MMA

[TechnicalBarbarity]

The man has possibly the greatest cardio in UFC history and holds the record for most punches thrown in a single round, plus his mental/troll game is leagues above Conor's.

Wtf are you talking a bout? His brothers cardio is much better, Dominick Cruz's cardio is way better, Mighty Mouses cardio is way better, Frankie Edgars cardio is way better .. and i can honestly keep going. I cant remember which fights, but i've seen Nate gassed out before, and not just once.

 

[SweptbackFlame]

Cain Velasquez, TJ Dillashaw, etc... the list really does go on and on lol

 

[no country for old wainds]

it also depends if we're talking about a fully in shape, peak nate, 'cause he doesn't exactly come in like that every time out.

Actually no, it hasnt. If you're talking vale tudo and some bootleg underground tough guys contests, than yea. But MMA(which we called NHB back then) pretty much started with the UFC. The term MMA actually comes from the UFC.

ah okay, i wrongly assumed otherwise sorry, my sense of MMA history is sketchy to say the least. it preceded dana's UFC though? like, dana isn't behind all the things jont is complaining about? that was the point i was trying to make

@no country for old wainds He's a big featherweight(145lbs) who was training to fight a lightweight, and instead he fought a 170 pounder on short notice. You cant see any problems that might pop up there? Anyway, taking a fight on short notice can be a double edged sword for both fighters.

155 is nate's preferred weight though, right? if he'd had a long camp i imagine they'd have fought at 155. i agree about it being a double edged sword for both etc, i'm just seeing a lot of conor fans spinning it as posing all these disadvantages for conor and none for diaz, as well as overstating the size difference (which really didn't look that significant to me). i'm willing to accept that conor wasn't 100% comfortable fitness-wise at that weight, but regardless of fitness i do wonder whether his power and chin will be so special at lightweight and higher, given what we saw. granted, he's so talented that it may not matter so much.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

He should do okay @ LW. I can see him doing good against most of the top guys in that division because a lot of those guys are strikers, and inferior ones at that. Only guy i see there giving him serious problems is a beast of a grinder like Khabib. Regardless though, i think Frankie Edgar has a good chance of taking his belt at 145 and even beating him at LW. That's what i really want to see.

If i remember correctly Dana came along when the Fertitta brothers purchased the UFC. He's one of their childhood friends and from what i remember he was the one who convinced Lorenzo and Frank to buy the company.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I won money on Diaz

lying is not cool bro.

 

[CiG]

lying is not cool bro.

I'm not lying, I won 350 on Diaz. Why would I lie about losing money on Holm at the same time? Doesn't make me look cool to also lose money. Fucking pissed actually, I had plans.

You probably deserve to lose money, betting on women fighting tbh.

Fuck off cuck. They're beasts.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[CiG]

I always gamble on big card fights.

You're just mad because you were so fucking wrong, hahaha.
DIAZ HAS NO CHANCE BRO NO CHANCE.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

fuck yea, im mad that mcgregor lost read this thread more babe.

 

[CiG]

I never said you were mad that McGregor lost. There you go again.

 

[no country for old wainds]

lee wylie's videos are so good.

 

[no country for old wainds]

ESPN have ranked the best 25 boxers of the last 25 years.

1 Mayweather
2 Pacquiao
3 B-Hop
4. RJJ
5. JCC
6. ODLH
7. Holyfield
8. Pernell
9. JMM
10. Ricardo Lopez
11. Tito
12. Lennox
13. MAB
14. Calzaghe
15. Shane
16. Toney
17. Ward
18. Erik Morales
19. Wlad
20. Roman Gonzalez
21. Cotto
22. Hamed
23. Winky
24. GGG
25. Terry Norris

the inclusion of GGG ahead of the likes of bradley, martinez, nunn and tszyu (and probably others i'm forgetting) annihilates any and all credibility, and it's pretty shaky in general. morales too low, wlad too low, whitaker too low, not exactly convinced any of the bottom 6 deserve to be there. rjj below hopkins is totally unjustifiable.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Lennox Lewis not being in top 5 there is just plain ridiculous.

 

[no country for old wainds]

he should be above lopez and tito in my opinion but i wouldn't have him as high as top 5, although i do find it difficult comparing heavyweights to guys who've moved through several weight classes. problem with lewis is his two best wins were against guys who were well past their prime, he never fought the other top guy of his generation riddick bowe, and he got sparked by rahman and mccall (albeit avenging both afterwards). even the vitali win has question marks hanging over it.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

One of the greatest heavyweights of all time, and without the doubt the best heavyweight of our lifetimes. He beat every single person he fought(what other heavyweight from the last 25 years or so can say that?) Easily top 5 if you ask me. Not only that, but i have a hard time trying to think of names throughout boxing history that would have beaten him in his prime. And you cant really say Holyfield was past his prime since the guy literally had a hell of a career in the 90's too and the only people that had beaten him were Bowe and Moorer ... if anything Lennox put him out of his prime, as he did with plenty of other great fighters. And do you honestly think Bowe would have beat him?

And its hard to say "his best two wins" when the guy blitzkrieged through the division and put plenty of names like Holyfield, Tua, Grant, Briggs, Tyson etc under his belt. Oh and you remember what he did to Golotta? The same guy Bowe couldnt put away? Put him to sleep in the first 2 minutes of the fight. A lot of those guys were undefeated heavyweights that were causing static and making names for themselves, so making it seem like he didnt fight the top guys when he literally tore up the whole division is kind of funny if you ask me. Also, nothing questionable about his win over Vitali imo, it was one hell of a fight but i had Lewis winning as he had clearly landed the more damaging shots throughout the fight and in all honestly he would have probably finished Vitali if that fight had continued.

... if those cuts(the ones above the eye), arent enough to warrant a stoppage, than i dont know what is.

He had plenty of weapons, but that right hand was undeniably one of greatest right hands of all time.

Also, Trinidad should be much higher on that list. There is no reason that whitaker should ever be rated higher than Trinidad , on any list. ever.

 

[no country for old wainds]

One of the greatest heavyweights of all time, and without the doubt the best heavyweight of our lifetimes. He beat every single person he fought(what other heavyweight from the last 25 years or so can say that?) Not only that, but i have a hard time trying to think of names throughout boxing history that would have beaten him in his prime. And you cant really say Holyfield was past his prime since the guy literally had a hell of a career in the 90's too and the only people that had beaten him were Bowe and Moorer ... if anything Lennox put him out of his prime, as he did with plenty of other great fighters.

i accept all of this - i'll correct past-prime to past-peak in the case of holyfield, those are still very good wins (and i do consider them both to be lewis wins, or at least i scored them that way last time i watched them). i also accept the vitali stuff - that's my feeling as well but i would've liked a rematch to punctuate it. i should stress that i consider lewis one of the top 10 heavyweights ever, and h2h he would have had a chance to beat absolutely anybody (although i can imagine he'd get caught and KOd every once in a while too, given that this happened against lesser fighters now and again). i have a hard time imagining anyone outboxing the guy. i'm talking mainly about resumé though, speculation shouldn't be a factor methinks.

the disagreement here may be more that i rate some of those top 10 guys higher than you do, rather than rating lewis less. the reason i'm nitpicking is because he's up against guys i consider to be all time greats themselves.

And do you honestly think Bowe would have beat him?

it's not an excuse, but bowe's deficiencies were mainly mental (not to mention golota and tyson). i think a bowe at 100% would've given lennox a hell of a fight, but chances are he wouldn't have been at 100% so i'd definitely strongly favour lewis. you could also argue he ducked lewis with that nonsense with the belt, so i'm not blaming lewis for it at all. it's just a shame it never happened and it'd be a nice addition to his CV.

And its hard to say "his best two wins" when the guy blitzkrieged through the division and put plenty of names like Holyfield, Tua, Grant, Briggs, Tyson etc under his belt.

two names clearly stand out there though. maybe i should've said most notorious wins.

Also, Trinidad should be much higher on that list. There is no reason that whitaker should ever be rated higher than Trinidad , on any list. ever.

i think you're in the minority on that one, but feel free to argue the point. i don't think their h2h fight means tito had the better career, nor do i think his resumé is as good as sweet pea's if you discount the ODLH 'win'.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

i think you're in the minority on that one, but feel free to argue the point. i don't think their h2h fight means tito had the better career, nor do i think his resumé is as good as sweet pea's if you discount the ODLH 'win'.

I dont really need to argue it. Trinidad beat him. He was also undefeated in the 90's. Whitaker wasnt. And i know this doesnt mean as much, but whitaker couldn't beat de la hoya while Trindad did. Also, from what i remember Tito beat up on whitaker pretty good in their fight. Didnt he even drop him a few times? I mean sure people can think whatever they want to, but there is no solid reason for anyone to think that whitaker was the better fighter out of the two. Everything there would just be plain speculation.

And i dont now about being in the minority there .... and i think everyone in my old gym would probably agree with me on that. I think Trindad beats whitaker 8-9 out of 10 times, and more than half of those would probably be in his signature devastating fashion.

 

[no country for old wainds]

nobody considered whitaker to be at his best even by the ODLH fight (which was closer than tito vs. ODLH, hardly anyone thinks tito actually won that despite oscar basically throwing away the last couple rounds), let alone the trinidad fight. not saying he was shot, but he'd been declining a while, was rumoured to have hit the coke etc. i'm not sure we learned a whole lot about what would happen prime for prime, but even if tito would win that too it doesn't necessarily make him the better fighter given that whitaker was naturally a much smaller man. aside from that fight, if we're ignoring speculation and talking about who *proved* more than i'd say pernell's wins over chavez (robbery aside), nelson, ramirez (twice, again robbery aside) etc are more impressive than anything tito did outside of the ODLH win, which nobody scored his way except the judges. tito had a long and entertaining unbeaten streak and i get why he's so popular, but if you ignore the ridiculous decision then whitaker went 13 years unbeaten himself.

re: the minority thing, ring magazine ranked whitaker as the 10th best fighter of the last 80 years, trinidad at 51st. espn had whitaker at 44 on their all-time list and tito not in the top 50. boxing.com had whitaker at 20 and trinidad not in the top 100, etc. i don't recall seeing lists by so-called experts that have it the other way.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Dude, its plain and simple. People can speculate what they want, but when they fought Trindad whipped that ass. I would ask you to explain why in the world you think whitaker should be rater higher on a "best boxers of the past 25 years list", but there is not one single solid answer you can give me. it would all be speculation and/or excuses. nothing more.

Also, he never went 13 years without being beat. I don't now how you came up with that one. But Trinidad on the other hand did not get his first loss until friggin 2001(he went fuckin 40-0!). Tito had the better record, especially if you're taking the "of the last 25 years" part of that list into consideration. And facts are facts, Tito beat up on him for most of 12 rounds. Also, I kind of sense some bias here so im not going to push this one any further. Im basing my statements off of facts, your basing yours off of pure speculation. Look at the 3 losses on Titos record, they were to B-HOP, RJJ and Winky, those are three future hall of famers right there. What about pernells losses? Who the fuck was pestrayev? Who the fuck was carlos bojorquez? please, cmon now. I can see why people here in the states would overrate him, but a brit on the other side of the world? Lol, im shocked. Only person that beat Trindad in his prime was Hopkins, and Winky too but some will argue that he was already going downhill by then(even though he had whooped mayorga, which isnt saying much) He had no business coming back and fighting RJJ in 08, but i guess he needed some money. Also, Pernell has much more love out here in the states. Tito was not as likable as him, who was just an all around solid guy. One was a ganster ass Puerto Rican hooligan, while the other was a nice red white and blue mommas boy type of person.

Also, why the fuck is Vitali not on that list? How is he not one of the best boxers of the past 25 years? wtf

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

re: the minority thing, ring magazine ranked whitaker as the 10th best fighter of the last 80 years, trinidad at 51st. espn had whitaker at 44 on their all-time list and tito not in the top 50. boxing.com had whitaker at 20 and trinidad not in the top 100, etc. i don't recall seeing lists by so-called experts that have it the other way.

.[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, do you actually agree with those lists? Any source that doesn't include tito in their top 50 is just plain wrong. You and i both know this. And there's a fucking top 100 list that doesn't have his name on it? Oh wow, that just washed away any credibility that boxing.com has or had. I dont know abot those so called "experts" but what i do know is that if you walked inside Villa Park Boxing Club and asked one of the two OG trainers, they would both tell you right off the bat that Tito is was a much better fighter than sweet pea .. and so would most of the other guys at the gym.

Edit: oh and Tito def won the Dela hoya fight. Oscar got hit with the harder shots and was on his bicycle for most of the fight. You thought he deserved the win? Tito was never liked much here. He used to bring half of PR down with him to the gardens every time he fought. It was kind of always USA vs PR thing when he was fighting and there were always a good amount of people that wanted to see him lose. But for that type of nationalistic bullshit to spill over to and effect his status/rating of today is sad and pretty cringeworthy if you ask me. He is one of the greatest welterweights of all time, that is an undeniable fact, regardless of what those so called "experts" say.

edit: and my bad if i came off a bit prickish. I usually need a few hours to settle down after waking up, lol.