Would Winky occupy number one spot on P4P if he wins?

[gyrokai]

It means "Bad Mother F*cker." cc back at yah.

Nah, I have no clue what it means.

[Unknowndonor]

When it comes to Pound For Pound rankings, it's not about how skilled you are, it's what your doing and have done that counts.

4 years will pass, with Floyd having his two best fighters, Corely and Judah, both having lost their previous fights when they met the Pretty Boy.

You guys are measuring your p4p on all-around-talent/skill. You've got it all wrong.
Because if boxing was just "skill" or if YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT AS JUST "SKILL."
Then you better rethink your boxing knowledge.


















I'm going to be nice and give you a hint:
"It's character that make a fighter beat a better fighter." -Cus D'Amato
Better fighter means a more skilled fighter. And you figure out what character is.

And if all that mattered was "skillz," then every fight would be predictable!
Some, and if I will, most of you guys are measuring too much on skills. Great example of a fighter who didn't depend on his skills to win; Rocky Marciano. Joe Louis once said, “He doesn’t know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn’t a boxing book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers.”



And hanging on to this silly "0" that is only meaningful if Floyd was "The Truth" at 140 and 147.
Three and a half years ago, he proved it at 130 and 135, but he takes on high profile tune-ups. And Winky is going on upsetting everyone, risking, and working hard and you guys still say...
"Floyd still hasn't lost."

That just encourages Floyd to keep on taking safe and easy money fights! Cause that's all he has to do to stay on top, according to you guys. Just keep that "O" even if it's against girl scouts.
Nonsense, no wonder fighters keep taking safe fights these days, cause you'll all write him off and call him a loser for just a loss.

Talent alone doesn't make you the p4p champ. But opponents won't make you a p4p champ if you are losing to them. It's a combination of both. If a fighter has skill and fights tough fighters, and wins some of those fights, then he should be considered for a p4p list. I understand where you are coming from about fighters taking the safe route because losses may write that fighter off. I don't look at it that way. I think Arce is one of the best p4p, and I think Wright is #1 p4p.My point is, skill has to be part of the equation, as well as comp, and comebacks after losses. The way you describe it, an unskilled fighter can fight a bunch of top guys, and lose half of them, but still be considered p4p. Fighting those fighters may make him courageous, but not p4p the best.

P.S. I had to bust your balls a little because I know you dislike Floyd.

[El Gamo]

When it comes to Pound For Pound rankings, it's not about how skilled you are, it's what your doing and have done that counts.

4 years will pass, with Floyd having his two best fighters, Corely and Judah, both having lost their previous fights when they met the Pretty Boy.

You guys are measuring your p4p on all-around-talent/skill. You've got it all wrong.
Because if boxing was just "skill" or if YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT AS JUST "SKILL."
Then you better rethink your boxing knowledge.


















I'm going to be nice and give you a hint:
"It's character that make a fighter beat a better fighter." -Cus D'Amato
Better fighter means a more skilled fighter. And you figure out what character is.

And if all that mattered was "skillz," then every fight would be predictable!
Some, and if I will, most of you guys are measuring too much on skills. Great example of a fighter who didn't depend on his skills to win; Rocky Marciano. Joe Louis once said, “He doesn’t know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn’t a boxing book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers.”



And hanging on to this silly "0" that is only meaningful if Floyd was "The Truth" at 140 and 147.
Three and a half years ago, he proved it at 130 and 135, but he takes on high profile tune-ups. And Winky is going on upsetting everyone, risking, and working hard and you guys still say...
"Floyd still hasn't lost."

That just encourages Floyd to keep on taking safe and easy money fights! Cause that's all he has to do to stay on top, according to you guys. Just keep that "O" even if it's against girl scouts.
Nonsense, no wonder fighters keep taking safe fights these days, cause you'll all write him off and call him a loser for just a loss.

Talent alone doesn't make you the p4p champ. But opponents won't make you a p4p champ if you are losing to them. It's a combination of both. If a fighter has skill and fights tough fighters, and wins some of those fights, then he should be considered for a p4p list. I understand where you are coming from about fighters taking the safe route because losses may write that fighter off. I don't look at it that way. I think Arce is one of the best p4p, and I think Wright is #1 p4p.My point is, skill has to be part of the equation, as well as comp, and comebacks after losses. The way you describe it, an unskilled fighter can fight a bunch of top guys, and lose half of them, but still be considered p4p. Fighting those fighters may make him courageous, but not p4p the best.

P.S. I had to bust your balls a little because I know you dislike Floyd.

CC good points too and nice last sentence!!!

[gyrokai]

"Your breakin' my balls here!"

By the way, .... I know you know what I meant. b*stard. haha

"Skillz payz the billz" I know the saying. Of course "skills" plays a part, but by no means makes a fighter.

But the way these guys talk, it's all but skills. And maybe they don't even know it, but that's what theybase it on. If that were so, Ivan Calderon would be in the top ten list, cause that man bores me to death with his dominant skill over his opposition.

Aghh, I'm going to sleep. cc back at yah.