This word... BUM... IT'S GARBAGE!

[donnydarkoIRL]

I guess you didn't read my post. I said people possess a trait known as 'common sense.' Common sense tells you that you shouldn't have to have someone else tell you who the best fighter in a division is. Common sense is what pointed out to people that Floyd Mayweather was the best at 140 and not Ricky Hatton, even though Hatton beat Tzsyu.

Actually the common consensus is represented by the Ring Magazine's ratings.
This system is held in high regard by all and is generally accepted as the best system available to us and they had Ricky Hatton as their Champion upon his upset victory over Kostya Tszyu. Not Mayweather. You will find few to agree with you there.

Without a formal ranking system boxing would descend into an even more blurry mess with more fighters claiming that they are the champion and various sects of fans inclined to believe them. This disuades the use of "common sense."

[match]

Actually the common consensus is represented by the Ring Magazine's ratings.
This system is held in high regard by all and is generally accepted as the best system available to us and they had Ricky Hatton as their Champion upon his upset victory over Kostya Tszyu. Not Mayweather. You will find few to agree with you there.

Without a formal ranking system boxing would descend into an even more blurry mess with more fighters claiming that they are the champion and various sects of fans inclined to believe them. This disuades the use of "common sense."

Um, actually, it doesn't, considering Floyd was 'Ring Magazine's' #1 P4P fighter in the world

[donnydarkoIRL]

Um, actually, it doesn't, considering Floyd was 'Ring Magazine's' #1 P4P fighter in the world

Pound for Pound is an abstract Title which has actually no physical semblance in Boxing terms.

One could be the pound for pound most talented fighter in the world, but by failing to fight for a world title, he never becomes a champion.

Your contradictory posts are really pretty amusing.

[match]

Pound for Pound is an abstract Title which has actually no physical semblance in Boxing terms.

One could be the pound for pound most talented fighter in the world, but by failing to fight for a world title, he never becomes a champion.

Your contradictory posts are really pretty amusing.

Almost as amusing as your inablity to comprehend my argument.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Almost as amusing as your inablity to comprehend my argument.

I can comprehend your arguement, thats why I can see you hold two conflicting views, which contradict each other.

[match]

Gee, let's see, the best fighter is the true champion. Sounds like one view to me.

sorry

[donnydarkoIRL]

Gee, let's see, the best fighter is the true champion. Sounds like one view to me.
sorry

An to establish the best fighter we utilise a subjective, common sense approach which elects the fighter not on his achievemnets but on his potential achievements.

If you believe as you claim that Mayweather was the best at 140 you completely disregard the thought that to be the best fighter in a division you must beat the best fighters in the division.
You disregard the well established use of rankings and unifications. Could Mayweather have beaten Hatton and Tszyu? yes.,
did he? no.

[Ghost]

Actually the common consensus is represented by the Ring Magazine's ratings.
This system is held in high regard by all and is generally accepted as the best system available to us

To the fans maybe, but not to all those in the industry.