Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[Alpha]

p4p number 1? lomachenko wouldn't even get into my top 5 !

my p4p list would be

1 canelo alvarez
2 andre ward
3 wladimir klitschko
4 tony bellew
5 adonis stevenson

then lomachenko at number 6 :S.....................................

I know P4P is mythical but really?

[Fenster]

p4p number 1? lomachenko wouldn't even get into my top 5 !

my p4p list would be

1 canelo alvarez
2 andre ward
3 wladimir klitschko
4 tony bellew
5 adonis stevenson

then lomachenko at number 6 :S.....................................

I know P4P is mythical but really?

Yeah Bellew is at least two places too low.

[Alpha]

p4p number 1? lomachenko wouldn't even get into my top 5 !

my p4p list would be

1 canelo alvarez
2 andre ward
3 wladimir klitschko
4 tony bellew
5 adonis stevenson

then lomachenko at number 6 :S.....................................

I know P4P is mythical but really?

Yeah Bellew is at least two places too low.

And no sign of Wilder?

[Gandalf]

p4p number 1? lomachenko wouldn't even get into my top 5 !

my p4p list would be

1 canelo alvarez
2 andre ward
3 wladimir klitschko
4 tony bellew
5 adonis stevenson

then lomachenko at number 6 :S.....................................

I know P4P is mythical but really?

I know it's just silly. I have the Loch Ness Monster at number 4 above Bellew.

[TitoFan]

Have Geale, Rubio, Murray, Monroe and Wade ever been rated no.1 in their division and top 10 P4P by The Ring? That's a no. Only one of them has ever won a "world" title.

The only thing they have on Brook is being naturally bigger. And the "middleweight" Brook would beat the shit out of three and school the other two.

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

Again... maybe it's a language issue, as I understand certain expressions and colloquialisms over in Great Britain may differ somewhat from what is spoken over on this side of the pond. Be that as it may, I'll just sit back and let the quotes stand on their own. Some things don't need too much commentary.

If you'll excuse me, I'll just do a little basking now......

[Fenster]

Have Geale, Rubio, Murray, Monroe and Wade ever been rated no.1 in their division and top 10 P4P by The Ring? That's a no. Only one of them has ever won a "world" title.

The only thing they have on Brook is being naturally bigger. And the "middleweight" Brook would beat the shit out of three and school the other two.

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

Again... maybe it's a language issue, as I understand certain expressions and colloquialisms over in Great Britain may differ somewhat from what is spoken over on this side of the pond. Be that as it may, I'll just sit back and let the quotes stand on their own. Some things don't need too much commentary.

If you'll excuse me, I'll just do a little basking now......

You forgot the second part of the sentence - only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

The reason you're getting confused is because you're chopping sentences up instead of absorbing them in their entirety as intended.

Let me try to make this even simpler to understand.

Brook challenged THE best middleweight in the world. Because he lost to THE best middleweight in the world it doesn't mean he's NOT able to beat other midlleweights. The reason he lost to Golovkin wasn't just because he is a naturally smaller man, Golovkin is a fantastically talented fighter in his own right.

Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray are not a bunch of murderers row killers. Once again - between the whole five of them, in this day and age, they've managed to win just ONE "world" title. They are not THE best midllweights out there.

I don't think Brook is the only welter that could have success against them either.

[TitoFan]

Have Geale, Rubio, Murray, Monroe and Wade ever been rated no.1 in their division and top 10 P4P by The Ring? That's a no. Only one of them has ever won a "world" title.

The only thing they have on Brook is being naturally bigger. And the "middleweight" Brook would beat the shit out of three and school the other two.

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

Again... maybe it's a language issue, as I understand certain expressions and colloquialisms over in Great Britain may differ somewhat from what is spoken over on this side of the pond. Be that as it may, I'll just sit back and let the quotes stand on their own. Some things don't need too much commentary.

If you'll excuse me, I'll just do a little basking now......

You forgot the second part of the sentence - only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

The reason you're getting confused is because you're chopping sentences up instead of absorbing them in their entirety as intended.

Let me try to make this even simpler to understand.

Brook challenged THE best middleweight in the world. Because he lost to THE best middleweight in the world it doesn't mean he's NOT able to beat other midlleweights. The reason he lost to Golovkin wasn't just because he is a naturally smaller man, Golovkin is a fantastically talented fighter in his own right.

Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray are not a bunch of murderers row killers. Once again - between the whole five of them, in this day and age, they've managed to win just ONE "world" title. They are not THE best midllweights out there.

I don't think Brook is the only welter that could have success against them either.

I'm sorry, but the phrases

"And the "middleweight" Brook would beat the shit out of three and school the other two."

and

"In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight"


stand by themselves, and are impervious to any claims of sentence chopping and any kind of absorption nonsense.



There's an old adage about always denying cheating even if you're caught in bed..... but it boils down to the same thing.
There's really no escape hatch on this one.

[Fenster]

Have Geale, Rubio, Murray, Monroe and Wade ever been rated no.1 in their division and top 10 P4P by The Ring? That's a no. Only one of them has ever won a "world" title.

The only thing they have on Brook is being naturally bigger. And the "middleweight" Brook would beat the shit out of three and school the other two.

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

Again... maybe it's a language issue, as I understand certain expressions and colloquialisms over in Great Britain may differ somewhat from what is spoken over on this side of the pond. Be that as it may, I'll just sit back and let the quotes stand on their own. Some things don't need too much commentary.

If you'll excuse me, I'll just do a little basking now......

You forgot the second part of the sentence - only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray.

The reason you're getting confused is because you're chopping sentences up instead of absorbing them in their entirety as intended.

Let me try to make this even simpler to understand.

Brook challenged THE best middleweight in the world. Because he lost to THE best middleweight in the world it doesn't mean he's NOT able to beat other midlleweights. The reason he lost to Golovkin wasn't just because he is a naturally smaller man, Golovkin is a fantastically talented fighter in his own right.

Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray are not a bunch of murderers row killers. Once again - between the whole five of them, in this day and age, they've managed to win just ONE "world" title. They are not THE best midllweights out there.

I don't think Brook is the only welter that could have success against them either.

I'm sorry

Fair enough.