BoxRec

DG. wrote:Beating battery us surely better than getting knocked out. P4p is based on opinion and my opinion is I would rather win than get ktfo.

If a fighter fights the best then there is a good chance they will lose (Hatton). If they fight fodder then they will probably win (Haye).

Do you think that Hatton would have lost to a Light Welterweight equivalent of Barrett? No chance.

Would Haye have beaten a Heavyweight equivalent of Pacquiao? Unlikely.

Horse wrote:

DG. wrote:Beating battery us surely better than getting knocked out. P4p is based on opinion and my opinion is I would rather win than get ktfo.

If a fighter fights the best then there is a good chance they will lose (Hatton). If they fight fodder then they will probably win (Haye).

Do you think that Hatton would have lost to a Light Welterweight equivalent of Barrett? No chance.

Would Haye have beaten a Heavyweight equivalent of Pacquiao? Unlikely.

Barrett was a weight up. Is collazo any better? Hatton struggled there! Haye beats a heavyweight collazo.

Haye could knock out a heavyweight pacman if be landed. Remember in thus case pac would be a cruiser to Hayes heavy

Horse wrote:

Carbo wrote:Yes, but it's hysterical, Horse. Honestly. It's like "HOW COULD ANYONE DISAGREE WITH ME. MY GOD, ONLY A COMPLETE RETARD WOULD THINK THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT I THINK."

Whatever. It's entertaining, I guess.

Is it any different from other threads where people disagree?

I honestly don't know.

I just think arguing like this is faintly ridiculous.

Probably it is like every other thread. Maybe I should think before I write.

Carbo wrote:

Horse wrote:

Carbo wrote:Yes, but it's hysterical, Horse. Honestly. It's like "HOW COULD ANYONE DISAGREE WITH ME. MY GOD, ONLY A COMPLETE RETARD WOULD THINK THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT I THINK."

Whatever. It's entertaining, I guess.

Is it any different from other threads where people disagree?

I honestly don't know.

I just think arguing like this is faintly ridiculous.

Probably it is like every other thread. Maybe I should think before I write.

I second that!

Also please clear this up for me, are you a woman?

You simply fuel Horse's ego by responding.
So yes Carbo - think before you write !

Shit - I've responded !
F""k me I promised not to do that.

twenty six wrote:You simply fuel Horse's ego by responding.
So yes Carbo - think before you write !

Oh, come on. Horse is cool.

I just think that P4P lists are intrinsically subjective, and therefore shouldn't be heatedly debated as 'fact' with those who read the list incensed that their man isn't higher. Rational debate is fine, but this stuff where one guy is convinced he's right and simply can't believe anyone else would disagree is insane, because in this case it genuinely is almost all about opinion.

Have you not heard of wit and irony Carbo ?
I was taking the piss.

twenty six wrote:Have you not heard of wit and irony Carbo ?
I was taking the piss.

Never. I'd have never have guessed.

It was a post more in response to Horse and Dumb Git than you, mate. Don't worry.

DG. wrote:Barrett was a weight up. Is collazo any better? Hatton struggled there! Haye beats a heavyweight collazo.

I would say that Collazo was significantly better. Collazo held the WBA title at the time and was rated in the top 10.

Barrett had never held a World title and was at best a borderline top 20 Heavyweight.

DG. wrote:Haye could knock out a heavyweight pacman if be landed. Remember in thus case pac would be a cruiser to Hayes heavy

Pacquiao could also knock Haye out if he landed and I think he would land.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree on the Hatton vs Froch vs Haye issue, for now.

Carbo wrote:I honestly don't know.

I just think arguing like this is faintly ridiculous.

Probably it is like every other thread. Maybe I should think before I write.

I believe that the discussions/arguments help me to make a better list, and maybe they help others to think about thing more clearly as well.

So, I don't think that it is ridiculous, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Horse wrote:

DG. wrote:Barrett was a weight up. Is collazo any better? Hatton struggled there! Haye beats a heavyweight collazo.

I would say that Collazo was significantly better. Collazo held the WBA title at the time and was rated in the top 10.

Barrett had never held a World title and was at best a borderline top 20 Heavyweight.

And one only need look at the quality of the welterweight division against the quality of the heavyweight division to know how their relative achievements should be assessed.

twenty six wrote:You simply fuel Horse's ego by responding.
So yes Carbo - think before you write !

What is wrong with fueling my ego?

twenty six wrote:poop - I've responded !
F""k me I promised not to do that.

What do you think of Ryan Rhodes new ranking?

Is it high enough for you?

Carbo wrote:Oh, come on. Horse is cool.

Carbo wrote:And one only need look at the quality of the welterweight division against the quality of the heavyweight division to know how their relative achievements should be assessed.

Indeed.

Well he is WBC No 3 as of today sir but we'll take no 9 in your list.
Are you really egotistical Horse ?

twenty six wrote:Well he is WBC No 3 as of today sir but we'll take no 9 in your list.

Good.

twenty six wrote:Are you really egotistical Horse ?

I wouldn't say so.

Someone has probably already mentioned this but Clinton Woods has retired! Unless you want him to plaster your walls remove him from your list.

Smally Big Plums wrote:Someone has probably already mentioned this but Clinton Woods has retired! Unless you want him to plaster your walls remove him from your list.

You are the first to mention him this month.

I allow up to 12 months of inactivity before I take a retired fighter off the list, in case they change their mind.

Woods last fought in August, so I don't think it is important to take Woods out immediately.

Froch1
Haye2