I don't disagree that he has better wins than Steve Robinson but some of the guys rate him higher than you do....simple as that
I really find it bizarre the way some people on this forum view using stats from Boxrec as some sort of taboo witchcraft that must be scorned and abused. I saw Robinson fight Duke McKenzie live on ITV, I saw the McMillan fight (I was a bit of a McMillan fan back in the day) and I have saw highlights of a few of his other pre-Naz fights (Davison, Cruz etc). After Naz, I saw his fight with Billy Hardy, and I was at the fight when Scott Harrison knocked him out in 3. Thus, I know about Robinson and I know how good he was (or wasn't). So when people say "he must've been good, world champion, so many defences" etc, I believe it is necessary to bring up some actual facts about his career, as Robinson was not a world-class boxer. His reign WAS one of the worst in boxing history, even one of the worst in WBO history. Thankfully Naz took his title and improved the calibre of opposition and helped to restore the WBO's battered reputation in the late 90s. Anyway, if backing up what you say is considered taboo witchcraft, then I'm a witch and you can criticize that forever as I won't stop. I like to be accurate, I think it makes for better debate. JMO
Taboo witchcraft??? Nobody says that Some people just don't like their opinions quashed everytime by facts and figure thats all......
I am well aware boxing isn't about maths, but the standard of opposition someone fights is important, I'm sorry it just is. The only person I was arguing with was Nallege, I'm not interested in a big argument with anyone else, but that filthmonger trolls around after me posting abuse, so I will respond to him until it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about and only started a debate to fight with me - that's the usual pattern with that weirdo.
I don't rate the win better than the Bungu win I only picked up on the good honest pro quote...... I wouldnt associate good honest pros with titles as a rule...just my opinion
Sorry, but the facts and figures weren't made up. I knew Robinson had a feeble title reign, but rather than just say that, I went and got some evidence to back it up. Nallege was wrong to say Robinson was maybe Naz's best win, was wrong to imply it was a better win than Bungu, I think I proved that. I wouldn't have proved it by just saying "Robinson was crap", would I?
You've called me worse things than he calls you and I'll still have a debate with you....providing it is a debate and not an argument where you tell me I'm wrong
There are plenty of good honest pros who have picked up a major world title, usually a WBO, that's just the nature of the modern boxing world. Freddie Pendleton? Michael Bentt? Jimmy Bredahl? There have been many. It's not like the old days anymore.
Just my opinion and definition of honest pro that makes me not associate guys like robinson with that term
I noticed you tossing around the odd vicious insult the other day too, so let's not get into who does what. I doubt we can ever have a serious debate because you consider using facts/stats as worthy of ridicule, and you call having the courage of your convictions or believing in your own opinion the height of arrogance. Our viewpoints are incompatible I think, as I don't see anything wrong with either of those things.
Your own arrogance make the facts sometime irrelavant cos you sometimes refuse to accept where people are coming from with their opinion I dont ridicule the use of facts....I feel you grossly overuse them as a way of "winning" a debate but if I'm wrong and proved worng then so be it....but I'll always give my opinion