Posters claim being undefeated means nothing...

Why you speaking facts? Yep.. you are right. It's a waste of time and energy!

You have a point there. But, if we are enforcing strict boxing rules, GGG should have a loss against Lemieux for hitting while down. I thought he should've been disqualified right away. I'm sure you agree. Why you speaking facts?

:rofl::rofl:You should copyright it, right away! Lol, yeah, I'll have to think about that!

That's not a defined rule it's a judgement call of the referee based on intent and the condition of the hurt fighter. Entering the ring is black and white. Exactly. So the ref did the right thing in Floyd's case. He was beating the **** out of Zab, then Zab intentionally lowblowed him and hit him behind the head, hard-- two obvious, egregious fouls. The ref should have deducted points from Zab or disqualified him, but after Roger got in the ring, the ref used his power of discretion to balance out the situation, and continue the fight. Same with GGG-Lemieux, Ward-Kovalev 2, and other fights. Bottom line: Referee discretion in all cases.

You have a point there. But, if we are enforcing strict boxing rules, GGG should have a loss against Lemieux for hitting while down. I thought he should've been disqualified right away. I'm sure you agree. That's not a defined rule it's a judgement call of the referee based on intent and the condition of the hurt fighter. Entering the ring is black and white.

Also funny Mayweather would barely have fans if Boxing rules were applied in the Judah fight when Roger entered the ring. Not saying it would have been a good call but it would have been the correct call and instead of having legions of "fans" that defend his every move and plead he's the goat he'd have next to no fans all because of a technicality. You have a point there. But, if we are enforcing strict boxing rules, GGG should have a loss against Lemieux for hitting while down. I thought he should've been disqualified right away. I'm sure you agree.

I made it up when I opened my first Youtube account in 2007. Every user name I tried was already taken, so I just thought of something random and meaningless - and Kafkod was it. I liked it and I've been using it on social media and forums ever since. A couple of years ago a friend of mine told me that a crazy guy at a gaming forum he joined had invented his own religion, with gods and goddesses, and the name of his god of wisdom was Kafkod. It might be just a coincidence, but I like to think this guy had seen some of the posts I made as Kafkod somewhere, and been so impressed with my wise words that he took my name and gave it to his god. :lol1: :rofl::rofl:You should copyright it, right away!

Also funny Mayweather would barely have fans if Boxing rules were applied in the Judah fight when Roger entered the ring. Not saying it would have been a good call but it would have been the correct call and instead of having legions of "fans" that defend his every move and plead he's the goat he'd have next to no fans all because of a technicality.

Harold Lederman might be the only dude that scored that fight for Castillo

I'll use your words "not going by some biased internet trolls" Ok but you'll ignore what the General and overall perception at that time was because you weren't t watching back? Was Chavez-Whitaker less controversial than Canelo-GGG? It's easier to find threads and stronger opinions on GGG-Canelo. I wasn't watching when Joe Louis defeated by Jersey Joe Walcott by controversial decision doesn't meant because I can't find multiple threads or a full list of media scores doesn't mean the perception was that Walcott wasn't robbed.

So you're making claims you can't back up? You don't know the definition of "controversial" either? :lol1: Do you remember when it happened? Online plenty (the majority) said Castillo won. KO even had a cover story (Ring Magazine basically) slamming the scoring. The polls and threads don't go back that far but if you were watching in 2002 you know that was highly controversial and most had Castillo.

He tied, drawed, fought him to a stalemate, he failed to prove he was the superior man. You fight to win. As far as I'm concerned ties in professional sports are stupid as **** and just as bad as losing. He didn't fight Canelo to a stalemate, two of the judges just didn't know what they were watching. Anyone who knows a thing or two about boxing, knows that sus scorecards are common in the sport. You think a draw's as bad as a loss? Okay...

Yes i am. Show the proof. You denied anyone had Hopkins winning. I found the evidence to prove you wrong. Your turn to do the same. I said "wasn't controversial" and it wasn't and isn't. Mayweather-Castillo I was controversial as tons believe Castillo was robbed. It was 2002 and the forums don't go back that far. Perhaps go to YouTube and see. You didn't answer if you saw it live and remember the take on it back then?

Where are you getting these numbers from? You are claiming it's a consensus that Castillo and Calzaghe won? Show the numbers. You made a claim it was wrong. Instead of admitting you were wrong you start spinning. So show us the proof of these consensus results. So you are denying that wasn't the consensus? Do you remember Mayweather-Castillo I when it happened? The media cards are in print somewhere I'm sure but it's 15 years ago not far if the message boards or media scores trace back that far back to be able to find in google. You can also see the way non Mayweather fans and not Calzaghe fans score those fights today if you did a poll or just the way people talk about either fight.

Step in We all have opinions and beliefs but if you have never wrapped your hands or stepped in the ring ... How can you understand or explain these ideas when that person never even sparred in his life . I'm a boxing fan just like everyone else on this forum . Now I'm not your average casual fan more of a crazy passionate fan that loves all style s of boxing !! Yeah I have NY favorites and I have my non favorite s but I'll call it like i see it .. I won't bring up stupid excuses or bash another fighter cause they beat my fighter . I never was a fan of BJS before I seen him fight last month . It was great to see him dismantle DL with ease also on his hone turf . What did Lapuke do nothing but complain and excuse after excuse . Billy Joe delivered in style it was nice throw back fight he gave us , very impressive !! I believe he give GGG and Ginger. A tough fight which ever wins in may .. Jacobs is calling him out but he is not the champ or ranked higher if I'm correct so you want the whole belt gotta go to the UK .. great fight though , don't think hearn wants any part of BJS to be honest !!

your entire life revolves around floyd, doesn't it? :lol1: Yeah. Every thread it's just him looking for something directly or indirectly linked to Floyd and it's always on "must defend" or "must hate" mode.

your entire life revolves around floyd, doesn't it? :lol1:

Wider cards has nothing to do with the definition of controversial. :dunce: You making up your own definition? You thought you were smart and it backfired. More people are claiming it because Mayweather is much more famous and hated than Joe ****ing Calzaghe. :dunce: You make up your own rules and assumptions there at the end. Of course. If the consensus scorecard is Castillo 7-5 with a number of 8-4s vs. the consensus 7-5 Calzaghe with more 8-4 Calzaghe's than 6-6 Hopkins it's more controversial. Bottom line is the majority had Castillo over Mayweather whereas the large majority had Calzaghe over Hopkins. I remember when Mayweather-Castillo I happened and the outrage and believe me Mayweather didn't have a large fan base back then (assuming you weren't a fan yet?) and he didn't have a ton of haters either. People were more inclined to feel stronger about Hopkins-Calzaghe due to the buildup and how established both were at that time.

Yet as soon as a fighter they dislike loses they have a field day slamming them......And even when they win they discredit the damn win!!!.... Yes there are those Larry... But lets look at a idea posted by "Big Dunn" in the intial thread on this subject. Dunn made the point that if we go by averages, using a percentage... A fighter who lost no times x 50 bouts is at 100% and a fighter who lost twice x 100 bouts is at 98%. Do I agree with Big Dunn? well its a start at least. A way to compare two numerical measures and derive a value. Then we can look at things that are not boxing related bit distort the number, things like really bad decisions. There is a way to assign a value to this number, how we do it might be less important than being consistant in applying it to all fighters we are comparing. Lets take Ward and Floyd and say that Ward got one contraversal win against Kovalev the first time, and Mayweather got one against Castillo....purely for the sake of argument. Now, lets say our fighter that lost twice never got a contraversal victory...there is a way to work that value into the assesment of who has a better record. Then we can start to assign values to all the other things that might matter: weight classes, quality of opposition, etc. All these things can be figured into a formula that can give us perspective on who is better. My point is if one does not consider the value of all these things you have a false equivalency which may be why you and many others feel this is just a way to slag Mayweather. In other words if I ask you who is better and mention two situations that are essentially equal... its really a loaded question! I am implying that a fighter who fights more is equal to an undefeated fighter who fights less. In fact, there is no way to determine this without looking at other information. What about Roy Jones, who was essentially undefeated for 2/3rds of his career does that make him better than Joe Calzaghe who fought much less competition wise? Its a similar problem...I can't just say that Jones losing to Tarver and after makes the prime Jones who was undefeated, worse than Calzighe, it makes no sense really. What about a fighter like Robinson, Moore or Armstrong who had strings of undefeated periods throughout... If I win 100 fights in a row, does my streak cancel out the 50 fight streak of another guy? And what about divisions? The heavyweights as Jug said...a tougher division to be undefeated within for sure. These are just some examples of why this is a tricky situation to look at with no additional information.

This is why you said "no controversial wins" when you brought up Calzaghe in the first place. You were having a dig. You either didn't know that a lot of people had Hopkins winning or hoped the people you were talking didn't. :dance: Wrong. Calzaghe-Hopkins was not controversial because some internet trolls say so or because a small amount of media had Hopkins by 1 point live but were fine with Calzaghe. Mayweather-Castillo I was controversial as there was wider cards, more people saying it and still to this day more claiming it.