Best fighter never to hold a title

sterlihalla wrote:gta give u cred for that prof i agree completely.
I was the most active champ when i had my belts i lost my 2 belts to htf and to bear.
They arent very active at all and you can get once in a while a vet make a noob a good example is what fernando vagras did he won a belt by creating a noob then was inactive for a while then lost on his 4th defense lol when the defense wasnt a noob lol.
I defended my title 100+ times against vets and just people that were online plus i lost my titles a few time but won them back.
These days theres jus pure vets making new boxers pretending to be new jus so they can lame a belt then when they do they dnt rematch.

Why do you accuse all the vets about making alts? Not all of them do.

But, i think that's a good point professor.. but i think winning a title is winning a title. However, i think that if you won the rematch you'd get a lot more respect then if you lost it and if you don't rematch at all it shouldn't be counted as a title (and would get no respect).

^ that's my view on titles. 1 Dope used to play ages ago, i'm sure he's won many titles?

He won one as Kikin when HTF was Superchamp but it was lag fight plus no rematch.

But he did win a couple more times after that.

I never won a title

poor me

sterlihalla wrote:

Professor wrote:I only say this because I believe you need a ttle defense to actually say you won the titke. Im just of the old school like that. These newer players think their champs when thay freeze ko, LUCK KO no defense, or beat the improper champion. (oh say for example some bum has the title of a frozen fight and you beat him and think your a champ now) But winning a title is about winning and maintaining it not just getting lucky once.

gta give u cred for that prof i agree completely.
I was the most active champ when i had my belts i lost my 2 belts to htf and to bear.
They arent very active at all and you can get once in a while a vet make a noob a good example is what fernando vagras did he won a belt by creating a noob then was inactive for a while then lost on his 4th defense lol when the defense wasnt a noob lol.
I defended my title 100+ times against vets and just people that were online plus i lost my titles a few time but won them back.
These days theres jus pure vets making new boxers pretending to be new jus so they can lame a belt then when they do they dnt rematch.

Reaper i'd like to give ya credit, but ive been pretty much retired since u came to OB. Although I've watched several of your fights. The point I was just bringing up is me as a player never wanted the title, and even if i did win the title I'd lose the rematch on purpose. Winning the title was accidental although me and NG had a few good wars. Losing the title was pre-determined before the fight began. But thats in the past anyways.... The future belongs to you..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 26/01/2008 10:14:52

I have not seen you box Monkeytail so I can not include you.

The best boxer to never win a title is 1 Dope Mexican or BlackRed depending on if people validate or deny 1 Dope Mexican his title victory over HTF.

Franky said and no offence meant but no one else comes even close to these two especially 1 Dope Mexican. Just saying like it is.

rocky u aint won a proper title yet either but ur not as gd as blackred and 1dope

Im glad ive had so many titles and defenses hehe

I think the worst fighter would be Legend. Rocky you should see the fight where I slap Legend into submission.

Have to agree with Reaper here.

Dick E. Boon wrote:I think the worst fighter would be Legend. Rocky you should see the fight where I slap Legend into submission.

Have to agree with Reaper here.

You don't "have to agree", you just suck up to Reaper because he is the only one that gives you title fights.

Reaper is the only one giving me title shots and I am grateful for that. We also happen to agree on the Rocky thing. We both dislike him very much.

The reason people discount 1 Dopes multiple title wins. Is because the title began circulating around the "improper chamP" and since many believed HTF was unstoppable at the time(like Fatny) people say he never wouldve held the title if HTF wouldve gotten a rematch.

Also Rocky has had a proper title. Dont know what you are talking about Reaper.

Professor wrote:The reason people discount 1 Dopes multiple title wins. Is because the title began circulating around the "improper chamP" and since many believed HTF was unstoppable at the time(like Fatny) people say he never wouldve held the title if HTF wouldve gotten a rematch.

But he did win the title and that title win was legitimate. A title win should only be discredited when the challenger wins by a Freeze KO.

a title win is "legitemate" is when the challanger beats the champion for the title AND rematches the former champ immedeately.

So if he wins both those fights than he is the legitemate champ

Couture wrote:a title win is "legitemate" is when the challanger beats the champion for the title AND rematches the former champ immedeately.

So if he wins both those fights than he is the legitemate champ

Well that's only what people have gone along with. I know where you're coming from, the champ who has lost the title (due to luck) is still the more skilled on and therefore deserves the title. But it also means that the challenger did have enough skill to beat him making it a legitimate win, however 'lucky' it was.

id like to nominate myself. im a little rusty but i think im on the same level as kuyajosh and eddie maybe that emmj guy too