Quote Originally Posted by ono
Quote Originally Posted by El Gamo
I can't believe the BS I'M reading in this this thread. basically,you are saying becuase they are small,they should not be P4P or not as high up. Thats bullshit. As Mick said,doesn't the name Ricardo Lopez mean anything....And it's P4P,it's irrelevant whether he could beat up the man on the road


And secondly,to say that people just follow the writers is stupid,especially on this website. WE have hardcore fans who alot of S*** about the lower weights so just because you don't doesn't necessarily mean others dont either.

I think Bilbo and anyone who agrees needs to go and watch some tapes of the lighter weights because ou evidently lack knowledge in this area and that comes across in your points,they don't have substance.
 It's you who has no knowledge about these fighters.

I'll take Rafale Marquez as an example. He has beaten as many Top 10 RING ranked fighters as anyone in the P4P lists,has beaten 2 HALL OF FAMERS,and is a superb boxer/puncher who if he was the same size as others in the P4P list,would KTFO most of them. But according to your thinking he should not be in there because um...he's smalll.....

And your analogy with womens boxing is the worst ever...what relevance does it have?

Bro,you're one of my fave posters here but this is P4P one of the worst statements I have ever read here:"Personally I don't think it should even be possible for a fighter below featherweight to even make the top 10 no matter how good his resume."





Honestly,I really don't know what to say about that. You are a lost cause my friend. I wouldn't mind if you made some valid points,I'd admit it but you dont!! It just boils down to,you don't watch lighter weights because they are too small,and they couldnt KO the man on the street...
I do watch the lower weigh fighters....they produce the most entertaining fights but its blindingly obvious that it is a grey area on this board. I say this because there was a time when we all did our p4p lists and a lot of folk were putting the marquez brothers in the top ten. Not that they don't deserve it. They do but folk were getting them both mixed up and/or admitting they had never seen them fight but had heard great things. If it wasn't a grey area there would be threads about minimum weight etc everyday. If it wasn't a grey area we wouldn't have been so shocked to see Arce get completely schooled by Mijares.

If it's not a grey area how come you don't see hardly any 8 stone fighters headlinging cards?

I admit you probably know a lot more about the smaller guys then i do but i really don't think i am alone on this.
Actually behind all my sarcasm and vitriol Ono did also see the kernal of truth in what I am saying. The Arce Mijares fight summed it up perfectly imo.

Arce was a big star and Mijares, despite being a world champ just wasn't a known quantity even by the judges. It's all very well saying Arce didn't prepare properly or whatever but the fact is that he was given an absolute beatdown. He lost EVERY round and ended up with a bigger ass whooping than Calzaghe gave Lacy.

The absolute suprise and shock of this just couldn't couldn't happen at the higher where all the top boxers are well known. Of course few expected Calzaghe to destroy Lacy, or Pavlik to destroy Miranda so easily but we all KNEW they were going to be great fights and understood the talents of all fighters involved.

At the lower weights, it's often just a lottery as to who will provide a decent challenge for the top little guys as none of their opponents are really known at all by anyone.

Under those circumstances how can you rate them properly? I don't believe you can, and thats why I think for the real lower weight guys, bantamweight and below, they need to really prove themselves to be special by rising through multiple weight divisions and beating guys bigger than themselves.

Pacquaio, Barrera, Morales J M Marquez and R Marquez ALL deserve to be in the rankings, just no way is Pacman at two ahead of Winky and R Marquez shouldn't be any higher than 9th imo.