BoxRec

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You're consistently wrong picking fights. So your all time ratings based on whom you think would win are garbage.

Not true.

Go to my thread where i predicted future fights. 80 % i was right, predicting the right winner, sometimes i was wrong the way the fight was won ud tko etc..

I had 2 big wrong pickings that was chavez and canelo and the other i dont remember, i think it was brook spence. Because i wanted to be a bit courageaous and not always predict the easy why always predicting the favourite, which were canelo and spence.

It is true. It's true of anyone.

gilgamesh wrote:I've correctly picked 93% of the fights in the last month and a half or so since I started playing on boxing*prophet, and I'd confidently have picked Michael Spinks over Michael Moorer.

Regardless. Ranking guys on all time standings based on who you think will win is generally not a good way to go about it. There's a good chance the guy you think would've won ain't the guy that would've won. That goes for anybody, not just you.

It's a flawed way to rank guys no matter who does it. Nobody is able to call all the fights, all the time.

Spinks/moorer wouldve been a good fight, thats the most important. You say spinks wins. I say moorer knocks him out.

Yeah it is generly not a good idea to rank boxers and who the better boxer is.

It is much better to go by old black and white and 0 footage or blown up records with 200 fight record where 70 % of the oppinents where on a level of an average sparring partner.

Record can fool, also observation can fool. Because you never know 100 % if somebody can take a chin if not he has been clubbed by a powerful puncher and survived.

I rank boxers by how good they are in the ring regardless if they young and have 10 fights or old atg with 60 + fights. Over the years i learned a great understanding on how to rate boxers when i see them i can quickly say if someone is a, b or c level. I find people who need 40 fights to than determin if they are good or not non experts. Anybody can say after 50 fights bernard hopkins is an atg boxer, the difficulty is to say it and be right when only the quality in the ring is shown in an early age. I can do it. Most cant and hide behind records.

To observe the main parts of boxing. Technique, footwork, speed and power & say conclude how they would match against other top boxers and mostly be right. Thats difficult, that is the excellence. That is what i do.

You're an idiot.

Jip wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I've correctly picked 93% of the fights in the last month and a half or so since I started playing on boxing*prophet, and I'd confidently have picked Michael Spinks over Michael Moorer.

Regardless. Ranking guys on all time standings based on who you think will win is generally not a good way to go about it. There's a good chance the guy you think would've won ain't the guy that would've won. That goes for anybody, not just you.

It's a flawed way to rank guys no matter who does it. Nobody is able to call all the fights, all the time.

Spinks/moorer wouldve been a good fight, thats the most important. You say spinks wins. I say moorer knocks him out.

Yeah it is generly not a good idea to rank boxers and who the better boxer is.

It is much better to go by old black and white and 0 footage or blown up records with 200 fight record where 70 % of the oppinents where on a level of an average sparring partner.

Record can fool, also observation can fool. Because you never know 100 % if somebody can take a chin if not he has been clubbed by a powerful puncher and survived.

I rank boxers by how good they are in the ring regardless if they young and have 10 fights or old atg with 60 + fights. Over the years i learned a great understanding on how to rate boxers when i see them i can quickly say if someone is a, b or c level. I find people who need 40 fights to than determin if they are good or not non experts. Anybody can say after 50 fights bernard hopkins is an atg boxer, the difficulty is to say it and be right when only the quality in the ring is shown in an early age. I can do it. Most cant and hide behind records.

I can pick fights better than you and I have the statistics to back that claim up. I still wouldn't rank guys all time or even currently based on who I think wins or least that would be the LAST factor I would include, and would only go with that if all else was even. That doesn't mean I don't think guy I rank lower than others can't beat the guys ranked ahead of them...it just means they still got it to do before I'm gonna rank them ahead of those guys.

gilgamesh wrote:

Jip wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I've correctly picked 93% of the fights in the last month and a half or so since I started playing on boxing*prophet, and I'd confidently have picked Michael Spinks over Michael Moorer.

Regardless. Ranking guys on all time standings based on who you think will win is generally not a good way to go about it. There's a good chance the guy you think would've won ain't the guy that would've won. That goes for anybody, not just you.

It's a flawed way to rank guys no matter who does it. Nobody is able to call all the fights, all the time.

Spinks/moorer wouldve been a good fight, thats the most important. You say spinks wins. I say moorer knocks him out.

Yeah it is generly not a good idea to rank boxers and who the better boxer is.

It is much better to go by old black and white and 0 footage or blown up records with 200 fight record where 70 % of the oppinents where on a level of an average sparring partner.

Record can fool, also observation can fool. Because you never know 100 % if somebody can take a chin if not he has been clubbed by a powerful puncher and survived.

I rank boxers by how good they are in the ring regardless if they young and have 10 fights or old atg with 60 + fights. Over the years i learned a great understanding on how to rate boxers when i see them i can quickly say if someone is a, b or c level. I find people who need 40 fights to than determin if they are good or not non experts. Anybody can say after 50 fights bernard hopkins is an atg boxer, the difficulty is to say it and be right when only the quality in the ring is shown in an early age. I can do it. Most cant and hide behind records.

I can pick fights better than you and I have the statistics to back that claim up. I still wouldn't rank guys all time or even currently based on who I think wins or least that would be the LAST factor I would include, and would only go with that if all else was even. That doesn't mean I don't think guy I rank lower than others can't beat the guys ranked ahead of them...it just means they still got it to do before I'm gonna rank them ahead of those guys.

When i concentrate and i am on my a game anybody you included would have a tough time.

I ll make a thread in a couple of days. I will predict around 8 fights and you can join and we will see head to head who is better at predicting.

What u wrote made 0 sense. You think a guy is better than the other but wouldnt rate him higher bevause he didnt fight him. Nonsense. So you aint sure on your expertise. If you were you would rate the boxer higher on who you think is the better boxer based on his skills

There has been no LHW that blows me away like Roy Jones Jr at his peak.
For one guy to have a many amazing knock downs and KO's as on this clip, there can be no doubt, Roy is king



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0o-hU1IeOI

Jip wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I can pick fights better than you and I have the statistics to back that claim up. I still wouldn't rank guys all time or even currently based on who I think wins or least that would be the LAST factor I would include, and would only go with that if all else was even. That doesn't mean I don't think guy I rank lower than others can't beat the guys ranked ahead of them...it just means they still got it to do before I'm gonna rank them ahead of those guys.

When i concentrate and i am on my a game anybody you included would have a tough time.

I ll make a thread in a couple of days. I will predict around 8 fights and you can join and we will see head to head who is better at predicting.

What u wrote made 0 sense. You think a guy is better than the other but wouldnt rate him higher bevause he didnt fight him. Nonsense. So you aint sure on your expertise. If you were you would rate the boxer higher on who you think is the better boxer based on his skills

I'm very confident in my expertise, I'm just open to the possibility that I can be wrong no matter how sure I feel because that's simply a fact of life.

I welcome your challenge anytime.

Kalan won one of these little games with me, and hasn't quit bragging about it since

Unlike you guys I don't take one victory and run away with my arms in the air claiming eternal victory. I put my skills to the test again and again and again and again. Sometimes I go on lengthy streaks where I don't pick anything wrong for a long while, sometimes nothing seems to go my way.

Either way though over the last several years I have picked 81% of fights accurately and I have the statistics to prove it.

93% in the last few months.

There are people that can beat me in pick 'em games, but there ain't many. I don't think you're one of them.

gilgamesh wrote:

Jip wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I can pick fights better than you and I have the statistics to back that claim up. I still wouldn't rank guys all time or even currently based on who I think wins or least that would be the LAST factor I would include, and would only go with that if all else was even. That doesn't mean I don't think guy I rank lower than others can't beat the guys ranked ahead of them...it just means they still got it to do before I'm gonna rank them ahead of those guys.

When i concentrate and i am on my a game anybody you included would have a tough time.

I ll make a thread in a couple of days. I will predict around 8 fights and you can join and we will see head to head who is better at predicting.

What u wrote made 0 sense. You think a guy is better than the other but wouldnt rate him higher bevause he didnt fight him. Nonsense. So you aint sure on your expertise. If you were you would rate the boxer higher on who you think is the better boxer based on his skills

I'm very confident in my expertise, I'm just open to the possibility that I can be wrong no matter how sure I feel because that's simply a fact of life.

I welcome your challenge anytime.

Good

YOU DO realize rather than making a thread you could just play the PTBF game. I mean it's too late now, but at the start of next year by all means you should play. Mr Expert

This way rather than claim to be a great fight picker, you can do it. Or not.

Ok

i cannot really judge, but rjj was
extremely impressive at his peak.
he often did win in such a clearly
dominating way that he made solid
contenders look like amateurs.

that doesn't happen so often at
that level and while his resume
does lack a few names, there are
many real great ones in.

he definitely was the most precise
and economic boxer i have ever
seen, with his own unique approach.

Spinks by a country mile.

Spinks. Who definitely beats Mooorer

Michael Spinks is the one. Beat Lopez, coldcocked Johnson, established himself as a top 3 LHW of all-time. If he ever fought Roy, he would kayo him in the 8th round, boxing skills were better.

Nile4000 wrote:Michael Spinks is the one. Beat Lopez, coldcocked Johnson, established himself as a top 3 LHW of all-time. If he ever fought Roy, he would kayo him in the 8th round, boxing skills were better.

100% agree with every word

Roy closely followed by Spinks. Can see an argument for either but I'm a RJJ fanboy so he edges it for me.

Spinks for sure. He would have beaten Roy, but Jones would have given Spinks some trouble until the jinx landed.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ldlamb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Eddie Davis was by far Michael's closest fight. He should have lost.

Maybe it was closer than some of the judges cards (11-1 and 10-2) but I certainly don't agree that Davis won.

It was much closer than Qawi. The 115-114 card was much better than the two you listed. 116-112 Davis would be more accurate. He got outworked.

I haven't seen the fight in over 30 years but my recollection was that it was like Mayweather-Maidana...since it was closer than expected, the challenger was given too much credit.

I feel like Davis had a very good 3 or 4 round run in the middle of the bout, but Spinks won everything else.

Maybe it was as closer than Qawi, but I think 116-112 Davis is as bad as you think the 118-111 card was.

ldlamb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ldlamb wrote:
Maybe it was closer than some of the judges cards (11-1 and 10-2) but I certainly don't agree that Davis won.

It was much closer than Qawi. The 115-114 card was much better than the two you listed. 116-112 Davis would be more accurate. He got outworked.

I haven't seen the fight in over 30 years but my recollection was that it was like Mayweather-Maidana...since it was closer than expected, the challenger was given too much credit.

I feel like Davis had a very good 3 or 4 round run in the middle of the bout, but Spinks won everything else.

Maybe it was as closer than Qawi, but I think 116-112 Davis is as bad as you think the 118-111 card was.

You should probably watch it again. 118-111 Spinks is all time bad.

For me it's close between calzaghe & Roy Jones Jr. But I would go with Jones Jr. Probably

Oiky wrote:For me it's close between calzaghe & Roy Jones Jr. But I would go with Jones Jr. Probably

Calzaghe only fought at light heavyweight twice

tiny_acres wrote:

Oiky wrote:For me it's close between calzaghe & Roy Jones Jr. But I would go with Jones Jr. Probably

Calzaghe only fought at light heavyweight twice

Yes, and he beat Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Junior....According to you, he had to defeat Klitschko brothers to be proven.....

ValMar wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

Oiky wrote:For me it's close between calzaghe & Roy Jones Jr. But I would go with Jones Jr. Probably

Calzaghe only fought at light heavyweight twice

Yes, and he beat Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Junior....According to you, he had to defeat Klitschko brothers to be proven.....

No sir I never said that.
What I'm saying is he beat an old Hopkins and an old Jones. That is far from what Spinks or Jones did at that weight.
That was my point

Spinks was unbeatable at LHW during the toughest era in the history of the weight class. RJJ can't touch that.

Those voting for CalSlappy should have the silly slapped out of them.

Obvioiusly, some posters (tiny_acres & Tanzio) would never put Calzaghe on this pool, but I can not agree with them....Nothing personal.....