946 (for the world championship), LaMotta in 1947, Kid Gavilan in 1948. He almost averaged 9 fights a year. Is it not impressive for you? These fighters would not be fighting Bell if they do not consider Bell as a good fighter.

Henry Brimm are you kidding me ?? 26 wins, 11 KO, 17 losses, and you slate Mayweathers opposition ??[/b]

Brimm managed a draw against Robinson, that’s why I mentioned him.

Charley Fusari 65 wins 38 KO 12 losses thats an ok record but who did Fusari beat ?? if you actually look he lost all his big fights and even lost to some average opposition aswell.

Charles KOed Rocky Castellani in 10.

George Costner 73 wins, 44 KO, 10 losses, not a bad record but it was a padded record and yet again just like Charley Fusrari he lost all his big fights except he beat Kid Gavilan but Gavilan was totally robbed so if you want to count that as a good victory go ahead.

Lost all his big fights? Won over Ike Williams.

Now, Costner,Brimm, etc. is not the point here. I’ve mentioned Costner, Henry Brimm, Kid Gavilan and Tommy Bell to prove the greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson since you were questioning it.

You’re trying now to lure me in defending these guys. Nahhh, I won’t give you that benefit.


If I can recall correctly, it was you who asked the names of who Robinson, Duran, Basilio and Leonard fought that's worth mentioning. I've answered your question coz I thought that was what you were trying to argue with me. Now you're trying to change the content of our debate coz I did give you names.

You brung up Mayweather and made me defend Mayweather so i had to counter back and say what Welterweight era had as many good names as Mayweather's welterweight era even though Mayweather has nothing really to do with the debate and you gave me names but they wern't really good names and all you did is make me correct because you couldn't name as many good names in any other Welterweight era except the 90s and thats only because i brought up 90s to be fair you didn't and this is what the subject is about.

Topic: "The Welterweight division, better now than ever?"

Meaning i have to defend Welterweight era now your turning this into a debate strictly about Mayweather.


I am focusing on Mayweather as the subject coz that was the content of my argument. I said. "With Floyd as the current champion, NO WAY". You accepted my preposition by saying " Why not ?? he is probably one the best defensive fighters of all time probably even better than Pernell Whitaker P4P Mayweather has speed, power, he has won 5 World titles in 5 different weight divisions not even the great Sugar Ray Robinson achieved that just because he isn't to everyones taste he is without a doubt the best Welterweight out there."

Yes and everything i said there was completey correct so whats your point ?? all your doing is turning this into a debate about Mayweather when im supposed to be defending the Welterweight era now not just Mayweather and i have defended it because i named all quality fighters in this era and you still haven't named as many in any other Welterweight era so that means my argument is correct yes ?? because this is what the topic is.

Topic: "The Welterweight division, better now than ever?"

And so far i have proven that Mayweather's Welterweight era is arguably the strongest ever and there hasn't been as many good fighters in any other Welterweight era except the 90syou have not been able to prove me wrong so far i am correct.

So you're trying to say now that the content of our debate is about the quality and number of fighters in the welterweight today?

Yes thats what it has always been about you turned it into strictly Mayweather debate.

So you're saying that these fighters (Paul Williams,Miguel Cotto,Shane Mosley,Antonio Margarito,Kermit Cintron,Ricky Hatton,Zab Judah,Andre Berto,Joshua Clottey) are quality fighters. I do not disagree about it ( in their own way, they are good). Now let me ask you, how many of these fighters you have mentioned will be remembered by history like the way boxing history remembers Robinson, Duran, Basilio and Leonard?

Who knows ?? they haven't finished there career yet so its unfair but all i know is that they are all good fighters and this Welterweight era has more good fighters in it than Robinson's Welterweight era and Leonard's Welterweight era no question.

So you accept the fact that the 90's era is equal in number in terms of quality fighters? Since the topic is about welterweight better now than before, you should know that I am entitled to claim the 90's era.

Its apple and oranges Bruce meaning that both eras had alot of good fighters and its debatable both ways but its bit unfair for one reason Bruce because when we are bringing up 90s era thats 10 years worth of fighters when im only bringing up the era right now im not bringing up 2000 to 2007 im only bringing up 2007 i tell you what you pick one year from 90s era meaning you pick 1991 or 1992 or ect and we will compare it with the Welterweight era today fair enough ??

Let me then qualify your era. Your era is about NOW..... with Mayweather as the champion. Do not confuse our eminent judges.

Yes but i have defended Mayweather and the debate is not strictly about Mayweather we are debating the different Welterweight eras not just one fighter.

I specifically identified these fighters coz they are the ones who stood out in history and who have been relevant to Robinson's fame in the welterweight. By the way, there are no fighters that really stood out during Robinson's time because of Robinson's greatness. Fighters were simply overshadowed. Remember the pound for pound title was created because of Robinson.

So there you go you admitted yourself that no fighters really stood out in Robinson's Welterweight era you just proved my point Bruce and its nothing to do with Robinson's greatness its because it wasn't a strong era at all them fighters you mentioned the only one that stood out is Kid Gavilan the others were not that good i mean the era was that weak that you had to mention Henry Brimm who had 26 wins and 17 losses as one of Robinson's better wins.

Can you say something like that to Mayweather?

Mayweather's career is not finished yet so thats unfair but he is p4p number 1 and by the time his career is finished just imagine where he could be rated ?? i would love to know but we will find out in about 3 years so we will have to wait.

Ducked Charles Burley? It was the mafia who decided who will fight whom. Charles happened to be in the wrong time when discrimination was so high in boxing that the Mafia can not tolerate anymore any black fighter excelling in boxing aside from Robinson. Robinson can not do anything about Charles.

Its actually noted he ducked Burley because Bruely sparked Robinson twice in sparring when Burley was gym sweeper or something i think he knew something about Burley that Burley had his number but not only Robinson ducked Burley alot of fighters did.

So you’re really questioning now the legacy of Robinson. Let me clear this up. So you mean Robinson does not deserve to be one of the all-time greats?

Just to give you an idea that I know what I’m saying, let me answer your query regarding these people:


Oh yes Robinson is one of the all time greats but his Welterweight era is more than questionable and im not questioning Robinson's whole career im questioning his Welterweight era which im supposed to do because im defending the current Welterweight era.

Tommy Bell record was 53 wins, 32 KO, 29 losses, not a good record is it ?? and how many good fighters did Bell beat ??

Tommy Bell fought LaMotta and Robinson in 1945 and in 1946 (for the world championship), LaMotta in 1947, Kid Gavilan in 1948. He almost averaged 9 fights a year. Is it not impressive for you? These fighters would not be fighting Bell if they do not consider Bell as a good fighter.

Just because he averaged 9 fights a year im supposed to be impressed ?? that was common in them days Bruce that was nothing impressive in them days and you mention he fought Lamotta, Robinson, Gavilan but did he win any of these fights ?? i think your find he didn't so just because you fought the best and lost that doesn't make you great fighter.

Henry Brimm are you kidding me ?? 26 wins, 11 KO, 17 losses, and you slate Mayweathers opposition ??

Brimm managed a draw against Robinson, that’s why I mentioned him.

And ?? all that does is make Robinson look bad for drawing with 26-17 fighter.

Charley Fusari 65 wins 38 KO 12 losses thats an ok record but who did Fusari beat ?? if you actually look he lost all his big fights and even lost to some average opposition aswell.

Charles KOed Rocky Castellani in 10.

And who was Rocky Castellani ?? 65 wins 16 KO 14 losses he lost all the big fights he never had one victory that really stands out so out of all that you can only mention one win against Castellani who is really an unknown your just proving my point Bruce.

George Costner 73 wins, 44 KO, 10 losses, not a bad record but it was a padded record and yet again just like Charley Fusrari he lost all his big fights except he beat Kid Gavilan but Gavilan was totally robbed so if you want to count that as a good victory go ahead.

Lost all his big fights? Won over Ike Williams.

Now, Costner,Brimm, etc. is not the point here. I’ve mentioned Costner, Henry Brimm, Kid Gavilan and Tommy Bell to prove the greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson since you were questioning it.

You’re trying now to lure me in defending these guys. Nahhh, I won’t give you that benefit.


Ok so he had one good victory over Ike Williams but Kirkland Laing beat Duran once does that make him great fighter ?? Terry Marsh beat Robinson, Glen Johnson beat Roy Jones so many great fighters lose to fighters they shouldn't Bruce that doesn't make fighters like Laing, Johnson, Marsh, Costner great all you can mention is one victory he and there you haven't proven anything and you mentioned them names to prove greatness of Robinson ?? all you did is make it easy for me Bruce.

And yes i am asking you to defend them considering you brought them up otherwise what was the point of bringing them up ??