This is the only message board I have ever been on where any time one poster disagrees with another they are immediately labelled a "hater".

I'm sorry, but that has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen. Part of the fun of message boards is the exchange of opinions. On a boxing board, which is subjective by it's very nature, that's really all we have.

We can quote stats on a fighter, and someone else can come back and show that those stats are skewed because they fought a low level of competition to pad the record.

I have my opinions on fighters like De La Hoya, Trinidad, Big & Little K, Hopkins, Toney, Spinks, Judah, etc. Others on this board have opinions that widely differ from my own. Because the opinions don't jibe doesn't mean that we hate each other, or the fighter(s) we differ on. It just means we probably look for different things in a boxer.

Some people admire De La Hoya because he uses a lot of movement and tends to land a lot of punches.
I don't like him because he runs and punches in flurries, generally at the end of a round to steal it, and has no power whatsoever.

That doesn't make me a hater of De La Hoya, it just means he doesn't fight in a style I admire.

I think Toney is one of the best fighters in boxing right now. He constantly pesses the action, presents and excellent defense and can sometimes hit with great power. He fights through injury, and doesn't duck people.
Some people on here think Toney is ****. He doesn't punch in high enough volume, isn't active enough and talks too much ****.

I don't think that this hypothetical person hates Toney, though they may. I don't really care if they do. It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of watching Toney fight.

We see the exact same fights, yet our perception of them is colored by what we look for in a fighter.

If you want to prove a case for your boxer, explain what it is about them that makes you think differently about them than the person whose post you disagree with. That will make you seem more like a fan of the sport, and might actually make you sound like you honestly know something about the sport.

That's what is referred to as "discussion", which might seem appropriate to some as this is a "discussion" forum.

When all you do to make your point is call the opposition a "hater", you don't lend any weight to your argument and come off sounding like a petulant child. It also makes you sound something less than intelligent, since an intelligent person can usually back up their arguments.

When someone who isn't a fan of boxing comes and looks at things like this, they go away with opinion of the majority in this country. That boxing is a brutal, barbaric sport only admired by the lower 5th percentile of the population. By arguing in an effective and adult manner, you can help change that opinion.

IN my opinion, you are only a hater if your dislike of a particular fighter causes you to underestimate his abilities or degrade his accomplishments. In other words, when you dislike a fighter so much that it affects your objectivity then you are a hater.

Well, I have to say that I can't help but respect and agree with a post as logical and rational as that one, wish everyone posted like that, myself included at times lol

IN my opinion, you are only a hater if your dislike of a particular fighter causes you to underestimate his abilities or degrade his accomplishments. In other words, when you dislike a fighter so much that it affects your objectivity then you are a hater.
But that person thinks your lack of objectivity makes you inflate the accomplishments of the fighter.

Fighting is not an "objective" sport. It's very subjective, which is why there's always wrangling over judges when 2 fighters of opposing styles meet in the ring. Both camps want the judges that tend to decide in favor of fighters of their camp's style.

The only way to make fight scoring objective would be to go to a computer driven scoring like the olympics, which is a disater.

I would disagree. It happens here, but not nearly as much as other sites. I have posted at varius sites, but have settled on staying here (even though I don't post much). You really want to see attitude try making an objective post at ******** about the Klits....say anything that dosen't imply they are gods and you become a target. Other sites have different favorites and you are labled depending on which fighters you prefer. This site has grown alot since I first started posting here, but it is still pretty calm compared to others.

This is the only message board I have ever been on where any time one poster disagrees with another they are immediately labelled a "hater".

I'm sorry, but that has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen. Part of the fun of message boards is the exchange of opinions. On a boxing board, which is subjective by it's very nature, that's really all we have.

We can quote stats on a fighter, and someone else can come back and show that those stats are skewed because they fought a low level of competition to pad the record.

I have my opinions on fighters like De La Hoya, Trinidad, Big & Little K, Hopkins, Toney, Spinks, Judah, etc. Others on this board have opinions that widely differ from my own. Because the opinions don't jibe doesn't mean that we hate each other, or the fighter(s) we differ on. It just means we probably look for different things in a boxer.

Some people admire De La Hoya because he uses a lot of movement and tends to land a lot of punches.
I don't like him because he runs and punches in flurries, generally at the end of a round to steal it, and has no power whatsoever.

That doesn't make me a hater of De La Hoya, it just means he doesn't fight in a style I admire.

I think Toney is one of the best fighters in boxing right now. He constantly pesses the action, presents and excellent defense and can sometimes hit with great power. He fights through injury, and doesn't duck people.
Some people on here think Toney is ****. He doesn't punch in high enough volume, isn't active enough and talks too much ****.

I don't think that this hypothetical person hates Toney, though they may. I don't really care if they do. It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of watching Toney fight.

We see the exact same fights, yet our perception of them is colored by what we look for in a fighter.

If you want to prove a case for your boxer, explain what it is about them that makes you think differently about them than the person whose post you disagree with. That will make you seem more like a fan of the sport, and might actually make you sound like you honestly know something about the sport.

That's what is referred to as "discussion", which might seem appropriate to some as this is a "discussion" forum.

When all you do to make your point is call the opposition a "hater", you don't lend any weight to your argument and come off sounding like a petulant child. It also makes you sound something less than intelligent, since an intelligent person can usually back up their arguments.

When someone who isn't a fan of boxing comes and looks at things like this, they go away with opinion of the majority in this country. That boxing is a brutal, barbaric sport only admired by the lower 5th percentile of the population. By arguing in an effective and adult manner, you can help change that opinion.

de la hoya has no power? did i miss something?

tell that to world class fighters like vargas, gatti, oba carr, julio cesaer chavez, james leija, ike quartey, and hector comacho

all of whom were KO'd by ODLH except quartey and comacho who were knocked down

It's not hating if they give you a reason. Here are examples:

1. Roy Jones Jr. has a weak chin and fought lackluster competition for 10 years.
2. Chris Byrd is an aging changeup artist with no power.
3. Zab Judah has a horrible chin and no discipline in the ring.

I'm not hating, just listing indisputable facts. Who's hating on who? It's ya'll who's hating on Big Red da Mack.

It's not hating if they give you a reason. Here are examples:

1. Roy Jones Jr. has a weak chin and fought lackluster competition for 10 years.
2. Chris Byrd is an aging changeup artist with no power.
3. Zab Judah has a horrible chin and no discipline in the ring.

I'm not hating, just listing indisputable facts. Who's hating on who? It's ya'll who's hating on Big Red da Mack.


zab judah doesnt have a horrible chin, judahs problem is ****ing around in the ring like hes on a damn playground, if he actually stopped screwing around and got his **** together, judah could damn near run the table in his division.

de la hoya has no power? did i miss something?

tell that to world class fighters like vargas, gatti, oba carr, julio cesaer chavez, james leija, ike quartey, and hector comacho

all of whom were KO'd by ODLH except quartey and comacho who were knocked down
Vargas hasn't been the same since Tito beat him up. They were even talking about that during that fight when Vargas was doing well.

Gatti is a much improved fighter now over what he was then. It's a different Gatti. Didn't his corner throw in the towel in that one?

Richard Steele put Oba Carr in the position where he had no choice but to forego any type of defense at all by taking points for phantom low blows and heabutts, without ever issuing a warning for either. Add to that that flash knockdown in the 1st, and what choice did Carr have but to try for the home run? The fight was very close other than the 2 phantom points. I remember that fight well because I was so pissed that Richard Steele was still reffing after the TKO he awarded in the Taylor/Chavez fight.
That fight, among others, is the reason we don't see Richard Steele reffing in the big leagues any more.

He fought and OLD Chavez. Chavez was 36 and had over 100 fights when they met. He wasn't exactly in his prime.

The Leija fight was stopped due to bad cuts. Stopped by Richard Steele, no less. Leija has always been a bleeder.

Camacho was way past his prime when DLH beat him. In fact, the last real name in boxing on his record prior to that fight was 4 years before when he lost to Trinidad.

I had Ike Quartey winning that fight. The fight was a split decision gift to DLH, though it was close. I still think that Quartey won. I would like to see a rematch of that fight.

Any others for me?

Vargas hasn't been the same since Tito beat him up. They were even talking about that during that fight when Vargas was doing well.

Gatti is a much improved fighter now over what he was then. It's a different Gatti. Didn't his corner throw in the towel in that one?

Richard Steele put Oba Carr in the position where he had no choice but to forego any type of defense at all by taking points for phantom low blows and heabutts, without ever issuing a warning for either. Add to that that flash knockdown in the 1st, and what choice did Carr have but to try for the home run? The fight was very close other than the 2 phantom points. I remember that fight well because I was so pissed that Richard Steele was still reffing after the TKO he awarded in the Taylor/Chavez fight.
That fight, among others, is the reason we don't see Richard Steele reffing in the big leagues any more.

He fought and OLD Chavez. Chavez was 36 and had over 100 fights when they met. He wasn't exactly in his prime.

The Leija fight was stopped due to bad cuts. Stopped by Richard Steele, no less. Leija has always been a bleeder.

Camacho was way past his prime when DLH beat him. In fact, the last real name in boxing on his record prior to that fight was 4 years before when he lost to Trinidad.

I had Ike Quartey winning that fight. The fight was a split decision gift to DLH, though it was close. I still think that Quartey won. I would like to see a rematch of that fight.

Any others for me?

no fear, no excuses

you have enough excuses there to supply roy jones for the rest of his career

One man's excuses are another's facts :)

Anything to refute what I just said? The only thing I said that could even come close to being an excuse is regarding the Gatti fight, but seeing as his style changed significantly, and continues to evolve, after that fight, sorta says I'm right.

Care to supply arguments that prove I'm wrong?

zab judah doesnt have a horrible chin, judahs problem is ****ing around in the ring like hes on a damn playground, if he actually stopped screwing around and got his **** together, judah could damn near run the table in his division.

Very weak, Judah has a weak chin if I've ever seen one.

de la hoya has no power? did i miss something?

tell that to world class fighters like vargas, gatti, oba carr, julio cesaer chavez, james leija, ike quartey, and hector comacho

all of whom were KO'd by ODLH except quartey and comacho who were knocked down

Yeah how does DLH not have power and Toney does?

If De La Hoya ever threw a one-punch knock out I missed it, and as I said, Toney SOMETIMES shows great power.

If De La Hoya ever threw a one-punch knock out I missed it, and as I said, Toney SOMETIMES shows great power.

De La Hoya KO %: 78%
Toney KO %: 63%

no fear, no excuses

you have enough excuses there to supply roy jones for the rest of his career
What career?

I agree with the original point of this thread, in as far as it seems some people arent able to make a comment or disagre with another persons opinion without calling them dumb, or saying that the fighters they like are crap.

What career?

he said hes going to continue fighting... so that means hes gonna need a lot of excuses

he should hire VbMartin to come up with some good ones for him

De La Hoya KO %: 78%
Toney KO %: 63%
James Toney - 74 fights

Last 10 fights - 10-0 (6 KOs)

DLH - 41 fights

Last 10 fights - 6-4 (4 KOs) (we all know he's really 5-5 in his last 10)

DLH showed great power at 140 and smaller, but hasn't carried to the higher weight divisions with him. And I see you weren't able to find a single 1 punch knockout.

Now lets analyze further:

Toney - KOs 12, TKOs 31 Actual KO percentage 16.2%

DLH - KOs 5, TKOs 24 Actual KO percentage 12.2%

Again with Toney continuing to beat people up as he moves up in weight, though we have yet to see a real test of that in the Heavyweight Division. Evander was OLD and fighting that way when they met.

James Toney - 74 fights

Last 10 fights - 10-0 (6 KOs)

DLH - 41 fights

Last 10 fights - 6-4 (4 KOs) (we all know he's really 5-5 in his last 10)

DLH showed great power at 140 and smaller, but hasn't carried to the higher weight divisions with him. And I see you weren't able to find a single 1 punch knockout.

Now lets analyze further:

Toney - KOs 12, TKOs 31 Actual KO percentage 16.2%

DLH - KOs 5, TKOs 24 Actual KO percentage 12.2%

Again with Toney continuing to beat people up as he moves up in weight, though we have yet to see a real test of that in the Heavyweight Division. Evander was OLD and fighting that way when they met.

You are really getting into this. I wouldn't say that Toney's power has followed him up in weight either after seeing the Booker fight. Using your calculations, if you subtract all of the tomato can KOs you get:

Toney - Tomato KOs 8, Actual KOs 4, TKOs 31 Actual KO % 5.4%
De La Hoya - Tomato KOs 2, Actual KOs 3, TKOs 24 Acutal KO % 7.3%

Winner: Oscar De La Hoya

You are really getting into this. I wouldn't say that Toney's power has followed him up in weight either after seeing the Booker fight.If, as you allowed before, a torn rotator cuff was enough of an excuse for Vitali to quit and cede a World Championship, it's certainly enough of an excuse for Toney to not be able to knock out someone as lightly regarded as Rydell Booker over 12 rounds. Or is that excuse only viable for the Klits?

Plus, I already allowed for the fact that his power hasn't really been tested at heavyweight.

If, as you allowed before, a torn rotator cuff was enough of an excuse for Vitali to quit and cede a World Championship, it's certainly enough of an excuse for Toney to not be able to knock out someone as lightly regarded as Rydell Booker over 12 rounds. Or is that excuse only viable for the Klits?

He didn't tear his rotator cuff. If he had I would have no complaints. And also its not like Booker is the defensive specialist that Byrd is.

I'm sorry, you were right. The first news reports said torn rotator cuff, but it was actually a torn tendon in his bicep:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~28779~2435913,00.html

well, time for me to go diving :)

Thank you for helping me show the proper way to argue without all the name calling :)

I'm sorry, you were right. The first news reports said torn rotator cuff, but it was actually a torn tendon in his bicep:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~28779~2435913,00.html

No need to apologize, I usually am right. And yes this is the correct way to aruge.

um...

You may have been right about it not being a rotator cuff, but no comment on the fact that you derided him for continuing to fight even with an injury that was similar in scope to the fighter you excused for quitting in a World Championship bout?