I'm not saying he's the worst, but he's definitely in the top 1.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is Charles Martin's Reign the Worst Ever?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Teddy05 View Post**** off. Before the fight everyone was going on about how hes a slick southpaw. Many pros have tabbed him as legit. But because Joshua whooped him hes automatically a bum?
Comment
-
Originally posted by stefl14 View PostThe man and Stiverne shouldn't even be compared. As mediocre as Stiverne was, he and Martin are in different stratospheres.
The other won a paper title in a fluke victory against a top 20 opponent
Ones obviously worse than the other, but i'm not seeing the stratosphere you're speaking of
Comment
-
Originally posted by techliam View PostOne won a paper title in an unwarranted rematch against a guy who barely cracks the top 20
The other won a paper title in a fluke victory against a top 20 opponent
Ones obviously worse than the other, but i'm not seeing the stratosphere you're speaking of
Comment
-
Originally posted by stefl14 View PostIn terms of how they won their titles, both are about as illegitimate as each other. In terms of their respective abilities, however, Stiverne is miles ahead. Given Stiverne's limitations, this really is saying a lot. In any case, we're comparing two mediocre guys so it doesn't really matter, one is just a lot worse than the other in my opinion skills wise.
We've seen almost nothing of Martin, and only the fights against Arreola (who Fred Kassi beat in nearly everyones eyes) for Stiverne.
The fact either of these two held world HW titles is a joke. It's just as much a joke that Wilder and Joshua act as if theyre on the same level as Fury and Wlad for beating Martin and Stiverne. How boxing fans fall for it is way beyond me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by techliam View PostTheres not enough evidence to strongly argue either way
We've seen almost nothing of Martin, and only the fights against Arreola (who Fred Kassi beat in nearly everyones eyes) for Stiverne.
The fact either of these two held world HW titles is a joke. It's just as much a joke that Wilder and Joshua act as if theyre on the same level as Fury and Wlad for beating Martin and Stiverne. How boxing fans fall for it is way beyond me.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by original zero View PostWhy should it have been called a no contest? The rules are very clear about injuries that aren't caused by a foul. There was absolutely no basis for ruling that fight a no contest.
Unbelievable how many posters here know so little about boxing despite spending so much time posting about it . . .
You must have some stake in things to care about such non-issues.
To win a title on an injury is lame and ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed.
I'll never agree with you on this. So whatever the IBF is paying you, you either give me some of that pay and I may do it or else drop this nonsense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MDPopescu View PostI repeatedly said that... It wasn't even unclear... It was a No Contest under all possible rules.
Glazkov quit the fight. His injury was not caused by a foul. That is a TKO under every reputable jurisdiction. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You claim it was a no content "under all possible rules," so PLEASE show us the rules.
I'll wait.
Comment
Comment