Ward/Kovalev 2...who wins?

[Primo Carnera]

@Fenster usually the bigger fighter is the better fighter, and no we don't know if Floyd could beat wlad, just like we don't know if mcgreggor could beat Floyd

but not knowing isn't the same as Floyd or ward or whoever being put as the best fighter in the world when then most likely situation is that they aren't and not by a long way

@Primo Carnera do I fuck

Ok , just curious. Because apart from the safety aspect (which admittedly is a huge priority) if the big guys generally are the best, they should be able to prove that by beating all
comers, thus generating the income that they deserve for being the best, no?

are you asking if the bigger men deserve more money?

I definitely look forward to a good HW fight more than I do any other weight, I am more willing to part with my money, although those are general statements, there are a lot of aspects to consider

I'm not sure if everyone else feels the same way, although top HWs in the past probably earn more in general

and I think in history the HW division is the most fondly remembered, and rightly so

but again it tends to be where the Americans are, particularly for us English speakers

In answer to the question in the first sentence, the answer is no.
But I believe the best should earn the most. I know that's a bit idealistic and things like watchability come into it.
But going on that basis and using your theory, Dillian Whyte should conceivably earn more than Mayweather, Because he could probably beat him in a fight .
Would you venture an opinion on that please?

But I believe the best should earn the most. the best lb4lb or the best?

Do the best earn more? well In general, over history, the heavies earn more than the lower weights for what ever reason

but the earning power of fighters is dependent on a lot more than their weight

Comparing whyte to mayweather tho, ive not watched a mayweather fight since OLH and enjoyed it, in fact I don't think ive sat one out since hatton

id gladly pay more to watch whyte than mayweather for entertainment value

and mayweather was in the right place at the right time, yeah he sells himself in a way that attracts audiences, but he was the only elite American at the time and his fighting style and weight was almost irrelevant

At what point was Floyd the only elite American?

Roy Jones lost to Tarver in 2004, Ward started in 2004. Seems like elite->elite overlapping Floyd. Plus you can throw in Sweet Pea, Hop, ODLH, Mosley, Evan Fields etcetera.

Only Elite American sounds like one of those things people want to say enough that maybe people will believe it. Like those that make the argument American boxing is down now, I hope you aren't one of those sad fellas that is ignoring how the USA is crushing 2017 with fingers in ears, eyes closed saying nananana America is down don't turn on the tele nananana America is down.

(Now I get called an a..hole regularly around here so I will point out dramatic effect has been added. I mean no insult to those that choose to lie to themselves. It is their right to imagine whatever nonsense they choose. If you look for the humor in this comment you will see it.)

Roy Jones, Tarver, Sweat Pea, OLDH, Mosley all peaked a few years back, in the last 3 or 4 or 5 you couldn't count them as the elite

the only one who you could say was still winning at the very top was Hop

you could include ward but he was very inactive (as well as not really having the personality appeal)

Thurman, Garcia ?

This is a common form of argument where people keep adding qualifiers upon qualifiers to narrow scope. Either Ward was elite or he wasn't. You want a smaller net, I suggest we need a larger net. Multi division champions must be elite right? At least if they actually beat top guys(so not Broner) Surely we can agree on this? I mean if we are to consider Kell Brook elite we absolutely must consider Terence Crawford elite.

To go farther and take personal bias out of the equation. While I consider boxrecs P4P list a joke it deals in a formula that only considers what you've done, the wins and losses and their quality. It has like 5-7 Americans (I forget, I'll check) in their top 10. That seems a decent number for 1 country.

Edit-okay, I checked and they only have 3 Americans but still that is a decent number for 1 country. Man that list is awful.

ha! priceless! use a list to prove your point and then say the list is Shit!