PDA

View Full Version : What would you chose?


ripcity
08-27-2007, 10:34 PM
If you were a boxer with a record of 40-0-0 (35) would you rather be domanating but be acaused of fighting a bunch of no bodys or would you rather be involved in a bunch of split decision fights which could have gone eather way also you would be acused of being luckey and the benifit of bad judgeing. Which would you chose?

Thread Stealer
08-27-2007, 10:36 PM
Depends on how much money I have and what my health is.

Oh yeah, and:

De La Hoya > Calzaghe

sues2nd
08-27-2007, 10:37 PM
Depends on how much money I have and what my health is.

Oh yeah, and:

De La Hoya > Calzaghe

I was gonna say Taylor or Calzaghe....:lol:

Illmatic
08-27-2007, 11:52 PM
split decision fights...

thesandman
08-28-2007, 12:05 AM
Depends.

If I was 40-0 and had world titles, then that one.
If I was 40-0, and was still fighting regional 4 rounders, then not that one.

Toopretty
08-28-2007, 12:32 AM
I think this guy is talking about Hatton and the other guy is supposed to mayweather. But ONE split decision fight is not a bunch...Or Calzaghe. Same difference. The fighter fighting the high quality opponent always wins that battle.

ripcity
08-28-2007, 02:59 AM
I forgot to add the money and number of tittles are the same.
As for health you would have no permit injuries.

ripcity
08-28-2007, 03:02 AM
This is Just a question. I'm not compareing spific boxers. However there are obovously boxers who do fit the decriptions that I gave.

teekay00
08-28-2007, 03:08 AM
I would like everyone to know that i had balls and fought with the best even though i did not win all of them than be 40-0-0 and have people say that there are still like 5 guys at my level who i should still fight. I wouldnt want ppl calling me a chicken like some in the sport.

Lacyace
08-28-2007, 03:12 AM
Whichever one gets me the most money!

Edit - I forgot to add the money and number of tittles are the same.
Oh.

Well,

or would you rather be involved in a bunch of split decision fights which could have gone eather way also you would be acused of being luckey and the benifit of bad judgeing.

That one.

cuchulain
08-28-2007, 03:15 AM
Being greedy, I'd rather have both.

After he dispenses with Ricky, Floyd (not my favourite boxer) would be the closest thing to both. If he stays on to fight Mosley, Cotto and Williams and wins, then retires, he could pull it off.

But I expect he will fight until defeated. Most of those guys do.

RJJ had it in the bag had he retired after Ruiz. But...

Joe Calzaghe has a shot at it depending on what he does if he gets past Kessler. So does Taylor.

To answer the thread, I would rather have faced the best, even if not always successfully.

That puts Oscar high on my list.

Maxmomer
08-28-2007, 03:21 AM
I'd want to take the toughest fights I could and do my very best to give everyone I came against hell.

theunderdog
08-28-2007, 06:40 AM
the former. it's better to dominate average boxers that being given gift decisions against some of the name fighters IMO

THN
08-28-2007, 07:58 AM
Fight the best !

boxbox
08-28-2007, 08:20 AM
40 fights and not one good boxer in my resume?? if i reached that and im still young then yes...then i would go for the prize fighters...IF they'd fight me.:bbb

knockout
08-28-2007, 09:09 AM
I rather have Mayweather's record.