emceetns

So you're saying David Diaz was a better opponent than Baby Bull? Not at all, Juan Diaz was definitely a better opponent than David Diaz. I'm just saying that Baby Bull would have lost badly in my opinion due to the style matchup. Would he have been more competitive? Probably but ultimately I think Manny would have brutalized him in similar fashion to how he destroyed David Diaz.

floyd wanted it, pac kept refusing the tests and purse. floyd offered him 40m guarantee with a rematch clause Yes I remember when the fight appeared to be a done deal for early 2010. The crazy thing is they both got paid way more in the end than they would have initially so we ended up paying more for a lower-quality fight. Then again, they probably would have made even more if they had a 2-3 fight series. Oh well...

You are right. It was Juan Diaz that he should have fought for the WBA/WBO/IBF titles instead of picking David Diaz for the WBC. I learned something today. It's actually a good thing for Juan Diaz that he didn't get the Pacquiao fight. Juan was a guy who depended on pressure and volume because he wasn't a big puncher and he would have tried the same approach that Miguel Cotto and Antonio Margarito failed with. He would have mistakenly believed that he could bulldoze Pacquaio and Manny would have been way too fast for him.

im not a fan of pac. but 2009-2012 manny wouldve given floyd problems. I think it goes both ways if we're looking at it objectively. Floyd was also better in 2009-2012 than he was in 2015, in spite of the fact that many people act as if he somehow preserved himself in a time machine for six years while Manny went through wars. The truth is that Pacquiao would have been more explosive and Mayweather would have been more elusive. If you look closely you will see that both guys began to decline slightly after 2010. Manny became less of a whirlwind after Margarito while Mayweather became more flat-footed after Marquez. It's truly a shame we didn't get to see the fight when it was originally signed because Pacquiao was lighting up guys who thought they could steamroll him and that wasn't Mayweather's game. Meanwhile, Floyd excelled at forcing guys to fight at his pace and Manny was great at speeding things up. It would have been awesome to see which guy could impose his will on the other at that time.

U need to go lay on some train tracks. U just compared him to Barrera. All he does is jab, 1-2, 1-2, jab, jab, 1-2, jab over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Don't do that again It seems simple yet Mikey has landed that 1-2 over and over again on everybody except Errol Spence Jr. so far. If his attack is really that predictable then it's up to his opponent to take that away and so far Spence has been the only one to do it.

I take issue if there are hydration clauses or BS Catchweights. And there are far too ****ing many of them. I take issue with it as well, especially with hydration clauses. As a matter of fact, I like what Kell Brook said to Amir Khan when Khan wanted to insist on a weight clause: "I'll make 147 and then eat whatever I like"

Not sure how you could place Wilder's resume above Joshuas. He was gifted a draw and got battered in the rematch against the only real top tier guy he faced, so I mean its true technically he has faced a better single opponent than Joshua, but a gifted draw and battering doesn't provide much credit. Resume for me is not just who you face, it is who you beat. Who is Wilder's best win, Ortiz? You call that a legacy? I actually place Joshua's resume above Wilder and Fury's because he has beaten more top-10 guys. I said Fury and Wilder's resumes are more top-heavy because they have fought each other but many top opponents besides that.

What are your plans for Anthony Joshua then? Will you still support him and be a fan of his knowing that he is a broken fighter, whose skills are on the decline and a washed up fighter? Or would you just simply run and hide and bail on him by jumping ship like many of you all did the last time he lost to Andy Ruiz? Please discuss! As a fan of the sport in general, I think a lot would depend on how he lost. If he lost a ho-hum, uninspired decision then yes he might be seen as a washed up fighter on the decline. If he lost by fluke one-punch KO then there would be a demand to see a rematch, just like there was with Andy Ruiz Jr. The same goes for if he lost an all-out war in which Pulev fought the fight of his life because all losses aren't the same.

I’ll be honest bro’s I really thought everyone was gonna try to say Cotto was won in dominant fashion. I’m glad I’m not the only one that saw this fight for what it was Cotto was definitely dominating as far as winning rounds, however that's not necessarily the same as dominating overall. Cotto was winning but the tide was certainly turning. Do I think Margarito was on his way to another win by late stoppage? It's possible but I think it's also possible that Cotto could have made it to the finish line. Unfortunately we will never know.

I know right!!! Not that I support Margarito or anything, but the rematch was a cash grab, he already had a glass eye and for a round in the middle rounds I thought it was de javu all over again. As I see Cotto going through the same thing as he did in their first fight, I was finally glad when he won and got whatever redemption he wanted for himself. But I didn’t think much for that victory. I think everyone wanted to see a more conclusive ending one way or the other. If I had to bet on the outcome without the stoppage, I would bet that Cotto makes it to the final bell. I wouldn't bet too much though because Margarito was finishing strong.

Yeah I realize Margarito probably cheated on their first fight but in fight 2 ppl act as if Cotto was beating the fook out of Margarito! IMO even as blind as Margarito was it was still gonna be a decision win for Cotto nothing spectacular There is no shame in not being able to stop Antonio Margarito. After all, a prime Manny Pacquiao laid a savage beating on him and he still made it to the final bell. As for Cotto-Margarito 2, I thought Cotto was winning handily on points but the tide was turning and we were robbed of a conclusive ending.

I think hell will break loose if they fight another forgettable nonsense in their next fight. Here's my list: Jermall Charlo Gervonta Davis Terence Crawford Shakur Stevenson Ryan Garcia Devin Haney Who else? Jermall Charlo definitely needs to fight another top middleweight. I would like to see him face Demetrius Andrade (who also needs a top opponent) or Sergey Deravyenchenko. Chris Eubank Jr. would also be acceptable. Actually any combination of those guys fighting each other would work for me. Gervonta Davis still has time and the Abner Mares fight fell through so that wasn't entirely his fault. He does need to step it up though. Terrence Crawford needs to do whatever it takes to get a top opponent. I don't care which "side of the street" it is. Shawn Porter, Kell Brook, Jose Ramirez or Josh Taylor (if they move up from 140), I don't care what it takes but he needs a recognizable name in the opposite corner Shakur Stevenson has plenty of time too and I think he will get there this year. Ryan Garcia looks to be headed towards a clash with Jorge Linares and I hope it happens. Devin Haney has time too and part of it is potential opponents using the excuse of "well nobody knows him" and "he needs to build his name up"

Stop it. Your boy is a bum. B..b...but his dress was too heavy. :rofl: He will have 12 rounds? He got stopped by a pillow puncher ffs. Ok so who's not a bum then?

You are exactly on point, can not be denied. In my opinion of all the decades I have watched heavyweight boxing i have never been more bored or unexcited than during the Klitscho reign. I like the guy and respected his work ethic, he did nothing for me as a fighter and will never have the urge to watch any highlights of his career. He accomplished a lot but would never beat an Ali Holmes Foreman Lewis Bowe Holyfield Tyson. Vitali is top 5 of all time. He was the man. Not Vlad. It's a shame that Wlad wasn't born a little earlier or later. He just missed the guys you mentioned and he was finishing up right when Fury, Joshua and Wilder were really getting started. As it stands, he was head and shoulders above a weak era and better competition didn't come along until he was 39-40 years old. Fury was a bad matchup of course but he fought Joshua tooth and nail and I wonder what would have happened if they had fought a few years earlier.

on Fury compared to the other fighters he has knocked out in the past https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF-nPm5Ahnw&t=678s yes he knocked Fury down twice in the first fight and almost knocked him out, but generally in these last two fights..he has more trouble landing it as usual In addition to the technical reasons that were already covered, Fury has a height and reach advantage to go with his technical abilities.

That is fair, but, you don't think it's fair to inturn list Wilder's excuses for not gathering names? You did well to keep yourself out of it and allow the reader to make their choice based on the info, I respect that. Why do we simply bury Wilder while we absolve Wlad? He did not go after the best names, he did not go after the best names available, he only ever fought a mandatory and since his mandatories are exclusively lackluster fighters his resume is in turn lackluster, but, we excuse this because he fought his mandos and we say his mandos were the best.....despite not being even close to best names overlapping Wlad's career. not much credit for an old Holyfield is exactly infinitely more than he currently gets for Charles. I'm not saying we should fine tooth comb Wlad to knock him down a peg. I'm saying there is hypocrisy in how harsh people are with Wilder while promoting Wlad as some kind of hunter for trouble. Dude stayed well clear of trouble and fought only mandatories. His entire career. I will have to break down Wilder a little later. At work on a lunch break now lol

I thought ggg was 34 years old and 8 months??? Should we do weeks and then maybe days??? How about the hour when GGg got old??? Tell me the exact day down to the minute ggg got old? Funny PAC with way more wars don’t have this problem doe... Canelo could have fought Golovkin in 2016 before Kell Brook did. He could have been the one to "expose" GGG before someone else made him look human. Canelo would have gotten even more credit for that and he didn't have to wait until GGG looked vulnerable against Brook and Daniel Jacobs before facing him. I've never said that Golovkin was "old" when Canelo fought him; I just felt like he was SLIGHTLY past his peak but still excellent. That doesn't mean Canelo isn't a great fighter, it just means that he and De La Hoya knew that time was on their side so they acted accordingly.

I was ok with Canelo going down to 154 and fighting Smith because I knew that Golovkin and the WBC we’re trying to blackmail Canelo. Canelo tried to reason with ggg and Loefflor but they held firm THE 45 percent split, and under no circumstance did I feel it was fair for Golovkin to be paid so well for a ppv that was guaranteed to sell over one million buys unless it was him bringing in the fans. We got the fight when we got it because that was when ggg finally agreed to the terms. The fight basically took 2 years to negotiate, not too bad compared to most mega fights and if ggg had been concerned with age and legacy then he could have took the 10 million offered to him originally. Just my opinion, no hard feelings Definitely no hard feelings and I enjoy hearing different perspectives. :boxing: Golovkin certainly could have taken the 10 million; I'm not sure what he ended up getting but I didn't get any of it so whatever lol. There were certainly pros and cons to each approach and like you said, at the very least we got two excellent fights while GGG was still competing at a high level.

- -U redoable if U want it. Canelo in a contractual lawsuit and a dispute with the WBC. What, U a know it all noob to boxing? I don't know what a "noob" is, but I looked up the "Canelo-WBC" issue to refresh my memory a bit: in May of 2016 - when the sanctioning body ordered him to face Golovkin in a mandatory defense. At the time Canelo was the WBC champion at 160. Canelo vacated the belt, lashed out at the WBC and dropped down to 154-pounds to fight for the WBO title. For several fights, Canelo was refusing to fight for the WBC title. https://abc13.com/sports/canelo-alvarez-now-eyes-mandatory-challenger-gennady-golovkin/1329114/ Am I a "know-it-all"? Nope, that's actually why I'm on this board: to contribute to threads and hopefully learn something in the process.

Its boxing, everyone is a bum except for two people: 1) My personal favorite fighter 2) The Champ...whose a cheat (unless he's my personal favorite) Its true though, there are people who are in the top 10 in their weight class who are constantly called bums by fans on here, either directly, or by calling the people who beat them bumkillers. Its a thin line between being great and being a bum in the eyes of boxing fans. I agree and thank you for proving my point.

Every top 10 contender from 80-is would murder Wilder. That's a bit of a stretch and not every fighter is Tyson Fury.

Yeah I think there is a physical difference between a 33 or just turned 34 and a 35 1/2 Golovkin When was the first time Golovkin looked actually beatable when he was 2 weeks shy of 35 fighting Jacobs , is that a just a fluke ? Was is that he finally was racing better competition or was it better competition was willing to fight him when he got to 35. I don’t think in 2017 I said Canelo was getting Ko. I knew I said Golovkin will win my point was Golovkin like every other Future HOF fighter Canelo has fought was 35+ when they fought which is a fact , a age when every fighter is on the physical decline. You may disagree but this strategy isn’t done by pure random chance by Canelo matchmakers , This is exactly what I've been saying. I'm not saying Golovkin was old per se, however he was SLIGHTLY past his peak when Canelo decided to fight him. That was done on purpose as you said and 1-2 years make a huge difference in your mid-30's vs. your 20's.

So a 33 year old GGG KNocks Canelo the FUK out but not a 34 version??? Golovkin was 35 in the first fight with Canelo and yes there is a difference between GGG at 33 vs. 35. At 33, he was coming off of a masterclass against David Lemieux whereas he looked vulnerable against Kell Brook and Daniel Jacobs before Canelo took the fight. Imagine if Canelo had jumped the the opportunity before Kell Brook did. It was certainly doable if he wanted it.

Wlad never took vol in his entire career. Don't you think it's unfair to acknowledge his official mandatories as "best available" even though the man is champion by 2000. He could have made a voluntary defense against much better opposition than Derrick Jefferson or Charles Shufford. Truth is Wlad's career overlaps quite a few great names doesn't it? In 2001, when Wlad fought Shufford the Ring ratings looked like this: Lennox Lewis, Champion Wladimir Klitschko Mike Tyson Chris Byrd Hasim Rahman Kirk Johnson Evander Holyfield John Ruiz Jameel McCline Fres Oquendo David Tua I think the overlap goes both ways and it's important to add more context by looking at what was going on with the fighters on that list: Outside of fight Byrd for the title he hadn't fought a single top ten defense. Not prior to them being a top ten, not as a title defense, not for title elim. Simply put did not fight a top ten outside of the man he fought to win the title in the first place....unless you acknowledge WBO rankings, then Wlad did fight top tens as he was only handling his mandos of course. Wilder had not fought a top ten outside of the man he fought for the title or his own ranking body's top ten for a while too....but....let's only downplay Wilder's career because of it. Wlad's forgiven. Look at that list of names. No one like those names existed in Wilder's whole career. Wlad was a champion while Lennox was champion and Mike Tyson was still an active boxer. His best name on his resume is Povetkin or Haye though....maybe Chagaev. Corrie Sanders wasn't even a top ten when he KO'd Wlad...well...unless you include official rankings...kinda like Wilder....hmmm. I think it's important to add context by looking at what was going on around that time, specifically who the fighters on that list fought instead of Wlad and vice versa (courtesy of Boxrec) Lennox Lewis 2001: showed up out of shape and was upset by Hasim Rahman, then returns later that year to avenge that loss in dominant fashion. 2002: Wins a long overdue mega-fight against Mike Tyson 2003: Finishes his career with a brutal, tougher-than-expected (and somewhat controversial) stoppage against Wlad's brother Vitali Verdict: If Lennox doesn't lose against Rahman then perhaps Wlad gets a shot that year. Lewis-Tyson was a dual PPV event and I don't blame Lennox for calling it quits after the war with Vitali. Sometimes the stars just don't align and I think that's what happened with Lennox and Wlad, even though their careers overlapped. Tyson Tyson was more of an attraction than a fighter by 2001 and the fight with Lennox was the biggest attraction at the time. If Mike was gonna lose badly at the top level then he wanted to get paid as much as possible for the trouble. Chris Byrd You already covered this in your post Hasim Rahman Split two fights with Lennox Lewis as stated above in 2001, then lost to Evander Holyfield in 2002. Wlad would eventually stop an old Rahman years later. Kirk Johnson Kirk Johnson would have been a better opponent than the guys Wlad fought in 2001, I will give you that. Johnson's opponents were'nt that great either though. Holyfield Went 1-1-1 with John Ruiz in 2000-2001, beat Rahman in 2002 and then lost decisively to Chris Byrd and James Toney. I doubt that Wlad would have gotten much credit for beating Holyfield at that time when he was so far past his best. John Ruiz Was tied up with Holyfield, then won by DQ over Kirk Johnson before losing his title to Roy Jones Jr. on PPV Jameel McCline Wlad stopped him in 2002 Fres Oquendo Same as Kirk Johnson, I guess Wlad could have fought him but Oquendo's opponents weren't that great either, plus got stopped by David Tua in 2002 David Tua Lost to Chris Byrd in 2001 In summary, I think the best Wlad could have done in 2001 was to face Fres Oquendo and Kirk Johnson given what everyone else was doing. Those names are better than the guys he fought but it's not like they were huge misses. Also, I think it's fair to say that Wlad didn't really hit his stride until around 2005, after surviving a tough fight with Sam Peter. After that he was dominant for a decade until running into Tyson Fury in 2015. As for Haye, Povetkin, and Pulev, they were the top available contenders according to Ring magazine in 2011, 2013 and 2014 respectively. He was never going to fight his brother of course and I believe that he was the best heavyweight of the 2010's.

Yes that did happen but your research failed to lead you to the most important piece of the puzzle! Anyone that holds the silver wbc title is the mandatory challenger to the official champ and it entitles him to 45 percent of the purse. Now do you honestly believe a bonafied ppv star like Canelo was gonna share that much of the purse with a bum like ggg that couldn’t sell ppvs? This rule is also why Charlo was very vocal at one point to fighting ggg and Canelo. For that purse split Charlo was more than willing to lose that O, but once the WBC made Canelo the franchise champ he was no longer bound to such terms. Which is why as soon as that happened GDB sent Charlo an offer of about 10 million which he declined immediately. It seems like the franchise belt actually exposed Charlo as an oportunistic bum I understand the business aspect of it, but are we more worried about Canelo's bottom line than we are about getting the best matchups? Let's look back at the Ring magazine top-10 at 160 from 2016: Gennady Golovkin Daniel Jacobs Billy Joe Saunders David Lemieux Andy Lee Chris Eubank Jr Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam Avtandil Khurtsidze Maciej Sulecki Ryota Murata If Golovkin was a "bum that couldn't sell PPV's" then who else was Canelo supposed to fight? The funny thing is that Golovkin is the only one on the list who had ever headlined a PPV to that point and Lemieux was the B-side for that event. Golovkin-Lemieux did 97K PPV's but the other guys did "0". Were you happy to see Canelo fight Liam Smith that year just because Smith was willing to fight for a smaller purse? I'm sure that Canelo could fight overmatched opponents and keep 90% of the money for the rest of his career if he wanted but do we really want that? Just because he's a bonafied PPV star? One thing I will say is that I'm glad Canelo fought Golovkin twice. Regardless of how anyone feels about the timing or the official results, I'm glad we got to see two excellent fights.

Since your teenage azz has only started watched boxing for this last month. You are not allowed to question an ATG status. Go watch women’s tennis since you don’t understand the greatness of JCC. I don't think he was questioning his status. I think he just wants to learn more about a great fighter and we can't complain and say people "don't know ***** about boxing" if we won't even name a fight or two for new fans to go back and watch.

Or do you believe there is no such thing? If a fighter can drain himself down 30+ pounds to make weight, it's not always an advantage if they aren't in peek condition. For some it is an advantage if they can blow up on fight night another two or three weight classes against a naturally smaller opponent. I would have to put Spence and Crawford at the top of the list. They each walk around at about 175 - 180+ and drain themselves to get to 147. Crawford was draining heavily at 135. Prior to his move to 147, Mikey walked around at 165+, was as high as 170 when he trained for Lipinets. Weight bully may also be considered for fighters who bring smaller fighters up in weight, and then blowing up on fight night, often refusing to be weighed on the day of the fight. Canelo? Or fighters who can't/won't make weight...Tank? There is no such thing if both guys make the contracted limit. Now if someone misses weight (while his opponent makes weight) and then pays his opponent to have the fight go forward anyway, then I could agree with the "weight bully" accusation. Corrales-Castillo 2 comes to mind actually, and I don't know if Castillo had to pay anything but he definitely had an advantage from not making weight.

Sounds fun on the surface, but it would likely be boring as f**k, like a live trial. I think a good happy medium would be the fighters and promoters gathered around in a "face-off" type of format to answer questions about why a fight has or hasn't been negotiated. For example, I would love to hear Wilder explain in front of Anthony Joshua why he turned down an offer from DAZN while Joshua explains why he turned down 50 million dollars (if it was actually offered).

If AJ took what he did against Ruiz and cranked the cowardice even further, from 11 to 15, then he could maybe squeak by with a close decision. He has the reach to get by with body jabs and running. So utilizing movement to win a decision is cowardice? Is there a rule that says you have to stand and trade no matter what? Even if it puts you at a disadvantage? Even if your opponent has faster hands in exchanges? Was he supposed to repeat the mistake he made in the first fight just so critics wouldn't call him a coward? Remember BKB? https://www.rcn.com/web/bkb/ It was specifically designed to eliminate "cowardice" and it didn't last long, kinda like Andy Ruiz' title reign because no one is obligated to play rock 'em, sock 'em robots with him just because he can't cope with anything else.

asking Cuz although 168 is more comfortable physically, it is uncharted territory and he looked pudgy @ 165 vs Rolls It's hard to say to be honest, but if I had to guess, I would say 160 because Canelo might have a tough time getting all the way back down to middleweight. It probably wouldn't matter though because Canelo would likely insist on 168 anyway, as others have mentioned.