id have to say Ward.
Printable View
id have to say Ward.
^^ pk?Quote:
Originally Posted by dark lord al
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44I don't see anything coming backQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44man, I am absolutely in agreement the lb4lb stuff is bolloxQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnerafair enough , but we've gone from recent to "the last 6 Years". and like I said , who is your no.1 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
personally I think p4p is a meaningless load of horseshit that people can rate depending on what they give priority to. there are way too many different parameters to be able to say for definite. so it will always be debated.
mainly because you can have one fella seen as the best boxer in the world when in reality hes not even close
the best boxers in the world are the bigger boxers, no other sport has a handicap dependent on the physicalities of the participants
in other sports, if youre not big enough youre not good enough
Wow.
not agree?
would tito have beaten lennox lewis?
No. Just like Ricky Hatton wouldn't have beaten John Ruiz.
But ok.... "the best boxers in the world are the bigger boxers."
With your ironclad argument, you've nailed the case shut. :vd:
tito wouldn't be in the top 100 heavies yet he was elite at his weight
Hence the p4p arguments. :)
Look... the average fan gravitates a bit toward the bigger guys. But it doesn't make them "better boxers". Matter of fact, many times it's quite the opposite. Big guys know they can usually end fights with one punch. As a result, many heavyweights rely on headhunting, instead of mastering the sweet science. You look at some of these little guys and, while some like Chocolatito pack a pretty good punch, they have to be sharp boxers and combine speed with precise combinations. So to hear that "the best boxers in the world are the bigger boxers", it's just ludicrous. If pressed to choose, I'd say the opposite is true.
depends how you define "better boxer"
I mean it in the way who wins is the better boxer
lb4lb is nonsense, its a way of shoe horning one fighter in as the best boxer in the world when in reality it couldn't be further from the facts
Chocolatito is a fantastic boxer, value for money, entertaining, etc etc
no where near the best boxer in the world as he wouldn't be in the top 100 middleweights
put 11 under 10 stone footballers against 11 over 10 stone footballers and the heavier team would win more often than not, which is the best team?
Which is exactly why P4P exists. Tito couldn't beat Lennox, however, if they were equal size he maybe would slaughter him, maybe not, but at an equal starting point they are both great fighters.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Could Tito beat a decent standard heavyweight though? Yes. We have evidence throughout history of naturally smaller fighters outclassing bigger ones.
Could you, Eric, beat a decent heavyweight? No. You can box but don't possess the mental/physical ability to offset a naturally bigger stronger mans advantage.
lb4lb shouldn't be confused with which are the best boxers
and I'm about 14 stone myself now so you never know were the extra chub would take me ;D
@erics44
The popular thing to say nowadays is that p4p is nonsense, and everyone just rolls with it. It's true that opinions on p4p lists vary wildly, and arguments are tough to defend because we're talking about hypothetical things. But as Fenster said... you take an accomplished small fighter and blow him up to heavyweight with all his physical gifts. Or.... you take a heavyweight and shrink him down to middle or welter. That's the whole intent of p4p comparisons. You take an ATG welter like Sugar Ray Leonard, and put him in with a huge heavyweight. You think Leonard has any chance? Outweighed by more than 50 pounds? Outreached by close to a foot? A punch that lands anywhere on Leonard's anatomy is going to send him reeling. Does that make Leonard an inferior boxer?
Think about it.
nonsense is a bit harsh, you are right, it has its purpose
but it doesn't determine who are the best boxers
say the top 30 heavies would beat GGG, considering his size and weight if GGG was to come 30th in HW competition that would be an amazing achievement, but it still only makes him, at the most, 30th best boxer in the world
if there was a under 10 stone rugby league and one team dominated by miles
and there was an over 10 stone rugby league that was a lot closer
that doesn't mean the under 10 stone team is the best team
So you are saying it is a complement when McEnroe says Serena Williams would not be able to beat the 700th seed man in tennis because that is an achievement?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterSo you are saying it is a complement when McEnroe says Serena Williams would not be able to beat the 700th seed man in tennis because that is an achievement?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
ha, I wouldn't say a compliment but its a similar situation
lb4lb (in comparison with her competition) Serena is probably better than any man
but in reality she would probly be 700th at best if she played the men
What do you think pound for pound means?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Do you think it means Choco could give Wlad a fight? ;D
nope, that's my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat do you think pound for pound means?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Do you think it means Choco could give Wlad a fight? ;D
people are talking about certain boxers being the "best boxer in the world" because they are lb4lb
but they aren't they best boxers in the world
not by a long shot
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44nope, that's my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat do you think pound for pound means?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Do you think it means Choco could give Wlad a fight? ;D
people are talking about certain boxers being the "best boxer in the world" because they are lb4lb
but they aren't they best boxers in the world
not by a long shot
Is it that difficult to understand that being a good boxer has nothing to do with size?
Your original statement was that "the best boxers in the world are the bigger boxers."
We've already shown you instances where that's simply not true.
Skill is skill. Size is size. One is independent of the other.
Leonard was one of the best boxers in history. Better than probably most if not all of the heavyweights in history.
Yet he wouldn't stand a chance in the ring against a decent heavyweight, even one who's not a good boxer.
I'm puzzled as to what the confusion still is.
Because thinking bigger means better is absurd. Let's look at Kovalev considering joining Virgil Hunter
https://youtu.be/SCjpridYNMI
Interesting. I could see it happening. Kovalev definitely needs a change of scenery and hunter is a good trainer. It may help him bounce back a bit faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson