Page 2 of 4
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:23
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
corrales was not green when he fought mayweather
corrales was 33-0 and had been the IBF champion for almost 2 years. he also was 146 on fight night enjoying a huge size advantage. corrales had already knocked out derrick gainer, justin jukko, and angel mandfredy. no way was corrales green.
theres a difference between non accepting the fight in dodging. ur implying that mayweather is scared of casamayor. that is not the case.
how old are u man??? 12 13????
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:23
by britpack
comments like a paper champion who beat novices and robbed his only proper test is an all time great make me laugh. go do your homeowork on the retard known as ricardo lopez. he is a big joke and a fraud. he wasnt even as good as junior jones or tom johnson in terms of pound for pound. honestly this guy foguht about 45 novices. read that again NOVICES. even in world title fights he fought ex thiaboxers (failed thaiboxers) and martial artists (karate kids who twisted punches) who had just taken up the sport. guys who had boxed for less than a year in world title fights! hahahahaha
in my opinion minimumwieght boxing should be BANNED. the competition level is a joke and anybody who knew anything would know that. it is a joke and a disgrace to the sport. so is anybody who thinks lopez is the real deal or even half decent. he is like calzaghe but on a much much worse level. the guys he foguht had no experience and cant even be compared to ashira. with opposition like that, your career is a joke. he fought one good guy and robbed him once (the draw with alvarez)and nevrgave him a rematch after a gift decsiion. he moved up and couldnt unfiy the light flyweights (realised they were actually good) and then he retired. if lopez was a decent boxer, he would have moved up many years before. he stayed on slim fast because liek all minimumweights HE IS A JOKE
DO YOUR HOMEWORK SON!
MINIMUMWEIGHTS ARE A JOKE!!!!
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:26
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:britpack almost everyone on the forum knows u dont have much boxing knowledge.
but before people decide to lay into u, stop calling people dumbass cause EVERYONE on the forum knows ur the real dumbass my friend.
so man, just dont call other peopless opinion dumb. even if u disagree, try to be civil.
- i mean i just want to save u from more embarrasemnt to ur self.
i know alot more than you. i was joking about hamed because he is my fave. everyone has one fave, but your list is taking the piss. you cant be biased to more than one guy. thats just beign a dumb ass. you msut be a DUMB ASS. anyway even though i am a nazfan, i never said anything dumb like he is top 100 p4p. by the way, naz and half his oppoents were better than ricardo 'el feminino' lopez. do your homework and you will know that ALL minimumweights are a joke. a division full of noobs and novices. world titel fights with guys who have 4 fights and have boxed for 7 months. it is a JOKE! IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT BOXING, YOU WOULD NOT PUT HIM IN SUCH A HIGH POSITION. YOU OBVIOSULY HAVENT SEEN ANY OF HIS FIHTS, BUT READ HIS NAME SOMEWHERE
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:27
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:31
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:corrales was not green when he fought mayweather
corrales was 33-0 and had been the IBF champion for almost 2 years. he also was 146 on fight night enjoying a huge size advantage. corrales had already knocked out derrick gainer, justin jukko, and angel mandfredy. no way was corrales green.
theres a difference between non accepting the fight in dodging. ur implying that mayweather is scared of casamayor. that is not the case.
how old are u man??? 12 13????
you must be 7 if you think ricardo lopez is top 100. anyway corrales was green because he is alot better now. in any case it was a big win for mayweather but top 50 p4p? please! this guy still needs to prove alot, and after the first castillo fight we know he is beatable. i believe he was beaten that night and exposed. somebody will expose them weaknesses he displayed that night. coming through that will prove his greatness. thats what greatness is all about. not letting anybody expose any apparent weaknesses. until he does that, he shouldnt be on the list. at the moment he is a 140lb paper champ, because he beat a pure paper champ. they took kostya tszyu's belt that he never lost in the ring. who has the one he lost in thr ing? yes thats right, our hitman. if mayweather is top 50 you might as well put hatton there too
what a joke. unproven talent in the all time top 50 greats ever! go to sleep little boy and dont wet the bed
also, mayweathers demands for more money are unreasonable and are tantamount to dodging his opponents. he hasnt even been around to give arum an answer. he isnt home and hasnt answered the phone. his agent said he has 'disappeared'. that is dodging a guy he can beat. so what if he can beat him, he is still dodging the guy because its risky and he is greedy. i beleiev mayweather feeels insecure about fighting the real 140lb champion
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:36
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
wow you got a lot of hate in u.
u said gatti sucks???? hes a two time champion and one of the biggest warriors in histor of division.
how would u know u have more knowledge than me, u dont even know me??
- whats with the personal attacks on ricardo lopez????? did he refuse to sign u a autograph and u went home crying to your mommy?????
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:38
by britpack
you're list proves you are retarded and worse than bert sugar. i have to go because some poeple actually have to work. but before i do i suggest you do your homework on your retarded hero known as ricardo lopez. anorexics with padded records, beating other anorexics who have just started boxing in a world title 'farce' are not all time greats. anorexics should be banned from boxing. especially when the division is so weak that none of the top ten have had more than 15 fights. if you thought the heavyweight division was weak, you havent seen anything yet. seriously go examine his oppponents. im not joking now. remove lopez from your 'revised' list. the guy is full of shit. he moved up about 10 years too late (because he knew he was shit) and when he did he couldnt take the ehat and had to retire. hat a joke. he should have lost to a novice too but his friend jose suleiman made it a draw. bullshit. ricardo lopez is the worst paper champion in the history of our great sport.
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:41
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
ricardo lopez my hero??? actually no.
i dont even really like him, but i give him a fairshake and respect unlike u.
woa woa there buddy, did u have bolemia or an anarexic problem???? u get really emotional over humans weighing under 110 lbs.
isnt it a little past ur bed time???
my heros are rocky marciano and joe louis
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:45
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:wow you got a lot of hate in u.
u said gatti sucks???? hes a two time champion and one of the biggest warriors in histor of division.
how would u know u have more knowledge than me, u dont even know me??
- whats with the personal attacks on ricardo lopez????? did he refuse to sign u a autograph and u went home crying to your mommy?????
i know i know more than you because you already are displaying bullshit. gatti has plenty of heart, nobody is questioning him as a warrior. but that doesnt take away the fact that he is a second rate fighter. he was a paper champion twice and never held his title for long. at 140 he won the belt because it was vacant. he didnt and could win it of tszyu. he is a second rate fighter in that division. being a warrior means he entertains casual fans, but any boxing fan knows he has always been second rate. there are plenty of fighters at his level but they are too boring to mention.
as for the 'personal' attacks on lopez. they are not personal. we are talking about boxing and i know his boxing is second rate. in fact i actually like lopez, but putting him in the top 200 is a big joke. he simply isnt that good. you took piss out of naz, but lopez wasnt even as good as kelly, johnson or vasquez. he was almost as good as steve robinson. compare the champions naz beat (know a hall of famer called medina) and look at the level they were fighting at. to be honest with you, lopez's level of competition was so dire that he isnt as good as arturo gatti or alot of other paper champions. he also avoided risks and fought noobs and novices for 9 years. he fought a few journeymen who were experienced. that is the state of the minimumweight division. it is the truth. it isnt personal. just a fact that they should be banned for lack of competition. light flyweight should be the new minimumweight in my opinion. by the way, nobody has ever asked an anorexic for his aoutograph. i dont think anybody would notice that anorexic outside his hometown!
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:50
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
well ur gonna have to prove u have more knowlege than me cause i just dont see it.
lets see ur top 10 heavyweight list all time
and top 20 fighters all time
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:51
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ricardo lopez my hero??? actually no.
i dont even really like him, but i give him a fairshake and respect unlike u.
woa woa there buddy, did u have bolemia or an anarexic problem???? u get really emotional over humans weighing under 110 lbs.
isnt it a little past ur bed time???
my heros are rocky marciano and joe louis
you didnt give him a fair shake.you gave him more than he ever deserved. you dont no anything about him. if you did you would know he only looked good on paper. he wasnt even in p4p lists when he was fighting. thats because the pundits know he was fighting bums and should have moved up. it is just a fact that the minimumweight division is full of guys that have had less than 10 fights or sometimes less that 15. these guys are the best. the novices. lopes has defended his titel against guys with 4-0 and 7-3 records. that is a joke. i dont have anything against humans weighing less than 110lbs, but if they cant get enough of them to make the division competitive then they are a joke. its not the fact that they are anorexic that is a problem. it is the fact that the anorexics dont have enough competition to be taken seriously. i could find some guy that weighs less than 100lbs, make a new division and pad his record with 50 noobs(lopez did this, it is no exaggeration). i could lvoe the guy and be his number one fan, but id have to be dumb to put him in an all time great list.
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:53
by Rory McCloskey
okay britpack.. since your so wise in pugilistic ways why dont you make us a top 100 list with no flaws, and none that are questionable whatsoever, thats a great list when you think of the sheer number of great fighters in the history of boxing, trying to place each great fighter in the correct spot, and fitting the deserved fighters on the list.
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:54
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
well ur gonna have to prove u have more knowlege than me cause i just dont see it.
lets see ur top 10 heavyweight list all time
and top 20 fighters all time
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:56
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:well ur gonna have to prove u have more knowlege than me cause i just dont see it.
lets see ur top 10 heavyweight list all time
and top 20 fighters all time
ill do that when i have actually WATCHED all the fighters entire careers. then i can make a decsion. i have actually seen lopez's career. i talk about what i have seen. talking about things you havent seen (like you) doesnt prove knowledge. it only proves ignorance. your just a sheep. i dont want to make a list because im not a sheep who bases his choices on what he has HEARD and not what he has SEEN. your only pretending to be knowledgeable and it is pretentious to make such a list when you havent seen ALL the top fighters. i can make a top ten heavyweights list, but even then i have missed a few louis and johnson fihgts. when i watch every fight that has ever been tapes, then ill make a decsion. i suggest you collect tapes before you talk bollocks. have you actually seen a ricardo lopez tape? i doubt you have. making lists about shit you havent seen is dumb. id rather not have a list.
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 00:58
by Rory McCloskey
u dont have to see every fight in their career to ate the top 10 heavyweights of all time i could do it off the top of my head
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:00
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
ok then that means u dont have much knowladge cause unlike u,
i have seen tapes and fights of all the heavyweight champions i rate. u see i actually have my own room where i store all my boxing tapes and dvds. i collect and have a lot of fight films.
i have studied the tapes over and over again even watching some of the fights in slow motion. i have enough louis and johnson tapes to form an opinion about them both.
i suggest u start watching tapes and learn more about boxing, before u come on here spreading bullshit, calling people names, and trying to make ur self sound like an expert.
now once again, what are ur top ten heavyweights of all time?
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:01
by britpack
Rory McCloskey wrote:okay britpack.. since your so wise in pugilistic ways why dont you make us a top 100 list with no flaws, and none that are questionable whatsoever, thats a great list when you think of the sheer number of great fighters in the history of boxing, trying to place each great fighter in the correct spot, and fitting the deserved fighters on the list.
first of all i never claimed to be all wise. i just critcised someone who was faking it. i havent seen enough to make a judgement on them guys but i have seen lopez and knwo he shouldnt be there. he should be in the top 200 if you ask me. he sint even as good as the top 20 around now. i dont think this guy has ever seen or even read lopez's record. if you read it (check it on boxrec!) and examine his opponents you will be shocked. its better to have no list, then make a list when you dont even know what you are writing. you cant make a judgement on someone you havent even seen or checked out properly. its a botch job. talking about fitting deserved fighters in their correct place, lopez doesnt deserve his place and neither does floyd. you would know if you actually watched any top fighters. and if you actually watched these guys closely
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:03
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
but unlike u i have seen the fights because i have most of them on tape or DVD!!!!!
- why do u keep bringing up ricardo lopez??? i rate him 61st all time.
do u have a fetish with him or something???
LOCK THE THREAD BARRY, this guy britpack is ridiculous.
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:07
by Rory McCloskey
35 posts in 1 day britpack.. i post way to much and even i think thats a little much. but kudos to you i see no problem in posting 1000 times a day as long as there good ones.
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:13
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ok then that means u dont have much knowladge cause unlike u,
i have seen tapes and fights of all the heavyweight champions i rate. u see i actually have my own room where i store all my boxing tapes and dvds. i collect and have a lot of fight films.
i have studied the tapes over and over again even watching some of the fights in slow motion. i have enough louis and johnson tapes to form an opinion about them both.
i suggest u start watching tapes and learn more about boxing, before u come on here spreading bullshit, calling people names, and trying to make ur self sound like an expert.
now once again, what are ur top ten heavyweights of all time?
ok bitch. i got tapes too. i have actually watched lopez unlike you. i dont think you have many tapes if you put floyd so highly
i got 1000+ tapes and about 200 dvd's. im still relucutant to make a list because i like to make an informed opinion. your list obviosuly isnt because you admit by default that you havent watched lopez or the bums he was fighting. i bet you didnt even know he defended his title against noobs with 4 fights and 7 months of experience. i did and i know he is a joke, and a few other things on your list are uncanny.
anyway, this is about top 100 p4p of all time, so where the hell does top ten heabyweights come into it. i think that woudl ahve been a more sensible thread. if you ask me here is my rough opinion based on what i have seen. i havent seen all of louis yet 9seen about 20 fights) so i dont know for sure. but here it goes;
1 ali
2 louis
3 johnson
4 frazier
5 norton
6 dempsey
7 remeber his face but the name is drawing a blank!
8 foreman
9 marciano
10 holmes
by the way, why did you describe yourself for; i suggest u start watching tapes and learn more about boxing, before u come on here spreading bullshit, calling people names, and trying to make ur self sound like an expert.
its you who is claiming to be an expert. not me!
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:16
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
britpack wrote
5 norton
now thats a joke. hes not a top 15 or 20 heavyweight.
decent list, holmes and marciano are way to low, both should be in top 5 IMO. and whos ur # 7?????
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:18
by britpack
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:22
by Rory McCloskey
norton at 5? frazier a little too high.. holmes and rocky too low...
1) Joe Louis
2) Muhammad
3) Jack Johnson
4) Rocky Marciano
5) Jack Dempsey
6) Larry Holmes
7) Joe Frazier
8 ) George Foreman
9) Sonny Liston
10)Ezzard Charles
haha u know if u make the number 8.. then put a ) next to it like i did, you get one of these 8) after you submit it.. i thought it was funny...
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:23
by britpack
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:britpack wrote
5 norton
now thats a joke. hes not a top 15 or 20 heavyweight.
decent list, holmes and marciano are way to low, both should be in top 5 IMO. and whos ur # 7?????
i forgot his name but remember his face!!!!! i hate it when i do that. holmes would be higher but he never fought anybody good so he couldnt prove himself. i guess the first 3 rounds against tyson when he was an OAP showed how good he was in terms of skill. marciano is about right. he had the same problem but dealt with his punch which is what i like. nroton does deserve his ranking at 5. norton was solid and could have beaten marciano in my view. some believe he beat ali in the last one. he beat him in the first one. norton i ssolid and is no joke at 5. i think he should be in evry top 10. not top 15 by any estimation. now holmes, that could have been higher. how i wish he either came ten years earlier or ten years later. what a treat it would have been. number 7, i remeber his face but not his name!!!!!
Posted: 19 Sep 2005, 01:25
by Rory McCloskey
are you thinking of liston? ezzard? tyson?
