BoxRec

Urtain being ranked as the 420th greatest Heavyweight in the Boxrec rankigs is an insult to the great mans name.

Need more votes, please

elmersalsa wrote:Need more votes, please

Why?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Need more votes, please

Why?

twenty two votes are not enought. I need at least 30 votes. Greetings, Goodnite Irene

I really like Castillejo, although he was almost a complete unknown in Spain while he was a champion. Thought he was plenty tough and I loved him KOing Sturm in Germany for a middleweight strap at age 38. That and his decision over a then-undefeated Karmazin were really nice wins. But I thought Carrasco was the better boxer, and Uzcudun and Sangchili fought (and in some cases beat) superior competition.

elmersalsa wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Need more votes, please

Why?

twenty two votes are not enought. I need at least 30 votes. Greetings, Goodnite Irene

Yes, you made that clear already. Why, I'm asking.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm shocked that the country that produced the Conquistadors has not produced more fighting talent. Was a time when the whole world trembled at their mention.

Not quite historically accurate.

Just prior to their producing all these "conquistadors" their country had been owned and controlled by muslim rulers from North Africa for 500 years!

Most of the conquering in the americas was as much down to the diseases they bought which killed the native tribes like wild fire, and they had horses. The only livestock native to the americas were the puny llamas!!

Many native tribes didnt have the aggressive disposition of the conquerors and succombed to slavery and disease without too much war.

The british, french and arabs were hardly "trembling" at their mention! The spanish were considered way behind the great european and middle eastern powers. That was the whole purpose behind their mustering an armada to go to India so that they could play catch up with their european neighbours. The dumb fools ended up discovering a whole new continent by accident!

mugabi wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm shocked that the country that produced the Conquistadors has not produced more fighting talent. Was a time when the whole world trembled at their mention.

Not quite historically accurate.

Just prior to their producing all these "conquistadors" their country had been owned and controlled by muslim rulers from North Africa for 500 years!

Most of the conquering in the americas was as much down to the diseases they bought which killed the native tribes like wild fire, and they had horses. The only livestock native to the americas were the puny llamas!!

Many native tribes didnt have the aggressive disposition of the conquerors and succombed to slavery and disease without too much war.

The british, french and arabs were hardly "trembling" at their mention! The spanish were considered way behind the great european and middle eastern powers. That was the whole purpose behind their mustering an armada to go to India so that they could play catch up with their european neighbours. The dumb fools ended up discovering a whole new continent by accident!

I know we are dangerously getting off topic here, but I wouldn't exactly say the Aztecs or the Incas were "tribes".

And the conquest, settlement and political hegemony of 400 years over such a vast region was no ""accident" in my opinion.

mugabi wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm shocked that the country that produced the Conquistadors has not produced more fighting talent. Was a time when the whole world trembled at their mention.

Not quite historically accurate.

Just prior to their producing all these "conquistadors" their country had been owned and controlled by muslim rulers from North Africa for 500 years!

Most of the conquering in the americas was as much down to the diseases they bought which killed the native tribes like wild fire, and they had horses. The only livestock native to the americas were the puny llamas!!

Many native tribes didnt have the aggressive disposition of the conquerors and succombed to slavery and disease without too much war.

The british, french and arabs were hardly "trembling" at their mention! The spanish were considered way behind the great european and middle eastern powers. That was the whole purpose behind their mustering an armada to go to India so that they could play catch up with their european neighbours. The dumb fools ended up discovering a whole new continent by accident!

Wow, thanks for clearing all that up. I'll have to let all my peeps in Madrid and Talavera know that they come from a line of backward weenies who didn't, in fact, fight the Moors for 785 years before ousting them but in fact were "owned and controlled." I'll let them know that they weren't actually advanced in mathematics, science and seafaring (thanks in large part to the Arab influence). I'll tell them they were in fact searching for a route to the Indies because they were trying to play "catch up" to their superiors in France, England et al who apparently had already "discovered" America and found a route to the Indies. And I'll tell them they were lucky the tiny "tribes" they conquered, like the Aztecs, were in fact passive, peace-loving people who "didnt (sic) have the aggressive disposition." I'll have to let them know that the Terico Espanol and Toledo steel that they thought were so feared during the 15th and 16th century by their European adversaries were actually a bunch of Nancy Boys playing with toys.
The dumb fools
It's wonderful, the things you learn about history on boxrec.

I graduated from the school of african and oriental studies in London and sometimes when i need extra pocket money conduct research papers for them. BTW i didnt call people in Madrid "backward weenies" as you so eloquently put it. Are you american by any chance??

A word of advice though I wouldnt get too emotional and jingoistic about something like empire.
You seemed a lot happier when the other fellow was saying "the rest of the world trembled at the mention of Spain", I note you didnt step in than to correct him

History goes in cycles. Today the same arab nation is very subdued and enslaved by the west.

The Spanish knew about the riches of Asia (china and India)- the spices, the fruits, the gold, the vast kingdoms of civilised trading peoples. But the conventional route to Asia was blocked off by the Ottomons and muslim tribes who the spanish dared not encounter

So they sought an alternative route to India and thats how the Americas were "discovered".

mugabi wrote:I graduated from the school of african and oriental studies in London and sometimes when i need extra pocket money conduct research papers for them. BTW i didnt call people in Madrid "backward weenies" as you so eloquently put it. Are you american by any chance??

A word of advice though I wouldnt get too emotional and jingoistic about something like empire.
You seemed a lot happier when the other fellow was saying "the rest of the world trembled at the mention of Spain", I note you didnt step in than to correct him

History goes in cycles. Today the same arab nation is very subdued and enslaved by the west.

The Spanish knew about the riches of Asia (china and India)- the spices, the fruits, the gold, the vast kingdoms of civilised trading peoples. But the conventional route to Asia was blocked off by the Ottomons and muslim tribes who the spanish dared not encounter

So they sought an alternative route to India and thats how the Americas were "discovered".

See, now your second reponse is much more sensible and reasonable. Re-read the first. It sounds like a Brit pissing on the Spaniards for sport. Similar to the trash-talking by Americans and Canadians (and visa versa), only the Brits and Spaniards have been at it for 600 years.

"Backward weenies" spawns not from my nationality, but your comment that the "The spanish were considered way behind the great european and middle eastern powers," and a people who were "owned and controlled" by Arabs and only took control of the Americas because their "tribes" were non-aggressive.

I didn't respond to the "world trembled" comment because it was a simple exaggeration, not an attempt at a history lesson.

Am not being "emotional or jingoistic." I just don't prefer survey history that boils complicated and nuanced past into generalizations

giacomino wrote:

mugabi wrote:I graduated from the school of african and oriental studies in London and sometimes when i need extra pocket money conduct research papers for them. BTW i didnt call people in Madrid "backward weenies" as you so eloquently put it. Are you american by any chance??

A word of advice though I wouldnt get too emotional and jingoistic about something like empire.
You seemed a lot happier when the other fellow was saying "the rest of the world trembled at the mention of Spain", I note you didnt step in than to correct him

History goes in cycles. Today the same arab nation is very subdued and enslaved by the west.

The Spanish knew about the riches of Asia (china and India)- the spices, the fruits, the gold, the vast kingdoms of civilised trading peoples. But the conventional route to Asia was blocked off by the Ottomons and muslim tribes who the spanish dared not encounter

So they sought an alternative route to India and thats how the Americas were "discovered".

See, now your second reponse is much more sensible and reasonable. Re-read the first. It sounds like a Brit pissing on the Spaniards for sport. Similar to the trash-talking by Americans and Canadians (and visa versa), only the Brits and Spaniards have been at it for 600 years.

"Backward weenies" spawns not from my nationality, but your comment that the "The spanish were considered way behind the great european and middle eastern powers," and a people who were "owned and controlled" by Arabs and only took control of the Americas because their "tribes" were non-aggressive.

I didn't respond to the "world trembled" comment because it was a simple exaggeration, not an attempt at a history lesson.

Am not being "emotional or jingoistic." I just don't prefer survey history that boils complicated and nuanced past into generalizations

I dont think there is any difference in my first and second response. Both are "sensible and reasonable"...your issues with them arose when you thought i was a "Brit pissing on a Spaniard for sport".....Yes I am British and if you asked me I could also say a great deal to you about the hypocrisies of the british empire,for example how they dealt in slaves and were the first to cultivate drugs in afghanistan which they than sold to the chinese to enslave entire cities on opium a state of affairs they used to increase their economic stranglehold on the chinese to the point entire cities were given up to the british in exchange for this drug.

I dont deal in generalisations just hard logic and facts and my own opinion based on those facts.

I beleive the spanish conquest of the americas had some very good elements to it and some very bad elements.

The same as the british conquest of India and the same as the arabs conquest of spain.

On the other hand i dont see anything good only bad out of the wars in afghanistan and iraq.

Anyway Spain doesnt need boxing to prove anything. It is the home of bullfighting and the 2 best football teams in Europe! A beautiful cultured land spoiled only by the hordes of lower class brits who invade some of its beach resorts

mugabi wrote:Anyway Spain doesnt need boxing to prove anything. It is the home of bullfighting and the 2 best football teams in Europe! A beautiful cultured land spoiled only by the hordes of lower class brits who invade some of its beach resorts

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Need more votes, please

Why?

hispanic fighter would of been more intresting.

Who forgot JOSÉ GIRONÉS in the list??????? First class, superb, undefeated Europe champion for years!!!

Crease wrote:By the way, Spani's greatest fighter is:
Jose Manuel Urtain.


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Top 15 maybe but Spains greatest fighter? Definitely not buddy.

Deno1986 wrote:

Crease wrote:By the way, Spani's greatest fighter is:
Jose Manuel Urtain.


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Top 15 maybe but Spains greatest fighter? Definitely not buddy.

But he is certainly underrated.

I went with Evangelista from that list.

BarryWashington wrote:

Tejeiro wrote:Who forgot JOSÉ GIRONÉS in the list??????? First class, superb, undefeated Europe champion for years!!!

Eh, other than drawing w/Panama Al Brown & losing twice to Freddie Miller, I can't think of anything noteworthy in Girones' career that would put him in consideration.

Well, you may be right. He "only" won 97 (59 ko) out of 107 bouts; he was the featherweight champ of Spain for 7 years, and unbeaten champ of Europe for 6 (when he retired in 1935 he still held both titles); but it's true, he was beaten twice by Miller (7 years younger, by the way), the last one after waiting (and cooling) several minutes on the ring in the open arena, in a cold February night, while Miller was warming up in the dressing room. Yeah, why putting him in consideration?

Ok, my exaggerated and oversimplified comment was only to communicate my surprise that Spain has not produced more boxing excellence than they have. Overall historically a pretty macho culture (until very recently) for my money, and I think of Spain as a cultural seed for Mexico which has produced quite a number of boxing icons.

I hope I have offended no one, and imagine there are others who share my suprise at this seeming anomoly. (Forgive my primal masculine nature, for I still have an open mind for such perverse sport as bullfighting).

BoxBuzz wrote:Ok, my exaggerated and oversimplified comment was only to communicate my surprise that Spain has not produced more boxing excellence than they have. Overall historically a pretty macho culture (until very recently) for my money, and I think of Spain as a cultural seed for Mexico which has produced quite a number of boxing icons.

I hope I have offended no one, and imagine there are others who share my suprise at this seeming anomoly. (Forgive my primal masculine nature, for I still have an open mind for such perverse sport as bullfighting).

Technically speaking, you could argue that about more than Mexico too. Puerto Rico, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, and Philippines all have the seeds (no pun intended) of Spanish culture imbued in them to varying degrees in different ways.

You could then argue that the TRUE conquerors of the Spanish culture are the ones who stayed in the above nations and took over land etc. etc. Leaving the less-violently inclined types back in the home country.

BarryWashington wrote:

Tejeiro wrote:

BarryWashington wrote: Eh, other than drawing w/Panama Al Brown & losing twice to Freddie Miller, I can't think of anything noteworthy in Girones' career that would put him in consideration.

Well, you may be right. He "only" won 97 (59 ko) out of 107 bouts; he was the featherweight champ of Spain for 7 years, and unbeaten champ of Europe for 6 (when he retired in 1935 he still held both titles); but it's true, he was beaten twice by Miller (7 years younger, by the way), the last one after waiting (and cooling) several minutes on the ring in the open arena, in a cold February night, while Miller was warming up in the dressing room. Yeah, why putting him in consideration?

Quality over quantity, my friend.

It's worth bearing in mind that the majority of his opponents' records are incomplete. Some of those guys were quality fighters but their Boxrec stats don't yet show it.

If Girones's record is accurate and complete, then the Miller defeats were his final two fights and one was a disqualification. Seems likely he was past his best by then.