..MARQUEZ/VAZQUEZ and KLITSCHKO, The Difference...

[THe TRiNiTY]

"You can be certain that when all three are retired, Marquez and Vazquez will have more scar tissue and probably fewer high-functioning brain cells than will Klitschko. But for a real fighter, there’s more to this business than looking good and thinking clearly in old age.

It’s not just winning that gets you remembered; it’s how you win too. I suspect we’ll remember all three Vazquez-Marquez fights for much longer than we will Klitschko’s highly competent and profoundly soulless win Saturday night."

- William Dettloff.

Question is, do you agree? Do you think it's more about how you win, as apposed to if you win?

Also, for kicks and giggles, his take on John Duddy;

"John Duddy has no defense, is easily cut, and has average skills. On the other hand, he’s no great puncher. You can see what all the excitement is about."

[-Antonio-]

I gotta see this Duddy fight, but it's going to take forever and a day to download.

As far as Wlad, he's taking a beating over this fight.

[2501]

of course its how you win. boxing writers and analyst can only keep your name alive through stats and articles. its the fans who watched a fighter give their hearts and souls, who left their blood and sweat in the ring that will keep their "legend" alive. performances like Klitschko's that night will only be associated with negativity and HE WON.

[THe TRiNiTY]

of course its how you win. boxing writers and analyst can only keep your name alive through stats and articles. its the fans who watched a fighter give their hearts and souls, who left their blood and sweat in the ring that will keep their "legend" alive. performances like Klitschko's that night will only be associated with negativity and HE WON.

But, for example... What about fighters who have no documented proof of their brilliant performances yet still get recognition? You can hear all you want about how a fight was great. Won't mean much, in terms of how exciting it seems to you. But, you'd still give him the credit, correct?

[Silencers]

I think it depends on the fight, if it's an all out action fight there doesn't have to be a knockout for a fighter to be remembered fondly, if it's a boring fight a knockout is important, especially if a fighter is clearly more dominant, if a fighter fights boring fights his whole career, he most likely won't be remembered as well as a guy that gives his blood and guts in the ring.

[2501]

But, for example... What about fighters who have no documented proof of their brilliant performances yet still get recognition? You can hear all you want about how a fight was great. Won't mean much, in terms of how exciting it seems to you. But, you'd still give him the credit, correct?

well, if they werent documented, how did you hear about them? How is legend kept alive? When fans talk about fighters, what do they talk about? Do they talk about the belts that they won? Do they talk about the divisions that they fought in? You will occasionally hear a discussion with an informed boxing fan but to the majority of the fans, its always, "Remember when Corrales beat Castillo?", "Remember how Pacquiao destroyed Barrera?" "Remember how Mayweather embarrassed Gatti?" "Remember Barrera/Morales 1?" etc.

[THE REED]

well, if they werent documented, how did you hear about them? How is legend kept alive? When fans talk about fighters, what do they talk about? Do they talk about the belts that they won? Do they talk about the divisions that they fought in? You will occasionally hear a discussion with an informed boxing fan but to the majority of the fans, its always, "Remember when Corrales beat Castillo?", "Remember how Pacquiao destroyed Barrera?" "Remember how Mayweather embarrassed Gatti?" "Remember Barrera/Morales 1?" etc.

LOCK IT UP!!!

[2501]

LOCK IT UP!!!

on the wrist son, ON DA WRISTESESES!

[THe TRiNiTY]

well, if they werent documented, how did you hear about them? How is legend kept alive? When fans talk about fighters, what do they talk about? Do they talk about the belts that they won? Do they talk about the divisions that they fought in? You will occasionally hear a discussion with an informed boxing fan but to the majority of the fans, its always, "Remember when Corrales beat Castillo?", "Remember how Pacquiao destroyed Barrera?" "Remember how Mayweather embarrassed Gatti?" "Remember Barrera/Morales 1?" etc.

I was referring to it being documented with a visual. Which I thought was clear by mentioning the fact that it can be WRITTEN about.

If you look at Robinsons prime, it's not VISUALLY documented, but he's still recalled in most circles as the best fighter ever. You can make the argument that it's because he WASN'T in his prime in those videos, and was still better than 99.9% of the people to ever box. But, that still makes me feel that it's a 50/50 thing. Because if those films didn't exist, I think the argument would still be made for Robinson.

Also, when you talk about about recalling fights. If you're talking about passing on a legend, you have to then keep in mind it's all about who's telling you what. An Italian fighter might tell you that Marciano is the best heavyweight of all time, and he may honestly believe that. If he's passing on that belief to his son, his son might be inclined to believe it. He could then pass that on as if it's a much more valid argument than it might be. Without having seen him fight, or having any true proof. He wouldn't know if the fighter or any of his fights really were. It was simply passed down. You're told something, and you either believe it or you don't.

A lot of the times, my point being, it's about fine print. if it says Marciano, for example, is the only undefeated heavyweight champion of all time. Without film or any knowlegde of those fights, wouldn't you still find that pretty impressive?


I guess I'll spell everything out from now on. My bad.

[2501]

I guess I'll spell everything out from now on. My bad.

watch it there now.