Re: Your All Time Top P4P top 5

Originally Posted by
Mr140
I would say that Holyfeild was a better boxer then Jones because even in his old age he could still hold out while Jones drop off was really bad. I feel that Holyfeilds wins over all are better then both Jones and Mayweather and if they fought some as skilled as a Lennox or Bowie and were out weighed by 40 pounds come fight night they lose. I dont know how you could say Holyfeild was not a better fighter he brawled with the best of them and how does fighting weaker comp help i mean eye test i know but look how Floyde looked in JlC and Madiana fights looked tested as fuck lost the first Jlc to a lot of people. Fighting better comp is how you see how good that fighter really is other wise whats the point of all of it really i mean i hope fighters make most money they can but when fight weaker comp i can not rate them higher for it.
To clarify, when I say "better fighter" I just mean "better overall", not literally who was best at "fighting" or "brawling" (which was clearly Holyfield).
It's true that Holyfield was usually the smaller man, being outweighed by 20-30lbs by guys like Bowe and Lewis. It's also true, though, that as you get up to HW and are dealing with much larger men, weigh differences mean less because eventually you get into diminishing returns (ex: Riddick Bowe was 246 in the 2nd fight, as opposed to 235 in the first. Was that extra 11lbs an advantage for Bowe?). And obviously 30lbs of difference between two heavyweights is much less drastic than, let's say, the difference between a super featherweight and a middleweight, so you can't really compare HWs and smaller fighters that way. Floyd has been outweighed on fight night by just about every guy he's fought over the last 15 years.
On the competition thing... yes looking at competiton fought is important, but what if the differences are only small? You either have a world class resume or you don't. Both Floyd and Holyfield have world class resumes. The fact that Holyfield may have fought slightly better opposition doesn't make him better. There's more that goes into it.
Look at it this way: in Olympic sports like half pipe, diving, figure skating, ect you pick your trick/routine and you get graded on 1) how hard the trick/routine is and 2) your execution of that trick/routine. Lets say we're competing in diving: you pick a hard dive and you execute it perfectly. I pick a harder dive and I end up landing on my belly, totally fucking it up. Am I the better diver because I picked a harder dive? Of course not. Now if you picked an easy dive, maybe there's room for argument over what would have happened. But if we both picked hard dives, why should I get credit for failing on my slightly harder dive over you, who executed perfectly? I never got that.
David Lemieux = Future MW Champ and P4P King
Bookmarks