Originally Posted by Flea Man
I was talking about Khaokor. You know, the guy that dominated Wilfredo Vasquez, the guy you're claiming is 'brilliant'?
Yes, Chang was shot at 26. That tends to happen when you've recently come out of retirement and have been fighting at the top of your division since the age of 19.
But of course you wouldn't know any of that.
ALSO YOU BROUGHT UP GOMEZ FIRST YOU ****ING IDIOT I was just responding to you saying he was all alone.
You are clearly the most biased poster here. I've given you examples, if you can't accept it (you clearly haven't seen any of these fighters and are just using boxrec for ****ysis) that's no problem.
Who said Pintor and Davila were bantams? They fought at both weights. Funnily enough, Vasquez was more known as a bantam, one of those guys you stupidly picked as one of the 'brilliant' super bantams of the 90s. A guy Contreras wasted inside a round.
I said the 90s in general had better fighters in terms of depth i dont care if your small man syndrome disagrees with that you ****in ****. The 80s is always overrated, isnt this the forum that picks thomas hearns to beat any post 1985- 154/160 fighter? I dont have to prove their is a bias towards the 80s.
I have seen plenty of fights from lopez, carbajal, mark johnson.
If jung coo chang was shot by age 26, that alone is enough to prove he isnt a tier above finito and canizalez, so i dont give a **** about your barking. Canizales and finito were consistenly top 5 p4p throughout thier peaks, none of the midgets from the 1980s would be regarded any higher if they fought in the 1990s. If Gomez fought in the 1990s he would have had his fair share of losses and his aura of invincibility would be gone. I look at reality, many people like you look at fighters from a certain era and completely mythologize them and make them out to be much better than they really were.