Happy New year - 10 predictions for 2012!!!

First topic message reminder :

Had a tiring end to 2011 but quite an enjoyable one.....Anyhoo here we go...

1. By the end of the year Degale will be viewed as a better prospect than Groves!!
2. Haye beats an old slow Vitali...
3. Kevin Mitchell and Kell Brook come of age...and bag World titles...
4. Amir Khan continues to irritate with his immature posturing and continues to fight in America...but stays undefeated..
5. Mayweather beats Manny in the summer to cement a top 10 p4p spot in the eyes of th World..
6. Froch gets beaten by Kessler...
7. The Klits both retire....as does Haye leaving a huge gape in the heavy scene..
8. Chisora loses to Price...
9. Fury stays undefeated but continues to look garbage...
10. Fighters start to realise ppv on a struggling Boxnation isn't helping their careers and Barry Hearn's stock rises big style...

I hope you all have a safe and profitable new year and wish you all the best.....cheers..

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not going to lie Oxy but i'm unsure as to what was controversial about what I wrote, will have to hold my judgement on it until it's completed but going by our hall of fame votings not sure you can say Benitez is a nailed on ATG either. Leonards win over him was a great one no doubting that but his stock does seem to be inflated slightly when Leonard is mentioned.

Yeah, I hadn't disagreed with anything you wrote either. Suspect its to do with people always rating those we saw in our youths higher than they deserve. I've seen SRL's career in retrospect, rather than live - and so therefore - I don't rate him with dewy-eyed nostalgia.

Its nothing to do with me watching my favourites in my youth. SRL was my least favourite boxer out of that lot. Moreover I felt Hagler won their fight. No dewey eyed BS here whatsoever. I often get chastised (by yourself amongst others) for my criticism of rocky and his opponents for calling them washed up old men, yet here we have someone claimng the guys SRL beat were not at their best, in the wrong weight or blown up smaller guys.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Just find it strange that Leonards wins are considered untouchable.

Why make stuff up? I haven't said they are untouchable.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Genuinely have no idea what you're going on about, you appear to be riled by me calling Hearns a better light middleweight than welterweight.

Not riled whatsoever. Just calling it as I see it. I dont call BS anything other than BS. The bottom line is you are lying and making stuff up in order to defend your sacred cows. Their records should stack up on its own without the need to make stuff up.

You seem to think that Leonards four wins are better than anyone elses, something I disagree with.

Lets take possibly the top five Welterweights in Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Napoles and Ross. Robinsons win over Gavilan would be the best in the divisions history regardless of pound for pound status because Gavilan was a genuinely great Welterweight who went on to have a period of dominance in the division. A lesser fighter pound for pound than either Hearns or Duran but historically speaking he's a more revered and regarded Welterweight much like Armstrongs win over Ross, Napoles win over Griffith and Ross' win over Mclarnin. Duran is higher rated pound for pound so does that mean a win over him means more than a higher rated welterweight?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to think that Leonards four wins are better than anyone elses, something I disagree with.

Lets take possibly the top five Welterweights in Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Napoles and Ross. Robinsons win over Gavilan would be the best in the divisions history regardless of pound for pound status because Gavilan was a genuinely great Welterweight who went on to have a period of dominance in the division. A lesser fighter pound for pound than either Hearns or Duran but historically speaking he's a more revered and regarded Welterweight much like Armstrongs win over Ross, Napoles win over Griffith and Ross' win over Mclarnin. Duran is higher rated pound for pound so does that mean a win over him means more than a higher rated welterweight?

I read the first sentence and ignored the rest because you are making things up again.

In short you know you're talking absolute rubbish.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In short you know you're talking absolute rubbish.

If you say so Ghosty. If you say so.

Diddums the child has thrown his toys out the pram again.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to think that Leonards four wins are better than anyone elses, something I disagree with.

Lets take possibly the top five Welterweights in Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Napoles and Ross. Robinsons win over Gavilan would be the best in the divisions history regardless of pound for pound status because Gavilan was a genuinely great Welterweight who went on to have a period of dominance in the division. A lesser fighter pound for pound than either Hearns or Duran but historically speaking he's a more revered and regarded Welterweight much like Armstrongs win over Ross, Napoles win over Griffith and Ross' win over Mclarnin. Duran is higher rated pound for pound so does that mean a win over him means more than a higher rated welterweight?

Opinion passed over as fact. SRL's win over Hearns was better. The best in the division's history (I can pass opinion as fact also). Hearns would have beaten all the others you named (opinion passed as fact again).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Diddums the child has thrown his toys out the pram again.

Calm down impy. You're about to lose it again.

You don't like having your opinion questioned do you?

That paragraph was my opinion, I don't feel the need to say in my opinion each time I say something.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You don't like having your opinion questioned do you?

That paragraph was my opinion, I don't feel the need to say in my opinion each time I say something.

Question my opinions all you want. I welsome it. But please dont attribute things I haven't said to me. That is dishonest. OK?

You really have lost the plot.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You really have lost the plot.

Thank you. Now back to the thread without blowing a gasket again pleae.

Trying to provoke me into a reaction again I see.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Trying to provoke me into a reaction again I see.

Is it that obvious ghosty? Awww, poor you.

Anyway, nothing else to add to the thread I see. You know I much preferred it when you put me on the foe list. I said then it wouldn't last.

SRL's win over Hearns top the win by SRR over Gavilan.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Trying to provoke me into a reaction again I see.

Is it that obvious ghosty? Awww, poor you.

Anyway, nothing else to add to the thread I see. You know I much preferred it when you put me on the foe list. I said then it wouldn't last.

SRL's win over Hearns top the win by SRR over Gavilan.

In your opinion.

1. Possibly although I very much doubt it
2. No chance
3. Brook yes. Mitchell is Euro level
4. Agree
5. Agree
6. Agree
7. Think Wlad has a year or two left
8. Hard to call that one. Will back Chisora though
9. Agree
10. Lets hope the channel goes bust this year

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Trying to provoke me into a reaction again I see.

Is it that obvious ghosty? Awww, poor you.

Anyway, nothing else to add to the thread I see. You know I much preferred it when you put me on the foe list. I said then it wouldn't last.

SRL's win over Hearns top the win by SRR over Gavilan.

In your opinion.

Of course. I said in a previous post that it was opinion passed over as fact.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Genuinely have no idea what you're going on about, you appear to be riled by me calling Hearns a better light middleweight than welterweight.

There's nothing wrong with your opinion at all. Infact, I agree.

Hearns was only 22 at the time of the first Leonard fight, why wouldn't he have improved as a fighter for a few more years. Are we supposed to believe that at 22 Hearns had peaked?

Atila wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Genuinely have no idea what you're going on about, you appear to be riled by me calling Hearns a better light middleweight than welterweight.

There'snothing wrong with your opinion at all. Infact, I agree.

Hearns was only 22 at the time of the first Leonard fight, why wouldn't he have improved as a fighter for a few more years. Are we supposed to believe that at 22 Hearns had peaked?

I think a more relevant question would be, what exactly did Hearns do at Light-Middleweight to prompt this idea that he was any better there than he was at 147 lb? What real improvements did he show in his boxing at the higher weight? Keep in mind that he didn't square off against McCallum here. Duran was certainly a little on the shopworn side, and let's not pretend that he was at his best at 154 lb. He outscored Benitez, sure, but I believe Ghosty and Oxring have argued that Benitez was at his best at Light-Welterweight, so a little consistency is needed.

If Hearns was a better Light-Middleweight than he was Welterweight, it was by a distance so small that it could surely go unnoticed, and certainly not by a big enough distance to take any shine off Leonard's win over him in any circumstances.

But who's trying to take the shine of Leonard's win? Not me and from what I've read not Imperial Ghosty.

If I wanted to try and take some shine off Leonard's win over Hearns, I could point out that there's a chance that Hearns was a little tight at 147lbs hence why he moved up immediately. However, I didn't

Well, Ghosty did opine that Hearns wasn't at his best at Welterweight when Leonard beat him, and cited that in particular against a couple of Greb's wins. Not saying that he was trying to discredit Leonard's win completely, but making that kind of statement does draw an asterisk against the win which, to be honest, just shouldn't be there. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Leonard's win over Hearns was anything other than a superb one, that's what I'm getting at.

Kind of agree that there is no real evidence to suggest Hearns was better above 147!!! Think his punch resistance did get better with poundage but the sheer fact his punch at 175 could annihilate sturdy Andries types must make him a monster at 147....

Think the fact Hearns best wins were at 154 and above.....Duran, Benitez, Shuler, Hill and maybe Leonard 2...(he did win that one) kind of disguise the fact that he beats Duran and Benitez at 147 as they weren't (Maurice Hope aside) deadly hitters..

Surely no one disagrees that Hearns beats Duran at 147....

Chris

Hearns was a fantastic Welterweight who would beat anyone baring a handful at the weight, saying he was slightly better above that doesn't take any shine away from Leonards win as far as i'm concerned. Neither Duran or Benitez were natural at light middleweight but they are still his two premier wins with Hill a close third, he matured physically as he went through the weights and the demolition job of Duran was his best performance.

Saying and proving are two different things....

He added muscle to his frame for sure.....

His best wins at light midd were guys he'd beat at welter..

He didn't beat them at Welterweight Truss that's the point and in the case of Benitez who knows what could have happened on a different night.

1. By the end of the year Degale will be viewed as a better prospect than Groves!!...ive underrated groves a few times already so wont put my foot in my mouth again
2. Haye beats an old slow Vitali... no chance, if they fight it will be far less competitive than the wlad fight.
3. Kevin Mitchell and Kell Brook come of age...and bag World titles...kev mitchell i think will. kell might get an alphabet title if he can win one without fighting any top welterweights.
4. Amir Khan continues to irritate with his immature posturing and continues to fight in America...but stays undefeated..got a feeling he will lose again to either peterson or bradley this year
5. Mayweather beats Manny in the summer to cement a top 10 p4p spot in the eyes of th World..
6. Froch gets beaten by Kessler...if kessler stays fit i think he would win a rematch
7. The Klits both retire....as does Haye leaving a huge gape in the heavy scene..no chance wlad retires
8. Chisora loses to Price...wont fight, on different paths right now
9. Fury stays undefeated but continues to look garbage...probably gonna be more careful with his matchmaking for a while and fight less dangerous fights
10. Fighters start to realise ppv on a struggling Boxnation isn't helping their careers and Barry Hearn's stock rises big style...his stock might rise in boxing but falls badly in snooker

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Saying and proving are two different things....

He added muscle to his frame for sure.....

His best wins at light midd were guys he'd beat at welter..

Exactly

The Klits both retire....as does Haye leaving a huge gape in the heavy scene..no chance wlad retires

One minute he argues they both retire then a mere few characters later there's no chance of Wlad retiring...... And last time i checked Haye had officially announced his retirement and has got zero confirmed regarding him coming back to fight.....

Not only is he stupid...he can't read as well..

Please tell me where I've said that..

Or don't on second thoughts ..just jog on..

88Chris05 wrote:

Atila wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Genuinely have no idea what you're going on about, you appear to be riled by me calling Hearns a better light middleweight than welterweight.

There'snothing wrong with your opinion at all. Infact, I agree.

Hearns was only 22 at the time of the first Leonard fight, why wouldn't he have improved as a fighter for a few more years. Are we supposed to believe that at 22 Hearns had peaked?

I think a more relevant question would be, what exactly did Hearns do at Light-Middleweight to prompt this idea that he was any better there than he was at 147 lb? What real improvements did he show in his boxing at the higher weight? Keep in mind that he didn't square off against McCallum here. Duran was certainly a little on the shopworn side, and let's not pretend that he was at his best at 154 lb. He outscored Benitez, sure, but I believe Ghosty and Oxring have argued that Benitez was at his best at Light-Welterweight, so a little consistency is needed.

If Hearns was a better Light-Middleweight than he was Welterweight, it was by a distance so small that it could surely go unnoticed, and certainly not by a big enough distance to take any shine off Leonard's win over him in any circumstances.

Retraction required, good sir!

I have never mentioned Benitez. Merely I have pointed out that Hearns is a higher ranked LMW than a WW. You can read into that as much or as little as you will - but denying that he is a higher ranked light middle is lunacy.

Az has confirmed that he was not, in fact, denying Hearns LMW ranking but merely arguing he was just as good at 147.

I have not said anything further.

Now lets keep things friendly, all. New years resolutions, clean slates, fresh leaves and other jargon.

Whoa there Oxy. Rewind. I confirmed no such thing. Indeed I agreed he was ranked higher at LMW than at WW. The reason being is that the cometition at LMW was weaker.

Name me 5 ATG LMW and compare them to 5 ATG at WW or MW. Historically the 'light' divisions have been weak with the exception of LHW.

Apology accepted in advance.

Apology demanded, good sir.

You will have to explain how:

[quote="oxring" Az has confirmed that he was not, in fact, denying Hearns LMW ranking but merely arguing he was just as good at 147.[/quote]

Is at odds with:

[quote="azania" Whoa there Oxy. Rewind. I confirmed no such thing. Indeed I agreed he was ranked higher at LMW than at WW. The reason being is that the cometition at LMW was weaker.[/quote]

Apology demanded sir, or I will have satisfaction!

Surely the difference between Hearns as a welter and a light middle is fairly negligible?

Hearns being ranked higher at light middle has far more to do with welter being a much more established and historically strong division than Hearns being significantly better at light middleweight.

Apologies in that case, Oxring. Ghosty, on the other hand, certainly did seem to argue that - getting mixed up in my old age, it seems!

My point though (which has been echoed by Manos in any case) is that there is absolutely no way in which Leonard's win can really be degraded. If Hearns was a better Light-Middleweight than Welterweight, then it was by a margin so small it can't be seen with the naked eye. I don't see any improvements in Hearns at 154 lb compared to the 147 lb version, to be honest. A fight with McCallum at Light-Middleweight would have given us a better indication, but it never happened. At least at Welterweight, Hearns did face his nearest rival to divisional supremacy - and put in one hell of a shift before being stopped.

oxring wrote:Apology demanded, good sir.

You will have to explain how:

[quote="oxring" Az has confirmed that he was not, in fact, denying Hearns LMW ranking but merely arguing he was just as good at 147.

Is at odds with:

[quote="azania" Whoa there Oxy. Rewind. I confirmed no such thing. Indeed I agreed he was ranked higher at LMW than at WW. The reason being is that the cometition at LMW was weaker.[/quote]

Apology demanded sir, or I will have satisfaction!

[/quote]

My point Chris wasn't with regards to degrading the Hearns win, while the likes of Hearns, Benitez and Duran may be rated higher pound for pound than Loughran for example does that mean a win over them at Welterweight mean more than a win over him at light heavyweight? In the case of Hearns it's fairly even despite being a far more eye catching win am not overly sold he is divisionally any better than Loughran. In the case of Benitez and Duran again rated higher pound for pound but don't think a win over either at Welterweight means as much as Grebs wins over Loughran.

A very poorly written paragraph but hopefully you can decipher it.

I'd agree that Greb's quartet of wins over Loughran at Loughran's best weight are a remarkable achievement and at least on par with Leonard's win over Hearns, don't get me wrong. I was just reiterating that nothing can or should be taken away from Leonard's feat, or his brilliant set of top tier wins in fact. Greb has greater depth than Leonard, sure - mind you, he has more depth to his record than just about any boxer who ever lived - but I'd say that Leonard's top three or four wins can stand comparison with anyone, Greb included. Don't think either set of victories need to be critiqued too heavily in order for us to argue which is best, that's all. Both superb records whichever way you look at them.

Think it's the fact he only has four notable wins that requires some people to gain some perspective, as a quartet of wins they are right up there but doesn't change the fact that there are only four of them. It gets irritating that certain fighters have there wins disregarded because they aren't over glorified boxers.