Fights That Would Go The Same Way 10 out of 10 Times.

[hhaehre]

On Holyfield vs Lewis I agree that is BS because those were two close fights and the slightest difference could have made a difference. The same for Hopkins vs Taylor. Those were too close.

Having said that Idisagree with Pryor/Arguello. Arguello fought valiantly because that is the only way he knew how to fight. However, the conclusion would have been always the same, Pryor by KO. That is a definite answer as opposed to two close fights that went the distance. There is no way that Arguello could have come in a better condition that he did for the first fight. By the time the second took place it was obvious that Arguello was out of his weight class and diminishing skills.

You guys argue that there is no way that Pryor could come up in the same condition for 10 fights. How about Arguello, can he come up 10 times in good enough shape to beat Pryor?

I don’t think so. He was at the end of his career and although, he look game in both it was clear his skills were not the same he displayed at 130 or 135.

I'm not saying they would split 10 fights but I think Arguello would win two or three out of ten. It wasn't like he couldn't take rounds off of Pryor, the first fight was very competitive.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

On Holyfield vs Lewis I agree that is BS because those were two close fights and the slightest difference could have made a difference. The same for Hopkins vs Taylor. Those were too close.

Having said that Idisagree with Pryor/Arguello. Arguello fought valiantly because that is the only way he knew how to fight. However, the conclusion would have been always the same, Pryor by KO. That is a definite answer as opposed to two close fights that went the distance. There is no way that Arguello could have come in a better condition that he did for the first fight. By the time the second took place it was obvious that Arguello was out of his weight class and diminishing skills.

You guys argue that there is no way that Pryor could come up in the same condition for 10 fights. How about Arguello, can he come up 10 times in good enough shape to beat Pryor?

I don’t think so. He was at the end of his career and although, he look game in both it was clear his skills were not the same he displayed at 130 or 135.

Saying it 1,000 times wont make it less silly. Arguello/Pryor was as close as a fight can get. And the slightest difference can change the other fights? How about if Pryor didn't cheat?

[Idisagree]

On Holyfield vs Lewis I agree that is BS because those were two close fights and the slightest difference could have made a difference. The same for Hopkins vs Taylor. Those were too close.

Having said that Idisagree with Pryor/Arguello. Arguello fought valiantly because that is the only way he knew how to fight. However, the conclusion would have been always the same, Pryor by KO. That is a definite answer as opposed to two close fights that went the distance. There is no way that Arguello could have come in a better condition that he did for the first fight. By the time the second took place it was obvious that Arguello was out of his weight class and diminishing skills.

You guys argue that there is no way that Pryor could come up in the same condition for 10 fights. How about Arguello, can he come up 10 times in good enough shape to beat Pryor?

I don’t think so. He was at the end of his career and although, he look game in both it was clear his skills were not the same he displayed at 130 or 135.

Saying it 1,000 times wont make it less silly. Arguello/Pryor was as close as a fight can get. And the slightest difference can change the other fights? How about if Pryor didn't cheat?

Let me say it for the 1,001 ( ) Yes the first fight was close and competitive but the end result was the same. No matter how competitive Arguello could do in the end Pryor would have found a way to stop him with/without the black/blue bottle. I could give you this much, I also think Pryor cheated on the first fight. The second fight there is no indication of Pryor cheating. And the second fight was not as close as the first one. I don't know what fight you were watching but the second fight was not that close in my eyes.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

On Holyfield vs Lewis I agree that is BS because those were two close fights and the slightest difference could have made a difference. The same for Hopkins vs Taylor. Those were too close.

Having said that Idisagree with Pryor/Arguello. Arguello fought valiantly because that is the only way he knew how to fight. However, the conclusion would have been always the same, Pryor by KO. That is a definite answer as opposed to two close fights that went the distance. There is no way that Arguello could have come in a better condition that he did for the first fight. By the time the second took place it was obvious that Arguello was out of his weight class and diminishing skills.

You guys argue that there is no way that Pryor could come up in the same condition for 10 fights. How about Arguello, can he come up 10 times in good enough shape to beat Pryor?

I don’t think so. He was at the end of his career and although, he look game in both it was clear his skills were not the same he displayed at 130 or 135.

Saying it 1,000 times wont make it less silly. Arguello/Pryor was as close as a fight can get. And the slightest difference can change the other fights? How about if Pryor didn't cheat?

Let me say it for the 1,001 ( ) Yes the first fight was close and competitive but the end result was the same. No matter how competitive Arguello could do in the end Pryor would have found a way to stop him with/without the black/blue bottle. I could give you this much, I also think Pryor cheated on the first fight. The second fight there is no indication of Pryor cheating. And the second fight was not as close as the first one. I don't know what fight you were watching but the second fight was not that close in my eyes.

It's every bit as stupid as the first time you said it. In fact, it's probably the worst series of posts I've ever read.

You continue to bring up the second fight, it has nothing to do with the first one. That was Arguello's last great night.

[Idisagree]

It's every bit as stupid as the first time you said it. In fact, it's probably the worst series of posts I've ever read.

You continue to bring up the second fight, it has nothing to do with the first one. That was Arguello's last great night.

Do I have to repeat it again for the 1,002 time

Probably in your own world the first fight has nothing to do with the first one. The second fight is a confirmation of the first one. Arguello as his best at 140 was not good enough to beat Pryor that is a fact that cannot be denied. You bring up “how about if Pryor didn’t cheat?” I could use the same argument and say, how about if Pryor always cheated? The fact remains that Pryor was able to KO Arguello twice and that is good enough for me.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It's every bit as stupid as the first time you said it. In fact, it's probably the worst series of posts I've ever read.

You continue to bring up the second fight, it has nothing to do with the first one. That was Arguello's last great night.

Do I have to repeated for the 1,002 time

Probably in your own world the first fight has nothing to do with the first one. The second fight is a confirmation of the first one. Arguello as his best at 140 was not good enough to beat Pryor that is a fact that cannot be denied. You bring up “how about if Pryor didn’t cheat?” I could use the same argument and say, how about if Pryor always cheated? The fact remains that Pryor was able to KO Arguello twice and that is good enough for me.

You can say it 8,000 times, your point will still be retarded. There are plenty of examples of fights where the first fight was better than the second, in particularly with aging fighter. Marciano/Walcott is a perfect example.

Cheating in a fight that close is worth looking at. But in your world, the fight of the century was one sided and a waste of time. You still haven't given me your odds on the fight. I suspect it's because even in your mentally diminished state, you realize it's a 3 to 1 type of fight.

Obviously any little thing is good enough for you. But that is no reason to embarrass yourself in this manner. Why you keep clinging to this insanity is beyond explanation. You have yet to make a sensible post on the topic.

Let's move onto another easy one, Rafael Marquez vs Izzy Vazquez.

[Idisagree]

It's every bit as stupid as the first time you said it. In fact, it's probably the worst series of posts I've ever read.

You continue to bring up the second fight, it has nothing to do with the first one. That was Arguello's last great night.

Do I have to repeated for the 1,002 time

Probably in your own world the first fight has nothing to do with the first one. The second fight is a confirmation of the first one. Arguello as his best at 140 was not good enough to beat Pryor that is a fact that cannot be denied. You bring up “how about if Pryor didn’t cheat?” I could use the same argument and say, how about if Pryor always cheated? The fact remains that Pryor was able to KO Arguello twice and that is good enough for me.

You can say it 8,000 times, your point will still be retarded. There are plenty of examples of fights where the first fight was better than the second, in particularly with aging fighter. Marciano/Walcott is a perfect example.

Cheating in a fight that close is worth looking at. But in your world, the fight of the century was one sided and a waste of time. You still haven't given me your odds on the fight. I suspect it's because even in your mentally diminished state, you realize it's a 3 to 1 type of fight.

Obviously any little thing is good enough for you. But that is no reason to embarrass yourself in this manner. Why you keep clinging to this insanity is beyond explanation. You have yet to make a sensible post on the topic.

Let's move onto another easy one, Rafael Marquez vs Izzy Vazquez.

No more retarded than thinking that your opinion is gospel. Nothing would change the fact that Pryor kick Arguellos’s ass and stop him twice and would do it again for 8 more times in row.

I have not given you any odds because they mean less than Sh*t when it comes to boxing. But of course the know it all does know that. Anyone who knows a little about boxing would know that. I’m off to the getting some lessons on how to use odds for betting in boxing.

Are you trying to compare Marquez/Vazquez with Pryor/Arguello? I sure hope not because that will be really retarded. Please don't let me know you are sinking that low.

[alexpaterson]

As much as I hate to say it Whitaker/Trinadad. Tito just had a style to beat Sweet Pea everyday of the week, no matter how coked up and past it he was I can't see him ever beating Tito

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Do I have to repeated for the 1,002 time

Probably in your own world the first fight has nothing to do with the first one. The second fight is a confirmation of the first one. Arguello as his best at 140 was not good enough to beat Pryor that is a fact that cannot be denied. You bring up “how about if Pryor didn’t cheat?” I could use the same argument and say, how about if Pryor always cheated? The fact remains that Pryor was able to KO Arguello twice and that is good enough for me.

You can say it 8,000 times, your point will still be retarded. There are plenty of examples of fights where the first fight was better than the second, in particularly with aging fighter. Marciano/Walcott is a perfect example.

Cheating in a fight that close is worth looking at. But in your world, the fight of the century was one sided and a waste of time. You still haven't given me your odds on the fight. I suspect it's because even in your mentally diminished state, you realize it's a 3 to 1 type of fight.

Obviously any little thing is good enough for you. But that is no reason to embarrass yourself in this manner. Why you keep clinging to this insanity is beyond explanation. You have yet to make a sensible post on the topic.

Let's move onto another easy one, Rafael Marquez vs Izzy Vazquez.

No more retarded than thinking that your opinion is gospel. Nothing would change the fact that Pryor kick Arguellos’s ass and stop him twice and would do it again for 8 more times in row.

I have not given you any odds because they mean less than Sh*t when it comes to boxing. But of course the know it all does know that. Anyone who knows a little about boxing would know that. I’m off to the getting some lessons on how to use odds for betting in boxing.

Are you trying to compare Marquez/Vazquez with Pryor/Arguello? I sure hope not because that will be really retarded. Please don't let me know you are sinking that low.

This isn't an opinion, I'm completely right and you're totally wrong. I don't know why you need to keep arguing about it. It's shameful and pathetic.

Aaron Pryor would laugh in your face if he read this.

I have another one for you. Chavez/Taylor! Break it down dumb ass.

[Idisagree]

You can say it 8,000 times, your point will still be retarded. There are plenty of examples of fights where the first fight was better than the second, in particularly with aging fighter. Marciano/Walcott is a perfect example.

Cheating in a fight that close is worth looking at. But in your world, the fight of the century was one sided and a waste of time. You still haven't given me your odds on the fight. I suspect it's because even in your mentally diminished state, you realize it's a 3 to 1 type of fight.

Obviously any little thing is good enough for you. But that is no reason to embarrass yourself in this manner. Why you keep clinging to this insanity is beyond explanation. You have yet to make a sensible post on the topic.

Let's move onto another easy one, Rafael Marquez vs Izzy Vazquez.

No more retarded than thinking that your opinion is gospel. Nothing would change the fact that Pryor kick Arguellos’s ass and stop him twice and would do it again for 8 more times in row.

I have not given you any odds because they mean less than Sh*t when it comes to boxing. But of course the know it all does know that. Anyone who knows a little about boxing would know that. I’m off to the getting some lessons on how to use odds for betting in boxing.

Are you trying to compare Marquez/Vazquez with Pryor/Arguello? I sure hope not because that will be really retarded. Please don't let me know you are sinking that low.

This isn't an opinion, I'm completely right and you're totally wrong. I don't know why you need to keep arguing about it. It's shameful and pathetic.

Aaron Pryor would laugh in your face if he read this.

I have another one for you. Chavez/Taylor! Break it down dumb ass.

This is my last post to you regarding this thread. You are pathetic and have to resort to call names because the only dumb ass here is you that cannot accept a different point of view. I'm going to break down to you, Pryor kick Arguello's ass twice and that is a fact that until know you have not been able to refute. Get back to me when you learn to argue like a grown up not like child.

And again you are trying to compare two completely and totally different fights. That is how you show you knowledge of the sport? Now who really is the bumb ass here?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

No more retarded than thinking that your opinion is gospel. Nothing would change the fact that Pryor kick Arguellos’s ass and stop him twice and would do it again for 8 more times in row.

I have not given you any odds because they mean less than Sh*t when it comes to boxing. But of course the know it all does know that. Anyone who knows a little about boxing would know that. I’m off to the getting some lessons on how to use odds for betting in boxing.

Are you trying to compare Marquez/Vazquez with Pryor/Arguello? I sure hope not because that will be really retarded. Please don't let me know you are sinking that low.

This isn't an opinion, I'm completely right and you're totally wrong. I don't know why you need to keep arguing about it. It's shameful and pathetic.

Aaron Pryor would laugh in your face if he read this.

I have another one for you. Chavez/Taylor! Break it down dumb ass.

This is my last post to you regarding this thread. You are pathetic and have to resort to call names because the only dumb ass here is you that cannot accept a different point of view. I'm going to break down to you, Pryor kick Arguello's ass twice and that is a fact that until know you have not been able to refute. Get back to me when you learn to argue like a grown up not like child.

And again you are trying to compare two completely and totally different fights. That is how you show you knowledge of the sport? Now who really is the bumb ass here?

Excellent, you never should have made a post to begin with. You dragged down the collective IQ of this forum with every idiotic word.

Just about every fight in here is totally different from your moronic example, including your other ones. I'm just listing other wars to try and get through to your pea brain. It doesn't take boxing knowledge to know you're wrong. Just eyes and a tape of that brawl in Miami.

And you should stop trembling with anger before typing up something calling me a dumb ass. This is nothing more than illiterate drivel. The bold clearly shows that the 'bumb' ass is YOU.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hopkins/Trinidad
Forrest/Mosley
Camacho Sr./Ramirez
Pryor/Arguello

Talk about totally different fights. Something is out of place here.

[Idisagree]

Hopkins/Trinidad
Forrest/Mosley
Camacho Sr./Ramirez
Pryor/Arguello

Talk about totally different fights. Something is out of place here.

How about Forrest/Mosley? Do you disagree with that one too?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hopkins/Trinidad
Forrest/Mosley
Camacho Sr./Ramirez
Pryor/Arguello

Talk about totally different fights. Something is out of place here.

How about Forrest/Mosley? Do you disagree with that one too?

I thought you were done talking to me? That lasted about 5 minutes. If I disagreed with that I would have mentioned it before. But Shane would have a better chance of winning one or two than Pryor would have of winning 10 out of 10. No doubt about that.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

As much as I hate to say it Whitaker/Trinadad. Tito just had a style to beat Sweet Pea everyday of the week, no matter how coked up and past it he was I can't see him ever beating Tito

I think if they were both at their best Pea would embarrass Tito. But he definitely wasn't beating him that night.

[Idisagree]

Talk about totally different fights. Something is out of place here.

How about Forrest/Mosley? Do you disagree with that one too?

I thought you were done talking to me? That lasted about 5 minutes. If I disagreed with that I would have mentioned it before. But Shane would have a better chance of winning one or two than Pryor would have of winning 10 out of 10. No doubt about that.

You are right I should not have reacted that way. i apologize, but know this there is no way I see Arguello defeating Pryor at 140.

Moving on.

Mayorga/Forrest

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How about Forrest/Mosley? Do you disagree with that one too?

I thought you were done talking to me? That lasted about 5 minutes. If I disagreed with that I would have mentioned it before. But Shane would have a better chance of winning one or two than Pryor would have of winning 10 out of 10. No doubt about that.

You are right I should not have reacted that way. i apologize, but know this there is no way I see Arguello defeating Pryor at 140.

Moving on.

Mayorga/Forrest

LOL, it's not a big deal. You should see the response I just finished to the post you deleted. It was seething. Nothing to apologize for and no need to reiterate. I'm quite aware of your stance on Arguello/Pryor.

I hate to do this. But I'm gonna have to say BULLSHIT!

Mayorga landed a fairly lucky punch in my estimation and Forrest fought a poor fight. If all ten are initial fights than he wouldn't have the intimidation factor that slowed his start in the rematch. I might even favor Vernon over 10 fights there.

[Idisagree]

As much as I hate to say it Whitaker/Trinadad. Tito just had a style to beat Sweet Pea everyday of the week, no matter how coked up and past it he was I can't see him ever beating Tito

The Whitaker that fought DLH would've more than a chance at beating Tito. In fact I would make him the favorite to win that fight. True Tito dominated Whitaker like nobody did. However, that Whitaker did not have 50% of his true skills. I don't know about this one.

[Idisagree]

Mayorga/Forrest


LOL, it's not a big deal. You should see the response I just finished to the post you deleted. It was seething. Nothing to apologize for and no need to reiterate. I'm quite aware of your stance on Arguello/Pryor.

I hate to do this. But I'm gonna have to say BULLSHIT!

Mayorga landed a fairly lucky punch in my estimation and Forrest fought a poor fight. If all ten are initial fights than he wouldn't have the intimidation factor that slowed his start in the rematch. I might even favor Vernon over 10 fights there.

I think Mayorga awkward style was giving Forrest major problems. Forrest looked to me like he was lost and could not find a way to decipher Mayorga's style in both fights. I think Forrest was the superior fighter but Mayorga's style was his Kryptonite. Also, like you said the fear factor was a major issue for Forrest. He really looked concern on both fights.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Mayorga/Forrest


LOL, it's not a big deal. You should see the response I just finished to the post you deleted. It was seething. Nothing to apologize for and no need to reiterate. I'm quite aware of your stance on Arguello/Pryor.

I hate to do this. But I'm gonna have to say BULLSHIT!

Mayorga landed a fairly lucky punch in my estimation and Forrest fought a poor fight. If all ten are initial fights than he wouldn't have the intimidation factor that slowed his start in the rematch. I might even favor Vernon over 10 fights there.

I think Mayorga awkward style was giving Forrest major problems. Forrest looked to me like he was lost and could not find a way to decipher Mayorga's style in both fights. I think Forrest was the superior fighter but Mayorga's style was his Kryptonite. Also, like you said the fear factor was a major issue for Forrest. He really looked concern on both fights.

He wasn't afraid in the first fight and I actually thought the second fight was a draw. My opinion of mayorga is quite low.

Edit: If anything, Forrest was over confident in the first fight.

[elmersalsa]

Hearns-Duran @ 154lbs.

Possibly Hagler-Hearns, too. Some might say Tommy would learn & box, but I reckon Hagler would make him, sooner or later during each & every time, trade with him & that would be it!

I agree 100% with you on the fights you selected. At 154lbs, Hearns was awesome. Can I say that at this weight class he was unbeatable?

Hagler will always beat Hearns at 160lbs...Too strong for Tommy here.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hearns-Duran @ 154lbs.

Possibly Hagler-Hearns, too. Some might say Tommy would learn & box, but I reckon Hagler would make him, sooner or later during each & every time, trade with him & that would be it!

I agree 100% with you on the fights you selected. At 154lbs, Hearns was awesome. Can I say that at this weight class he was unbeatable?

Hagler will always beat Hearns at 160lbs...Too strong for Tommy here.

[elmersalsa]

I really like this idea for a thread, but it's not mine.

Giancarlo said Foreman - Frazier and I have to agree.

I'll go for a really obvious Tyson - Spinks.

First one to name a fight that doesn't qualify must be shot down with a BULLSH1T!!!!

I don't think that the great George Foreman would've cope with the great Smokin' Joe pressure if the fight was before 1971. The Frazier that beat Ali in the Fight of the Century, to me, beats any version of Foreman.

When Frazier fought Foreman, he was trough...Maybe the first Ali fight took a toll on him, even though he won clearly and in extraordinary fashion. He made 2 title defenses after the Ali fight, and he was not the same in those 2 bouts before facing Foreman.

Tyson kills Spinks everytime

How about these:
Carlos Zarate vs Alfonso Zamora
Salvador Sanchez vs Wilfredo Gomez
Ruben Olivares vs Lionel Rose
Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles vs Curtis Cokes
Antonio Cervantes vs Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Ortiz vs Sugar Ramos
Larry Holmes vs Gerry Cooney
Joe Frazier vs Jerry Quarry
Bob Foster vs Dick Tiger
Dick Tiger vs Gene Fullmer
Joe Brown vs Wallace "Bud" Smith
Winky Wright vs Felix "Tito" Trinidad
Winky Wright vs Shane Mosley
Muhammad Ali vs Floyd Patterson
Joe Frazier vs Jimmy Ellis
Ike Williams vs Beau Jack
Ike Williams vs Enrique Bolanos
Carmen Basilio vs Tony DeMarco
Carlos Monzon vs Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
Carlos Monzon vs Emile Griffith....Even though, Griffith was out of his prime, I cannot see him beat Monzon at any time at 160lbs.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You forgot the incredibly important Pryor/Hearns battle.

[elmersalsa]

You forgot the incredibly important Pryor/Hearns battle.

That was at the amateurs.

How about Jimmy Young vs George Foreman?