Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by neil, Mar 26, 2003.
stop sucking up to j for once in your life and answer remus' question...
Ruelas was done when Tszyu fought him. He needed a gift decision after that fight to beat Hicklet Lau Like I said, Ruelas was certainly on the downside when Tszyu fought him.
If I was sucking up to someone it wouldn't be "J" it would be Valentino considering it's his statement that you guys are misinterpreting.
ruelas put tszyu on the canvas, and was competitive for the first five rounds.
whatever...doesn't matter what happened after that fight...ruelas was a step up from his previous 2 fights...you cannot possibly disagree...
how am i misinterpreting ? it's clear as day. make a call gutless wonder.
well when phonetap sees consistantly you running out from left field to support valentino's arguments like j then he'll reconsider his sucking up comments towards you.
btw: you still heven't answerd the question...remus didn't ask you to explain nuclear proliferation so why are you having such difficulty with the question???
IT IS VALENTINO'S COMMENT THAT I AM DEFENDING!! WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?? :confused:
I've already explained it a couple of times but I understand you Aussies are pretty slow :D He was simply stating that Tszyu fought a few bums after he got pimpslapped by Phillips before he stepped it up. I agree with that statement because it's true
regardless...still waiting for the answer...
Of course you don;t care because it kills your argument
I never said I supported Valentino's arguement.
Someone once said, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. REMEMBER????
I did NOT say I support Valentino's stance.
This is what I was responding too with Remus.
either he is a top p4p fighter or he is a nobody who has fought bums for years in which case he couldn't possibly be a top p4p fighter.
And then I resopnded,
You know as well as I do there are greats and then there are GREATS that set the pace and 'CHALLENGE' themselves moreso than other fighters seeking defining fights making their mandate the BEST available opposition. This is a RARE quality which is what SEPARATES THEM from others.
I am sorry if you think I'm a Kostya hater. I enjoy the discussion end of it. I even wrote a piece on him which was on his website. I really dont hate any fighter. Hate is a wasted emotion.
Personally, more fighters should carry themselves like Kostya. I was shocked when you devulged information concerning some shady conduct on his end. I have always supported and mentioned him as the creme de la creme where character is concerned.
lol...forget it. you 2 should be politicians.
it's all good.
How many fights did he had after the Phillips fight?
How many of those fighters were considered EXTREMELY good?
Well, Judah...maybe Mitchell.
He did fight a bunch of BUMS right after the Phillips fight. You know that and I know that. Then he took in a dinosaur called Chavez too.
That's what I meant.
Another thing...sometimes fighters become TOP P4P by "default" COMBINED with shear activity.
RJJ was INNACTIVE. Hopkins was INNACTIVE. Mayweather Jr. arguably lost to Castillo. Mosley lost to Forrest. Barrera and Morales lost to each other.
Tszyu during that time frame managed to become UNDISPUTED champ at 140. And managed to defeat (clearly) Judah which was considered the FAVORITE to win that fight.
But that doesn't mean that he fought GREAT fighters. It means that he unified the division. And the other p4pers slipped a little. It was not much of what he did...but of what his fellow P4Pers didn't do.
Didn't you classified RJJ as number one P4P? You have done that FOR MONTHS (way before he fought Ruiz...which happens to be a bum too).
I agree. They are so slow that they actually believe that a Russian that used to fight for MOTHER RUSSIAN and was a very PROUD ONE at that...can "misteriously" become an Aussie.
Bling-Bling...money ain't the thang.
Another thing in the ranking of P4Ps.
Sometimes it is not about what they did (if they happen to do something)...but more about what the others (considerably better fighters) failed to do.
In a language that you MIGHT understand...take a look at CRICKET World Cup.
Would you say that Kenya is CONSIDERABLY better than West Indies? In fact, is Kenya better than all the teams that were "rated" below them (once the semifinal started)? Is Kenya a truly TOP 6 Cricket World Cup Team???
My parallel is simple: In sports, been rated on TOP or one of the TOP doesn't necessary means that you are THE TOP. It means that you managed to squeezed there do to other uncertainties. And in many cases due to what the others failed to do. Not much on what you did. Because rankings is about MATHEMATICS. Score enough points, while other manage not to...and BINGO. Has nothing to do with who is better (that's why we have ALL TIME GREAT LISTS).
You know that, I know that, and everybody that understand sports knows that.
But you are a master (or you believe you are) at MIS-representing stuff (I already whipped your ass on your Tito thing...now I'm doing it on the Tszyu thing).
In fact, you are trying to change the focus of the discussion by deviating toward MY argument. The problem is...you picked the wrong person. Because I do know my boxing...I do know the HISTORY of boxing...and I use MATHEMATICAL approach when ranking fighters. And more importantly (as I have proved in SEVERAL other topics), I don't allow neither FEELING nor EMOTIONS to cloud my analysis or judgement.
Can you say the same?
Hey if that makes you feel better it's all good by me.
phonetap thinks you should heed the term 'reading is fundamental' because you are completely missing the boat on this. now read the following carefully...so there isn't any more miscommunication:
remus is taking exception with your 'sure you can have it both ways' philosophy. you wrote those words not anyone else. whether you agree (or not) with valentino isn't the point as much as you agreeing with his two faced apporach in regards to tszyu. you CANNOT say...tszyu was p4p #1 on your list then say he's 'he was content with fighting BUMS. those were valentino's words...and your compatriot valdosta (who unlike you, agrees with valentino) is trying to twist. during remus debate with valentino, he brought your name into the conversation and the initial part of your response was:
Sure you can have it both ways.
Who says you can't? No denying he is great 'but'
then you wrote the rest of your statement...which you have been pasting over and over again to prove your point. noone disagrees with THAT part of your statement only the part phonetap just highlighted. hopefully this will provide some clarity for you...
[ March 30, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: phonetap ]
noone disagrees with THAT part of your statement
Forget it,,, I'm with Remus, You 2 should be politicians.
[ March 30, 2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: SuperJ ]
Separate names with a comma.