Charley Burley beat world class fighters though didn't he.
It's not about the title, it's the fact that M'Baye (who I still think was shocking on the night) is a better name than anyone Khan or Lynes have on their records. Do I think both Lynes and Khan could have beaten M'Baye that night? Yes, they probably would have, but they didn't.
I don't think you can purely look at ability over achievement, it should be a bit of a mix
British Top 30 P4P February 2008
sorry lenny but i cant agree - the whole phrase "pound for pound" strongly suggests an assessment of ability. achievements you can read off a piece of paper and cant really be questioned as they are ratified by a governing body but P4P is summing up the total all round ability of a fighter. i reiterate, marciano doesnt often get a sniff in any P4P lists because he isnt considered to have a myriad of the skills needed to be a great - this is arguable - whereas ray robinson or willy pep or ali always do.
ergo, how can rees be above khan or lynes. they'd both beat him and they are both much better all round professionals than gavin. his position is solely because of his performance against a below par world champ. a good performance but he was expected to get thrashed in that one.
ergo, how can rees be above khan or lynes. they'd both beat him and they are both much better all round professionals than gavin. his position is solely because of his performance against a below par world champ. a good performance but he was expected to get thrashed in that one.
I can see what your saying Harry, but in your comparisons your comparing guys like Marciano and Burley with proven elite fighters who proved they had it all.
Now, Gavin Rees creditials as a world class fighter is unproven fine - although I do think your writing him off a bit, he is young and undefeated. Yes, I certainly have my doubt about him reigning for a long time - and I also have my doubts about him vs Khan and especially (at the moment) vs Lynes.
However, Khan is not PROVEN to be a better all round fighter than Rees. Its all very well having the skills, but do I think Rees would be floored heavily vs Limond - no I don't.
Now, I have made alot of bold predictions about Khan this week - even calling for Warren to let him of the leash and fighter any champion other than Juan Diaz. However, I could end up with egg on my face big style because alot of Khan is unproven. At the moment we have one fight (Rees) who we don't THINK has the skills or size to compete at true world level, but then in the other corner we have Khan were doubts remain about his defence and his chin at a lower than world class level.
So I think while doubts remain with both guys, its got to go down to achievement - and thats Rees.
Lynes is a slightly different case, he is a solid and consistent EBU level opperator with possibly the ability to go futher - who ran a better world champion than Mbaye pretty close. Now, a case could be made for Lynes.
If I was predicting who would come out in a round robin style tournament between the 3 I would probably say Khan... However, if you asked me right now who would I be more confident tipping to beat Rees it would be Lynes.
Now, Gavin Rees creditials as a world class fighter is unproven fine - although I do think your writing him off a bit, he is young and undefeated. Yes, I certainly have my doubt about him reigning for a long time - and I also have my doubts about him vs Khan and especially (at the moment) vs Lynes.
However, Khan is not PROVEN to be a better all round fighter than Rees. Its all very well having the skills, but do I think Rees would be floored heavily vs Limond - no I don't.
Now, I have made alot of bold predictions about Khan this week - even calling for Warren to let him of the leash and fighter any champion other than Juan Diaz. However, I could end up with egg on my face big style because alot of Khan is unproven. At the moment we have one fight (Rees) who we don't THINK has the skills or size to compete at true world level, but then in the other corner we have Khan were doubts remain about his defence and his chin at a lower than world class level.
So I think while doubts remain with both guys, its got to go down to achievement - and thats Rees.
Lynes is a slightly different case, he is a solid and consistent EBU level opperator with possibly the ability to go futher - who ran a better world champion than Mbaye pretty close. Now, a case could be made for Lynes.
If I was predicting who would come out in a round robin style tournament between the 3 I would probably say Khan... However, if you asked me right now who would I be more confident tipping to beat Rees it would be Lynes.
I don't understand your Marciano/Ray Robinson analogy. Are you saying Marciano is like Rees and Ray Robinson is like Khan and Lynes?harrygreb wrote:ok, stop! its now time for the originator of the thread to establish the meaning of P4P. who is higher in the all time P4P rankings, marciano or ray robinson?
i always thought to get to the P4P top you had to assess the fighters overall prowess and all round ability not the fact that they might have won a world or any other title. so charley burley can never feature in an all time P4P list can he?
Anyway I have Robinson above Marciano in my P4P list based on both talent and achievement.
I don't know much about Charley Burley, but if he never beat any World class opposition then he probably shouldn't be ranked very high in an all time P4P list.
the analogy is this - marciano unbeaten world heavy champ but clearly not possessing things like great movement, ring generalship, ramrod jab,
cute defence. ray robinson beaten a few times but had all the above and then some...ray beats rocky P4P by a street ergo P4P is a matter of assessing the ability of the fighter not the achievements.
your opinion of burley not deserving a P4P showing is based on the fact that you dont know anything about the guy...i think i should quit while i'm still this side of sane.
cute defence. ray robinson beaten a few times but had all the above and then some...ray beats rocky P4P by a street ergo P4P is a matter of assessing the ability of the fighter not the achievements.
your opinion of burley not deserving a P4P showing is based on the fact that you dont know anything about the guy...i think i should quit while i'm still this side of sane.
Your analogy is crap. In my opinion Robinson achieved more than Marciano, so it doesn't work for me.harrygreb wrote:the analogy is this - marciano unbeaten world heavy champ but clearly not possessing things like great movement, ring generalship, ramrod jab,
cute defence. ray robinson beaten a few times but had all the above and then some...ray beats rocky P4P by a street ergo P4P is a matter of assessing the ability of the fighter not the achievements.
I didn't say he doesn't deserve a high all time P4P rating. I implied that if in theory he hadn't achieved anything, then he shouldn't be considered an all time great no matter how skilled he was.harrygreb wrote:your opinion of burley not deserving a P4P showing is based on the fact that you dont know anything about the guy...i think i should quit while i'm still this side of sane.
Skill should lead to achievement or it isn't much use. I don't see why we can't wait and see if Khan is able to beat the top opposition before giving him high P4P status, because if he loses below that level then we are all going to look pretty stupid.
I understand the concept, I just disagree with it jackass.harrygreb wrote:youre already looking pretty stupid with your inability to understand a simple idea like rating skill over achievement.
Once again I am not saying Charley Burley did not achieve anything, I am saying that if in theory he never demonstated his ability against top opposition then he wouldn't deserve a high placing, as his ability would never have been truely tested and could easily be overated.harrygreb wrote:and as for your position on charley burley, well i would look into the history of politics in this sport before putting your foot in your mouth again. no offence.
The way you brought up Charley Burley suggested that you did not believe he had achieved anything and that he was merely highly skilled, that is why I suggested that if that was the case then he probably shouldn't be considered an all time great. If that is the case or not I do not really know.
ok, we'll have to just disagree. i apologise for the "stupid".
burley, though, achieved more in his career than many a world champ.
when i assess a fighter my mind is purely on his abilities not the titles he has won. yes, they do have a place in working out a P4P but i dont let it cloud the issue too much.
all the best
burley, though, achieved more in his career than many a world champ.
when i assess a fighter my mind is purely on his abilities not the titles he has won. yes, they do have a place in working out a P4P but i dont let it cloud the issue too much.
all the best
Thanks for the advice.harrygreb wrote:ok, we'll have to just disagree. i apologise for the "stupid".
burley, though, achieved more in his career than many a world champ.
when i assess a fighter my mind is purely on his abilities not the titles he has won. yes, they do have a place in working out a P4P but i dont let it cloud the issue too much.
all the best