BoxRec

Terence wrote:

NRH wrote:

Terence wrote:Arguably DeGale's amateur achivement (winning Olympic gold) pisses over Chris' pro achievements (winning a part of a title and then sitting on it for fight after fight).

You seriously think that winning an olympic gold medal is better than being a 2 weight world champion?

I know what i'd rather be.

I would rather win the gold, in purely sporting terms, the WBO title is barely worth the memorandum it is given out on. Eubank devauled it a little also.

Yes he was tough. Yes he used to get hit on the chin, do a little dance and then fight back. Yes he nearly KO'd himself throwing a right at Malinga. But with all that said his title was meaningless, at every point in his career there were better title holders, and he never wanted to face them. What are you propsing next? WBU and IBO titles are better than the gold?

Trouble is we'll only get to see him in the ring on his debut for what 12 minutes? So i have to listen to this donut harp on about his medal and how he's so hard done by for weeks and months only to see him fight 12 minutes against a guy who i could probably last 4 rounds with?

Terence wrote:

NRH wrote:Well im a boxing fan. I know what i'd see as a greater accomplisment. People can bash the WBO belt all they want but the fact is it's recognized as 1 of the major 4 belts, the ones that matter.

I know if i won a WBO belt it would be the greatest night of my life. None of that my kid being born shit like that pussy Balboa

Right, and i suppose an Olympic win would mean little more than the time you won the local raffle. Think laterally. Would you be proud of winning a title that meant virtually nothing, whilst also being #3 or #2 in your division. That is not desire, that is drift.

My only problem with DeGale is that he is dull to watch. If the money is offered then make the money, althoug try to do it discreetly!

Terence wrote:I am putting down Eubank's title reign. Consider that DeGale was the sole Gold winner in his weight class, he was #1 in that tournament at that weight. Chris was one of a few title holders in his division, he was arguably #3 or #4. His one sole chance at unification resulted in a draw. At no point in his title reign was Chris the number one in the world, not at middle, and not at super-middle.

Eubank made a lot of defences, with about a 1-5 ration of taking on true tests. I am putting down Eubank's title reign as a classic alphabet reign, I am putting it down to the proliferation of titles, Chris' lack of quality opposition all told and the WBO's status as little more than afterbirth, at that time. Bear in mind that the WBO practically made it impossible for one title holder, Riddick Bowe (who was close to the best fighter in the division at the time), to give up their title, they were clingier than a pregnant refugee.

Overall DeGale has the greater sporting win, Chris won a professional title and used it to make a lot of money, without a huge amount of consistent risk, ironic really when you consider the claims Chris made about fighters losing desire. DeGale won a world recognised title, Chris won a world title that was anything but.

I like Chris, he was tough, he could fight, but his title reign was mostly a money making exercise. Talk about epic fights with Benn and Watson all you like, Michael was a solid European level boxer who found his level versus McCallum, and Benn was erratic when Chris first beat him, then Benn worked with Tibbs for a while and was a much stiffer test in the second fight. At no point was Benn the number one in the division, either.

Can you not see the irony of Chris, who made a big money Sky deal that saw him take on guys with little or no chance (until the Wharton bout), criticising a lack of desire in other fighters? Like recognises like.

Terence wrote:Not sure about that. While I do not like amateur boxing in the Olympics you are put in with the best, sure DeGale got a smooth passage but he went into a tournament knowing he could face the worlds #1 boxer (in that tournament). Chris never wanted to take that step, not once did he seriously seem to chase the main men, the real main men.

As for the Championship thing, that used to be the Division One, which was once what is now the Premier League, which never used to exist. The Games is The Games. Tweaked yes, pissed aobut with yes, but still the pinnacle.

Still, you want to mangle metaphors, what is better? Winning the league by playing every time twice and getting the results needed to win? Or winning the league without playing your main rivals, which cannot happen, as football has a modicum of sense.

Anyway, I have said my piece, who do I prefer? Chris. Who has won something that will shine brightly down the years? DeGale.

I am putting down Eubank's title reign. Consider that DeGale was the sole Gold winner in his weight class, he was #1 in that tournament at that weight. Chris was one of a few title holders in his division, he was arguably #3 or #4. His one sole chance at unification resulted in a draw. At no point in his title reign was Chris the number one in the world, not at middle, and not at super-middle.

Eubank made a lot of defences, with about a 1-5 ration of taking on true tests. I am putting down Eubank's title reign as a classic alphabet reign, I am putting it down to the proliferation of titles, Chris' lack of quality opposition all told and the WBO's status as little more than afterbirth, at that time. Bear in mind that the WBO practically made it impossible for one title holder, Riddick Bowe (who was close to the best fighter in the division at the time), to give up their title, they were clingier than a pregnant refugee.

Overall DeGale has the greater sporting win, Chris won a professional title and used it to make a lot of money, without a huge amount of consistent risk, ironic really when you consider the claims Chris made about fighters losing desire. DeGale won a world recognised title, Chris won a world title that was anything but.

I like Chris, he was tough, he could fight, but his title reign was mostly a money making exercise. Talk about epic fights with Benn and Watson all you like, Michael was a solid European level boxer who found his level versus McCallum, and Benn was erratic when Chris first beat him, then Benn worked with Tibbs for a while and was a much stiffer test in the second fight. At no point was Benn the number one in the division, either.

Can you not see the irony of Chris, who made a big money Sky deal that saw him take on guys with little or no chance (until the Wharton bout), criticising a lack of desire in other fighters? Like recognises like

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Hey us Brits have something to be proud of. Apparently Audley is as great a boxer as Mike Tyson and Tyson is jealous of Aud's Gold medal

Terence wrote:

champ4ever wrote:

I am putting down Eubank's title reign. Consider that DeGale was the sole Gold winner in his weight class, he was #1 in that tournament at that weight. Chris was one of a few title holders in his division, he was arguably #3 or #4. His one sole chance at unification resulted in a draw. At no point in his title reign was Chris the number one in the world, not at middle, and not at super-middle.

let me break this down for you.

degale ended up the winner in the olympics, but he was never the number one in the world prior to that tournament, he was in the knockout stage, it's like portsmouth winning the fa cup, they won the cup, but they're not regarded the best in the england. degale, he won the olympics, but he still would'nt be favourite to do it over again if he had to right now because it's not like he dominated that weight division prior to the tournament, winning one tournament, when it's a knockout tournament should'nt instantly make you the best in the world, and it does'nt. if degale was a pro, he would be harassed to fight sutherland again because sutherland has proven time again that he is better, he's only lost one time out of four.

Eubank made a lot of defences, with about a 1-5 ration of taking on true tests. I am putting down Eubank's title reign as a classic alphabet reign, I am putting it down to the proliferation of titles, Chris' lack of quality opposition all told and the WBO's status as little more than afterbirth, at that time. Bear in mind that the WBO practically made it impossible for one title holder, Riddick Bowe (who was close to the best fighter in the division at the time), to give up their title, they were clingier than a pregnant refugee.

while degale can't make one defense of his gold medal.

Overall DeGale has the greater sporting win, Chris won a professional title and used it to make a lot of money, without a huge amount of consistent risk, ironic really when you consider the claims Chris made about fighters losing desire. DeGale won a world recognised title, Chris won a world title that was anything but.

I like Chris, he was tough, he could fight, but his title reign was mostly a money making exercise. Talk about epic fights with Benn and Watson all you like, Michael was a solid European level boxer who found his level versus McCallum, and Benn was erratic when Chris first beat him, then Benn worked with Tibbs for a while and was a much stiffer test in the second fight. At no point was Benn the number one in the division, either.

Can you not see the irony of Chris, who made a big money Sky deal that saw him take on guys with little or no chance (until the Wharton bout), criticising a lack of desire in other fighters? Like recognises like

like i said winning a title is one thing, but defending it is another. if degale was a world amateur champion that was beating everyone, and then won a gold, then yeah i would say he's the best amateur in the world, but he did'nt, while chris fought for a world title, he defended his world title, not once, but nearly 20 times.

Breaking it down. Looks like a waste of the quote function to me.

DeGale cannot defend his medal, but he could stick to the amateurs and aim for a second one. If he was in the same weight class he would be akin to the defending champion. Champion in the sense of the guy who won the top prize, not a mere title holder.

Chris defended his title many times, but was never the number one in his division, something that even you cannot claim for him, because you know it would be wrong.

Are you genuinely saying that winning a WBO title automatically makes you #1 on the world? So every current WBO title holder is the divisional #1, no, you know that is not the case. If you think this it is worse than I thought, and you will never quite understand the point I am trying to make.

Chris held a title, without ever becoming the main man, DeGale (for all your claims about the FA cup and amateur rankings) is The 2009 Gold Medal winner at the Games, there is not dispute on that claim. For me that made him the #1 in his division, he won the premier tournament. Chris never did anything comparable as a professional, therefore DeGale has a greater shout of having the better overall achivement. His win impacted the wider sporting world, Chris was a big fish in a small pond, and his title did not make him #1. You was banging on about the league format before and then switched the metaphor to a football knockout tournament.

DeGale climbed to the top of his division, then went into the Games and won his fights, he won the jackpot, the Premier title, whatever you want to call it, and it means a lot more than the WBO super-middleweight title that the WBO snatched away from the real contenders (the WBO decided to take a strange approach to their super-middleweight rankings. A magic trick was performed. Keep your eyes on the number one and two WBO contenders at that time – Juan Gimenez and Michele Mastrodonato respectively. Keeping watching them and, Abracadabra!, they were replaced by Eubank and Watson, who had yet to fight at the weight. Plus Gimenez and Mastrodonato disappeared from the Top Ten entirely) in order to help make Eubank-Watson II a title fight. It was a title that was gifted to the fight simply because the WBO were making good money here at the time. Chris then did little to boost the title.

Coco wrote:It is an interesting point that amateurs stars are at a disadvantage because signing pro makes them instant millionaires.
I think the likes of Haglar and Eubank for example had a mental edge through coming up the hard way, thats not to say they would not have had that emotional grit anyway.
Marvin did say though that it was hard to get out of bed when you are wearing silk PJ's!
I think financial success dimmed Hamed's ambition as well
There are obvious examples where it didn't hurt fighters though, ODLH springs to mind

NRH wrote:

J wrote:case closed. guilty as charged .

how sad we want our rising stars to get beat without even throwing a punch yet.

sad sad sad.

no wonder Brit boxing is in trouble with fans like those hey.

So we should just blindly support anyone who is British? eff that. Im a boxing fan and i will like and dislike whoever i want regardless of nationality.

tonyevs wrote:I`ll reserve my judgement untill I`ve actually seen him fight without the headguard.

Terence wrote:Anyway, I have said my piece, who do I prefer? Chris. Who has won something that will shine brightly down the years? DeGale.

banjo wrote:I'm suprised K-G hasn't had his say on this thread

tobyh5 wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Hey us Brits have something to be proud of. Apparently Audley is as great a boxer as Mike Tyson and Tyson is jealous of Aud's Gold medal

I did not agree with the comment that the gold was worth more than Eubanks career and WBO title however that is an unfair comment. No one is suggesting that a gold is worth more than an undisputed heavyweight championship, not even I daresay the one who felt degale had a better accomplishment than Eubank