Is Wlad an All Time Great Heavyweight?

Surely you were emotional when you posted this and not thinking clearly. Shields was a national champion in the amateurs who had beaten Sugar Ray Leonard to win the Junior welter championship. The man was not a loser.

 

mikE wasn't thinking at all when he made that post. And he doesn't know anything about Shields except his won - loss record. Shields was a good fighter who had the misfortune of competing during the time of Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Cuevas, Benitez at 147.

 

::

 

If I was a boxing coach, that would be my preferred plan most of the time.

MTF

 

Shields was a solid, world-class contender... in those days, there weren't 700 available "world titles" like there are now... oh, and there was stiffer competition

 

That's the point, dipshit

NOBODY HAS

Why? because he was a non-entity who never fought anyone with even a blip on the radar with the exception of Hearns

Shields was a contender for several years and fought several world champions. He was a tough, crafty contender. He was not good enough to beat the champions he faced, but he was hardly a loser or a bum. He gave each of those guys good fights.

 

[1] So you don't know how good he was, do you?

[2] And beat nobody of note.

[3] Personally, I think it was probably perceived to be a better win and in actuality might have been. However, I only referred to it as a good win and if you would prefer to replace it with Shields, I always said 'go for it' as it really didn't matter. The point was that Hearns' good wins to that point, weren't so hot.

[4] Sanctioning bodies rate unknowns higher than the masses all the time and sometimes they are right and the masses are wrong. In the case of Primera, there is little evidence that the WBA was correct. Of course, there is substantial evidence that rating Randy Shields as a #1 opponent at the time Hearns fought him would have been clearly wrong. (note, I don't know where Shields was ranked and it doesn't matter)

[5] I never called him a quality opponent. A good win at a given time doesn't necessarily mean that the opponent was all that good. For example, Allan Green over Jaidon Codrington was a good win at the time.

[6] Show it. I believe you'll find that you are just too stupid to keep up. If I was unclear, I doubt it was for very long because the topic has been overplayed and you guys keep making up shit for what you wish my point had been.

[7] Doubt it. Where have I ever said how smart or stupid I am?

[8] Bullshit. I have called some people stupid, however, and you are clearly one of the people I have referred to as being stupid. And I continue to believe so.

[9] "at the time." Leave off qualifiers and change meanings. See [5] and [8].

[10] If 'quality' means something other than 'good' then you should use the word I used. If not, who cares? If you don't want to consider it a good win, use Shields. It didn't matter, but it does point out that Hearns' resume to that point in time wasn't all that great.

[11] Absolutely. Sometimes. It's also why an undefeated fighter is generally built up on facing losers like Shields rather than fellow undefeated prospects.

 

Do I need to say what a great guy he is and that he goes to church regularly to call him a loser? The guy had accomplished nothing by the time Hearns fought him except fighting some very good fighters tough, but never well enough to beat them. And he apparently had some shit performances against shit fighters where those fights were close. Brian Adams, likable and everything, was a loser as a pro. Just like Shields.

 

And Vicente Mares and Pete Ranzany and Juan Cantres and Mauricio Aldana.

Otherwise, he was a fucking missle.

 

Another endless smoke screen from you. You're one those not so gifted posters who likes to go on and on and actually say nothing...as if the sheer volume of words in your posts will make up for the lack of substance.

And every time you call Shields a "loser" shows you know absolutely nothing about the sport. You can filibuster all you want, but the truth is that Shields was a better and more accomplished fighter than Primera.

It's amazing how you can say so much, yet present almost nothing of value.

REED is absolutely correct. You are nothing but a contrarian bullshit artist. Only someone as pathetic as you would try to present Primera as being better than Shields in any way. You like to go against the grain (and reality, apparently) because it makes you feel smarter than others. But the reality is that you show how little you know every time post about this.

 

Be careful, some folks around here can't handle the truth.

There are people who know something about the welters of that time and understand the reality of Randy Shields and Luis Primera and their careers...which excludes mikE, who hasn't ever had an opinion here that wasn't based on BoxRec overuse.

 

And I addressed almost every point you tried to make and you respond with this, nothing of substance?

You don't know if Shields was better than Primera despite believing so. He may have been, but there really isn't any way to know. He was only 'more accomplished' in the sense that he lost multiple times at a higher class and Primera only competed once at a higher class. Again, I instantly conceded that I don't give a shit if you want to call Shields a better win for Hearns. It didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now. I don't care to get into subjective arguments with your ilk because you suck on the past relentlessly with no objectivity. And you've never shown enough intelligence to get over the hump and make for an interesting conversation.

And now you want to make Randy Shields into some poster boy of glory because he lost so well. Go for it.

 

what I love is the utter tripe "personally, I believe" that Primera was probably perceived as a better win at the time... What, there's no way to find out? You can't rifle through a dozen magazines from 1980 and get an idea of what the pulse was?

Since I was already doing shit like that years ago so as to not be an assuming dope like mikE, I can happily inform him that no one in 1980 had a fucking clue who Luis Primera was, why he had been installed as the mandatory challenger or how he had done so without beating anyone ranked in the top 100... Shields was a known entity, he figured to give Hearns some trouble, make him work hard for the win and he was expected to lose because Hearns was clearly one of the most formidable fighters on Earth at that time. Fights where the challenger is not expected to emerge victorious probably make up a good 90% of championship fights. Nobody knew who the fuck Luis Primera was. 32 years later, I'd be shocked if Tommy Hearns even remembers who the fucking guy was. It was an easy night's work against a scrub who had done nothing to be there in the first place. Thomas Hearns definitely knows who Randy Shields is.

 

You "addressed" what I said with nothing more than your bullshit opinions.

Again..folks who know something about the sport and don't depend entirely on BoxRec (which leaves you out) know that Shields was the better and more accomplished fighter. You can continue to revise the past and make more of Primera than he actually was (and I'm sure you will, because that's how you roll) if you want, but your bullshit theories don't hold water.

So, be contrary, go against the grain, or whatever else you think makes you look cool. But your bullshit takes on boxing are just that...bullshit.

 

That, of course, is bullshit. Primera was NEVER considered a better win than Shields for Hearns. Except, of course, in the wonderful BoxRec-based revisionist world of mikE.

Unlike mikE, who probably wasn't even born when these fights took place, I was a boxing fan in the late 70's and early 80's and Primera was NOT considered a worthy opponent for Hearns. His rating was a joke and he was expected to get his ass kicked by Hearns and then go back where he came from and most likely never be heard from again. And guess what?? That's what actually happened. On the other hand, Shields was a respected contender who wasn't expected to beat Hearns, but to give a good account of himself, and he did.

The only thing about Primera's performance against Hearns that might be a positive is that he was brave and actually tried to win, but he was SEVERELY over-matched and the fight wasn't remotely competitive.

 

your entire grasp (or lack thereof) of anything that happened prior to your being old enough to consciously remember it is based entirely on assumptions. You clearly do absolutely no homework. You look at the name, look at the stats and leave it at that. This isn't baseball. Randy Shields was a better fighter than Luis Primera. He fought live human beings, he gave hard fights to world champions. Luis Primera was an easy walkover for Hearns. It was the only time he fought anyone and he lost every second of the fight, provided no real resistance. Like I said, I'd be amazed if he even remembers the fucking guy or the fight at all.

No one is saying Randy Shields was a great fighter, but he was clearly fucking better than Luis Primera. Do your research, no one thought anything different that in 1980.

 

I just thought of a topic for a M.M.

 

::

 

That's exactly right :bears: