BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I guess I shouldn't expect an idiot to be able to decipher a scoreboard. You mean the standings where you've picked 33 fights and I've picked 12? The one where in the last 10 fights I have 384 pts to your 325? Yeah, we can add that challenge to the great fights I list for you that your noob ass has never heard of.

Join boxing_prophet and see if you can beat me there.

I'm 2-0 in my Beat the Boss challenge, and have finished #3 in the last 2 months out of at least 150 players. You think you can top that? Bring it Nancy!

Fields wide open by the way. The fights we're picking on for October haven't even begun yet.

Sorry, nerd, one board is enough for me. Not that picking fights is the height of boxing knowledge. Then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks their personal top 10 and enjoyment of fights is an historical measuring stick. Anyway, this is the only section of this forum that doesn't suck, so I won't clutter it up owning you.

I don't think my Personal Top 10 is the measuring stick. I regularly follow TBRB's rankings, and The Ring magazine's rankings as well. Generally any comment I would make about somebody not being Top 10 would apply to all 3 of those.

All of them are equally irrelevant to yours.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:All of them are equally irrelevant to yours.

Ok...so what rankings are relevant? If you're trying to imply that ranking the fighters in and of itself is irrelevant then wouldn't that make the entire sport irrelevant?

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:All of them are equally irrelevant to yours.

Ok...so what rankings are relevant? If you're trying to imply that ranking the fighters in and of itself is irrelevant then wouldn't that make the entire sport irrelevant?

The alphabet orgs are the only relevant ones. They're not accurate, but they're relevant. Using top 10 opponents regardless of their quality is an outlandish way to critique a resume.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: The alphabet orgs are the only relevant ones. They're not accurate, but they're relevant. Using top 10 opponents regardless of their quality is an outlandish way to critique a resume.

Being Top 10 is in and of itself a mark of quality. You don't just wake up, and become a Top 10 ranked opponent...except for by the Title orgs. In most respectable rankings...even in a weak Weight division, a Top 10 ranking must be earned.

It's not the end all, be all, but it means something...or at least it should.

A good example is arreola is a 'top 10' opponent for vitali. Not a day goes by that you're not spouting Wilder hasn't faced any. Stiverne is a better win than arreola.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:A good example is arreola is a 'top 10' opponent for vitali. Not a day goes by that you're not spouting Wilder hasn't faced any. Stiverne is a better win than arreola.

I agree. Stiverne is the one Top 10 that Wilder has beaten.

I say Wilder hasn't DEFENDED his title against any Top 10 opponents. I didn't say he's never faced one. Stiverne is the one.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:A good example is arreola is a 'top 10' opponent for vitali. Not a day goes by that you're not spouting Wilder hasn't faced any. Stiverne is a better win than arreola.

I agree. Stiverne is the one Top 10 that Wilder has beaten.

I say Wilder hasn't DEFENDED his title against any Top 10 opponents. I didn't say he's never faced one. Stiverne is the one.

Stiverne sucks.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:A good example is arreola is a 'top 10' opponent for vitali. Not a day goes by that you're not spouting Wilder hasn't faced any. Stiverne is a better win than arreola.

I agree. Stiverne is the one Top 10 that Wilder has beaten.

I say Wilder hasn't DEFENDED his title against any Top 10 opponents. I didn't say he's never faced one. Stiverne is the one.

Stiverne sucks.

I know that.

What are we arguing about exactly?

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I agree. Stiverne is the one Top 10 that Wilder has beaten.

I say Wilder hasn't DEFENDED his title against any Top 10 opponents. I didn't say he's never faced one. Stiverne is the one.

Stiverne sucks.

I know that.

What are we arguing about exactly?

I think I'm teaching you more than arguing. My point is that being ranked in the top 10 doesn't mean you're quality. Your point is that if you're in the top 10 you've earned it. We agree that the top 10 ranked stiverne and arreola suck.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I think I'm teaching you more than arguing. My point is that being ranked in the top 10 doesn't mean you're quality. Your point is that if you're in the top 10 you've earned it. We agree that the top 10 ranked stiverne and arreola suck.

There are certainly era's when the guy ranked #30 is a better fighter than another era's #10. Arreola, and Stiverne would both not even be Top 50 in several better eras of Heavyweight Boxing, but they still earned their right to be Top 10 in this less than stellar era. Albeit briefly, and then they were both promptly knocked out of the Top 10...as will tend to happen to sucky fighters.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:All of them are equally irrelevant to yours.

That was funny, but the only reason their's is more relevant than ours is the #1 ranked guy usually gets a shot at their title. So you can predict what fights may be made.

But yeah, all of our rankings are better and more honest than the alphabets even though The Ring's rankings are usually pretty good.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I think I'm teaching you more than arguing. My point is that being ranked in the top 10 doesn't mean you're quality. Your point is that if you're in the top 10 you've earned it. We agree that the top 10 ranked stiverne and arreola suck.

There are certainly era's when the guy ranked #30 is a better fighter than another era's #10. Arreola, and Stiverne would both not even be Top 50 in several better eras of Heavyweight Boxing, but they still earned their right to be Top 10 in this less than stellar era. Albeit briefly, and then they were both promptly knocked out of the Top 10...as will tend to happen to sucky fighters.

Yet being top 10 makes them a big win.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Yet being top 10 makes them a big win.

Didn't say it was a big win. But it's more significant than the others in most cases.

Tony1244 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:All of them are equally irrelevant to yours.

That was funny, but the only reason their's is more relevant than ours is the #1 ranked guy usually gets a shot at their title. So you can predict what fights may be made.

But yeah, all of our rankings are better and more honest than the alphabets even though The Ring's rankings are usually pretty good.

That's the only relevance to any rankings. Those that make fights happen. I don't look at rankings, nobody on here needs them. Even the worst posters are familiar with with almost any relevant fighter. You and I are old, the ring and other magazines we're crucial to knowing the entire sport with no internet and no fights under bantam on TV. More power to you if that interests you still, but plenty of crap was in the rings top 10 before they were found out and plenty of Salvador Sanchez's weren't even a blip on the radar. Cunningham and chisora are better fighters than arreola.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Yet being top 10 makes them a big win.

Didn't say it was a big win. But it's more significant than the others in most cases.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:All of them are equally irrelevant to yours.

That was funny, but the only reason their's is more relevant than ours is the #1 ranked guy usually gets a shot at their title. So you can predict what fights may be made.

But yeah, all of our rankings are better and more honest than the alphabets even though The Ring's rankings are usually pretty good.

That's the only relevance to any rankings. Those that make fights happen. I don't look at rankings, nobody on here needs them. Even the worst posters are familiar with with almost any relevant fighter. You and I are old, the ring and other magazines we're crucial to knowing the entire sport with no internet and no fights under bantam on TV. More power to you if that interests you still, but plenty of crap was in the rings top 10 before they were found out and plenty of Salvador Sanchez's weren't even a blip on the radar. Cunningham and chisora are better fighters than arreola.

I'll look at them once in a blue moon but only in a WTF kind of way. Also nice to know who is paying the bribe money. When some guy sucks but is in the top 10 you know you'll see his ass whipped soon, at this point in life and boxing that's mildly entertaining.

Just thinking about Sanchez. He was lopez mandatory and nobody else knew who he was. The web would have been buzzing about such an unworthy bum getting a shot at little red. The wbc clowned the ring there.

Horse wrote:

TopGun wrote:Poor comment from a MOD mate, clearly not the worst heavyweight that ever lived. Bit embarrassing comment isn't it? Who Mods the Mods these days?

I'd mod them, if I was a mod.

I'd Mod you if you were a Mod modding the Mods.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Yet being top 10 makes them a big win.

Didn't say it was a big win. But it's more significant than the others in most cases.

You roll your eyes as if you've bested me about a point of some sort. You haven't.

Wilder's win over Stiverne is more signficant than Wilder's other wins. I don't think that's an outrageous statement to make. If you disagree who would you say was a better win on his resume, and why?

Taansend wrote:I'd Mod you if you were a Mod modding the Mods.

Oh yeah?!

Lol, stiverne is Wilder best win. My eye roll was to your vitali beat at least 5 or 6 top 10 opponents. As for victory, maybe in your nerd world great wins occur on message boards. I know I'm right, that's sufficient enough whether you accept it or not. I may be an asshole, but I've never bickered with emoticons. Grow up.

if wilder had beaten ortiz or pedvetkin hed have a stronger resume than vitali.

ya, ya, ya. if my grandmother had balls and all that. but it shows that hes not far away from the lesser klit. and vitali at 32 and done about f all by the way.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:A good example is arreola is a 'top 10' opponent for vitali. Not a day goes by that you're not spouting Wilder hasn't faced any. Stiverne is a better win than arreola.

I thought Arreola was a great prospect back then

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:A good example is arreola is a 'top 10' opponent for vitali. Not a day goes by that you're not spouting Wilder hasn't faced any. Stiverne is a better win than arreola.

I thought Arreola was a great prospect back then