Fighters Whose, Losses Were Only Against ATG Fighters?

[StarshipTrooper]

Mike Tyson.....no, wait

Poet

[Emon723]

Felix Trinidad, losses were to ATGs and who were bigger than him, Tito fought them all.

[TBear]

Marvis Frazier...

And Joe Lipsey, he retired after his first loss, to Hopkins.

[JAB5239]

Joe Louis??? thats only if you consider Max Schmeling an ATG

Do you not consider Schmeling an all time great?

[gimmeyapudpud]

Do you not consider Schmeling an all time great?

If he were a fighter of the modern age,he wouldn't be remembered as a great and nobody could dispute that.

Often you will get posters like Poet or yourself,who will will mock a modern fighter for losing to a fighter they had no business losing to,and yet you will excuse all rejects Schmeiling was losing to earlier in his career.



It's not like his victory over Louis meant all that much either.As you put it,the only reason Louis lost was because he spent more time on the green than he did in training.

[JAB5239]

If he were a fighter of the modern age,he wouldn't be remembered as a great and nobody could dispute that.

He's not a fighter of the modern age and he is remembered as a great. Nobody can dispute that. Fighters are ranked on who they beat and how they beat them. You simply can't grasp that.

Often you will get posters like Poet or yourself,who will will mock a modern fighter for losing to a fighter they had no business losing to,and yet you will excuse all rejects Schmeiling was losing to earlier in his career.

This is a bunch of your typical crap. Posters such as myself, Poet and many others here take the time to understand the circumstances of the era. You go to boxrec and jump to a conclusion. Big difference there Piss******.

It's not like his victory over Louis meant all that much either.As you put it,the only reason Louis lost was because he spent more time on the green than he did in training.

Lol, look at you trying to play both sides of the fence to make a point. Sad.

Louis wasn't prime and hardly trained, that is true. But he was still expected to win and had been destroying everyone up until that point and after. Schmeling deserves credit even if that wasn't the best Louis. He came and did what he had to do. Combine that with wins over many of the top fighters of the day, Stribling, Risko, Walker, Uzcudun, *****, Sharkey and others, and that equals all time great. Its no coincidence Max is still ranked as one of the 20 greatest heavyweights even today.

[gimmeyapudpud]

This is a bunch of your typical crap. Posters such as myself, Poet and many others here take the time to understand the circumstances of the era. You go to boxrec and jump to a conclusion. Big difference there Piss******..

No,there isn't,none at all actually.Schmeiling lost to these bums,did he not? How is that any dierent to any modern fighter losing to some bum they should have easily beat.

Poet has discredited fighters on who they lost to many of times,and you can include yourself in doing so too.

Lol, look at you trying to play both sides of the fence to make a point. Sad.

Louis wasn't prime and hardly trained, that is true. But he was still expected to win and had been destroying everyone up until that point and after. Schmeling deserves credit even if that wasn't the best Louis. He came and did what he had to do. Combine that with wins over many of the top fighters of the day, Stribling, Risko, Walker, Uzcudun, *****, Sharkey and others, and that equals all time great. Its no coincidence Max is still ranked as one of the 20 greatest heavyweights even today.

So in other words,Schmeilings win doesn't mean anything because Louis wasn't in his prime and barely trained? Ok,I understand that.So there goes Schmeilings big win.

Is it worth noting that Louis's greatest victories came against fighters without a working pulse? Even getting knocked down and hurt by these zombies?

[JAB5239]

No,there isn't,none at all actually.Schmeiling lost to these bums,did he not? How is that any dierent to any modern fighter losing to some bum they should have easily beat.

Sharkey, Baer and Louis are hall of famers, ***** was a top rated contender. Why don't you tell us all what you know about the other fighters Max lost to besides what you've gleaned from boxrec. And while you're at it, why don't you explain how you just disregard his wins?

Poet has discredited fighters on who they lost to many of times,and you can include yourself in doing so too.

Its much easier to discredit a fighter who's whole career, amateur and pro, is an open book. You seem to take joy in trying to discredit a fighter when you don't know jack about his opposition except what you read on boxrec. You're a very sad individual.

So in other words,Schmeilings win doesn't mean anything because Louis wasn't in his prime and barely trained? Ok,I understand that.So there goes Schmeilings big win.

I never said that. Go back and read the post again son.

Is it worth noting that Louis's greatest victories came against fighters without a working pulse? Even getting knocked down and hurt by these zombies?

I won't even bother arguing this ******ity with you again. This from the same clown who accused Louis of being an attempted murderer.

[gimmeyapudpud]

Sharkey, Baer and Louis are hall of famers, ***** was a top rated contender. Why don't you tell us all what you know about the other fighters Max lost to besides what you've gleaned from boxrec. And while you're at it, why don't you explain how you just disregard his wins?

Did he,or did he not lost to a few bums?


The hall of fame doesn't mean anything.Your good E mate could have told you that.


Why do you excuse Max Schmeilings for losing to these bums and yet discredit others for doing the same,only losing to superior opposition than the jokers that Schmeiling came undone against?

Its much easier to discredit a fighter who's whole career, amateur and pro, is an open book. You seem to take joy in trying to discredit a fighter when you don't know jack about his opposition except what you read on boxrec. You're a very sad individual.

How much do you know of the bums that he lost too? You're in no place to be crying about others discrediting fighters consiering that troll thread you recently made on Wladimir Klitschko


You're a complete and utter hypocrite.

I won't even bother arguing this ******ity with you again. This from the same clown who accused Louis of being an attempted murderer.

LMAO.When did I ever accuse Joe Louis of doing such a thing? I never even pressed the issue of Louis beating the snot out of some poor women.I don't recall ever involving mysel into that discussion.


I do find it amusing that you defend Louis's actions however.Are you still sore over the fact that some poster exposed Joe Louis's actions?


We've been through this already,gabby.When you have some proof that I am Slimey Limey,then you can come back and we can discuss this like adults.

[JAB5239]

Did he,or did he not lost to a few bums?

Tell us what you know about these so called "bums"?

The hall of fame doesn't mean anything.Your good E mate could have told you that.

The hall of fame has plenty of faults, but for the most part they get it right. If you actually knew boxing history you'd be better able to comprehend that.

Why do you excuse Max Schmeilings for losing to these bums and yet discredit others for doing the same,only losing to superior opposition than the jokers that Schmeiling came undone against?

Once again, what do you know about these fighters or their era? You're talking out your ass and don't know ****. That has to take a lot of effort.

How much do you know of the bums that he lost too? You're in no place to be crying about others discrediting fighters consiering that troll thread you recently made on Wladimir Klitschko

Lol, now you want me to supply you with the information? Go do some homework kid.

As far as the Wlad thread.......seems to me the majority agreed with me. I never made a thing up or lied. Wlad is boring, lkive with it. He fights in the weakest era ever, live with it.

You're a complete and utter hypocrite.

More big words and still no proof. Thats par for the course with you though, right?

LMAO.When did I ever accuse Joe Louis of doing such a thing? I never even pressed the issue of Louis beating the snot out of some poor women.I don't recall ever involving mysel into that discussion.


I do find it amusing that you defend Louis's actions however.Are you still sore over the fact that some poster exposed Joe Louis's actions?


We've been through this already,gabby.When you have some proof that I am Slimey Limey,then you can come back and we can discuss this like adults.

Look, you're getting owned, stop trying to change the subject. You don't know **** about Schmeling or his opponents. You're a boxrec cowboy, and you just got exposed.

Head on back to the good karma thread to beg for some green. We all know you won't get any based on your knowledge or the merits of your posts.