Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Ray Robinson

Again, 108 rofl at the whole 105 division even needing to exist) to 122 was far superior in the 80s.

Le me guess, Mark Johnson was the best? atsch

 

Ok there buddy, the 105-122 division had excellent fighters in the 90's. It is so sad how glorified the 80s really are. Let me guess you think the 160/168 in the 80s was better too right?

In the 1990s, you had 3 excellent super bantamweights. Barerra, Morales and Wilfredo Vazquez. Wilfredo Gomez was a big fish in a small pond. Yeah I would say Orlando Canizales is better than Jeff Chandler or Sot Chitalada. Yeah and for 105-108, lopez-carbajal-gonzalez. Your telling me the 1980's had better fighters in those weight classes? I forgot this is esb, where 1980's=heaven.

The 115lbs division was excellent too. Sung Kil Moon, Mark Johnson, Johnny Tapia. Like seriously its one thing to disagree, but to suggest someone is clueless because they think the 1990s produced a better crop of fighters from 105-122 is pure ignorance.

 

Wilfredo Vasquez?! Are you shittin' me!?! :rofl Got his **** pushed in multiple times in the 80s.

Jung Koo Chang was better than all the guys you've mentioned.

Bazooka was hardly a big fish in a small pond. 122 saw Lupe Pintor, Alberto Davila, and latterly Jeff Fenech and Samart Payakaroon. Fly and super fly had Laciar and Roman!!!

Bantam had Lora, Khaokor, Chandler. Remind me, who were Orlando Canizales' best wins in his poor title run?

 

Its your opinion that hes better than all of those guys, theres nothing conclusive that suggests he is a better fighter than finito, or mark johnson. Galaxy has a padded resume too. This is just another scenario where fighters from the 90's will have all of thier accomplishments diminished, and the fighters from the 80s will be overglorified because they fought in the fab4 era. Yes we know, everything was better in the 80's. Lupe Pintor and Davila were bantmanweights, so his best comp were guys moving up in wieght to fight him. Regardless, the 90's had the better fighters overall in the lower weight classes and i really dont care if you think different, your bias is very clear. Chang lost decisvely to gonzalez, let me guess he was shot by age 26. Most of wilfredo gomze's accomplishments were in the 1970's, so the fact that hes being mentioned as a 1980's fighter is kind of laughable. Chandler has a very padded record, if he fought recently, he would be dismissed as a b level fighter. How many ranked fighters has chandler even beat, like 5?

 

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 analysis) 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.

 

So if Vazquez was brilliant... And Contreras wasted him in a round... And galaxy left Contreras as a smoothie, does that make Galaxy a genius?

 

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 crap 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.

 

Yeah because vasquez is the only fighter with losses right. I mean lupe pintor never lost to tomato cans right?

 

No worries, keep soldiering on as a spasticated **** thought of as such.

I was actuality asking how much you'd seen of the 80s little guys? Because clearly you have no point of reference other than boxrec.

 

Difference being no one brought him up first. You did for Vasquez.

It's not about 'having losses' it's about being proven a few times as having a dreadful chin and being as straight up and stiff as an ironing board.

But of course seeing he won multiple titles in multiple divisions on boxrec wouldn't have told you that would it?

Not like flyweight Avelar knocked him out was it? You think Avelar would've dealt with Lora at bantamweight pretty easily.

 

I brought up vasquez as one of the fighters from 122, i never said he was the premier guy in the weight division. So you can cherry pick him as much as you want. Why would i care if you keep mentioning boxrec, i watch fights all the time. I dont need to treat you like an authority, lol who are you?

By the way, comparing resumes among lower weight fighters is completely subjective. I base my opinions of finito, orlando and mark based on film, if you think fighters from the past are better, well guess what, i dont give a ****. I dont go around thinking im some boxing bible, the only tool is you.

 

I have seen fights of jeff fenech, a few khosai galaxy fights and I have seen a few fights from wilfredo gomez. No i dont consider myself as some expert on jung coo chang and dont plan to watch his fights anyways. Orlando and finito were regularly top 5 p4p, jung wouldnt have been regarded any higher.

 

Yes he was regarded that high. And if you judge on film only, great, so do I, and Chang is clearly one of the most naturally talented fighters of all time. The fact you 'don't plan to watch' any of his fights shows you up. You're unwilling to look at the big picture, hence why your views are expressed with all the panache of a one legged cheetah.

I would suggest you do what I do: keep your mouth shut jnless you have a ****ing clue, which in this case, you don't.

 

It's amazing how some people dig their heels in to defend a position on a topic they are only semi-familiar with.

 

Agreed. Essentially saying 'the 90s had better lower weight fighters. I base this on footage but haven't seen the best little guys of the 80s but I'll defend my position anyway and call everyone else bias, that'll work'