Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: BoxingScene 2024 Female Year in Review

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by The D3vil View Post

    And what are they basing that on?

    2 undefeated runs as Olympic Gold medalist?
    Fighting all comers from 154-175 & being like a 9x world champion?
    Being undisputed in 2 divisions?
    Being ranked #1P4P by The Ring & ESPN?

    Literally none of the complaints about her are ring related, because there's nothing they can say.

    It's all "she's trashy" or a "loudmouth" or "gh3tto" or "ugly" or whatever.

    It's always personal with her.
    I see it and I get it but bunching up all in one basket ain’t the solution either
    I’m sure one human who answered you just doesn’t like her then again nothing wrong for calling a spade a spade but wtv
    I just thought it was ironic

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by The D3vil View Post

      And what are they basing that on?

      2 undefeated runs as Olympic Gold medalist?
      Fighting all comers from 154-175 & being like a 9x world champion?
      Being undisputed in 2 divisions?
      Being ranked #1P4P by The Ring & ESPN?

      Literally none of the complaints about her are ring related, because there's nothing they can say.

      It's all "she's trashy" or a "loudmouth" or "gh3tto" or "ugly" or whatever.

      It's always personal with her.
      Just in this thread, they're basing it on the FACT that her accomplishments have come in divisions across ALL of which there's fewer than 200 competitors, most of which have fewer than 10 fights, while the other top women have more and better competition than that in any one of their divisions. That's got NOTHING to do with race, and everything to do with absolutely terrible competition.

      Do you HONESTLY think that winning another undisputed in a division with fewer than 20 competitors, for which 3 of the belts are vacant, is a real "achievement"??

      That's not her fault. She can only fight the people put in front of her. But that also doesn't mean her achievements are on the same level as those of women who have vastly more and better competition, let alone men. You can't fathom that people might not be a huge fan of her disrespecting her fellow female trailblazers, or saying she could beat Keith Thurman without race coming into it?

      If Savannah Marshall had been in her position and saying and doing the same things, the same criticisms would be valid. That's how you know it has fugh-all to do with race. Frankly, if Serrano or Taylor were saying Shields ain't all that, and that her accomplishments were crap, and that she was the real GWOAT, you'd maybe have room to complain if people didn't call her out. But go take a look at how Serrano responded to Shields crapping all over her career.

      Making it about race is just gaslighting.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by crimsonfalcon07 View Post

        Just in this thread, they're basing it on the FACT that her accomplishments have come in divisions across ALL of which there's fewer than 200 competitors, most of which have fewer than 10 fights, while the other top women have more and better competition than that in any one of their divisions. That's got NOTHING to do with race, and everything to do with absolutely terrible competition.

        Do you HONESTLY think that winning another undisputed in a division with fewer than 20 competitors, for which 3 of the belts are vacant, is a real "achievement"??

        That's not her fault. She can only fight the people put in front of her. But that also doesn't mean her achievements are on the same level as those of women who have vastly more and better competition, let alone men. You can't fathom that people might not be a huge fan of her disrespecting her fellow female trailblazers, or saying she could beat Keith Thurman without race coming into it?

        If Savannah Marshall had been in her position and saying and doing the same things, the same criticisms would be valid. That's how you know it has fugh-all to do with race. Frankly, if Serrano or Taylor were saying Shields ain't all that, and that her accomplishments were crap, and that she was the real GWOAT, you'd maybe have room to complain if people didn't call her out. But go take a look at how Serrano responded to Shields crapping all over her career.

        Making it about race is just gaslighting.
        Then why is Laila Ali in the HOF???

        Why are people okay with calling Laila or Ann Wolfe GOATs, when they were in divisions with even fewer women in them??

        Fact is, Shields has fought in divisions 154 & 160 & 168 that have produced multiple top 10 P4P fighters on them.

        If you look at the current Ring P4P women's ratings, Natasha Jonas & Mikaela Mayer are both on the Ring top 10 P4P list at 154lbs. That's a division Shields completely unified.

        Savannah Marshall & Franchon Crews-Dezurn are both on ESPN's top 10 P4P list at 168lbs. She beat both of them.

        She beat Christina Hammer, who was 24-0 & ranked 7th P4P

        There's no way to argue that somebody who's beaten 3 fighters who've been P4P rated by major publications has "beaten nobody".

        And Jonas won't come anywhere near Shields with a 10ft pole because she knows she'd beat beaten.

        The same people who say her divisions have "nobody in them" picked Savannah Marshall & Christina Hammer to beat her.

        It's 100% personal. Simple.

        Just like it is with Floyd, Wilder, Haney, Shakur, Crawford, Boots, & all the other FBA fighters who get savaged on here daily for non-boxing reasons.
        Last edited by The D3vil; 01-08-2025, 05:54 PM.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by The D3vil View Post

          Then why is Laila Ali in the HOF???

          Why are people okay with calling Laila or Ann Wolfe GOATs, when they were in divisions with even fewer women in them??

          Fact is, Shields has fought in divisions 154 & 160 & 168 that have produced multiple top 10 P4P fighters on them.

          If you look at the current Ring P4P women's ratings, Natasha Jonas & Mikaela Mayer are both on the Ring top 10 P4P list at 154lbs. That's a division Shields completely unified.

          Savannah Marshall & Franchon Crews-Dezurn are both on ESPN's top 10 P4P list at 168lbs. She beat both of them.

          She beat Christina Hammer, who was 24-0 & ranked 7th P4P

          There's no way to argue that somebody who's beaten 3 fighters who've been P4P rated by major publications has "beaten nobody".

          And Jonas won't come anywhere near Shields with a 10ft pole because she knows she'd beat beaten.

          The same people who say her divisions have "nobody in them" picked Savannah Marshall & Christina Hammer to beat her.

          It's 100% personal. Simple.

          Just like it is with Floyd, Wilder, Haney, Shakur, Crawford, Boots, & all the other FBA fighters who get savaged on here daily for non-boxing reasons.
          Any and all of the achievements you mentioned have to be caveated with the lack of competition you mentioned. Being in the HOF isn't exactly the most unbiased and straightforward achievement, especially these days, and you know as well as I that Claressa Shields is an absolute lock for it when she becomes eligible. She, along with Serrano and Taylor, are absolutely guaranteed first ballot entry, and will improve the quality of the women's HOF. There's no denying that she's a trailblazer who has conquered everyone put in front of her.

          Women's P4P is what it is. There are a handful of women who stand out, and Shields is certainly one of them. But that doesn't make the level of competition for women's boxing any better than it is, nor does it make the level of competition for her any better. If anything, that just proves the point about how low the quality of competition is, that Jonas and Mayer are even on the list at all. And, let's not forget that the level and quality of competition has increased even over the past few years, thanks in no small part to the recent efforts in getting women's boxing more visibility and bigger paydays, which owe much to Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano's rivalry.

          The rest of it is either speculation (there have been zero attempts to make a fight between Shields and Jonas or Mayer, for instance), or flat untrue (the notion everyone who points out that there's fewer than 200 competitors across ALL of her divisions says that she has beaten nobody (that's a straw man inflation of the argument, in which you take a true statement, that the level of competition is extremely limited, and make it untrue by making it so extreme it's impossible for it to be true), OR that we all picked Savannah Marshall etc to win. I, for instance, picked Shields to win, and let's be real, she's going to be a huge favorite to win no matter who she fights, both because of her skill AND because there's no real competition to be had.

          And I note that you declined to even address the point that her own choices to talk smack about the other leading women might rub people wrong, and that such has nothing to do with race. As you say, that's outside the ring. But if you're actually interested in being fair, you'll note that many of us who criticize her behavior are doing just that, and we're not making it about her accomplishments. That's a separate thing, and one that applies in due measure to ALL of women's boxing, but unfortunately for her, especially to the heavier divisions because they have no competition.

          I note you ALSO declined to comment on whether you think that achieving undisputed in a division for which 3 of the belts are vacant is a real achievement. She's almost guaranteed to do that. But why should that be considered on the same level as what Usyk did, as she will certainly claim? Should she take no flak for claiming she could beat Keith Thurman? And why choose to go UP in weight to fight at more divisions that have zero competition, rather than try to make fights with the new P4P ladies that are now in her weight class? If she weren't trying to insist that she's better than the other women, and that getting undisputed for her means the same thing as it does for Usyk, Canelo, Haney, Inoue, Crawford, etc, many of us would just appreciate her for her own accomplishments. But she acts like something that's effectively like winning a chess tournament in the local park puts her on par with Magnus Carlsen.

          People will make fun of arrogant and crazy behavior, no matter what race or gender it is coming from (Teofimo Lopez, anyone?). And there are certainly racists on here who don't make valid critiques. But so far none of that has happened here, and yet you still chose to play the race victim card.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by crimsonfalcon07 View Post

            Any and all of the achievements you mentioned have to be caveated with the lack of competition you mentioned. Being in the HOF isn't exactly the most unbiased and straightforward achievement, especially these days, and you know as well as I that Claressa Shields is an absolute lock for it when she becomes eligible. She, along with Serrano and Taylor, are absolutely guaranteed first ballot entry, and will improve the quality of the women's HOF. There's no denying that she's a trailblazer who has conquered everyone put in front of her.

            Women's P4P is what it is. There are a handful of women who stand out, and Shields is certainly one of them. But that doesn't make the level of competition for women's boxing any better than it is, nor does it make the level of competition for her any better. If anything, that just proves the point about how low the quality of competition is, that Jonas and Mayer are even on the list at all. And, let's not forget that the level and quality of competition has increased even over the past few years, thanks in no small part to the recent efforts in getting women's boxing more visibility and bigger paydays, which owe much to Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano's rivalry.

            The rest of it is either speculation (there have been zero attempts to make a fight between Shields and Jonas or Mayer, for instance), or flat untrue (the notion everyone who points out that there's fewer than 200 competitors across ALL of her divisions says that she has beaten nobody (that's a straw man inflation of the argument, in which you take a true statement, that the level of competition is extremely limited, and make it untrue by making it so extreme it's impossible for it to be true), OR that we all picked Savannah Marshall etc to win. I, for instance, picked Shields to win, and let's be real, she's going to be a huge favorite to win no matter who she fights, both because of her skill AND because there's no real competition to be had.

            And I note that you declined to even address the point that her own choices to talk smack about the other leading women might rub people wrong, and that such has nothing to do with race. As you say, that's outside the ring. But if you're actually interested in being fair, you'll note that many of us who criticize her behavior are doing just that, and we're not making it about her accomplishments. That's a separate thing, and one that applies in due measure to ALL of women's boxing, but unfortunately for her, especially to the heavier divisions because they have no competition.

            I note you ALSO declined to comment on whether you think that achieving undisputed in a division for which 3 of the belts are vacant is a real achievement. She's almost guaranteed to do that. But why should that be considered on the same level as what Usyk did, as she will certainly claim? Should she take no flak for claiming she could beat Keith Thurman? And why choose to go UP in weight to fight at more divisions that have zero competition, rather than try to make fights with the new P4P ladies that are now in her weight class? If she weren't trying to insist that she's better than the other women, and that getting undisputed for her means the same thing as it does for Usyk, Canelo, Haney, Inoue, Crawford, etc, many of us would just appreciate her for her own accomplishments. But she acts like something that's effectively like winning a chess tournament in the local park puts her on par with Magnus Carlsen.

            People will make fun of arrogant and crazy behavior, no matter what race or gender it is coming from (Teofimo Lopez, anyone?). And there are certainly racists on here who don't make valid critiques. But so far none of that has happened here, and yet you still chose to play the race victim card.
            I aint gonna lie, I aint gonna read all of that.

            Comment

            Working...
            X
            TOP