Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a hole in the ground
    Posts
    23,387
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3383
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

    In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

    But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

    Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

    Just a few examples.

    Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

    What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

    The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

    The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.
    But I don't want Kahn to fight Bradley because Bradley's unbeaten. It's because I think he's the best possible challenge. Try it this way. Does Omar Narvaez excite you the way Vic Darnyinain does? Who would you rather see, a one loss Donaire fight a two loss Agbeko or an unbeaten Yamanka at 118?

    The difference between Marciano and Mayweather is Marciano fought EVERYONE who was a remote challenge. Floyd? Um, well, um, not so much. No serious fan thinks Marciano accomplished more than Dempsey, but he accomplished all he could have. Valuing being unbeaten incents fighters to NOT do that.

    When you say "this is how it has to be" in boxing, I think you're dead wrong. It was NEVER this way until about 15 years ago. Almost every ATG fighter lost early and along the way in their careers. Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Arguello, Louis, Langford, Duran, Pep, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Robinson, Hagler, Monzon, Tunney etc. Why? Because they were brought along to become the best possible fighters. That meant taking serious challenges all along the way. Now? Fighters are just brought along to be unbeaten and they fight mediocrity as long as possible.

    It is our fault as fans for buying into this.

    But Bradley is unbeaten. Had he lost to Alexander would you still want him to be Khan's next fight, or would be wanting him to go in with Alexander instead?

    The earlier guys lost fights, but they also fought about three times as often. Hagler's losses clearly affected him. He had to wait for years and years to get a title shot. The other guys fought and lost before the PPV era.

    Fights are big money now, but when a fighter loses his commercial value plummets.

    I'm not really sure what you are suggesting? That managers and promoters should give their fighters harder fights sooner? I don't agree. I think fighters can get ruined if they are pushed too fast. An early loss might damage their appeal, or their confidence to the point where it never they recover.

    Fighters are like golden geese. They can make a lot of money, they can provide a lot of entertainment but they need to be brought along slowly.

    The best and most crowd pleasing fighters can lose and still be big draws. Gatti was the king of that. But most fighters who lose and then fade away is because fans, including me and you don't want to see them, at least not in the big matchups.

    Alexander vs Khan or Bradley vs Khan?
    Had Alexander beaten Bradley, I'd want Alexander. But NOT because he was unbeaten. Had Alexander brought a loss or two or three into that fight and won? I'd STILL want him to fight Kahn.

    Hagler wasn't not given a title shot in 1978 because of his losses to the Philly crowd. It was because Hugo Corro was scared to death of him.
    I want fighters brought along to become the best fighters they can be, not just the fighters with an unbeaten record. I want fans to be smart enough not to fall for the idiocy that being unbeaten in and of itself means something. I want to watch great fighters fight, not unbeaten records being built.

    I want people to learn from the eleven loss Solido taking out unbeaten JuanMa. I want people to stop equating one's record in a vaccum with accomplishment as a fighter.

    Rant over
    I think fans are smart enough. The point regarding losses nowadays is that virtually all of them are televised. You don't want Alexander to face Khan because you saw him get beat, you saw that he quit mentally and that fight lost its appeal...for now, he can come back.

    Salido actually is an argument against the point you are making A fighter with almost a dozen losses who still got another shot because the fans and promoters are smart enough to know he's a challenge. The same with Glen Johnson.

    I just don't know what particular bone of contention you are chewing on, because as I see it you agree with me as far as what fights are being made. If a fighter has losses that weren't televised, or that we don't know about, they don't matter at all, he's still as good as unbeaten to us in terms of wanting to see him fight.

    It's when we SEE them get beat, rather than any magical 0 number changing to a 1 that people are so quick to drop a fighter.

    And ultimately, for the boxers, the prospects with chances of winning world titles, their career isn't about always facing the toughest challenges from the get go to maximise the fan's pleasure, it's to get into world title contention so that they have a chance of glory and a chance to make some real money for the time they are in the sport.

    A talented fighter who is pitted against the best from the beginning and is already losing fights before he even gets on Friday Night Fights is being chronically mismanaged!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    806
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

    In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

    But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

    Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

    Just a few examples.

    Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

    What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

    The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

    The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.
    But I don't want Kahn to fight Bradley because Bradley's unbeaten. It's because I think he's the best possible challenge. Try it this way. Does Omar Narvaez excite you the way Vic Darnyinain does? Who would you rather see, a one loss Donaire fight a two loss Agbeko or an unbeaten Yamanka at 118?

    The difference between Marciano and Mayweather is Marciano fought EVERYONE who was a remote challenge. Floyd? Um, well, um, not so much. No serious fan thinks Marciano accomplished more than Dempsey, but he accomplished all he could have. Valuing being unbeaten incents fighters to NOT do that.

    When you say "this is how it has to be" in boxing, I think you're dead wrong. It was NEVER this way until about 15 years ago. Almost every ATG fighter lost early and along the way in their careers. Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Arguello, Louis, Langford, Duran, Pep, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Robinson, Hagler, Monzon, Tunney etc. Why? Because they were brought along to become the best possible fighters. That meant taking serious challenges all along the way. Now? Fighters are just brought along to be unbeaten and they fight mediocrity as long as possible.

    It is our fault as fans for buying into this.

    But Bradley is unbeaten. Had he lost to Alexander would you still want him to be Khan's next fight, or would be wanting him to go in with Alexander instead?

    The earlier guys lost fights, but they also fought about three times as often. Hagler's losses clearly affected him. He had to wait for years and years to get a title shot. The other guys fought and lost before the PPV era.

    Fights are big money now, but when a fighter loses his commercial value plummets.

    I'm not really sure what you are suggesting? That managers and promoters should give their fighters harder fights sooner? I don't agree. I think fighters can get ruined if they are pushed too fast. An early loss might damage their appeal, or their confidence to the point where it never they recover.

    Fighters are like golden geese. They can make a lot of money, they can provide a lot of entertainment but they need to be brought along slowly.

    The best and most crowd pleasing fighters can lose and still be big draws. Gatti was the king of that. But most fighters who lose and then fade away is because fans, including me and you don't want to see them, at least not in the big matchups.

    Alexander vs Khan or Bradley vs Khan?
    Had Alexander beaten Bradley, I'd want Alexander. But NOT because he was unbeaten. Had Alexander brought a loss or two or three into that fight and won? I'd STILL want him to fight Kahn.

    Hagler wasn't not given a title shot in 1978 because of his losses to the Philly crowd. It was because Hugo Corro was scared to death of him.
    I want fighters brought along to become the best fighters they can be, not just the fighters with an unbeaten record. I want fans to be smart enough not to fall for the idiocy that being unbeaten in and of itself means something. I want to watch great fighters fight, not unbeaten records being built.

    I want people to learn from the eleven loss Solido taking out unbeaten JuanMa. I want people to stop equating one's record in a vaccum with accomplishment as a fighter.

    Rant over
    I think fans are smart enough. The point regarding losses nowadays is that virtually all of them are televised. You don't want Alexander to face Khan because you saw him get beat, you saw that he quit mentally and that fight lost its appeal...for now, he can come back.

    Salido actually is an argument against the point you are making A fighter with almost a dozen losses who still got another shot because the fans and promoters are smart enough to know he's a challenge. The same with Glen Johnson.

    I just don't know what particular bone of contention you are chewing on, because as I see it you agree with me as far as what fights are being made. If a fighter has losses that weren't televised, or that we don't know about, they don't matter at all, he's still as good as unbeaten to us in terms of wanting to see him fight.

    It's when we SEE them get beat, rather than any magical 0 number changing to a 1 that people are so quick to drop a fighter.

    And ultimately, for the boxers, the prospects with chances of winning world titles, their career isn't about always facing the toughest challenges from the get go to maximise the fan's pleasure, it's to get into world title contention so that they have a chance of glory and a chance to make some real money for the time they are in the sport.

    A talented fighter who is pitted against the best from the beginning and is already losing fights before he even gets on Friday Night Fights is being chronically mismanaged!
    Here's what I'm chewing on. Fans should be smart enough EVEN WHEN THEY SEE A GUY LOSE to understand learning boxing and becoming skilled is a process, not an event nor an even path. Because fighters are being brought along to be unbeaten rather than skilled we get shabby performances like Ortiz against Maidana when he didn't know enough boxing to stop a guy who was freaking double shuffling to him and then throwing a lead right hand! Or shabby performances like Berto's the other night when he didn't have the vaguest clue how to take a step to the side to change the angle of the fight.

    I'm not suggesting a talented fighter be put in against the best from the beginning. I am suggesting he be put in against challenges all along the way so by the time he meets the best, he is ready to perform at that level. Ray Leonard was brought along the right way. Fast guys, strong guys, bigger guys, punchers, boxers etc so when he fought Benitez? He was a polished, tested, skilled guy. Kostya Tzyu is another brought the right way. Hell he was ready for a still dangerous Juan freakin Laporte in his fourth fight! Now Fernando Vargas was ruined because he was rushed and I'm not suggesting that either. But the focus on being unbeaten works against fighter development.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a hole in the ground
    Posts
    23,387
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3383
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Fans should be smart enough EVEN WHEN THEY SEE A GUY LOSE to understand learning boxing and becoming skilled is a process, not an event nor an even path.


    But I would say that they already are. As Conrad just said above Amir got beat, and he bounced back. Salido has lost a ton of times and is now a world champ.

    People on forums will write off a fighter the second he underperforms, he can even win and end up a loser in their eyes, but within the boxing world a talented fighter can usually get a second shot if he's proven he's up to it.

    The challenge for them is getting to that point. Every top prospect wants to win titles and have some big paydays far more than he wants to lose early so you can see him tested.

    If you were a professional boxer now, a talented kid just turning pro at say 21 years old you would want a team around you that built you up properly. The goal would be to give you a solid boxing education, gradually building you up to a world title shot in 5 or so years time with as few accidents along the way.

    Going in with the best from the beginning just means you will likely either never make it to the top or else be too war heavy to last long.

    Guys like Alexander, Bradley, the Peterson brothers, David Lemiux etc were all brought along the right way. Lemiux's surprising loss will be a big setback for him, but hopefully with a previous 25-0 with 24 ko record prior to that he will get chances to redeem himself.

    If he was already 17-6 or something he would have never have headlined FNF last week and would likely never get a real shot. You have to protect your investments. It's our entertainment, it's their careers.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boonies
    Posts
    4,115
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    978
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a hole in the ground
    Posts
    23,387
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3383
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Quote Originally Posted by generalbulldog View Post
    Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.
    Why would he?

    Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

    Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

    But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

    If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

    There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

    The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

    That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

    But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    806
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by generalbulldog View Post
    Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.
    Why would he?

    Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

    Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

    But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

    If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

    There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

    The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

    That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

    But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.
    See I thik you have misidentified you job as a trainer. Your job is NOT to gudide him to a world title with no mishaps. Your job is to prepare him so that he has an enormously productive (in money and honors) career. That necessarily means a long time at the top. Even in today's watered down era, one cannot stay at the top if one arrived there not being properly prepared. Look at the massive improvements Yoriorkis Gamboa has been forced to make along the way because he has been battle tested. Now I agree there are exceptions, but it is the opposite of the ones you identified. Guys without an amateur pedigree must be taken more slowly as they are having their amateur experience in the pros. THOSE are the guys you have to be extra careful with.

    Seriously, I mean on FNF you watch some guy 15-0 with a prominent amateur background blowing away some overmatched guy from Idaho in one round...what is the point?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boonies
    Posts
    4,115
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    978
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by generalbulldog View Post
    Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.
    Why would he?

    Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

    Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

    But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

    If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

    There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

    The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

    That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

    But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.
    See I thik you have misidentified you job as a trainer. Your job is NOT to gudide him to a world title with no mishaps. Your job is to prepare him so that he has an enormously productive (in money and honors) career. That necessarily means a long time at the top. Even in today's watered down era, one cannot stay at the top if one arrived there not being properly prepared. Look at the massive improvements Yoriorkis Gamboa has been forced to make along the way because he has been battle tested. Now I agree there are exceptions, but it is the opposite of the ones you identified. Guys without an amateur pedigree must be taken more slowly as they are having their amateur experience in the pros. THOSE are the guys you have to be extra careful with.

    Seriously, I mean on FNF you watch some guy 15-0 with a prominent amateur background blowing away some overmatched guy from Idaho in one round...what is the point?
    To build him up as some beastly fighter that can be the next superstar in boxing. Or record padding as people like to call it. I know what you mean about 15-0 fighters against some guy from Idaho with a record of 5-20 with 1ko.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    The only thing a zero is good for is hyping and overrating a fighter.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,614
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1029
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

    Quote Originally Posted by generalbulldog View Post
    Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.
    I think it is more about perception, than it is the record standing by itself. If it can be sold a promoter will take advantage of it. You will never be able to shut Floyd's mouth as long as he has a zero and he sells it like he a used car dealer.

    When stepped into the ring against Duran 71-1 was Leonard 27-0. It was a very big big selling point at the time that Duran had vowed to the people never to loose again. I don't think casual fans and avid boxing fans alike even care the JCC jr has a 0 in the L column. Is it a meaningless record? Certainly not! It sells tickets.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Unbeaten or Undefeated?
    By piye in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 03:14 PM
  2. Unbeaten Duddy arranges May bout
    By ICB in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2007, 05:11 PM
  3. Chavez Jr. still unbeaten!
    By ICB in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-11-2007, 11:11 AM
  4. Unbeaten Khan gets Wembley outing
    By ICB in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-19-2006, 04:52 AM
  5. Unbeaten Khan gets Wembley outing
    By ICB in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-18-2006, 08:17 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2025 Saddo Boxing - Boxing