Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (;D). @
Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.
Never heard of em :-)
Brook does not compare to these fighters
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (;D). @
Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.
Never heard of em :-)
Brook does not compare to these fighters
Exactly, Brook went up and got beaten up then went down again. Pac, Leonard, and Duran went up and they were still demonic.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I have him a clear no.1. If you want to base it entirely on records then Ward and Chocolatitio can be above him.
I provided reasons that other's have better records and accomplishments. I see you like to refer to rankings and titleholders when defending Khan but disregard them in this situation.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I have him a clear no.1. If you want to base it entirely on records then Ward and Chocolatitio can be above him.
I provided reasons that other's have better records and accomplishments. I see you like to refer to rankings and titleholders when defending Khan but disregard them in this situation.
Fair enough you've provided reasons why you think others are better. I never said your opinion was wrong.
Khan? You mean the British P4P thing? I used the exact same criteria that was being used by the other member to show Khan deserves a place in the top 5. It had nothing to do with my personal opinion, just being fair and consistent.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (;D). @
Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.
Never heard of em :-)
Brook does not compare to these fighters
Exactly, Brook went up and got beaten up then went down again. Pac, Leonard, and Duran went up and they were still demonic.
I never said Brook compares to those fighters. I helped Master understand the history of boxing.
Those fighters are an example of why it's NOT illogical for a fighter two weights below to be tougher than contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at.
Hope this helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
How can a fighter two weights below be tougher fight that contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at?
Illogical, but if it keeps you happy to think it does, then so be it.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
No it does not help, you are in the wrong but will not admit that Brook was nothing compared to real middleweights he has faced.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (;D).
@
Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.
If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.
Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.
All the fighters you mentioned, and you could include a few others as well, worked their way up through the weight divisions. Brook had fought exclusively at welter and jumped up to middleweight in one fell swoop to challenge one of the best MW's in history out of the blue. Big difference. Once he gets beaten he goes right back down. Again... big difference. Not taking anything away from the man. But it was a bad experiment gone wrong. Brook couldn't hurt GGG, and they both knew it.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
No it does not help, you are in the wrong but will not admit that Brook was nothing compared to real middleweights he has faced.
You tell him Master. You will find that the die hard Mods cannot accept mistakes nor apologise. I hope you are dealing with them on the Mod board with suitable gusto. :)
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
BTW, I love the name placement of "fighters that will blow your mind". ;D ;D
Pacquiao, Duran, Leonard, Hearns................. Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.
Fame by association. ;) ;)
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
..... and while we're destroying myths, no amount of snake-oil salesmanship is going to convince me or most boxing fans that Lomachenko, with an 8-1 professional record, should be boxing's p4p #1. He may have more natural ability than anyone in boxing right now. That much we can argue about. But leapfrogging him over the top of fighters who have actually built a career already, many with plenty of quality wins? I'll pass on that one for the time being.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (;D). @
Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.
Never heard of em :-)
+1 for classic Saddo humour.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Well I never heard of McKenzie, but that's probably my fault. ;)
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Calzaghe was not a brilliant fighter. He was good for sure but not brilliant if you are comparing him to Loma. Loma is very technically sound. He is a good defensive fighter with good offensive instincts. He also was amazing footwork which is probably his best attribute.
Calzaghe just jumped in and threw a ton of punches. He had great stamina but his punches were more pitty Pat punches and his footwork and defense weren't particularly great.
Even if you think that calzaghe was one of the best, brilliant doesn't describe his fighting style. That would be more comparable to saying that Chavez was a brilliant fighter.
And ward would at least 9 rounds against calzaghe. Probably more but at least 9.
He was an extraordinary fighter, with a unique style. Sure he could be sloppy, sure he didn't hit the hardest, but how are you going to take rounds off him on a consistent enough basis to win a 12 round fight? Impossible. It isn't ballet, you don't win the fight based on the grace of your hook, or the snazzy way you roll after a punch, it's about hitting that man again and again and making sure he cannot land as much on you. Andre Ward with his 30 punches a round would be dazzled by Calzaghe. Ward is very limited. Calzaghe wouldn't give him the chance to breathe. Ward would make it ugly, but Calzaghe would be on him like a mental mosquito again and again and again. Ward struggled against a plodder in his last fight, put him in with someone with output, speed and intelligence and you will see him undone.
Ward is one of the top talents in the sport in the last 20 years. He did himself a disservice by not fighting for so long but he absolutely dominated a stacked 168 division. And for the record, did it much more impressively than calzaghe. You are far underrating ward and far overrating calzaghe.
I just can't take somebody seriously who says that Ward is a limited fighter.
And for the record, calzaghe would have ran into a huge shot from kovalev eventually and been put out. His defense wasn't good enough and kovalev has fight ending power.
Honestly...
Not sure where to start..
You are taking the 38 year old Calzaghe vs a prime Kov?
Really what evidence do you have of J C being put to sleep by anyone? The fucker got sparked twice and both times was firing back on the way down. And that was when he was 37 and 38. FFS.
Honestly if a proper boxing nerd thinks Kov would have got close to Cal in his prime then there is something wrong or its an agenda. You can't be that wrong.
Re: Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Well I never heard of McKenzie, but that's probably my fault. ;)
Never heard of the Duke Tito?
I'll give you that. But I know a wise ancient old timer (:p) like you wouldn't entertain Kov banging out JC.
