Rigondeaux vs Lomachenko

If you by "no mas" mean fights, that are listed as RTD wins - then there must be hundreds and hundreds of boxers with more than 4 of those on their records.

Though 4 in just 11 fights must be a bit out of the ordinary!

 

I blew a call between two very good fighters. I am sure you have also-picking fights today or anytime is not something everyone can do. Sometimes you can be right sometimes not. And there is no way to know how a great fight will go for sure if you have two great fighters. After a big fight it is always anticlimactic. I picked fights much better when I was younger than now. For example, I knew Curry would lose to McCallum just on Mike's natural weight. And I thought Bramble had no chance to beat Rosario because of Rosario's power and the fact Bramble has no way to defend himself if hurt, yet he was a 4-1 favorite on that night of Sept. 25, 1986. I think that was the night. The night before Curry/Honeyghan. Yet you are telling me why I picked Rigo. No reason just who I thought would win. Experience and the past. I picked Rigo because I thought he was more experienced even though he is 37, I thought and I know he is the best guy Lomo has fought. To Lomo's credit he beat him convincingly. No excuses. I do not pick fighter in regards to Duran. My opinions about Duran are solid and I know he is a bit overrated in regards to foot positioning and fighting the top guys at lightweight, which there were no Thomas Hearns or Benitez or Leonards at that weight. But my picks in present fights have nothing to do with Roberto. In many ways Lomo has a better win than Duran ever did. And back in the 1980s I was young and had a better feeling for the fighters of the time than I do now. and I still have a good grasp now. but not like that time. I knew Barkley would lose to Duran. Regardless of the Hearns fight, what had he done to that point. Regarless of Hearns, what has Barkley done really as far as impressive? Fought some good fights, but Hearns is his claim to fame. I am not convincing anyone what I think about Duran. He is a great fighter, but he lacks the great wins over real greats to be one of the top fighters of all time. He needs more wins over the Hearns or Benitez levels. and Wilfred beat him easily. Hearns beat him easily. Ray beat him easily. Hagler did relatively yet had to come on in a rather boring fight. Yet Duran beat Moore and Barkley, because they were not greats. As for Rigo. I picked him to win. I am sure a lot of people did on here. He is a hall of fame fighter.

 

Rigo claims it happened in the second.

 

1) Vitali was pasting Byrd when he quit. He was far ahead. Loma was pasting Rigo the entire fight. That little dynamic cannot be ignored.
2) A rotator cuff injury is worse than a bust hand
3) I'm keen to see the xrays of this alleged broken hand
4) If you take an xray of Rigo's heart, it will be full of cracks that spell Vasyl Lomachenko

 

[url]http://www.gifdivision.com/uploads/4/6/0/3/46032175/04_-_ekvdrti.gif[/url]

 

Out of the below please tell me who you would consider "one of the top fighters of all time". Just a yes or no would be plenty and we'll go from there.

Joe Louis
Mike Tyson
Larry Holmes
Pernell Whitaker
Carlos Monzon
Rocky Marciano
Ezzard Charles
Julio Cesar Chavez
Roy Jones Jr
Wilfredo Gomez
Wilfred Benitez
Mike McCallum

 

So Duran isn't a top fighter now?

I am in Classic, right? I didn't take a left turn to the Lounge, did I?

 

It's finally clicked. Mendoza is a troll for real

 

Bump.

 

Dude is a nut, he links everything to Duran bashing, he was going on about Duran in Loma vs Rigo threads in the Lobby before the fight he even started.

He claims he is smarter than everyone because he predicted Duran would upset Barkley....yeah...sure he did.

 

You wasting your time, I tried to reason with him before.

 

Charles is a consensus top 10 ATG, Jesus H.

 

I really cannot wait to see his selections.

 

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/ulf4cv6nbJL3y/giphy.gif[/url]