Barker v Martinez 1st Oct

[erics44]

seems to be an opinion of a few, i dont think someone who has only won 3 of his last 5 is 3rd or 2nd best boxer in the world

I think there are people with better recent records

but opinions are ok arent they?

It's the opinion of the majority actually.

As for only winning three of last five, he drew with Cintron and was robbed against Williams. Not bad going tbh.

im not saying he doesnt deserve to be up there, but 2nd or 3rd in the world?

and it doesnt matter if you or anybody else thinks he should or shouldnt have won a fight the fact is he didnt win those two fights

[Master]

Lamb to the slaughter.

[boxingbantz]

and it doesnt matter if you or anybody else thinks he should or shouldnt have won a fight the fact is he didnt win those two fights

So applying the same logic then, the fact is, Matthysse lost to Devon Alexander? Or that Lara lost to Paul Williams, yeah?

[erics44]

and it doesnt matter if you or anybody else thinks he should or shouldnt have won a fight the fact is he didnt win those two fights

So applying the same logic then, the fact is, Matthysse lost to Devon Alexander? Or that Lara lost to Paul Williams, yeah?

yes, they should have won, but it would be impossible to start ranking fighters off fights they should or shouldnt have won, the only way to do it soundly is to do it by facts

I'll give you an example, Degale just fought Groves, Groves won, a lot of people think Degale won, and a lot of people who think Groves won thinks Degale is still a better boxer

But no matter what Groves has to be ranked above Degale because he won the fight

[MMASUX]

Martinez within 7, not going to be close at all.