BoxRec

paddy chavez wrote: ↑30 Apr 2019, 15:53 You could pick any of the fab 4 Hearns, Duran, hagler Even Leonard , then a young Tyson was up there how about zarate or Chavez .

bigjack wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 04:54 Chavez for me

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 21:00 Definitely top 5 most overrated resumes.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 21:00 Definitely top 5 most overrated resumes.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 05:08 Chavez had a superb offence. The Edwin Rosario fight is the perfect example.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Apr 2019, 15:32 Gotta agree. I was gonna nominate Joe Louis as well. He wasn't the fastest in the world, didn't have perfect defense or footwork, but his timing, and combination punching was second to none, and he had devastating power with every shot in the book. Uppercuts, left hooks, the right cross, body shots. He could and did take guys out with all of the above.

His offense is what makes him the all time great legend that he is.

Roars Like Me wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 07:55 Sam Langford
Big George
Joe Frazier
Marvin Hagler
Jack Johnson
Marciano
Sonny Liston
Ron Lyle
Earnie Shavers
Julian Jackson
John Mugabi
Edwin Valero ( I know he's a wrong 'un)
Bob Foster

Roars Like Me wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 07:55 Sam Langford
Big George
Joe Frazier
Marvin Hagler
Jack Johnson
Marciano
Sonny Liston
Ron Lyle
Earnie Shavers
Julian Jackson
John Mugabi
Edwin Valero ( I know he's a wrong 'un)
Bob Foster

gilgamesh wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 17:31 Just because Valero had a lot of knockouts over sub-par opposition does not mean he had all time great offensive skills. He wouldn't have lasted long at the top, and was never #1 in his weight. I would've loved it if the talks of him against Juan Manuel Marquez would've come through. Marquez would've embarrassed him, and ended all this mythical status nonsense he holds for no reason other than his shiny record.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 21:09 - So sayeth the biggest crappeth expert, eh?

Crunching boxrec, Valero is within the top 1% of p4p fighters , notably ahead of Marcel Cerdan with 100+ wins and only 4 losses.

Seems Edwin had a mind for mathematics with 27 fights, 27 wins, 27 KOs, 3 perfect cubes of 3s before he chose to check out.

Horrific tragedy in leaving his 2 little girls orphans in a country now being torn apart. What was he thinkin'?

BitPlayer wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 22:28 Is Ali Raymi also in the debate then?

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Jul 2019, 08:05

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 21:09 - So sayeth the biggest crappeth expert, eh?

Crunching boxrec, Valero is within the top 1% of p4p fighters , notably ahead of Marcel Cerdan with 100+ wins and only 4 losses.

Seems Edwin had a mind for mathematics with 27 fights, 27 wins, 27 KOs, 3 perfect cubes of 3s before he chose to check out.

Horrific tragedy in leaving his 2 little girls orphans in a country now being torn apart. What was he thinkin'?

BitPlayer wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 22:28 Is Ali Raymi also in the debate then?

answer him. explain how you can tell a fighter's greatness with no other metrics but number of wins and number of knockouts. explain how quality of opposition has absolutely no bearing on judging a fighter's greatness. and please, whilst you do so, carry on with that oh-so-tiresome pose you have that somehow you've got this vast critical distance and objectivity, and the rest of the world doesn't. please, please, please, do that corny arrogant condescending tone, because it's particularly becoming when you're trying to make the argument that some dude who never fought anybody good was the greatest offensive fighters of all time, which you were able to prove by 'crunching boxrec' and referring to nothing more than number of wins and knockout %. Please do all that cute sh1t you usually do where the reader can literally hear you patting your own back in the joy of your own anachronistic and idiosyncratic phrase-making, whilst you make the point that a nobody who fought nobody was one of the greatest offensive fighters of all time, because there's nothing quite so amusing as a pompous cUUUUUnt making himself look fvcking ridiculous even as he seems to think he's being clever.

tiny_acres wrote: ↑21 Jul 2019, 19:32

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Jul 2019, 08:05



answer him. explain how you can tell a fighter's greatness with no other metrics but number of wins and number of knockouts. explain how quality of opposition has absolutely no bearing on judging a fighter's greatness. and please, whilst you do so, carry on with that oh-so-tiresome pose you have that somehow you've got this vast critical distance and objectivity, and the rest of the world doesn't. please, please, please, do that corny arrogant condescending tone, because it's particularly becoming when you're trying to make the argument that some dude who never fought anybody good was the greatest offensive fighters of all time, which you were able to prove by 'crunching boxrec' and referring to nothing more than number of wins and knockout %. Please do all that cute sh1t you usually do where the reader can literally hear you patting your own back in the joy of your own anachronistic and idiosyncratic phrase-making, whilst you make the point that a nobody who fought nobody was one of the greatest offensive fighters of all time, because there's nothing quite so amusing as a pompous cUUUUUnt making himself look fvcking ridiculous even as he seems to think he's being clever.

you sir are now my hero

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Jul 2019, 08:05

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 21:09 - So sayeth the biggest crappeth expert, eh?

Crunching boxrec, Valero is within the top 1% of p4p fighters , notably ahead of Marcel Cerdan with 100+ wins and only 4 losses.

Seems Edwin had a mind for mathematics with 27 fights, 27 wins, 27 KOs, 3 perfect cubes of 3s before he chose to check out.

Horrific tragedy in leaving his 2 little girls orphans in a country now being torn apart. What was he thinkin'?

BitPlayer wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 22:28 Is Ali Raymi also in the debate then?

answer him. explain how you can tell a fighter's greatness with no other metrics but number of wins and number of knockouts. explain how quality of opposition has absolutely no bearing on judging a fighter's greatness. and please, whilst you do so, carry on with that oh-so-tiresome pose you have that somehow you've got this vast critical distance and objectivity, and the rest of the world doesn't. please, please, please, do that corny arrogant condescending tone, because it's particularly becoming when you're trying to make the argument that some dude who never fought anybody good was the greatest offensive fighters of all time, which you were able to prove by 'crunching boxrec' and referring to nothing more than number of wins and knockout %. Please do all that cute sh1t you usually do where the reader can literally hear you patting your own back in the joy of your own anachronistic and idiosyncratic phrase-making, whilst you make the point that a nobody who fought nobody was one of the greatest offensive fighters of all time, because there's nothing quite so amusing as a pompous cUUUUUnt making himself look fvcking ridiculous even as he seems to think he's being clever.