Kostya Tszyu vs Floyd Mayweather at 140

[Azteca]

You said that Chavez was beaten by fighters that were more paced. Not acombination fighter like Taylor. When, in fact, he was LEAVING his peak agianst Sweet Pea, though still close enough of his prime to give a legit win to Whitaker, in my opinion, and he was nowhere near his peak against Randall.

So I'm asking, do you think that the Chavez that fought Frankie Randall, would have even knocked Meldrick Taylor down? Furthermore, do you think that if the Chavez that fought Randall, fought Taylor, do you think Chavez would have stil done to Taylor, what he wound up doing?

Where's the evidence of that? He was undefeated...ok one loss...but still.

And Im confused. Why does it matter and what relevance is it?

[THe TRiNiTY]

Where's the evidence of that? He was undefeated...ok one loss...but still.

And Im confused. Why does it matter and what relevance is it?

it matters because of what you were arguing with, in the first place. You said "Tszyu can't beat Chavez, but Randall can?" And I'm saying, that's not a prime Chavez. The Chavez that fought Taylor, regardless of if he deserved THAT win or not, doesn't lose to Tszyu. Not even close, in my personal opinion.

As far as being undefeated goes. You can tell when someone is out of their prime, when someone a bit below them, beats them.

Ala, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins.. the list goes on. I realize neither was undefeated in the technical sense, I meant, hand't TRULY lost in a decade.. Which to me, is essentially just as important.

[Steak]

Chavez was undefeated when he fought Randall (other then the obvious Whitaker loss but that is a different story). Not much evidence of him being 'out of prime'. Out of his weight class? yeah, maybe. But he was really only 10 pounds north of the division he won his first title in.

Randall was good. I got lots of respect for him. He was what more fighters today should strive to be. Who cares about the many losses...focus on this man's wins. He was fcking good.

But Randall is by no means accomplish wise and skill wise on Tszyu's level. Tszyu would of battered him. And the same with Chavez. You say to beat a prime Chavez you have to be extremely active. The only evidence of this is Meldrick Taylor. Randall wasn't swarming him and throwing tons of shots. He was settling in range and picking and choosing when to fight.

The same with Whitaker. He beat up Whitaker by being patient and economical. You get active against Chavez and he'll eat you up with subtle body shots to the gut and the kidney. And for some reason he had a habit of turning it up in the championship rounds.

Body shots, friend, body shots. That's why he was able to do that.

But in a 12 round fight. I'm forced to pick Tszyu.

Chavez simply wasnt looking as good in the Randall fights and all of his fights after. and like I said, some fighters age overnight.

and being active doesnt mean only that you have to throw a lot of punches. Whitaker was constantly moving backwards, to the side, jabbing, feinting, always doing something. Kostya is much, much more stationary. He has the precision, but he sometimes tends to stand there in front of you.

and I belive Randall would have given Kostya hell.

and this isnt heard much, but I believe the Whitaker that fought Chavez was also a little bit past it. He was much more stationary and had lost a little bit of his speed. Its strange to hear, because that was clearly his biggest win, but your biggest win doesnt mean when youre at your best. Whitaker was best at his days at Lightweight to me.

[Azteca]

it matters because of what you were arguing with, in the first place. You said "Tszyu can't beat Chavez, but Randall can?" And I'm saying, that's not a prime Chavez. The Chavez that fought Taylor, regardless of if he deserved THAT win or not, doesn't lose to Tszyu. Not even close, in my personal opinion.

As far as being undefeated goes. You can tell when someone is out of their prime, when someone a bit below them, beats them.

Ala, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins.. the list goes on. I realize neither was undefeated in the technical sense, I meant, hand't TRULY lost in a decade.. Which to me, is essentially just as important.

Show me evidence of a fight that he looked out of it and out of prime and I will concede to your point.

Other then the Whitaker fight. He got beat up by the better fighter and an ATG. A top 20 fighter of all time.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Show me evidence of a fight that he looked out of it and out of prime and I will concede to your point.

Other then the Whitaker fight. He got beat up by the better fighter and an ATG. A top 20 fighter of all time.

Frankie Randall was a good fighter, but he wouldn't have beaten the Chavez that fought Taylor. That'd be an example.

[Azteca]

Frankie Randall was a good fighter, but he wouldn't have beaten the Chavez that fought Taylor. That'd be an example.

Dude, all you gotta do is just show me a fight where he looked out of prime and past it. i dont care what the experts think or what fans think. let's see some visual evidene. And I will concede to your point.

[Steak]

Dude, all you gotta do is just show me a fight where he looked out of prime and past it. i dont care what the experts think or what fans think. let's see some visual evidene. And I will concede to your point.

leaving prime=Alli and Whitaker fight
out of prime=Randall fight
Past it=Willy Wise
Next to shot=Kostya. he was falling all over the place in the ring, and without being hit with punches. really falling on his butt just because his balance was so bad. he still landed ok shots on Kostya, took some hard shots and kept coming too.

around his best=Rosario through Camacho

[joepal]

Do you have any proof to the contrary? I've seen both fights. People judge fights differently. I could see someone saying they saw Mayweather OR Castillo winning both. It's what you're looking for in the fights. Fact is, at the end of the day, NOW I'd pick Mayweather over Castillo, at pretty much any weight. Which goes to show, that the second fight, that even you admit, Mayweather won, tells more of a story as to where they are in boxing at that point. At that point, Mayweather was a bit better. Pretty simple logic.

Case and point, if Mayweather LOST, and then he came back and had the same fight in the rematch and won.. he'd be about where he is in the game, anyway. Because nothing else would have changed, since a lot people think Castillo won anyway. Unless you think the 0 in Mayweathers record is the source of his powers. lol.

Most people thought Castillo beat Floyd in the first by a comfortable margin. On the other hand, the same people thought Floyd beat Castillo by close decision in the second.

Two different outcomes. Only a nuthugger won't make distinctions between the two, and to say that the 2nd fight was more indicative of who's better smacks of the most biased kind of nuthuggery.

[joepal]

1) You are displaying a lack of understanding of the term "p4p". Two guys fighting each other at the same weight does not evoke a p4p discussion.

2) Floyd didn't "barely win" the second fight. Floyd won the second fight convincingly. Castillo has said that. And I can whip out a handy-dandy JLC quote if you need it.

3) You will find plenty of people who will say that Floyd won the first fight. Including, umm, the three ringside judges. You will not find anybody to say that Castillo won the second fight. So your "weighing" methodology woukld say that Floyd was the better fighter in those fights.

Clear and concise. With no sissyfied insults. See how that works?

I used the term loosely, like "Dios is p4p the most idiotic creature in the universe". Understand now?

I saw the fight, FLOYD DID NOT WIN THE FIGHT CONVINCINGLY. Get your head out of your ass.

No one in his right mind thought Floyd won the first fight, get the **** outta here.

[WLAD OWNS]

I am surprised my Tszyu vs Mayweather thread went over 200 posts. I can't wait to see the chaotic posts after Dec.8, this forum will LITERALLY explode.