Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

M. Moorer Best Light HW Ever

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Knicksman20
    Records can be deceiving & just because you might be undefeated you could have a padded record. Prime example is Ricky Hatton. Jose Luis Castillo has 7 defeats to his name & that guy is a badass. Emanuel has over 15 losses & is a hellava fighter. Don't get too caught up in the stats of boxing because it can be deceiving.
    I am not obsessing or have ever obsessed about win loss records. I am just saying Virgil Hill is an all time great Lt Heavy because his only losses were to Thomas Hearns Michalczewski, and Roy Jones. And he made a combined total of 22 title defences and at one point before facing Michalczewski had the WBA and IBF titles.

    Michalczewski made 24 consecutive tital defences 21 by knockout. Against quality opposition such as Virgil Hill (WBA IBF champ) Graciano Rochigiani (WBC cham) Montell Griffin
    Drake Thazdi, Derick Harmon and others. Derick Harmon for instance beat Glen Johnson. Its amazing feat to have 24 consecutive defences and 21 by KO. That is why only one man has ever done it. And it earns him at a right at least in the top 10 best Light heavies of all time. In front of guys like Michael Moore who had 9 defences of the WBO belt against much weaker opposition and not against any other title holders.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by McKay
      Its not about win loss percentages. Its about title defences. If you make title defences your facing quality opposition. In that the very least your facing the mandatory #1 contenders on a consistant basis. You say having alot title defences means nothing. I think that is ridiculous.
      In your opinion, whose the much greater fighter between Sam Langford and Samson Dutch Boy Gym?

      One of them never made a single title defense in his whole boxing career. And the other one made close to 40 defenses of a "meaningless" super flyweight title.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Yogi
        In your opinion, whose the much greater fighter between Sam Langford and Samson Dutch Boy Gym?

        One of them never made a single title defense in his whole boxing career. And the other one made close to 40 defenses of a "meaningless" super flyweight title.
        If you have a belt you are forced to fight quality oppositon, you are forced to take on the #1 mandatories. If you are making title defences you are by default fighting the highest quality opposition available.

        Even though the ranking systems do get wierd at times, you are at the very least fighting guys in the range of top contenders.

        Comment


        • id put bob foster over sam langford, id put more but sam had a long career and ive never seen him fight, if he wasnt any good id put gene tunny and conn over him as well

          Comment


          • Originally posted by McKay
            If you have a belt you are forced to fight quality oppositon, you are forced to take on the #1 mandatories. If you are making title defences you are by default fighting the highest quality opposition available.
            Answer my question, please, and I ask again...Whose the much greater fighter between Sam Langford and Samson Dutch Boy Gym?

            Comment


            • I answered your question quite concisely, look above.

              I am not going to critque the guys you mentioned above if your interested on them why dont you write an expose.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by McKay
                Michael Moore who had 9 defences of the WBO belt against much weaker opposition and not against any other title holders.
                michael moore is one of the greatest lt heavyweight of all time because Emanuel Steward said so and he was, he ko everyone he face on lt heavyweight.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kapersky
                  michael moore is one of the greatest lt heavyweight of all time because Emanuel Steward said so and he was, he ko everyone he face on lt heavyweight.
                  and that is a fact

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by McKay
                    Its not about win loss percentages. Its about title defences. If you make title defences your facing quality opposition. In that the very least your facing the mandatory #1 contenders on a consistant basis. You say having alot title defences means nothing. I think that is ridiculous.
                    In this day in age, title defenses are almost meaningless, since there are about a million belts going around. You think Bernard Hopkins fighting the #1 ranked IBF challenger, Sam Soliman, is more significant or impressive than fighting Felix Sturm or Winky Wright?

                    Comment


                    • so who do you guys think was the better 175er?

                      DM or Qawi?

                      by the way the useful answers would come from ppl who saw both of them fighing
                      Last edited by wmute; 05-20-2005, 01:25 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP