Hypothetical: Floyd dominates DLH enroute to a wide UD...

[wmute]

I was primarily referring to the credit he received for defeating Gatti, who was not "the man" at 140. I have not arguement with him beating "the man" at junior lightweight, lightweight, and welterweight.

ok,

welcome back

well the second part of the post was something like other multiple divvy champs did it when there was only one belt, that's the part i wasreferring to

[K-DOGG]

ok,

welcome back

well the second part of the post was something like other multiple divvy champs did it when there was only one belt, that's the part i wasreferring to

It's cool bro. Sometimes I can be clearer, I know.

Damn, though, I hate having to play "catch-up" on the weekends. I'm gonna have to get a home computer so I can "rumble" with you guys more often. lol!!! I love a good debate.

[wmute]

No, bud. I was pointing out that "style-wise", Floyd is not unbeatable. That's all. And, I do think Starling would beat him, even if Jr. was the only Mayweather....ergo, if there were NEVER any matches between Starling and Sr. to draw upon. Styles make fights; this has always been my primary edict.

i see,

well marlon starling did not beat anyone relevant, he lost to everyone who was someone in the post leonard ww division.

also he was a titleholder not a champion, in our language at least, and he never even fought for the ring WW belt (which was assigned to curry and lineage is usually assumed to start there).

i agree that styles make fights, but starling is just not there.

[K-DOGG]

i see,

well marlon starling did not beat anyone relevant, he lost to everyone who was someone in the post leonard ww division.

also he was a titleholder not a champion, in our language at least, and he never even fought for the ring WW belt (which was assigned to curry and lineage is usually assumed to start there).

i agree that styles make fights, but starling is just not there.

I beg to differ. Starling beat Honeyghan, who'd beaten Curry, who had unified the belts. And to my knowledge, Starling only failed to beat Curry among those in the post Leonard era. The Molinares loss was a fluke as Thomas hit him clearly after the bell. Starling schooled long time title claimant and eventual champion, Simon Brown, Breland twice (really), and Honeyghan. Who, besides Curry, did he fail to defeat?

[wmute]

I beg to differ. Starling beat Honeyghan, who'd beaten Curry, who had unified the belts. And to my knowledge, Starling only failed to beat Curry among those in the post Leonard era. The Molinares loss was a fluke as Thomas hit him clearly after the bell. Starling schooled long time title claimant and eventual champion, Simon Brown, Breland twice (really), and Honeyghan. Who, besides Curry, did he fail to defeat?

Maurice Blocker, but you are right I actually thought he lost to honeyghan.

yes that sounds more even now

I would have considered honeyghan, blocker and starling to be the one that mattered. but now that i check blocker record it seems he does not matter that much (that's actually even worse than losing to someone who matters).


that's what happen when i remember what the ppl who were into boxing around me said when i was a lil kid instead of documenting myself (everyone talked well of donald curry). i did not see molinares fight, ever, it is a no-contest on boxrec, how did that play out as for during the fight? i see close scorecards.

[K-DOGG]

I beg to differ. Starling beat Honeyghan, who'd beaten Curry, who had unified the belts. And to my knowledge, Starling only failed to beat Curry among those in the post Leonard era. The Molinares loss was a fluke as Thomas hit him clearly after the bell. Starling schooled long time title claimant and eventual champion, Simon Brown, Breland twice (really), and Honeyghan. Who, besides Curry, did he fail to defeat?

Check that. I just checked and apparently somewhere after the Molinares fight, they correctly ruled it a no-contest.

..and the Bumphus loss, as you must know, was a technical decision after a headbutt. Marlon was the second best post-Leonard era Welterweight, with Curry being the only fighter above him and Honeyghan just below.

I strongly feel he is underrated.

[brownpimp88]

Benny leonard has never defeated a fighter that i would rank top 75 of all times. If you want to talk about a guy that shouldnt be top 10 p4p, its him. Greb beat elites, pep beat a few, ali beat them, both sugars did it, duran and whitaker did it too. Ezzard beat 3 of them, hagler beat two, monzon beat two, armstrong beat barney ross.

Freddie welsh, lew tendler and rocky kansas, etc. They dont cut it, the writers did a great job of hyping benny's opponents and make it seem like his era was the golden one, lol.

[K-DOGG]

Maurice Blocker, but you are right I actually thought he lost to honeyghan.

yes that sounds more even now

I would have considered honeyghan, blocker and starling to be the one that mattered. but now that i check blocker record it seems he does not matter that much (that's actually even worse than losing to someone who matters).


that's what happen when i remember what the ppl who were into boxing around me said when i was a lil kid instead of documenting myself (everyone talked well of donald curry). i did not see molinares fight, ever, it is a no-contest on boxrec, how did that play out as for during the fight? i see close scorecards.

Yeah, I remember the Blocker fight. That was right after he'd challenged Nunn for the Middleweight Title. The Blocker fight was close; but Maurice beat him and Starlling retired right after....which tells me where he was mentally at that point. I don't think he was in to the Blocker fight, honestly...which is no excuse. He should have won;' but I do think Eddie Futch was in Blaocker's corner at the time, too. Anyway, I don't hold that one against him 'cause I don't think his heart was really in it at that point. He really thought he was gonna be an "HBO" fighter; but, kind of like Bernard Hopkins, Starling was an overly tought negotiator and ended up fighting in obscurity for a small purse in his first title defense after the Nunn loss and then he fought Blocker and wasn't on his game....and lost.

Anyway, I still think he is underrated as a fighter.

[K-DOGG]

Benny leonard has never defeated a fighter that i would rank top 75 of all times. If you want to talk about a guy that shouldnt be top 10 p4p, its him. Greb beat elites, pep beat a few, ali beat them, both sugars did it, duran and whitaker did it too. Ezzard beat 3 of them, hagler beat two, monzon beat two, armstrong beat barney ross.

Freddie welsh, lew tendler and rocky kansas, etc. They dont cut it, the writers did a great job of hyping benny's opponents and make it seem like his era was the golden one, lol.

Leonard cleaned out the division and Welsh, Tendler, and Lewis were DAMN good fighters whether you rank them or not. He is great, man....real great; and all you need is a good set of eyes and an unbiased mind to see taht.

[brownpimp88]

Leonard cleaned out the division and Welsh, Tendler, and Lewis were DAMN good fighters whether you rank them or not. He is great, man....real great; and all you need is a good set of eyes and an unbiased mind to see taht.

I have benny somewhere between #11-20, i can make a case for julio cesar chavez being better than him and pernell beat chavez.

When chavez fought camacho, meldrick and edwin rosario, they were damn good fighters. Camacho was truly done after he lost to chavez, not before.

Even if meldrick didnt reach his proper potential, hes better than half of the jokes that are in the hall of fame.