Tweet
Originally posted by d-1-n-only
View Post
-
................... -
-
Anyone who has actually seen both of fight will vote for Eubank without blinking. It isn't even close.Comment
-
The thread asks which fighter is the better fighter overall. Whoever picked Baldomir is a good candidate for ignore. Of course then the threadstarter confuses the issue by listing Baldy's losses.Comment
-
chris eubank survived a prime calzaghe who was one of the hardest punchers in the history of boxing before he hurt his hands. that's gotta count for something.Comment
-
-
that my friend is one of the hardest nuthugging in the history of boxing forums.Originally posted by daggum View Post
joe might have had more pop before the hand issues but "one of the hardest punchers in the history off boxing"?
Comment
-
I guess you missed his siggy listing Calzaghe as a member of the feather fisted weakling club.Originally posted by Left Hook Tua View Postthat my friend is one of the hardest nuthugging in the history of boxing forums.
joe might have had more pop before the hand issues but "one of the hardest punchers in the history off boxing"?Comment
-
Why anyone would bring this up as a topic is beyond me.
Why anyone would start talking about fighters being terrible without ever seeing them is also beyond me.
Try having a look at their fights before saying they are ****e or worse than another guy. Eubanks was a lot better than Baldomir and before the tragic Watson fight would have been a very difficult for anyone at MW or SMW. He also fought at a time when the divisions he was in were stacked with brilliant fighters. Especially the MW division. What a ridiculous thread.Comment
-
This thread pretty much sums up how ****** this forum often is.
"Who is Eubank?"
"I think he might've been black"
"I just look at boxrec. You actually watch boxing? Moron."
"If I haven't heard of someone, they must be a bum"
"My name is DiegoFuego. Duh. Duhhhhhh. Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh"
etc.
I recently realised that I hadn't ever seen Freddie Norwood fight. So I started a thread asking for opinions of him (2 posters replied, such is the depth of knowledge around here/interest in non-******ed subjects), I read some old articles, and downloaded what I could find of him. I didn't just look at boxrec and say "he lost to Gainer and Gainer lost to someone I've never heard of 7 years later so Norwood must have been a bum".
I don't understand how people on this forum seem to want to debate a subject that they don't know anything about. If you did this in real life when people were discussing politics, history, philosophy or even some of the other sports that people watch, you would be laughed at.
If you aren't familiar with a world champion who had his best years in the 1990s, there's nothing shameful about that, but to judge someone based upon your ignorance of them or their opposition, and then try and argue with someone who is basing their opinion upon knowledge and experience is a bit ridiculous.
Much of this thread is made up of people looking at boxrec and then claiming that one guy is better than the other because they've heard of more of their opponents. If you haven't been watching boxing long, it's hardly surprising that you've heard of more of the opponents of someone who is still an active fighter than someone who has been retired for several years.
I personally believe that Cotto would beat any of Mayweather's 147 or 140 opponents. Do I therefore decide to go around the forum claiming that Margarito would beat Mayweather based upon this? No. Nor should anyone with an IQ above 0.
Actually that's a bad example, because I have actually seen Mayweather, Cotto, Margarito, Hatton, Judah, Baldomir etc. fight several times, whereas in this thread people are rating old, shot 147 Gatti above a Benn and Watson that they've never watched.
I wouldn't think that I'd need to say that on a boxing forum, but how about you guys go away and watch some boxing?Comment
Comment