Rigondeaux vs Lomachenko

You would think Rasta would be tired of being on the receiving end of such one way traffic.
I don't think it actually sinks in that he is being schooled on every thread he gets involved with.

 

I haven't seen a beating that this since some put a banana in my pants and turned a chimp loose.....I have nothing to add.except lmao

 

So the beating continues...

A fighter's historical merit is evaluated on the basis of the proverbial "big picture," which can render some losses forgivable in the grand scheme.

You yourself practice this given your alternative listing of fighters you deem superior to Charles. So it's not a foreign concept to you, you just chose to only be stricter with Charles.

Burley was rated as a Welter in 1941.

Overlin is highly regarded by historians, his listing does not do the ranking any disservice.

Overlin was a RING rating fixture from 1935-1941. USA entered WW2 in December 1941.

Overlin was never rated during the War years.

This statement suggests Overlin's ceiling was at the fringe-contender level and was he never a "world-beater."

Overlin was a recognized World Champion and an inductee into the International Boxing Hall of Fame. When he defeated Charles he was regarded as a top Middleweight. So no, let us not name him "fringe-contender"

Less divisions, less titles, less title fights.

You will find little difference between Charles and Moore's schedule at the time they met. Moore actually had more time between their third decisive meeting.

Depends on the top 100.

If you use the list on this site put together by the educated fan, he has 7: Moore x3, Louis, Walcottx2, Burleyx2, Bivins x4, Marshall x2, Yarosz,

 

As a huge fan of Duran, this is laughable.

I believe Duran is 5-3 at Light-Middle. He beat Davey but it was clear he could not hang in the division.

Maxim was a highly successful Light Heavyweight.

He has multiple wins on that level.

What I said was "I don't consider 2 fights a series" Especially when Charles fought so many Hall of Famers 3-5 times. This was to counter your claim of him being even with Hall of Famers Bivins and Walcott in long series, which he was not.

Adding 2-0 Burley and 0-2 Marciano would be an even trade off so I don't see the "favour"

Not in the least.

 

You make Batman fans look like absolute imbeciles. You are a disgrace to your name and should be drowned in the Lazarus Pit.

You probably never even read "Son of the Demon" and just saw that stupid movie with Liam Neeson.

Let's play Detective.

No, it wasn't a simple name mix up. Because you went into details specific to Cuevas' career that suggests you looked him up, in this case, looked up the wrong guy.

You never seen Palomino vs Benitz. May I ask why you come to a forum and argue boxing when you don't watch it?

I'll stick with the real boxing writers and publications. You stick to your make believe panel.

You are in contrary of popular opinion, presenting yourself as being an enlightened authority, yet you presented a case built on a random guess..that happened to be wrong.

Charles vs Overlin II was a MD Draw with Charles favored by one judge, the other two had it even. You keep going on about the loss but neglect to mention their rematch where Charles showed improvement.


Let's move on to this stupid argument:

Less titles, less divisions, less opportunity to fight for titles. Everyone knows the Black Murder Row were denied title opportunities for most of the 40s. To hold this against them in contrast to the modern era where titles are so much easier to pick up is nonsense.

 

Your opinion of Charles is a radical outliner so you are doing something different than everyone else, not me.

Nobody cares about your rating, you rated Rocky Graziano as a top Middle a year before he even turned Pro.

Overlin was rated for 6 straight years prior and was only just relieved of his World Title via a controversial decision. Your "fringe contender" argument is wrong under any context.

What European Fighters were removed from the MW ratings that allowed his ascension?

WRONG.

He lost three times to the same man in a two period when they were rated the #1 and #2 men in the division. You are suggesting that from 46-48, Moore just happened to not be prepared for the same man three times while beating everyone else....anything but admit Charles was simply better, right?

Provide an alternative list.

 

I don't even know what the hell you are trying to say here.

He lost to Kaing and outside of Moore left no impression on the division.

And at Middleweight.

He fought 8 of 100 plus fights there and only netted one significant win.


I'll stick with Welter where he at least beat Leonard for his only Lineal title outside of Lightweight and also got the fantastic Palomino win.

Most of his career defeats were at HW.

As a LHW, Maxim captured the lineal title from Freddie Mills and defended the title against Sugar Ray Robinson. He defeated former lineal LHW Champion, Gus Lesnevich. He defeated other LHW contenders: Floyd Patterson, Bob Murphy, Danny Nardico, Curtis Sheppard, Bob Satterfield...etc.

I don't even know what this is referencing.

 

Bottom line is. Wlad's career is defined by a decade long dominating ule of the hw division. Vitali's career is defined by loss against an unmotivated out of shape atg he should have beaten f he would have been what some people think he was.

I work in credit analysis. I know that numbers and statistics never ever tell the full story. Qunatative methods are useful but only have value with a qualitative assessement. That's why computer ratings like boxrec are crap.
Belts mean nothing if there are 4-5 around which are partly controlled by promoters. Beating the general recognize best men, normally represented via the lineal title, does (there are excpetions like GGG-Canelo of course).

Amateur means sh't when ranking professional fighters.
Maske should have at east one more loss one his record (Rocchigiani I), he s not argueably undefeated. Hill beat him clearly. I was there. I'm German. Maske brought me into boxing and at the time he was one of my heroes. He was a good fighter but he was protected and hidden away in Germany. Maske is a footnote in lhw history. A fine contender for a long time who lost when he truly stepped up. Charles one of the maybe even the best lhw there was with a resume that simply dwarfs Maske's. This is not debatable. I'll always have a soft spot for him for introducing me to boxing but gotta be realistic here.

I strongly disagree with this notion. If you look into history people are better of by far in democracies than in any other form of government. From the poor to the rich - of course some are always better of than others. The poor people in the democratic western states are better of than 99% of people who ever lived, better than all rich people pre 19th/20th century. No other form of government made this possible.

 

Say what? No.

 

He was at the end of his career but he was only 30 and still rated #5 at LHW and beating the likes of Marshall. He wasn't exactly washed up but yeah, I guess you could say he's the only one on there not at or near....."peak of their career" Heck of a win for Charles given his experience level.

 

RING, ESPN, Bleacher Report, and Sports Illustrated are the MAINSTREAM.

So your claim doesn't have any ground to stand on.

Because you are biased and hold Charles more accountable for early performances most find forgivable.

Strawman.

As I said from 46-48; Archie Moore suffered only three defeats in that two year span. ALL to Ezzard Charles. You are not surprisingly wrong again.

Well known and So what?

WRONG. Maxim was recognized by the NBA for defeating Gus. The EBU and British Commonwealth than recognized Maxim for defeating Mills, making him the official World recognized Champion by all sanctioning bodies.

 

How often did Vitali fight per year? How often Wlad? You'll gonna see there's no real difference. Just that Wlad stayed at the top for longer and more consistent. In fact, Wlad had more wins than Vitali had fights.

Lol, corrupts ring doctor in LEwis-Vitali now, are you sure you are not Mendoza?
You wrote before that losses shoudl be held against fighters and now you say that Vitali's loss is better than Wlad's wins. Inconsistent much? Btw. you take level of entertainment into account when ranking fighters but rank Maske?

There is no argument in what you wrote just some weird rambling. What's your point? That you choose a ranking like you see fit. That you like the ranking of an organisation that potentially has 3 world champs in a division more than others? There's not much reason here.

Hm, Wlad won Olympic gold. Vitali did not. Inconsistent much?

Sorry but Maske lost. He himself admitted that Hill was the better man that fight. It was a relatively clear decision and not really close. I was rooting for Maske, I was there and the whole crowd knew that Maske lost. It was a bitter-sweet ending to his career. And IMO better for his post-career popularity than if he would have won.

There was no lineal champ at the time. IT could be argued that a lineal title was established when DM beat Hill unifying three of the 4 major belts. But even then Roy Jones was around, so maybe not.

Jeez, dude, how is that benefitting the majority of people. All those regime always turn against their own people in favour of a small "elite". Just open a history book.

Anyway, I laid my points out. You yours. We will not come to an agreement therefore I'm out.

 

My argument: Charles is universally regarded as the LHW GOAT and is usually listed inside the top 30 P4P.
Your argument: Charles is not top 100 P4P or a top 3 LHW, and most other fans see it that way.

My Evidence: Multiple Mainstream Publications and Boxing Fan Forum Listings.
Your Evidence: ????

What you fail to realize is that this site and others like it I listed represent the fan/public opinion.

Which is not only highly flawed but something you fail to do consistently.

As I said from 46-48; Archie Moore suffered only three defeats in that two year span. ALL to Ezzard Charles. You are not surprisingly wrong again.

And need I remind you of your original quote:

"Whatsoever the later one was not world champion at that time and probably hadn't reached his peak, which was from 1948"

*Charles KOed Moore in January of 48.

The Benitez win has more historical significance but as a demonstration of ability as was being argued, I feel Duran turned in the superior performance and that combined with the Leonard win, leads to my conclusion that Duran was superior at Welter than Super Welter where he has no such wins and three poor losses.

WRONG...yet again.

The IBU became the EBU in 1946.

Maxim fought Mills in 1950.

Do you really think you can keep faking facts? So many of your arguments have been rooted in all out factual butchery.

 

Man, missed these gems.

Gus and Tami were the leading LHW contenders in summer of 41.

Charles was an unrated MW with 17 fights under his belt at this time, and you ask that....


No. Gus lost to Mills. Who is very white. Pretty bold of you to deny the existence of Black Murder Row and hold it against these guys. Hell, even Italian fighters like Maxim and LaMotta were froze out.

You intentionally are ignorant.

 

Vitali lost to an old, out of shape, unmotivated champ. If he would be as good as you think he would have won. You wrote losses do not get taken into account enough but also give Vitali credit for a loss. That is not consistent. Wladimir has way, way more quality wins than his brother. He also has way more defences, unified and ruled the hw division for a decade. There is nothing that his brother did that equals that. 'Nuff said.

Well, you claimed in the past that the boxrec rankings are the ebst because they are based on algorithms. In your previous post you claimed that due to changes they made it is less valid than the WBAs ranking. Therefore logic dictates that the WBA got the best ranking in your opinion.
Just to clarify, who has the best, most accurate rankings at the moment in your opinion?

If I would have been American I would have been president instead of Trump. Easy statement, impossible to prove. "Would have" is irrelevant.
Amateur careers, kickboxing careers or hypothetical careers do not matter when judging a fighter's professional boxing career.

Maske lost. He knew it, his trainer did and the crowd did. I was there, I rooted for him but it was not supposed to be and it was obvious. If it would have been really close he would have gotten the hometown decision like he did against Rockigiani the first time around - which showed the power his promoters had.
And as stated before that rematch was entertainmentand had no real value as a sporting event.

You don't become lineal champ because another fighter loses to someone else. Williams was one of several claimants. Not more, not less. Maske was not champ when he won a belt of Williams and not regarded as 1st or 2nd best in the division. So, no lineal title was created. The earliest a new lineal title was re-established was DM-Hill (who probably were number 2 and 3 at the time) but even that is in question due to Jones (probably the number 1 at the time).

Okay, name me authotaritan regimes that were as beneficial to a state and its population as western democracies are.