Originally posted by LacedUp
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
boxers win championships in the ring not based off speculation and popularity
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by therealpugilist View PostTry telling LACEDUP that
If some casual fans want to live in a bubble where they can twist the principles of boxing steeped in all of its history, then allow them their time in their bubble. In the meantime, everyone who counts (boxing insiders, experts, writers, the Ring etc) rightfully acknowledge Cotto as the champ, and they tell the stories. Not some poster on NSB.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LacedUp View PostAs I've said in the thread you are obviously relating to, this is not even remotely similar to Matthysse/Garcia.
It reminds me more of when Khan was a belt holder and Bradley was at 140 - Bradley didn't want to fight Khan, who instead unified vs Judah. After that, Khan was recognized as the champ.
Once again, in most cases, the man who beats the man is the champ - but it's not strictly like that in 100% of the cases. Even though you were trying to argue Shannon Briggs was the true heavyweight champ in 97, I doubt many on here would agree with you.
It's just the way it is.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BattlingNelson View PostWell, I'm a firm believer in lineage. It doesn't mean you are the best though.
Not many. I think maybe Briggs himself, but other than that I'm not sure how much that lineage meant since it was based on beating the likes of Lou Savarese and who else. Similarly, an inactive champion who also happens to fight below par opposition - his reign as "the true champ" should be considered. I.e. George Foreman - Shannon Briggs lineage.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Masters01 View PostLaceUp is an idiot. Discard his opinion and put it down to wishful thinking. They're trying to challenge principles in boxing that have held true for decades on decades - if you beat the man, you are the man. Cotto beat the man, and he is the man. There are no exceptions in this, never has been.
If some casual fans want to live in a bubble where they can twist the principles of boxing steeped in all of its history, then allow them their time in their bubble. In the meantime, everyone who counts (boxing insiders, experts, writers, the Ring etc) rightfully acknowledge Cotto as the champ, and they tell the stories. Not some poster on NSB.
There has been plenty of exceptions, but you do not have the wisdom to challenge me on this subject, hence you resort to name-calling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LacedUp View PostWould you agree or disagree Bat, that lineage doesn't always = true champ?
Yes or no?
You probably will struggle to accept this, but your opinion will really make no impact whatsoever on Cotto's status as the lineal middleweight champ lol.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bojangles1987 View PostEvery hyped puncher ever from now on is Matthysse, and every boxer they are expected to beat is Garcia.
The man was saying Shannon Briggs was the real champ in '97, I mean, that's just ridiculous.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Masters01 View PostLineage is always how its worked since forever. No exceptions. You are just some guy on some internet forum trying to challenge long-held traditions in boxing.
You probably will struggle to accept this, but your opinion will really make no impact whatsoever on Cotto's status as the lineal middleweight champ lol.
And I am not just "some poster", just because you are. In fact, historically, which you, as I pointed out before, don't have the wisdom to challenge me on, lineage has been disputed and critiqued excessively. You would know that if you knew anything about boxing history,
which you don't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LacedUp View PostAre you trying to challenge my credibility? You are funny.
There has been plenty of exceptions, but you do not have the wisdom to challenge me on this subject, hence you resort to name-calling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LacedUp View PostBeing the best is debatable until proven. I agree, as I said to him in the other thread, but there are exceptions i.e. who considered Shannon Briggs the 'real champ' in '97 when he met Lewis for instance?
Not many. I think maybe Briggs himself, but other than that I'm not sure how much that lineage meant since it was based on beating the likes of Lou Savarese and who else. Similarly, an inactive champion who also happens to fight below par opposition - his reign as "the true champ" should be considered. I.e. George Foreman - Shannon Briggs lineage.
Comment
Comment