You really are tied up in all these facts and figures aren't you? Get off BoxRec :good Compare the winning records, seeing as you have a liking for them, of the people Larry Holmes beat and Rocky Marciano. Whose opponents had better records? Holmes. Who beat the better fighters? Marciano. And again, give me one good reason why defences are important. Seeing as you think they are so important, which of these made up resumes is better? 1) Title defences: Muhammad Ali Joe Louis Mike Tyson 2) Title defences: John Ruiz Marvis Frazier Jesse Ferguson Alex Stewart Tex Cobb Joe Bugner Bert Whitehurst Pete Rademacher Harold Mitchell Hans Birkie Seeing as title defences are so important, if some mythological fighter beat the first group, and other fighter beat the second group, who would have the better resume? Your posts are pathetic.
You gave Hagler credit for Leonard because it was a debatable fight...yet didnt for Taylor, even tho it was a debatable fight. BIAS! You gave Tito ZERO credit for Joppy, saying he got beat by Hop and Winky in his only other fights at 160....yet ignored the FACT that those two are two of the top fighters of the past 10 years....OF COURSE HE LOST TO THEM! BIAS! You placed so much credance in Duran, Leonard and Hearns....saying they were ELITE fighters at 160, which is grossly inacurate. Hell even the morons that puruse boxrec can see that.... BIAS! Properly...or say what YOU want to hear? I remember my post being quoted quite a few times saying great post and owned and such....so answer it properly in whose eyes? YOURS? You cant even see the ridiculousness of your original post....and Im supposed to care about your perception of the truth. Its quite obvious that...your boxing knowledge is either lacking, or your own personal bias is getting in the way of your better judgement....I mean, anyone reading any of your posts that you have some vendetta with Bernard. I always do brotha!!! Sit back and enjoy the ride...hell ya might learn a thing or two. Well, lets break this one down a bit...shall we? SRL - Since you yourself counted this as a win for Hagler...we wont (seeing as how ya cant have it both ways). So, his best win at 160 was Lalonde...a decent fighter with pop, but no William Joppy (ever thought we would ever say...THAT GUY AINT NO JOPPY THO!!! ) Hearns - No names to speak of...couple of decent fighters (at 160 now...I mean, we are talkin about one of my all time favs here....), but none on the level of Joppy. Duran - Barkley and a few others. Well, as much as I love the blade, was he really better than Tito Trinidad (Who Winky beat...which you AGAIN, didnt give any credit for....gee I wonder why??? :huh ). I say overall in his career, NO...but you could argue it. So that means, of the three fighters....ONE beat better comp at 160. Hardly what you would call ELITE FIGHTERS at that weight. I LOVE HAGLER (Im actually a fan of all 4 fighters we are debating)...but you are being ridiculously unfair in your assessment of Hopkins. The man is a marval and truely one of the ATGs of the sport (and definately top5 at MW...I have him just below Hagler and just above Monzon)... Again, either your bias is blinding your judgement...or your boxing knowledge is far lacking. This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You base an opinion, by looking at the FACTS and drawing a conclusion. If your conclusion isnt backed by fact, then its false....hense my original post...showing just a few of the inaccuracies and falsehoods in it....all derived from a biased outlook....NOT ON FACTS. Again, you base opinions on facts...you dont count your opinions as facts. Ali was a better boxer when you consider the FACTS of his resume, his speed, his skill, his talent, his heart, etc. These are all things that can be seen and your opinion can be drawn from...hense basing your OPINIONS on FACTS...something you continually fail to do. And about the highlighted part of the quote....sorry bro, but I am one of the more respected posters on here (HELL, go look at the last few "favorite posters" threads...I was picked quite a few times....THANKS GUYS!!! LUV YA TOO!!! :good ). Even the people that disagree with me, respect my opinion (COUGH* AMSTERDAM *COUGH), because I look at things fairly...I (for the most part), dont let my personal feelings toward a fighter cloud my judgement (HELL I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE Floyd with a passion, but I still think he is gonna SCHOOL Hatton, who I actually like). Try that bull**** somewhere else please. If you said that Leonard, Hearns and Duran were BETTER fighters than Tito, Winky and Oscar, I would agree with you. BUT, when you totally discredit the later three, UNFAIRLY I MIGHT ADD...then you credit the former three when its very close on the criteria you laid out (resume at 160)....YOU JUST CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! To take Hopkins razor thin loss as a loss, but to give Hagler his razor thin loss to SRL (BTW, I had Hop winning the first and drawing the second...and Hagler beating Ray), your not fairly assessing the facts. Again, your original post was full of stuff like this. And others CHOOSE TO REPLY and say great post and owned and such...so again, stupid by whos opinion? Yours??? Well seeing as how the post was AIMED AT YOU (and totally factually based), I can understand your OBVIOUS BIAS in this right at least.... Dickhead.....:hey (And whats up with you and the name calling when people discredit your nonesense? You need to find an outlet for all this pent up aggression bro.... )
Monzon wouldn't have beat Hagler. He isn't fast or slick enough. Hagler whooped on every tall fighter he ever fought. Hagler had the superior hand speed and power.
If you're gonna pick their records apart maybe you shouldn't totally spin the facts to your advantage, and be more objective.
