Name the best inside fighters in boxing history?

Sweet Pea :deal

 

:yep

 

He was in his late 20's and early 30's when he lost those fights, smack dab in the middle of his prime. Re Griffith, many people had Castillo winning the first Mayweather fight as well.

I'm sure Bert Sugar thinks Tiger is miles better than Castillo. He also thinks John L. Sullivan would slaughter Mike Tyson. Tiger lost early and lost often to middling opposition, lost to most of the great names he faced, lost to smaller guys and there's ALWAYS a raft of excuses for the old timers but if the modern day fighters lose once it's all over for them.

Tiger was a great fighter when he was on his game, no doubt, but he wasn't an elite SRL, Ali, RJJ type great and he could lose on any given night to a good fighter, let alone another great fighter.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz2NLe-naqU[/ame]

Tiger gets all the credit in the world for beating or losing close to smaller guys, but this KO doesn't count at all because he was smaller in this fight right?

 

Sure, if you want to disregard all of my points as to why that wasn't true for him, and put a specific age as to the common prime of any fighter regardless of the trajectory of their career.

Sure. What does that have to do with the point I made?

Bert Sugar's a hack, but I doubt even he believes that, or anyone with a mere moiety of his marbles.

Way to generalise. You've answered none of my specific points, and when I responded to yours you've simply recanted your previous argument. Doesn't even seem like you read my post.

If he lost to most of the great names he faced he also beat most of those same fighters, and held his own with all of them (Foster aside, but then I don't suspect Castillo would've done too well against someone like Hearns, either).

Again, which smaller guys did he lose to? He and Archer were both bonafide Middleweights. Tiger wasn't even a big Middleweight, he was just a tank of a man as far as strength goes.

I wouldn't put him on a level with any of those guys, either, but I'd still put him well above the likes of Castillo.

Give me examples that don't contradict the previous points made of him losing to any plain ol' good fighter in his prime. You seem to think this sort of thing happened a lot.

 

Again, which smaller guys did he lose to? You keep saying this while providing no examples.

I never said it didn't count, it's much more of a testament to how much of a monster Foster was at the weight than any slate on Tiger. Doesn't really have any bearing when being compared to Castillo, though, now does it? As I said earlier, if your contention was that both fighters are of a similar level, then that would be the equivalent of Castillo moving up to Welter to face Hearns. How do you see that one working out for him?

Actually, come to think of it, you keep on bringing up imaginary size advantages Tiger held in his fights, so what about Castillo and the fact that he regularly drained like a faucet and re-hydrated 20 or so pounds by fight night? He held a size advantage over almost everyone he faced.

 

Anyways, I'm off to the bar. We'll continue this later, Bernie.

 

Marquez...

Watch the Katsidis fight.

 

You know the smaller fighters he faced and if you don't just toddle on over to boxrec and look it up, I can't be bothered. This isn't an argument I feel that passionately about anyway, I'm tempted to give you the W just for using the word 'moiety' in the correct context :thumbsup

 

James Toney. Bernard Hopkins. Evander Holyfield. Marvin Haglar. Ricky Hatton.

 

Chavez
Duran
Fraizer

:good

 

atsch It's threads like this that make me want to take a flame thrower to the entire General forum.

 

That would take a while and would be ineffecient anyway. An age requirement would be far more practical. Or maybe an aptitude test:think

 

:yep:thumbsup

 

Curious to see your choices here.