Is Buncey spouting a load of bulls**t?

Barry was a very good fighter. He came back from alot of set backs in and out of the ring. He doesn't have that many names on the record but the ones he does have were very good fighters.

I am being fairly biased i would say and would rate Barry about 10-15 best in recent times. The manner in which he beat Pedroza puts him way up there for me even with his lack of quality fights.

 

**** me is Bunce for real. Calzaghe's not even the best Welsh fighter let alone British. Freddie Welsh and Jimmy Wilde were far better. This takes the **** out of this sport and the generations before who would fight anyone and everyone whenever they could. Not 20 defenses of a shitty title all in your backyard against dross oponents. And what the **** did Hamed do to merit a top2 place. ****ing gimp is Bunce

 

Sorry, should have been clearer - and I should have said 'beat more Ring rated opponents' - and I'm talking about at the time he fought them, otherwise I see little relevance. Many you list that he beat weren't rated.

GazOC. Though I'm not saying ratings of trade paper/independent rankings are faultless I do think they are the best way to judge a titlist's quality of opposition and whether he did a satisfactory job of facing those regarded as his main rivals - whether it's his fault or not.
The alternative seems to be to credit them for beating opponents on the grounds that they were worthy because they were ex-world champions, undefeated, or the European champ. Looks good on paper and even better over the passing of time, but as an example a current lightweight champ could do that by beating Jose Alfaro, Brandon Rios (19-0-1) and Anthony Mezaache and I'll bet not one is rated by either The Ring, Fightnews.com, Boxing News, Boxing Monthly or ESPN.com amongst others. The IBO have them at #28, #30, and #46 respectively.

 

fleaman we better write this in the calendar we diagree

calzaghe aint top 3

Wilde
ted kid lewis
Buchanan
Lynch
lennox lewis
Calzaghe

as for Buncey he admits he hasnt watched any boxing befre his time so as a boxing historian i feel i know more than him but the current scene his knowledge is brillaint

 

Aren't you like 16?

 

come on 15 mate

but Bince admits himself hes not a historian, just because im 15 dosent mean i cant know alot mate:good

 

I know I'm just joking :good

Although Bunce knows more about his history than you are making out, with him mentioning Marvin Hart (I think thats who he was talking about) as one of the worst world champions ever, alongside many other fighters in that era on today's show.

 

oh so hes not as bad as i make out but hes not that big on history but second to none on the current scene

 

IMHO theres knowing a lot of boxing history and theres considering yourself a boxing historian. I fall into the first group, maybe Bunce is just saying the same sort of thing?

 

well hes a boxing expert so interperret as you will, i would like to hear binceys view here

Gaz im the first group aswell (i think)

 

I agree buncey seems to stick to modern times.

I find it hard to watch fights in black and white but i try.

If I'm into an old time boxer i would buy a book on them. The last one i read about was Stanley Ketchel.

I would be in the 1st group as well but i just about scrape it.

 

black and whites difficult to watch but worth the effort mate

 

There are people who devote lot of time/ research into being true boxing historians, finding old fight reports and excerpts from discontinued books, crosschecking facts and figures etc. To me, they are on one level and then theres people who love boxing and really enjoy delving in the history side of the sport "for fun" who are on another level.

 

:good They usually are but i can be easily distracted. If its on ESPN classics or something i would watch it all day but on the computer im very easily distracted.

 

just put in the effort