And yeah I used the phrase in the past but I see now it's totally wrong.
If you don't "take it from the champ" it's already considered in the rules. If the fight goes to a draw, the champ remains the champ.
Fights are decided on round by round.
If a round is close will you score it for the champ because he's the champ? no...
So what more do you want? the champ already has the nod.
I agree with you. Always have. It's just an old saying. Nothing more.
If he loses he might as well call it quits. I can't see how he loses again, personally. You could argue he won the last 3 of those 4 rounds in the initial match. It's just tough to come back from a KD on the cards in a 4 rounder. That won't be an issue this time.
I don't think you understand what i wrote. Let me simplify it for you. Had cotto fought in a era where pac and floyd werent fighting he would have stood out more
He'd have been an Oba Carr level talent in the 90s. I don't see him beating Curry or Starling in the mid to late 80s. Any era prior he'd be fighting at a higher weight due to the same day weigh in rule, and I'm quite positive he isn't even reaching title contention at Middleweight in the 70s or 80s. I'd favor him over Kalule at 154, though.
Your simplification did little for your case.
Unless you think the old Golovkin that Canelo faced was better than the younger version, I don't really see how you pick against him. I still see it being a competitive fight, though.
Canelo is too conservative to beat Hearns, the way I see it. He's a stalking counter puncher. Looking for those chances against Hearns is just going to lead to him getting his ears boxed off and his face battered. If he sold out and went for broke there's a chance he could land the big punches to put him away, but the odds are definitely in Hearns' favor.
Just think of it like this; he would probably up there in the mentions of the definitive best of his era if he didnt have the misfortune of competing in the pac floyd era
The Pac/Floyd era wasn't even a particularly strong one by historical 140-147 standards. So what era would he have been one of the definitive best?
Just because several guys who didn't deserve it have made it in over the years doesn't mean everyone of a similar level is a lock for the Hall. There's a lot more deserving guys who haven't made it in than undeserving guys who have made it in. And even more guys on the Gatti/Braddock/Willard level that haven't made it in. If they ran the Hall the way you guys are making out there would be over a thousand fighters in there right now.
Leo Gamez and Jorge Arce won titles in 4 weight classes, too. It's really not that much of a feat in this era. Not saying a scrub could do it, but you clearly don't have to be HOF worthy. Unifying a single division is a lot more impressive than winning titles in multiple weight classes these days.
You guys are being too hard on Broner. I think he makes the hall. There are worse fighters than him in already, also he is a 4 div champ even if his resume is on the weaker side. And as others have said, he is not an ATG, but few HOFers are. Cotto(not trying to pick on him) is a HOFer, damn fine fighter, but he is not an ATG. Broner will be in a somewhat similar situation to Cotto.
He's had nowhere near the career of Cotto.
This is a mind-blowing thread.
Camacho = Pacquiao Late TKO
Camacho boxed for 30 years through 6 weight classes and was never stopped. Say what you will about him, but he knew how to survive with the best of them. Pacquiao isn't changing that.
This is a laughable thread but I'll just say this: his size wouldn't have been an issue at Heavyweight if he was anywhere near as skilled as some of you seem to believe.
Maybe if he really feels that way he may be baiting to get in the Ring or make the man fight harder...whoop his ass at his best. And the white fighters feels maybe that exact same way, that he WON'T lose to a black fighter but is afraid to voice it... is it the same thing???? Hmm
That might be the worst argument I've ever heard.
"So what if Haney is clearly racist? You can't hold it against him because it's POSSIBLE the white guy MIGHT be THINKING the same thing!"
He's earned the right to gloat for the rest of his life. I guarantee he's a hero just like Dicky Eklund in his hometown, and he never has to accomplish anything else.
He's taller and longer but he's not bigger, outside of arm reach and height I'm pretty sure povetkin would be bigger in every other measurement, he's a bigger human being than Usyk.
Thicker, sure. I'd like to know their shoulder width but can't be bothered looking it up right now. If Usyk holds the edge there as well then his frame is simply better suited for the modern Heavyweight division, regardless of the extra 10 pounds on Povetkin.
Not much in it either way, though, so it's not really a point I care to defend to the death. The main point was in my second paragraph, as I stated.
I don't really see the need for him to bulk up, as many are suggesting. He's naturally bigger than Holyfield was. His natural fighting weight is roughly what he boxed at vs Witherspoon, and he had little issue with the size difference there.
I think he should be able to beat any Heavy outside of Fury. He's more skilled, but the gap isn't as wide there as it is with most others, and the size difference is even bigger.
Yep you’re right, numbers don’t lie. Go look at how many world champions menayothin beat in his career and then go look at how many World champions floyd mayweather Beat and you can tell right off the bat that wangeng menayothin doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned in the same conversation as floyd ��*♂️
So you're saying that an undefeated record doesn't matter? Rather it's the quality of opposition you face and how well you fare under the circumstances that matters?
No it shouldn't
Personally it annoys me when guys do more than one Olympic cycle unless they are REALLY young at their first one like 17 or something then maybe.
But a lot of these Eastern euros they stay there until they are 30 with grey bollock hairs, it's ridiculous.
I went into some basic detail about this in another thread of yours, to which you never responded. Not sure if you saw it or not. I'll copy and paste what I wrote there.
We're privileged that Loma turned pro at all. Plenty of eastern Europeans in similar positions didn't and wouldn't. Same with Cubans, albeit for a different reason. Many, if not most, of the greatest amateurs never turn pro.
There's not nearly as much incentive. Boxers who compete and win for countries like Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc. (some of the best amateur boxing countries alongside Cuba) are nationwide heroes that their governments take very good care of afterward. Plus, an Olympic medal carries a lot more weight than a pro belt, at least in the eyes of their countrymen.
Oleg Saitov and Alexey Tischenko are just two relatively recent examples who never turned pro. Tischenko won 2 golds in 2 divisions just like Loma. Saitov won 2 golds and 1 bronze (one of only 5 men to win medals at 3 different Olympics).
They beat the best of the best and saw no need to pursue an overseas professional career with all of its politics. Can't really blame them.
Who or what you think the outcome and evidence of these events can’t be changed. All I can say it’s a real confirmation of just how great Sugar Ray Robinson truly was.
Not really sure I understand your post.