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.

---

Only an imbecile could possibly think i'm wrong about this particular subject. I am the first person to admit i'm wrong when provided with evidence.

The only place i'm wrong is in your sawdust filled cranium.

In fact, I'll start a new thread, as this is about P4P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Hey I love Blondie. ;D One of the few blondes I would've done if I could.


Aw shucks R-man.... there's no empirical evidence he wouldn't have gotten blasted out, either. It's all theories and fantasies anyway. ;)

Hell... if we can't pit our heroes against anyone from any era... and defend our guy.... what good are we? ;D

---

True enough Tito. But I'm not a man prone to hyperbole but I don't see the sense in pitting Ancient Joe that fought B Hop and RJJ and having him against a prime killer like Kov.
Maybe you Americans and Honorary Americans didn't know but JC was well past his best by the time he beat Lacy like a drum. Its all about perspective. The JC we saw was not the guy that fought Hopkins etc. He was done. What I'm saying is watch a 25-29 year old Calzaghe.

---

I think Calzaghe was always great, but I think the more refined, less powerful Calzaghe would have outboxed his younger self over 12. The experience and adaptability added to his greatness IMO. Calzaghe was vintage between Lacy and Kessler.

---

That's often something I think about Miles. But what if JC had a proper coach? His dad was reading coaching manuals and staying one week ahead of Joe. I often felt that Joe was held back by his Dad's skill/ability/experience. Imagine JC with Roach or Hunter.

---

I just rewatched Calzaghe/Eubank and maybe you are right too. He was pretty powerful in those days. It's hard to tell, isn't it? Just a really great fighter who had the intelligence to understand his changing physicality. Against Kessler he was more delicate, but Kessler then was also much better than the later incarnation of himself too with the injuries. Think I will rewatch all of Calzaghe's fights again to observe how he evolved. Either way, to be throwing 1000 punches a fight at 36 is superhuman. Even Pac slowed down much much more a while before then.

These are all subjective, opinion based lists, but I can see three solid arguments for GGG, Loma, and Ward being ranked in that top spot. GGG had an impressive ko streak going, is very solid fundamentally, and recently beat his #1 challenger in his division. Loma does things no one else can do in the ring right now, and has dominated world class fighters Like Nicholas Walters and completely outclassed them in the process. Ward hasn't been defeated since the amateurs, and has beaten better opposition than GGG and Loma combined.

I go back and forth on who I think is the best fighter today, changing my top two almost daily. Today I have Ward on top due to his longevity, and the fact that he has beaten so many tough fighters. Loma is a very close second in my opinion, because although he lost a close fight to Salido early on, he has outclassed his opponents since in a way that Ward hasn't ever been able to. GGG is a great fighter in my opinion, but p4p to me is exemplified in fighters who are able to fight bigger opponents and still dominate/win (Pac, Floyd, Roy, Hop, Evander...etc.), and I think that GGG will be ineffective if he moves out of that weight class (Hagler is the one fighter I forgive for remaining solely in one weight class his whole career since I'm a fan boy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

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.

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.

---

---

I'm here to help.

---

"I'm here to help." =



http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/.../9izogk55T.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

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.

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.

---

---

I'm here to help.

---

"I'm here to help." =



http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/.../9izogk55T.jpg

---

You know I am right, just tell Fenster he is talking crap.

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way. ;D



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way. ;D



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

---

Yet he conveniently missed them and went off in his own posts of wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way. ;D



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

---

I can't see a single post you made that had anything to do with what I've said.

Feel free to show me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way. ;D



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

---

Yet he conveniently missed them and went off in his own posts of wisdom.

---

It wont get any better for you asking him for help.

He makes you look sharp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way. ;D



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

---

Yet he conveniently missed them and went off in his own posts of wisdom.

---

It wont get any better for you asking him for help.

He makes you look sharp.

---

Must be great living in your world where everything you say is right.

Don't get upset because you can't form a cogent argument. I'm not the one that resorts to ad homienm, silly pictures or back slapping mardy mates accusing someone of saying things they never said.

All I asked was why the middleweights were superior opponents than Brook even though evidence shows that Brook had much better success. Eventually you answered - "Golovkin let him do better." Fine. That's your opinion, I never said it's wrong, it's fucking stupid, but your opinion nonetheless.

I never once compared Brook to anyone. I gave you an example of why it's not illogical - as you claimed - for smaller men to successfully challenge bigger men. It's not my fault if idiots dive into the middle of conversations without understanding the context.

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Don't get upset because you can't form a cogent argument. I'm not the one that resorts to ad homienm, silly pictures or back slapping mardy mates accusing someone of saying things they never said.

All I asked was why the middleweights were superior opponents than Brook even though evidence shows that Brook had much better success. Eventually you answered - "Golovkin let him do better." Fine. That's your opinion, I never said it's wrong, it's fucking stupid, but your opinion nonetheless.

I never once compared Brook to anyone. I gave you an example of why it's not illogical - as you claimed - for smaller men to successfully challenge bigger men. It's not my fault if idiots dive into the middle of conversations without understanding the context.

---

Get that man a tiara. Miaow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

---

Yeah you've already said that. Did I ever say your opinion is wrong? No. When you claimed Brook did better because "Golovkin let him" I said - "fair enough," I didn't even dispute it regardless of how pathetic an answer it is.

However, If you claim to have "relevant facts" then you have to produce them when challenged. Your opinion doesn't count as a relevant fact.

(I never resort to name calling, I am totally consistent in pointing out idiotic statements/opinions)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

---

Yeah you've already said that. Did I ever say your opinion is wrong? No. When you claimed Brook did better because "Golovkin let him" I said - "fair enough," I didn't even dispute it regardless of how pathetic an answer it is.

However, If you claim to have "relevant facts" then you have to produce them when challenged. Your opinion doesn't count as a relevant fact.

(I never resort to name calling, I am totally consistent in pointing out idiotic statements/opinions)

---

Your opinion that the "middleweight" Brook would beat the shit out of three and school the other two is wrong. If it was true Kell would have been campaigning at the weight.

Look back at your posts you have been the one resorting to name calling.