BoxRec

Posted: **19 Mar 2018, 23:10**

Kalan wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 21:29
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 19:50 Valero? Probably should not have been allowed to continue to box.

Not because he was vulnerable, but because he was good to begin with, and the experimental surgery that doctors performed on him after the motorcycle crash probably gave him super powers that made it unfair for his opponents.

Hell for all we know the crash was just a cover for the experiments. May not have even happened. Once all the documents are revealed he will go down in history as the first cyborg.

Check with Kalan for all the details.
Don't be a jackass BuzzBox.... The motorcycle accident and horrific brain injuries are NOT something to laugh about... It DID effect him mentally and emotionally in ways unknown...and probably led to his horrific actions... You're a professional in the brain trauma business and this is FUNNY to you???? You're a jerk... It's like making fun of Ali or Robinson because they got punched upside the head so much it led to their disabilities and deaths.

And for all the idiots encouraging this disgraceful behavior

Your the sort that probably knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
Most folks who have been through some tough things in life are infused with a great sense of humor about all the difficult things that come with living a full life. Even if it's a short life. Or a life that has been infused with "risk management", along the way. There is dignity in taking risks, and then of course there are the time when it may not be so dignified. But acts of foolishness are not sacrosanct. And the outcomes of our foolishness is often where we learn the most, and even learn how to laugh and truly enjoy the gift of life. Some of us take chances we damn well know we shouldn't have, and somehow we got away with it.....Like Valero....who managed to escape a tough fate on a bike, or Corralles who wasn't quite as lucky on his encounter with a Steel Steed.

And I know it went over your head, but my humor was not at Valero's expense, it was at yours. And my guess is that Valero would probably be laughing with me, and wonder just your getting your undies in a bundle about. although he would applaud your cheer leading.

Might not be a bad idea to let our differences just be something of interest rather than a call to arms. Enjoy the diversity of opinions. Tip your hat to the fella you imagine as "on the fringe" and let their silly notions fall away of their own weight.

Or....you can raise your fist at the sky, and curse all who aren't wise enough to see your innate and unerring wisdom.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 01:02**

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 23:10
Kalan wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 21:29
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 19:50 Valero? Probably should not have been allowed to continue to box.

Not because he was vulnerable, but because he was good to begin with, and the experimental surgery that doctors performed on him after the motorcycle crash probably gave him super powers that made it unfair for his opponents.

Hell for all we know the crash was just a cover for the experiments. May not have even happened. Once all the documents are revealed he will go down in history as the first cyborg.

Check with Kalan for all the details.
Don't be a jackass BuzzBox.... The motorcycle accident and horrific brain injuries are NOT something to laugh about... It DID effect him mentally and emotionally in ways unknown...and probably led to his horrific actions... You're a professional in the brain trauma business and this is FUNNY to you???? You're a jerk... It's like making fun of Ali or Robinson because they got punched upside the head so much it led to their disabilities and deaths.

And for all the idiots encouraging this disgraceful behavior

Your the sort that probably knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
Most folks who have been through some tough things in life are infused with a great sense of humor about all the difficult things that come with living a full life. Even if it's a short life. Or a life that has been infused with "risk management", along the way. There is dignity in taking risks, and then of course there are the time when it may not be so dignified. But acts of foolishness are not sacrosanct. And the outcomes of our foolishness is often where we learn the most, and even learn how to laugh and truly enjoy the gift of life. Some of us take chances we damn well know we shouldn't have, and somehow we got away with it.....Like Valero....who managed to escape a tough fate on a bike, or Corralles who wasn't quite as lucky on his encounter with a Steel Steed.

And I know it went over your head, but my humor was not at Valero's expense, it was at yours. And my guess is that Valero would probably be laughing with me, and wonder just your getting your undies in a bundle about. although he would applaud your cheer leading.

Might not be a bad idea to let our differences just be something of interest rather than a call to arms. Enjoy the diversity of opinions. Tip your hat to the fella you imagine as "on the fringe" and let their silly notions fall away of their own weight.

Or....you can raise your fist at the sky, and curse all who aren't wise enough to see your innate and unerring wisdom

That’s a lot of sanctimonious nonsense written to excuse your inexcusable conduct… Saying you’re not attacking Valero but you’re attacking me is duplicitous, snidely, and buck passing.

You know damned well Valero didn’t escape a tough fate. Not only did Valero suffer many excruciating operations with protracted recoveries and physical therapy, he had many lingering emotional and behavior problems that took prolonged counseling and treatment. The accident took Valero’s life as surely as if he died that very night. If he did it would have saved another life he took with him. But all you can do is make fun of the cross he had to shoulder, laugh at his brain surgeries, demean his greatness, and make every attempt to delegitimize his accomplishments.

There are no other World Champions in the long history of Boxing, who won 8 or more World Title Fights and won all their career fights by KO. He was a superb boxer and puncher. He ruled 2 divisions and had to deal with many demons and personal problems at the same time. God is the judge of Valero’s actions and he’s a lenient judge – taking into consideration all mitigating, existential, and imperceivable (by humankind) facts and circumstances.

I know the price of relatively few things and don’t care.... I know the value of a life well lived and a clear conscience.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 14:20**

Well some of what you said here is sensible.

But your ability to "imagineer" what it was that I meant by my own words.....after I explained to you what I meant, should be about all that is needed to place into context your remarkable ability to confabulate.

Nothing wrong with an excellent confabulator.....they make good artists, good musicians, good writers, story tellers...the list goes on and on.

Where they can sometimes be a fly in the ointment is in and around the world of historians, and forensics. That's where a confabulator is about the last thing you need.

And a good and talented one can be insidious as well.

I'm not judging, any more than a camera would judge.

So just be careful how you use your super powers.....or like the character that Will Smith played in "Hancock" you'll just may make a mess of things.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:03**

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 14:20 But your ability to "imagineer" what it was that I meant by my own words.....after I explained to you what I meant, should be about all that is needed to place into context your remarkable ability to confabulate.

Nothing wrong with an excellent confabulator.....they make good artists, good musicians, good writers, story tellers...the list goes on and on.
Where they can sometimes be a fly in the ointment is in and around the world of historians, and forensics. That's where a confabulator is about the last thing you need.
And a good and talented one can be insidious as well.
I'm not judging, any more than a camera would judge. So just be careful how you use your super powers.....or like the character that Will Smith played in "Hancock" you'll just may make a mess of things.

Wow... You're so shallow, dense, trite, and closed minded... Confabulator is another smear term you're mounting to attack me and dismiss facts that you can't generate an argument to refute. You’re like a right wing extremist politician attacking “liberals” who are 10 times as conservative as he is with taxpayer's dollars. He appeals to hatred, greed, arrogance, selfishness, vanity, and conceit. He can’t be persuaded by reason. He has a cold heart and a dead conscience.

Forensics needs exacting discipline that goes where science leads it. Forensic investigators often have preconceived beliefs that distort their findings... Almost all astronomers before Nicolaus Copernicus arrived on the scene assumed Earth was the center of the solar system... That’s what all the text books said. But Copernicus was a brilliant mathematician as well as astronomer... Observing the movement of the planets and distinguishing them from the stars he observed how bodies in our solar system orbited around the sun rather than Earth.. Given the gravitational pulls he determined the size of the bodies... He formulated models to prove his findings with scientific certainty, but was met with massive resistance by established scientists... “Nonsense. Everyone knows that Earth is the center of the universe.”

If you start with the unshakable conviction that boxer A was better than boxer B will ever be because of his reputation – the mere fact that boxer A was hit a lot, decked a lot, and beaten a lot by guys who couldn’t box that well and were wide open defensively – will not dissuade your conviction... You will not go where the forensics leads you, but toward popular opinion and prejudice... You never even watched a Valero fight with an open mind and you’d be looking for flies in the ointment if you did... If you didn’t see any you’d invent some.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:06**

Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:03
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 14:20 But your ability to "imagineer" what it was that I meant by my own words.....after I explained to you what I meant, should be about all that is needed to place into context your remarkable ability to confabulate.

Nothing wrong with an excellent confabulator.....they make good artists, good musicians, good writers, story tellers...the list goes on and on.
Where they can sometimes be a fly in the ointment is in and around the world of historians, and forensics. That's where a confabulator is about the last thing you need.
And a good and talented one can be insidious as well.
I'm not judging, any more than a camera would judge. So just be careful how you use your super powers.....or like the character that Will Smith played in "Hancock" you'll just may make a mess of things.
Wow... You're so shallow, dense, trite, and closed minded... Confabulator is another smear term you're mounting to attack me and dismiss facts that you can't generate an argument to refute. You’re like a right wing extremist politician attacking “liberals” who are 10 times as conservative as he is with taxpayer's dollars. He appeals to hatred, greed, arrogance, selfishness, vanity, and conceit. He can’t be persuaded by reason. He has a cold heart and a dead conscience.

Forensics needs exacting discipline that goes where science leads it. Forensic investigators often have preconceived beliefs that distort their findings... Almost all astronomers before Nicolaus Copernicus arrived on the scene assumed Earth was the center of the solar system... That’s what all the text books said. But Copernicus was a brilliant mathematician as well as astronomer... Observing the movement of the planets and distinguishing them from the stars he observed how bodies in our solar system orbited around the sun rather than Earth.. Given the gravitational pulls he determined the size of the bodies... He formulated models to prove his findings with scientific certainty, but was met with massive resistance by established scientists... “Nonsense. Everyone knows that Earth is the center of the universe.”

If you start with the unshakable conviction that boxer A was better than boxer B will ever be because of his reputation – the mere fact that boxer A was hit a lot, decked a lot, and beaten a lot by guys who couldn’t box that well and were wide open defensively – will not dissuade your conviction... You will not go where the forensics leads you, but toward popular opinion and prejudice... You never even watched a Valero fight with an open mind and you’d be looking for flies in the ointment if you did... If you didn’t see any you’d invent some.

So now you're Copernicus? Do you read your posts before you submit? Just curious.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:10**

Kalan is indeed an excellent prognosticator.

He said about a year ago that Chris Eubank jr is one of the smartest boxers in the history of the sport

Nobody else is 'clever' enough to see such things.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:15**

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:10 Kalan is indeed an excellent prognosticator.

He said about a year ago that Chris Eubank jr is one of the smartest boxers in the history of the sport

Nobody else is 'clever' enough to see such things.

Thank God!

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:26**

oogiebe wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:06
Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:03
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 14:20 But your ability to "imagineer" what it was that I meant by my own words.....after I explained to you what I meant, should be about all that is needed to place into context your remarkable ability to confabulate.

Nothing wrong with an excellent confabulator.....they make good artists, good musicians, good writers, story tellers...the list goes on and on.
Where they can sometimes be a fly in the ointment is in and around the world of historians, and forensics. That's where a confabulator is about the last thing you need.
And a good and talented one can be insidious as well.
I'm not judging, any more than a camera would judge. So just be careful how you use your super powers.....or like the character that Will Smith played in "Hancock" you'll just may make a mess of things.
Wow... You're so shallow, dense, trite, and closed minded... Confabulator is another smear term you're mounting to attack me and dismiss facts that you can't generate an argument to refute. You’re like a right wing extremist politician attacking “liberals” who are 10 times as conservative as he is with taxpayer's dollars. He appeals to hatred, greed, arrogance, selfishness, vanity, and conceit. He can’t be persuaded by reason. He has a cold heart and a dead conscience.

Forensics needs exacting discipline that goes where science leads it. Forensic investigators often have preconceived beliefs that distort their findings... Almost all astronomers before Nicolaus Copernicus arrived on the scene assumed Earth was the center of the solar system... That’s what all the text books said. But Copernicus was a brilliant mathematician as well as astronomer... Observing the movement of the planets and distinguishing them from the stars he observed how bodies in our solar system orbited around the sun rather than Earth.. Given the gravitational pulls he determined the size of the bodies... He formulated models to prove his findings with scientific certainty, but was met with massive resistance by established scientists... “Nonsense. Everyone knows that Earth is the center of the universe.”

If you start with the unshakable conviction that boxer A was better than boxer B will ever be because of his reputation – the mere fact that boxer A was hit a lot, decked a lot, and beaten a lot by guys who couldn’t box that well and were wide open defensively – will not dissuade your conviction... You will not go where the forensics leads you, but toward popular opinion and prejudice... You never even watched a Valero fight with an open mind and you’d be looking for flies in the ointment if you did... If you didn’t see any you’d invent some.
So now you're Copernicus? Do you read your posts before you submit? Just curious.

Do you think before you submit??? Copernicus is an example of somebody who looked at facts instead of beliefs... Who thought for himself rather than assuming everything he was being taught was correct... I'm not a genius like Copernicus, but men such as him set an example for others not to take popular opinions and beliefs as gospel... Go where the forensics lead you instead of formulating convictions based on what biased generational misunderstandings tell you.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:28**

Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:26
oogiebe wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:06
Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:03

Wow... You're so shallow, dense, trite, and closed minded... Confabulator is another smear term you're mounting to attack me and dismiss facts that you can't generate an argument to refute. You’re like a right wing extremist politician attacking “liberals” who are 10 times as conservative as he is with taxpayer's dollars. He appeals to hatred, greed, arrogance, selfishness, vanity, and conceit. He can’t be persuaded by reason. He has a cold heart and a dead conscience.

Forensics needs exacting discipline that goes where science leads it. Forensic investigators often have preconceived beliefs that distort their findings... Almost all astronomers before Nicolaus Copernicus arrived on the scene assumed Earth was the center of the solar system... That’s what all the text books said. But Copernicus was a brilliant mathematician as well as astronomer... Observing the movement of the planets and distinguishing them from the stars he observed how bodies in our solar system orbited around the sun rather than Earth.. Given the gravitational pulls he determined the size of the bodies... He formulated models to prove his findings with scientific certainty, but was met with massive resistance by established scientists... “Nonsense. Everyone knows that Earth is the center of the universe.”

If you start with the unshakable conviction that boxer A was better than boxer B will ever be because of his reputation – the mere fact that boxer A was hit a lot, decked a lot, and beaten a lot by guys who couldn’t box that well and were wide open defensively – will not dissuade your conviction... You will not go where the forensics leads you, but toward popular opinion and prejudice... You never even watched a Valero fight with an open mind and you’d be looking for flies in the ointment if you did... If you didn’t see any you’d invent some.
So now you're Copernicus? Do you read your posts before you submit? Just curious.
Do you think before you submit??? Copernicus is an example of somebody who looked at facts instead of beliefs... Who thought for himself rather than assuming everything he was being taught was correct... I'm not a genius like Copernicus, but men such as him set an example for others not to take popular opinions and beliefs as gospel... Go where the forensics lead you instead of formulating convictions based on what biased generational misunderstandings tell you.

So? Do you? Sounded like you compared yourself to Copernicus...We know who he was...

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:32**

What 'forensics' are there to suggest Chris Eubank is one of the smartest boxers in history, Kalan? We're fascinated to hear.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:34**

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:32 What 'forensics' are there to suggest Chris Eubank is one of the smartest boxers in history, Kalan? We're fascinated to hear.

Do tell!

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:42**

Now now.....If Chris should enter the Quantum Physics world and produce a brand new explanation for "all that is" You boys will be eating your hats.

Anyway, I truly hope we can disagree without using a single expletive in the future. I agree with about half of what Kalan says. and he thinks that part of my brain is well functioning. So I'm half way home. (I'm an optmist, Kalan will say I'm half assed....cuz he's a pessimist) However, I'm always workin' on the other half. And of course learning from some of the best minds that have ever taken a brutal drubbing.

Once upon a time, folks could disagree with a smile. Nowadays we seem to take a simple difference of viewpoint as somehow personal. We really need to accept that "Allah loves wondrous variety" and take that FACT to heart.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 16:45**

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:42 Now now.....If Chris should enter the Quantum Physics world and produce a brand new explanation for "all that is" You boys will be eating your hats.

Anyway, I truly hope we can disagree without using a single expletive in the future. I agree with about half of what Kalan says. and he thinks that part of my brain is well functioning. So I'm half way home. (I'm an optmist, Kalan will say I'm half assed....cuz he's a pessimist) However, I'm always workin' on the other half. And of course learning from some of the best minds that have ever taken a brutal drubbing.

Once upon a time, folks could disagree with a smile. Nowadays we seem to take a simple difference of viewpoint as somehow personal. We really need to accept that "Allah loves wondrous variety" and take that FACT to heart.

Good lesson...But it would help to be civil...

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 17:06**

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:32 What 'forensics' are there to suggest Chris Eubank is one of the smartest boxers in history, Kalan? We're fascinated to hear.

I put him in a mix of boxers who're good thinkers... He's one... He was favored over Groves and lost... Woop De Doo!!!

Ali lost to 10/1 underdog Norton... Robinson lost to massive underdog Ralph Jones... Does that prove they were shitt??

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 17:31**

Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 17:06
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:32 What 'forensics' are there to suggest Chris Eubank is one of the smartest boxers in history, Kalan? We're fascinated to hear.
I put him in a mix of boxers who're good thinkers... He's one...

He has shown no thinking ability in the ring whatsoever, you sad fraud, you have no 'forensics' to point to and reference any skills. He has none. He's sh1tty fundamentally and a sh1tty thinker, which is why he had no plan B against Groves.

Because Eubank has never proven any thinking or skill to win against a single viable world level opponent. Just march forward with his chin in the air throwing wide hooks, and that's your idea of a thinker

You're a mug to have made the point in the first place

You're a mug to go on defending it

And you're a mug to think you have any credibility at all around here having said it. And I'm going to remind your fellow posters, frequently, that you said it, just so they remember the kind of dumb knee jerk things you come out with.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 17:37**

Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 17:06
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:32 What 'forensics' are there to suggest Chris Eubank is one of the smartest boxers in history, Kalan? We're fascinated to hear.
I put him in a mix of boxers who're good thinkers... He's one... He was favored over Groves and lost... Woop De Doo!!!

Ali lost to 10/1 underdog Norton... Robinson lost to massive underdog Ralph Jones... Does that prove they were shitt??

I what way would you say Eubank is a good thinker? To me a good thinker in boxing is one who can adapt to his opponents style during a fight and use his skills to overcome. I'll give you an example of a British Super Middle who could, Calzaghe vs Kessler and Hopkins.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 18:05**

Correct... Calzaghe was a good thinker in that he didn't get into a ring with Forch -- who called him out for years.

Eubank was a good thinker in not entering a ring with Golovkin... That wasn't a good match for him at the time.

Foreman handled his comeback well... In choosing who he fought and wouldn't fight...and rebuilding his brand.. Those wheels were turning really good.. Ray Leonard strategically timed some his fights to perfection and made good moves.. The timing of the Hearns rematch, the Hagler Fight, and the Duran rubber match were well thought out... Even the Norris fight, which didn't work, but was done for a good reason... Norris showed chin problems against Jackson.

Eubank is in good company so far as career management and isn't done yet... Let's see where he goes from here.

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 18:36**

There'll be someone (retired) at 100%
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Categ ... ted_Boxers

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 19:14**

Yeah... 100's of boxers who never lost-- and only a few World Champions who never lost..

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 20:09**

Has Golovkin lost a fight? Didnt' see his name there.....Ward's name was up....did he announce his retirement? Maybe this is just retired fighters list?

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 20:34**

Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 18:05 Correct... Calzaghe was a good thinker in that he didn't get into a ring with Forch -- who called him out for years.

Eubank was a good thinker in not entering a ring with Golovkin... That wasn't a good match for him at the time.

Foreman handled his comeback well... In choosing who he fought and wouldn't fight...and rebuilding his brand.. Those wheels were turning really good.. Ray Leonard strategically timed some his fights to perfection and made good moves.. The timing of the Hearns rematch, the Hagler Fight, and the Duran rubber match were well thought out... Even the Norris fight, which didn't work, but was done for a good reason... Norris showed chin problems against Jackson.

Eubank is in good company so far as career management and isn't done yet... Let's see where he goes from here.

So a good thinker in your opinion is someone who avoids fights, rather than an intelligent boxer who can adapt?

Posted: **20 Mar 2018, 21:21**

It's not avoiding... It's doing fights at a specific time that is favorable to you - rather than the other guy.

Boxing is riddled with fighters who fought opponents at the wrong time -- and got the crap knocked out of them.

Of course....as a fan, I always want to see boxers take risks so I can get more enjoyment out of it... For the boxer, that risk might not be the smartest thing... Adjusting and adapting in a fight is also important... You need a truly great trainer to teach you if you want to become a master boxer... There's so few fabulous trainers that is unlikely to happen... But you don't need to be the best boxer to make a good deal of money... You need to manage your career well.

Posted: **21 Mar 2018, 00:19**

Ali Raymi 100%

25-0 25 KO's (22 first round KO's )
21 first round KO's in a row.

Posted: **21 Mar 2018, 04:10**

Doesn't compete.

5 of Ali Raymi's opponents were making their pro debut... Another 5 only had 1 fight... None had more than 12 fights... He had zero World Title Fights... Valere had more fights, better opponents, 8 World Title Fights, 100% Wins and 100% KOs.

Posted: **21 Mar 2018, 05:38**

Flump wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 20:34
Kalan wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 18:05 Correct... Calzaghe was a good thinker in that he didn't get into a ring with Forch -- who called him out for years.

Eubank was a good thinker in not entering a ring with Golovkin... That wasn't a good match for him at the time.

Foreman handled his comeback well... In choosing who he fought and wouldn't fight...and rebuilding his brand.. Those wheels were turning really good.. Ray Leonard strategically timed some his fights to perfection and made good moves.. The timing of the Hearns rematch, the Hagler Fight, and the Duran rubber match were well thought out... Even the Norris fight, which didn't work, but was done for a good reason... Norris showed chin problems against Jackson.

Eubank is in good company so far as career management and isn't done yet... Let's see where he goes from here.
So a good thinker in your opinion is someone who avoids fights, rather than an intelligent boxer who can adapt?

he's just making it up as he's going along

what likely happened is he saw some clips of Eubank jr- probably not a whole fight- saw him throwing multiple hook combinations, and somehow for some reason this put a fire in the old gezzer's belly for Eubank, and Eubank at that point became one of his stupid internet crushes that he would answer all manner of questions with- i seem to recall him once saying hagler never fought an opponent as skilled as Eubank- so basically Eubank formed part of his general 'modern boxing is amazing and modern fighters are brilliant, PS Sugar Ray Robinson was a bum' stupidity.

so when called out on his stupid statement that eubank was one of the smartest boxers, he is now backtracking and pretending he meant something else, like career management

which is BS

he actually just doesn't understand what he is watching, hence he calls Eubank one of the smartest fighters in history, and Sugar Ray Robinson something like a 'wide-open swinger'

pretty much tells you all you need to know about this 'maverick genius'

BoxRec

Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage

Re: Highest KO percentage