Show me one post where I said Spinks didn't win... you can't because I never said it. What I did say was that he looked unimpressive in winning. You seem incapable of acknowledging that you can look crappy and win a fight. To give an example, I didn't think Jermain Taylor was impressive against Hopkins in the first fight but I still thought he won more rounds hence he won the fight.
You and numb nuts keep inferring it's less of a win because he faded late.
that's not the case, he still won the fight, and did so by the same scoring margin Baldy beat Zab.
You and numb nuts keep inferring it's less of a win because he faded late.
that's not the case, he still won the fight, and did so by the same scoring margin Baldy beat Zab.
This couldn't be anymore simple.
So all fights that are scored the same are equally as close... I don't think so. You are right that both of the fights ended with similar scores but Baldomir LOOKED more impressive in winning. Clearly they both won the fight hence the W on their record. I was impressed the way Baldomir handled a superior boxer, I was not impressed that Cory Spinks ran out of energy and held on for dear life.
I agree the possibility is far from likely, but who is MORE likely to land an accumulation of punches. The guy that walks forward and tries to punch or the guy that runs around the ring economically counter-punching.
That's completely beside the point, because as I said, both are likely to lose.
Only Spinks has more chance winning a few rounds, thus creating more of a problem, than a litmited swarmer with very little power.
So all fights that are scored the same are equally as close... I don't think so. You are right that both of the fights ended with similar scores but Baldomir LOOKED more impressive in winning. Clearly they both won the fight hence the W on their record. I was impressed the way Baldomir handled a superior boxer, I was not impressed that Cory Spinks ran out of energy and held on for dear life.
Missing the point again. You and numbnuts were trying to act like Baldy's win over Judah was so much more impressive than Spinks' win over Karmazin. It wasn't.
And then somewhere along the way you both went off topic trying to take away from Spinks' win by dwelling on the fact he faded late. He faded late, because he was on early winning more rounds and had been out of the ring a year prior to the fight.
I'm glad he's fighting Baldomir over Spinks... not because it's a tougher fight, because I don't think it is, but more to the fact that he can be Welterweight champion with a win rather than have to listen to all of the naysayers ***** about him not doing anything at Welterweight.
Baldomir is not in the class of Cotto or Margarito? First of all, I would favor Baldomir over Cotto on the grounds of superior chin alone, as well as the fact that Cotto's chin scares me a little. It would be a very competitive match, but Baldomir, who proved himself to be superior to Zab Judah, is definitely on Cotto's level.
Margarito I'm not so sure of, since he's a harder puncher than Cotto and really has a chin of his own. I think he would wear Baldomir down and stop him in the mid rounds after landing huge punch after huge punch. Baldomir would be game until the end though.
Baldomir is the champion at welterweight, and is competitive with anyone listed on this thread. He proved that against Judah, who I think would lose again in a rematch.
I think picking him to beat Cotto is a big stretch, and with Judah's loss to Spinks, I think it's clear that a win over him isn't a lot to write home about.
I'm glad he's fighting Baldomir over Spinks... not because it's a tougher fight, because I don't think it is, but more to the fact that he can be Welterweight champion with a win rather than have to listen to all of the naysayers ***** about him not doing anything at Welterweight.
Missing the point again. You and numbnuts were trying to act like Baldy's win over Judah was so much more impressive than Spinks' win over Karmazin. It wasn't.
And then somewhere along the way you both went off topic trying to take away from Spinks' win by dwelling on the fact he faded late. He faded late, because he was on early winning more rounds and had been out of the ring a year prior to the fight.
Really seems to me that it is right on topic proving WHY we think it was a less impressive win. And cleraly it is YOUR OPINION that Spinks' win was equally or more impressive. I can respect your opinion as long as you admit that it is just that... an opinion
Really seems to me that it is right on topic proving WHY we think it was a less impressive win. And cleraly it is YOUR OPINION that Spinks' win was equally or more impressive. I can respect your opinion as long as you admit that it is just that... an opinion
We've beat this to death, and you're not grasping that winning enough rounds early is just as good as winning the late rounds, or trading rounds back and forth.
In a fight that's won by one round, it makes little difference.
I agree the possibility is far from likely, but who is MORE likely to land an accumulation of punches. The guy that walks forward and tries to punch or the guy that runs around the ring economically counter-punching.
This is the bottom line of the entire argument..
it's basically opinions really,
Bozo.. you feel Spink's cause you think his "boxing" will be more difficult for Mayweather, whereas i think myself and amagnin, at least, feel like Baldomir's the better challenge due to the fact that Carlos is the bigger puncher of the two and the bigger volume puncher as well.. i think i'm somewhat seeing it..
thinking it over, both opinions seem, for the most part, acceptable. i still think after seeing one Spink's fight in the last year and a half, and not exactly an "awe-inspiring" one, you're giving Spinks way too much credit.
Last edited by restless_438; 08-11-2006, 06:38 PM.
Comment