Average, Good, Very Good, Great, Legendary...

::

That Means Dela is "Average" or "BELOW Average"...


REED:hammert:

 

If legendary is defined as being "extremely well known" or something along those lines, then he is. However, REED has used legendary to mean better than great.

Duran's record is spotted with way too many losses to way too many fighters who were not great, imo. And his losses weren't always 'good' losses, either. And if other fighters were given the benefit of the same freaking excuses that Duran gets, then whatever category Duran falls into would be relatively crowded.

But it doesn't work that way with Duran. People love him so they make and bend and ignore their own rules when it comes to ranking him. Duran good; everyone else bad.

Finally, and this is purely my own opinion and I know that most disagree with me, but I don't think Duran really was as good as he is given credit for, even at his best. He has a win over my #1 guy (Leonard), but he also has a shameful loss. And the best guy doesn't always win a boxing match. I watch him getting dropped on his ass constantly against DeJesus, actually losing to him, and losing to all kinds of fighters. And then the excuses pour in. But beat some freaking novice like Davey Moore and he's legendary. It's bullshit.

I think Chavez beats Duran head to head more often than not. Chavez didn't have off-nights that turned into losses. Chavez wasn't getting dropped on his ass all the time. I think Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez also beat him head to head. But none of this matters with Duran because he is Duran. He didn't train, he was naturally smaller, he was this, he was that...excuse after excuse.

Fuck Duran.

 

Sven Ottke: Very Good.

 

I dont think Oscar is anywhere above "Good". Period. As KauKi has already intimated, it is crucial to not confuse cross-over appeal on one hand with fighting ability on the other.

Oscars best division was 147, where he arguably lost to Pea, did lose to Tito and Mosley and maybe lost to Quartey, none of whom he ever rematched. Except Mosley. And, err, lost again, however disuputed or close it was. Too many close run things for Oscar overall at 147. Against Floyd he came out the wrong end of a close decision and against a basically shot and roided-up Vargas, it was close again before Oscar did finally get the stoppage. A lot of Oscars big fights were too close for my liking.

You think back to big fights....Sal Sanchez vs Wilfredo Vazquez where one man, Sanchez, came out and immediately sought to make a statement. Oscar would never have dared to do that......even though to do so could have wrought huge dividends in the Tito fight, as Tito started really slowly.

Jones {perhaps Ped inspired, perhaps not} jump from 175 to 200 largely trumps anything Oscar has ever done, even if it was to face a former Cruiserweight in John Ruiz.

 

Why is Lennox 'Great' whereas Tyson, Holyfield, and Foreman are 'Very Good'? What's the reasoning behind this? I thought all those guys are candidates for 'Great'.

 

Tyson, Chavez legendary

 

Then that must make Castillo a scrub.

 

UGBK will adore this post.

 

Jack Dempsey - Legendary

 

I remember back when their used to be a "History" section, I did a thread where I created the REAL Hall Of Fame, concentrating only on fighters from 1900 onward... I eliminated basically half of the hall

 

LOL.

 

but De La Hoya is merely GOOD??

 

There's a lot of good-very good fighters in the Hall

especially since they still feel that they have to keep finding guys from the 1920s and 1930s to put in there because of that dumb old-timer quota they have

 

I think there's an element the other way, too...contemporary fighters, especially those of sound mind, provide the Hall with greater media exposure & perceived relevancy, & those involved have cottoned onto this & incorporated it into their thinking, IMO. Great for someone such as Lennox Lewis. Not so much for, among others, Freddie Miller. Sad, but true, I suspect.

 

believe me, I had ridden the hall of at least 20 "modern" fighters in my thread too

 

I think Jones MIGHT have been legendary, but he never had the chance to prove just how great he was...

 

Never had the chance?

He couldn't have fought Michalczewski? He couldn't have rematched with Bernard earlier? Called out Calzaghe? Bitch slapped Ottke? Fought Jirov or JC Gomez? Rematched with Toney? Fought Buster?

Roy had an excellent career, but he had the chance to have a great career, but chose the safer route.

 

U Make it Seem as if MichalSHITski was WILLING to Fight Roy...They're BOTH @ Fault for that Bout Not Happening...

Bernard Priced HIMSELF OUT of a Fight w/Roy...That's a FACT...Calzaghe & Ottke had ZERO INTEREST in Facing Roy Back Then...FACT...JC Gomez???....

U Can Rightfully BLAME Roy for NOT Facing Jirov & Buster, but would Those Fights DRASTICALLY Alter the Way he's Perceived Today???...Doubtful...

Bottom Line, it's Takes 2 Parties to Make a Fight...Yet U Conveniently Only Blame 1 of the Parties Involved...



REED:shit:

 

My point was that Roy 'had a chance' and did not pursue it. And he didn't. And he could have.

There are guys like Winky, McCallum, perhaps Paul Williams--guys who get avoided because the $/risk doesn't add up for other big fighters. Roy didn't have that problem, but he didn't force the issue.

"wahhhh...i can't go to Germany because I got screwed in Seoul." And other similar bitch excuses.

 

By "Force the Issue", U Mean ACQUIESCE to the OUTRAGEOUS Demands of Bernard & MichalSHITski???...Should Roy have LITERALLY Placed a GUN by the Temples of the Otherwise UNWILLING Calzaghe & Ottke???...

Roy DID "Pursue It", Dude...The Fights just DIDN'T Happen...



REED:boohoo:

 

Only half??::

 

Come on, sycophant. I agreed with Roy that he should get more than Bernard on a rematch, but he could have made that fight.

There was MORE MONEY in Germany than there would be in the US. Saying it is outrageous for Michalczewski to want the fight in Germany is complete, 100% bullshit.

 

Did a CERTIFIED "Contrarian BULLSHIT Artist" REALLY just Call REED a "Sycophant"???::...

MichalSHITski Wanted the BULK of the Purse in Germany...Bernard Wanted the BULK of the Purse, After the Tito Fight...BOTH of them were Being OUTRAGEOUS in those Instances...

But just like the "Contrarian BULLSHIT Artist" that YOU R, U're Glossing that Over just to B DIFFERENT...

REED:hammert:

 

I don't remember either of them wanting more than 1/2. I do remember Roy wanting more than half against Bernard, though. Like I said, I thought he deserved more than half against Bernard.

Being contrarian is pretty much the antithesis of being a sycophant, sycophant. So asking that question like it is ironic is odd.

And I'm only contrarian when the majority is wrong, btw.

 

no...

 

"Roy Jones demands 10 Million Dollars. This is
unfair", Michalczewski sais in anger. "Nobody will be able to pay him
that much. I believe that Jones is demanding so much money, because he
is scared of me!" http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/dariusz1.htm

This article blames both, but at least it indicates that Dariusz actually made offers to Roy and offered to fight in the US.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2001-02-28-jones.htm

More money in Germany is what I remember, but I could be wrong. This supports my memory:

"Jones began 1999 by knocking out New York City police officer Rick Frazier. After this, many boxing critics[who?] started to criticize Jones for fighting overmatched mandatories who few had ever heard of. Roy Jones continued a career of low PPV numbers."

http://www.madboxing.com/boxing_roy.html

 

The Problem is, U're PURPOSELY Contrarian Because U CAN'T Differentiate Yourself from the Pack in ANY Other Fashion...So U READILY CLING to the LAMEST of Points, No Matter HOWfuckingABSURD they May B, just to Stand Out...

U're the Most Consistently OFFBASE Poster @ Fightbeat...EASILY...The SAD Thing is, U EMBRACE that Role...






REED:hammert:

 

Bruno is a legend artie:

 

Reed, why don't you make a list of these lame points and I'll respond.

The only reason you are on the right side of the pacq/floyd issue is because you like Floyd, not because you are unbiased enough to think through the issue on more than a base level. Personally, I like having you on the right side of an issue for a change because you don't tend to be able to argue your point very well.

 

So Sayeth the Poster RENOWN for "Contrarian BULLSHIT"...

U're a JOKE Around this Site, Dude...These Days, Posters PRE-Post YOUR Lame Ass, "Contrarian BULLSHIT" Opinions, Even BEFORE YOU Can!!!::...That's How PREDICTABLE your SCHTICK is...

This Go's MUCH Deeeeeeeeeper than a Floyd/Pac Issue...You've Garnered a REPUTATION for ROUTINELY Clinging to THE MOST ABSURD of Points, Thread to Thread...If This were High School, U'd B Voted "Most Likely to Make a Point that NOBODY EVER Agrees w/"....& that's NOT a GOOD Thing, Either....

REED Could Make a List of your "Lamest" Points, but RE-Writing the BIBLE would Take LESS Time...



REED:hammert: