Anybody Rank Artur Grigorian Top Ten All Time At Lightweight?

mcvey · Oct 16, 2017

Mendoza said: ↑

He's not close to the top ten at lightweight, hence the title of the thread is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Its now gone 5 pages,if you think it's a waste of time why are you posting on it?

THE BLADE 2 · Oct 17, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

So simple minded Trumps (=McDonkeys) might this true!
Click to expand...

His record has no substance. What is his best win again?

mcvey · Oct 17, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

I don't have to ask it myself, because I know it:
Because these rankings are biased, as only made by US-Americans made made them, therefore are mostly these listed and them are crazy/ appear like your personal rankings. There isn't even Narzarov in it and Armstrong is too low as well in my opinion.

Because you are liying and you have no clue about boxing perhaps?!

Zegan was almost everywhere shortly after the Grigorian fight high listed. Janukowsky fought WBC champion Miguel Angel Gonzalez and Julio Cesar Chavez shortly before Grigorian and these were the only one which defeated him previous.

Marco Rudolph might have looked like Sven Ottke, but boxed more offensive (attractive), this fight was also just few years before, maybe in 2000.

Zoff was till around 2001 WBA champion and I think he rather fought Grigorian in 2002.

Ruelas lost right after the de la Hoya bout against a journeyman, when Grigorian just became (in his 19. professional fight) world champion. Why was he supposed to have fought him after that (when he was in no top 10 but rather a faded trailhorse)?
Click to expand...

More nonsense.

mcvey · Oct 17, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Either Michael Clark, Stefano Zoff or Marco Rudolph likely; you can choose one (how often shall I repeat it?). It has more substance than of Paul Spadafora and Oscar de la Hoya.
Click to expand...

Neither Clark or Rudolph were ever ranked by the Ring. Zoff was no ten for about 3 months but not within 2 years of fighting Grigorian who was a protected alphabet champ that avoided the real contenders.

THE BLADE 2 · Oct 17, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Either Michael Clark, Stefano Zoff or Marco Rudolph likely; you can choose one (how often shall I repeat it?). It has more substance than of Paul Spadafora and Oscar de la Hoya.
Click to expand...

They are nobodies. You want to argue ATG career with such names? Nobody would take you serious.

Delahoya and Spadafora are not ATG lightweights either.

mcvey · Oct 18, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Others here argued de la Hoya is it and that Spadafora was avoided...

Grigorian has also a more impressive achievement than Crawfish at Lightweight.

Two of these opponents (Zoff, Balbi) were WBA world champions, Rios was also challenger of Johnston (which was his only previous defeat, by decision), Janukowsky fought twice against Chavez and challenged long time WBC champion Gonzalez before (which were his only defeats previous), Rudolph was top 5 in the WBC and WBO; he had defeated de la Hoya, was amateur world champion and won the Olympic silver medal 1992 in Barcelona; while he was tested to go 12 round at least four times, for the WBC international title (he was knocked out in round 6 here). Him, Clark (who held the IBC tite when) and Zegan were undefeated as professionals, while it took at least some years till they lost again.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem taking in that Balbi and Zoff though fleetingly ranked were not ranked within 2 years of fighting Grigorian.Rudolph,Janukowsky, and Clark were never ranked, it's that simple .You are talking about alphabet soup organizations that had a vested interest in keeping their paper champions away from real champions and contenders. Perkins was ranked number 8 in 1960 and number 4 in 61 both years saw a stacked top ten with
Brown Champ,Charnley ,Ortiz,Mathews,Elorde,Lane
Hernandez, as ranked contenders.

mcvey · Oct 18, 2017

mcvey said: ↑

You seem to have a problem taking in that Balbi and Zoff though fleetingly ranked were not ranked within 2 years of fighting Grigorian.Rudolph,Janukowsky, and Clark were never ranked, it's that simple .You are talking about alphabet soup organizations that had a vested interest in keeping their paper champions away from real champions and contenders. Perkins was ranked number 8 in 1960 and number 4 in 61 both years saw a stacked top ten with
Brown Champ,Charnley ,Ortiz,Mathews,Elorde,Lane
Hernandez, as ranked contenders.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is I made this thread to show you are totally wrong on your assessment of Grigorian.he was never a ATG and no one thinks he was .Does it never strike you that nobody ever agrees with your off the wall selections and picks?

THE BLADE 2 · Oct 18, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Others here argued de la Hoya is it and that Spadafora was avoided...

Grigorian has also a more impressive achievement than Crawfish at Lightweight.

Two of these opponents (Zoff, Balbi) were WBA world champions, Rios was also challenger of Johnston (which was his only previous defeat, by decision), Janukowsky fought twice against Chavez and challenged long time WBC champion Gonzalez before (which were his only defeats previous), Rudolph was top 5 in the WBC and WBO; he had defeated de la Hoya, was amateur world champion and won the Olympic silver medal 1992 in Barcelona; while he was tested to go 12 round at least four times, for the WBC international title (he was knocked out in round 6 here). Him, Clark (who held the IBC tite when) and Zegan were undefeated as professionals, while it took at least some years till they lost again.
Click to expand...

Ibc title and going back to amateurs?desperate arguments to say the least.

Beating two paper champs does not make you an ATG.

mcvey · Oct 19, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

You have a problem throwing boxers from 1 - 2 divisons up and below into the Lightweight mix.
Zoff and Balbi were world champions, one before the other afterwards: So the Italian was an ex-champ, two time and reigning European champion at that time. Both were higher ranked than anything de la Hoya boxed apart of Ruelas at Lightweight. Clark and Rudolph were it too, as both were top 15, just as Rios was (Michael Clark is even top 30 of the decade in Lightweight).

How can you pretend that Stevie Johnston and Miguel Angel Gonzalez shall have been greater than Artur Grigorian, then they fought the same opponents as him (Rios, Janukowsky among others), just as Holiday did (vs. Martinez)?

Grigorian has a similar record as Calzaghe and Wonjongkam.
Autliff did only 3 title-defences in 6 years (Grigorian on the other hand 17 successful title-defences)...

You make a mistake assuming that me or someone takes some magazine or newspaper as important as you do, while actual the official boxing bodies are more meaningful: Grigorian was in the independant computer world ranking (and likely Fightnews as well) ranked at place 2 several years, Zoff was there in the top ten, Clark at least top 15, just as was Rios (for him I can very clear remember when I've seen him placed there and he was it for Fightnews as well) and so was possible Rudolph too. Even Boxing Monthly is more unbiased and competent than The Ring Magazine, then it goes to the rankings (as even some Brits recognize this).

Hernandez was be the way also a career light-welterweight (never competed for a main title at Lightweight).
Ambers is also a lot too low ranked in your lists.
Click to expand...

Wrong once again!

Hernandez challenged Oscar De La Hoya for the WBO Lightweight title in 1995.
Read the posts:

NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU,YOU ARE JUST MUGGING YOURSELF!!!

THE BLADE 2 · Oct 19, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Well when you mean that Hernandez, then it was a super-featherweight, past his best who never fought again or before higher than the limit of this weight class. There would it have more meaningful, if de la Hoya had fought him at whos own division (Mayweather at the least dominated him at his natural weight).

By the way get Froch still credit for his win over Pasqual, although who was barely top 20 in Super-Middleweight (didn't achieve anything in it), Calzaghe for the win over Bika, who only became paper champion more than 5 years later (while this was his second fight in the divison) and Lomaschenko get it even for the fight against Russel now (who had nobody fought at the time of their bout, just a padded record). Therefore I assume could get it Grigorian too for fighting Zoff and Balbi, even if they were not at exact that time WBA champion (while Clark was also just few years later WBC top challenger and and general high rated).

It doesn't matter if anyone here agrees with me, as I know most of these which have written here are biased and didn't even know him. As Jean-Marcel Nartz said in the video which you have published here: Grigorian was very skillful, he was able to do every boxing-technique proper and had a lot of know how. Even when he was a year out of the ring and at the bottom end of his career, he was still competitive with one of the raising super-stars in Freitas (who was arguable pound for pound top 5 around that time).
Click to expand...

You are the one who is biased.He only held the lightly regarded WBO title and only defended it in his hometurf.His record is weak.He lost to the only meaningful name in Freitas who himself is not even a HOF.Those are the facts.

lufcrazy · Oct 19, 2017

No one really ranks him there. Some might pretend they do but no one really does.

THE BLADE 2 · Oct 19, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

That is the same as Calzaghe did and Michalczewski (besides these were shortly world title-holder of other organisations, which they right afterwards vacated) and even Hamed was it mainly by the WBO.

Freitas is most likely top pound for pound puncher of all time (he won his first 29 bouts all by knockout) and was as unified long time Super-Featherweight champion all time top ten of the divison too.

Grigorian fought the same opposition as Johnston, Holiday and Gonzalez; his was even slightly better (as the others didn't face former or future champions as he did with Balbi and Zoff, or a raising contender/ amateur-star in Rudolph). There should be also taken into account the numbers of title-defendings and the longitude. Also was the Lightweight the strongest division, besides Welterweight, of the last decade (when the stars from Super-Feathweight moved up); if you regard all this, then he's certainly the most underrated lightweight ever, which just proves this thread and is the (only) right to exist of it.

If Calzaghe would be for instance Moldavian and had only boxed at the European mainland, then you have him likely not in the top 10 of Super-Middleweight. As the bias of of people is rather nationalism (if not racism).
Click to expand...

They do have better records and as you mentioned, they did capture other titles.

mcvey · Oct 20, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Well when you mean that Hernandez, then it was a super-featherweight, past his best who never fought again or before higher than the limit of this weight class. There would it have more meaningful, if de la Hoya had fought him at whos own division (Mayweather at the least dominated him at his natural weight).

By the way get Froch still credit for his win over Pasqual, although who was barely top 20 in Super-Middleweight (didn't achieve anything in it), Calzaghe for the win over Bika, who only became paper champion more than 5 years later (while this was his second fight in the divison) and Lomaschenko get it even for the fight against Russel now (who had nobody fought at the time of their bout, just a padded record). Therefore I assume could get it Grigorian too for fighting Zoff and Balbi, even if they were not at exact that time WBA champion (while Clark was also just few years later WBC top challenger and and general high rated).

It doesn't matter if anyone here agrees with me, as I know most of these which have written here are biased and didn't even know him. As Jean-Marcel Nartz said in the video which you have published here: Grigorian was very skillful, he was able to do every boxing-technique proper and had a lot of know how. Even when he was a year out of the ring and at the bottom end of his career, he was still competitive with one of the raising super-stars in Freitas (who was arguable pound for pound top 5 around that time).
Click to expand...

This is all total nonsense Hernandez was 29 years old,the reigning Super Featherweight Champion when he challenged De La Hoya for his light weight title,aftr losing he defended his title successfully 3 times once against Azumah Nelson,,before finally losing it to Mayweather3 years after challenging De La Hoya! Pascal was barely top 20and didn't achieve anything at Super Middle? Pascal was number 10 in the Ring and the reigning WBA,NABA,NABF,&NABF Champion!He was also 41-0-0 when he fought Froch for the vacant WBC title!
Now, do you want any more humiliation ,because I can do this all day!

You did get one thing right!
Nobody agrees with you!

mcvey · Oct 21, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

You are again wrong/ lying (bringing up fairy-tales), he wasn't reigning champion and didn't defend (against Nelson, but won it from him), as he was before facing de la Hoya WBA title-holder (like Zoff and Balbi, but a division below), which he vacated for this fight and won afterwards the WBC title there. While this was his only fight above Super-Feathweight; he never fought before or afterwards in Lightweight where he wasn't ranked. Mayweather on the other hand fought him at his natural weight-class and for whos title, which he won from him (he didn't bring anything to de la Hoya, apart of his name, for a good reason, as they didn't make the Super-Featherweight limit), so de la Hoya vs. Hernandez was almost as meaningful as Ward vs. Dawson or Donaire vs. Navarez.

Who had Pasqual fought before Froch at Super-Middleweight? His best win was against blown-up middleweight Ikeke (a left-over of Abraham), who was past his best. Are you such stupid that you really expect that anyone would believe this nonsense-lies? Pasqual had not even 30 professional bouts when he fought Diaconu, Branco and Dawson, some years later; he had about 20 when he fought Froch, as he has now only 31 wins (not even 41 fights yet, but just 37 all together)! Pasqual was never WBA champion in any division (otherwise it would have been unlikely to fight for the vacant WBC title). While Kessler, Inkin, Bute, Taylor, Tsypko, Häußler, Mundine, Andrade and even Dirrell had a clear more impressive record (accomplished more) than both Froch and Pasqual. It is acutal questionable if Pasqual had to be inside the top 20, while I had Froch at place 16 at that time (he reject a offer to fight Beyer for the WBC title in january 2006).

Yes you can make a fool of/ humilating yourself all day, as you don't even notice when you have failed with your fake-facts! You are just exposing yourself, that I don't have to effort anything (as you are intellectual some levels below me).

Russel had also nobody fought, before he met Lomaschenko.
While Perkins, Ross and Hernandez among others didn't achieve anything as much at Lightweight as Grigorian did (not even pound for pound in my view). Anyone who is honest and have some sense can't deny this! Othwise it is measuring with different cups of tea (hypocrite).
Click to expand...

Hernandez won the vacant Super feather WBA title against Daniel Londas on22nd Nov 1991 defended it succesfully8 times ,challenged De la Hoya for the WBO title and was beaten he fought Nelson after whilst still WBA Champ.

Pascal was the reigning WBO and WBC Super Middleweight Champion with an undefeated record of 21-0-0!
This is irrefutable and undeniable!
Get this into your stupid skull .

NOBODY HERE GIVES YOU ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER,NO ONE AGREES WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS COMMENTS , OR TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, YOU ARE THE FORUM'S EQUIVALENT OF THE VILLAGE IDIOT
A TOTAL LAUGHING STOCK, AN OFF THE WALL, HEAD- BANGING IMBECILE!!!!

THE BLADE 2 · Oct 21, 2017

Ra's Al-Ghul said: ↑

Your colleague had before several time critisized the "alphabet belts"; also did they held it held it just for few months (never defended these, apart of Hamed the IBF one).
While you point about the inferior of WBO title was the main reason for Ottke to didn't fight Calzaghe, because who held just a minority (WBO) title.

While Grigorian has actual the better opposition than his stablemate "The Tiger", besides of Hill and also than the "Italian Dragon", who improved very late his competition (but acutal was just Kessler world class, while he would her called "Euro-Bum", if he had boxed in Germany and didn't face him).
Click to expand...

No, Tiger has a better record.Hill, Griffin, Rochigiani come to my mind.Tiger is still probably no ATG light heavyweight, that is because the division is historically so strong.

Grigorian has no significant record, in terms of ATG status

Log in or Sign up

Anybody Rank Artur Grigorian Top Ten All Time At Lightweight?

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Anybody Rank Artur Grigorian Top Ten All Time At Lightweight?

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member