Greatest ever Welsh boxer

[SBleeder]

NO, they did not. See, that is the difference between you and me. I actually DO RESEARCH before I post something. I went through Wilde's boxing record and the first 100 guys he fought really had only losses.
I just went through 10 opponents of Wilde in a row:
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...boxer&pageID=2
from Billy Rowlands (March 1913) to Young George Dando (July 1913) and checked the records of all those 10 guys which Wilde fought: None of them had a newspaper decision except one guy from what I saw (and that was ONLY ONE Newspaper decision). Go check yourself.

And of course, we've circled around again to Boxrec, which is infallible in your eyes. You keep saying that you're a walking boxing encyclopedia who reads boxing books voraciously, but you really can't seem to do anything but look at official records.

[raskat]

Please, you're making yourself look more stupid than what you think you're making me look. I've already told you the flyweight division wasn't recognized in America until 1915...

I didn't claim Rosner was 6-3, I used it as an example of incomplete records. You aren't arguing with me either, you're just posting drivel. Having seen your response to a respectable poster like SBleeder it would appear you're showing your true colours.

Educate yourself.

you are not gonna talk your way out of this.
I quote you:

I honestly can't understand how you have such a hard time comprehending incomplete records....
Do you honestly think Johnny Rosner, who claimed to be the greatest flyweight in the world, was 6-3 when he met Wilde?

You clearly said that you think that boxrec of Rosner is incomplete and I proved that it is not. You said Boxrec says Rosner only had 9 fights when he fought Wilde, and I told that is not true. Cause I clearly proved that boxrec says that Rosner had over 50 fights when he fought Wilde.
So your try to prove that boxrec is incomplete failed miserably. You are not gonna talk your way out of that.

[D-MiZe]

NO, they did not. See, that is the difference between you and me. I actually DO RESEARCH before I post something. I went through Wilde's boxing record and the first 100 guys he fought really had only losses.

I'm convinced you're a troll.

You obviously don't do any research otherwise you'd recognize at least a few of the names on Wilde's resume apart from Herman & Villa. How you think you have any credibility left on this forum after displaying your inability to understand incomplete records is beyond me...

[D-MiZe]

you are not gonna talk your way out of this.
I quote you:

You clearly said that you think that boxrec of Rosner is incomplete and I proved that it is not. You said Boxrec says Rosner only had 9 fights when he fought Wilde, and I told that is not true. Cause I clearly proved that boxrec says that Rosner had over 50 fights when he fought Wilde.
So your try to prove that boxrec is incomplete failed miserably. You are not gonna talk your way out of that.

...and as we have established, BoxRec is not a perfect record. Rosner may have had 150 fights when he met Wilde, you don't know. So you haven't proven anything, except your stupidity.

[raskat]

I never said boxrec is always complete. But you can say boxrec is incomplete about any fighter and say in reality he has 100 more top notch wins against top notch opponents. You cannot prove that and neither can I.
You just take a random fighter named Jimmy Wilde and say he fought 100 more great fighters and beat them all. You don't know that. I can imagine he has more fights but logic would suggest those guys also had losing records as the rest of his first 100 opponents.
I even KNOW that boxrec is not complete. I know a boxer (Andrew Hartley) who told boxrec that he had a win against another guy and they posted that on his boxrec record.
Another person knew that this was untrue, so they called boxrec and only then did boxrec remove that win from Hartley's boxing record.
But what some pple here said in this thread is just....laughable.
As for the guy who said he has 7 Jimmy Wilde fights: I don't believe it til I see it. And I am sure I will never see it, right?

[SBleeder]

You said Boxrec says Rosner only had 9 fights when he fought Wilde, and I told that is not true.

It clearly says on Wilde's Boxrec entry (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...9023&cat=boxer) that Rosner was 6-3 when he fought Wilde.

[raskat]

It clearly says on Wilde's Boxrec entry (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...9023&cat=boxer) that Rosner was 6-3 when he fought Wilde.

yes. But only cause the newspaper decisions aren't listed on other people's records. Only when you go the boxrec page of that certain fighter will you see the newspaper decisions. I been telling it all along: you guys are too stupid, too ******ed to even READ boxrec properly.
You still don't understand it? Okay, I will make it more clear. Go on Rosner's boxrec page and then count his fights until his fight with Wilde. You will see he has around 50 fights (40 of which are listed as "No Contests" which means they were newspaper decisions.)

[D-MiZe]

I never said boxrec is always complete. But you can say boxrec is incomplete about any fighter and say in reality he has 100 more top notch wins against top notch opponents. You cannot prove that and neither can I.
You just take a random fighter named Jimmy Wilde and say he fought 100 more great fighters and beat them all. You don't know that. I can imagine he has more fights but logic would suggest those guys also had losing records as the rest of his first 100 opponents.
I even KNOW that boxrec is not complete. I know a boxer (Andrew Hartley) who told boxrec that he had a win against another guy and they posted that on his boxrec record.
Another person knew that this was untrue, so they called boxrec and only then did boxrec remove that win from Hartley's boxing record.
But what some pple here said in this thread is just....laughable.
As for the guy who said he has 7 Jimmy Wilde fights: I don't believe it til I see it. And I am sure I will never see it, right?

Why should Bleeder upload these fights for you when you were treating him like shit?

How does logic suggest these guys had losing records?

I don't just take a random fighter, I take a fighter who Gene Tunney described as the 'Greatest fighter I ever saw' and Fleischer ranks him as #1 flyweight ever. The Ring had him #1 flyweight in the 70s and #1 in the 90s, the only fighter in his respective division to retain their #1 status.

These fighters with incomplete records cannot be accounted for, we don't know how good they really were. But Wilde has names on his resume that did amount to something and were considered the best in the world before he came along. So don't dare say you research before discussing a matter as you've no clue about said fighters.

Also, Rosner's 6-3 record doesn't matter. You're just being a pedantic **** by continually referencing newspaper decisions. It was an example of how records are largely incomplete from that era, so how about trying to reason with this?

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...3787&cat=boxer

[raskat]

Why should Bleeder upload these fights for you when you were treating him like shit?

How does logic suggest these guys had losing records?

I don't just take a random fighter, I take a fighter who Gene Tunney described as the 'Greatest fighter I ever saw' and Fleischer ranks him as #1 flyweight ever. The Ring had him #1 flyweight in the 70s and #1 in the 90s, the only fighter in his respective division to retain their #1 status.

These fighters with incomplete records cannot be accounted for, we don't know how good they really were. But Wilde has names on his resume that did amount to something and were considered the best in the world before he came along. So don't dare say you research before discussing a matter as you've no clue about said fighters.

Also, Rosner's 6-3 record doesn't matter. You're just being a pedantic **** by continually referencing newspaper decisions. It was an example of how records are largely incomplete from that era, so how about trying to reason with this?

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...3787&cat=boxer

you are a ******. And the name calling you do just tells me you are a little immature, insecure, ******ed kid. I feel sorry for you, because not only are you ******ed, you also don't know anything about boxing.
Sadly some trolls like yourself made their way from the nonstop boxing section to the history section.
I appreciate real boxing knowledge, but sadly you got none of that.

[D-MiZe]

So instead of explaining how you came to the decision that it's 'logical' the guys on Wilde's resume had losing records, you decide to just dedicate your post to your opinions on me as a poster.

Which is quite funny as you say my name calling is what shows my immaturity and insecurity, yet you call me ******ed. Then you end up calling me the troll when I've exposed you as such.

Furthermore, you came into a thread and discussed a fighter who's record is not well known yet you project a superior boxing intelligence even though you fail to grasp the idea a record could be incomplete then you go as far as comparing him to Cesar Chavez?!

I use '****' frequently and never in a malicious way, you'd know about it if I was trying to insult you. Not that I'd ever have the need to do so over a forum but you were being pedantic with my example for no good reason. You seem quite upset with this whole fiasco, being made to look like a dickhead 'n all, does invoke such responses.

If you were genuinely interested in Wilde, I could've pointed you in the right direction and still can. I hold no grudges, you won't go on my ignore list and I fully expect our paths to cross again. Next time, don't make such stupid assumptions.


As for the actual question of the thread, I'd say Freddie Welsh. Wales, for the tiny country it is, is such a strong boxing nation - they've produced many a great fighter.