The WBC are absolute mugs

Holmes-Butterbean!

 

His peak was mid-to-late 70s, though he beat Duran in the early 80s, as well as facing Hearns (lose PTS 15) and winning the WBC 154lb title against Maurice Hope.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqEk8gU4C6U[/ame]

He was World champ (light welter) at 17!!!!

And two-weight World champ at 20!!!

 

This is a crazy statement, you have to be taken the **** Rob.

Also don't forget, apparently Eubank was shot before he face Collins

 

i wanna no when calzaghe was supposed to fight virgil hill from fatty leeds boy

 

I want you to log out and leave the boxing talk to those that have a clue.

Tit.

 

you would no about tits wouldn't you.

This content is protected

 

I don't think Calzaghe should've fought Hill.

But you said he 'dominated a division for ten years' when in fact, he didn't face the no.2 in his division until a couple of years before he moved up, and his division was woeful for years as all the best guys had moved up to 175, where there were loads of other top challenges where Calzaghe could've proven his full worth.

As it stands, whilse he wasted his best years, his peers were carving legacies out for themselves.

 

atsch

I honestly don't have a ****ing clue what you are on about.

Then again neither do you..... so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to.

 

Cut all this **** out lads.

Rob, not impressed by Benitez? If you haven't had time to watch him (brutal K.O, aesthetically pleasing and worth a view IMO, was when he won a title in his 3rd division, all before the age of 25 I believe :good) what of his achievements, which I briefly skimmed over?

Will you give any of my counter argument a moments thought...? As I say, none of those guys I mentioned can be accused of being 'prehistoric', I'm deliberately trying to make this debate appeal to you mate :thumbsup

 

what about Hopkins jumping from 160 to 175 to instead of taking on Calzaghe? thoughts on that?

 

Ummm....he did fight him. When Calzaghes stock was arguably at it's highest! After taking a fight that, at that time, meant a lot more.

What is your point here?

And why are you shirking my question? Also, why have you gone all petty schoolboy on me, I'm usually sound to you, either admit you're making baseless claims, show me you aren't, or at least be open to a bit of debate!

 

Tyson never beat anyone as good as Hopkins or Kessler in my opinion.

 

Michael Spinks

Larry Holmes

Are you f'n mental?!??!?atschatschatsch

Kessler is no ATG. Both of the above are. Spinks is greater than B-Hop without a doubt in my mind, though I can see an argument for B-Hop being 'P4P' greater than Homes considering what he has achieved. And Tyson conclusively beat these guys like no one did before or since (Holmes went to run the 90s gauntlet and never got stopped, even facing Peak Holyfield & Ray Mercer well into his 40s!) One is a P4P ATG, one is a top 5 HW ATG. Tyson was the only man to stop Holmes, and the only man to beat Spinks (who, before Tyson, was the only man to beat Holmes)

Unified the belts aged 21. Destroyed mostly everyone he faced in a stacked HW division. I'm sorry he did all his best work in just a few years rather than doing **** all for 8 out of 10 years of holding the WBO, as you say 'it's a whole career that goes into it'.

 

because you can barley have a debate with you and its even worse with fat boy. at least i am open to having my mind changed. your to much hard work so im not gonna bother anyway and im just gonna throw cheap shots at fat boy who made it personal long before I did.

 

You are really overrating Kessler