Where are the record lovers !!!!!

[Chepppaaa]

who always say "i put boxer a higher on my p4p list than boxer b, because boxer a has a better record and therefore is the better boxer"
when i just told you, that skills and power beat opponents and not records.
what a great examples in reascent wekks =)

lomachenko - russel

bertebiev - cloud

walthers - donaire

but since most of you guys are imun to critiszm, you will still find dumb reasons, why to put old guys who arent relevant anymore like X and marquez higher in your p4p ranks than top level youngster like kovalev or thurman who would crush them in bits.

hahahahaha.....like horse who had donaire at 16, walthers probaly top 40-50 hahahaha now look now....i am an expert. you not. look at my "#1 in every division" - thread, i predicted that sh&/t around 3 weeks ago, i got prove. hahahahaha

look out hopkins is next to fall. and mayweather if he got the balls to either face lara or dyhidrated 154 version ggg.


most of you dont understand boxing....you build your logic on records, because it makes it easier saying, he beat 3 good guys, the other none, thats why the man with the 3 wins against top level wins against the other....so dumb, so easy.....instead of taking time and analyzing how a fight would go, invision how it would turn out, see the weeknesses and strenghtes. thats what i do.

[Chepppaaa]

and dont get me wrong, i respect anybodys oppinion.

its just my right to not have the same oppinion and when i do believe my oppinion is right i see no wrong saying most of yours is wrong. you can say the same of mine, aggree to disaggree.

[jezzamundo]

I don't think anyone here is saying that fighter A beats fighter B purely because his record is better. It's just a different approach to ranking fighters. Just because I rank someone higher doesn't mean I think they are better or would beat a lower ranked fighter, it's because I believe they have earned the higher ranking with their performances and quality of opposition.

Donaire absolutely deserved to be ranked higher than Walters and the result of their fight doesn't change that, it just means that Walters ranks higher now he has beaten Donaire. Same goes with the other two examples you gave.

I definitely rank Marquez higher than Thurman. If they were to fight today, I think it would be a very tough fight to call, close to 50:50.

I don't have a problem with anyone ranking Hopkins over Kovalev or vice-versa, though I think Kovalev will win their fight.

[Chepppaaa]

jezza, you re an exception

donaire did not deserved to be ranked higher than walthers, donaire is a chubby unathletic guy. walthers is very athletic and very powerful. on top he is entering or inside his prime, where donaire is leaving his prime or at the end of the road in terms of world class boxing. you should know that if you re a boxing expert. ranking should always be about whos the better boxer and not who has the most hype or who had the better opponents in the past. when its ovious that the boxer with the better wins is physicly and powerwise inferior the the guy with only 1 win over a past prime old vic.


close fight, old marquez vs prime thurman hahaha.....dont make it ridicoulus....

long story short

"I don't think anyone here is saying that fighter A beats fighter B purely because his record is better."

yes they do...a lot of people do.

99 % of people here for example who rate floyd #1 is the main always "he beat this guy, he beat that guy and thurman, ggg or lara did not beat so many top guys than floyd"

so i am totaly right, they judge mostly because of record and not because of skill and power. because NOW favouring floyd (who struggled against maidana) over guys like lara or ggg is just ludacris.

and so many other examples of peops here on judging by record.


why do you think most basketball experts rank clevland higher 0 rings than the lakers 16 rings?

becaus hello it is 2015 and not 1988 and now clevs beats up la.

[PsychoGamerTwo]

what a great examples in reascent wekks =)

lomachenko - russel

bertebiev - cloud

walthers - donaire

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud, who hasn't fought anyone, before 'winning' to Campillo & losing to Hopkins & Stevenson. Walthers-Donaire could have gone on way or another. But the Darchinyan II fight shown that Donaire may hasn't got it anymore.

[tiny_acres]

Where are the record lovers !!!!!

now....i am an expert. you not.

most of you dont understand boxing....you build your logic on records, because it makes it easier saying, he beat 3 good guys, the other none...so dumb, so easy...

Upsets happen, which is the reason why the sport of boxing is so exciting... and this explains why certain contests are so compelling to watch... as Larry Merchant puts it, "anything can happen in the theatre of the unknown."

That being said, a fighters' overall resume, such as titles won and the calibre of opposition faced, should normally be regarded as a "reliable" barometer for measuring the overall "proven" ability of a boxer.

Even though fighter "A" may appear absolutely devastating when destroying mid-tier level opposition, he should be applauded FAR LESS than fighter "B", who may frequently defeat the very best there is, but looking far less dominant in doing so.

For example: I am supremely confident at this point in time that Wladimir Klitschko is a better fighter than Anthony Joshua, even though he defeats his opponents in a less dominant fashion.

Therefore, this is the reason why I believe that "talent" is useless until it's "proven" and "potential" is equally pointless unless it's "fulfilled!"

Great post.

[ReggieDiggs]

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud.

I'm starting to become convinced this whole mfing site is a troll. You misspelling some common words, but acting like people f#cking up some much lesser known family name is odd.

[giacomino]

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud.

I'm starting to become convinced this whole mfing site is a troll. You misspelling some common words, but acting like people f#cking up some much lesser known family name is odd.

Re: Trolling. What was your first clue? Oh, that's right, virtually every thread today. Dumbfvckery on parade

[ReggieDiggs]

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud.

I'm starting to become convinced this whole mfing site is a troll. You misspelling some common words, but acting like people f#cking up some much lesser known family name is odd.

Re: Trolling. What was your first clue? Oh, that's right, virtually every thread today. Dumbfvckery on parade

This site is going down the sh!tter

[Chepppaaa]

Where are the record lovers !!!!!

now....i am an expert. you not.

most of you dont understand boxing....you build your logic on records, because it makes it easier saying, he beat 3 good guys, the other none...so dumb, so easy...

Upsets happen, which is the reason why the sport of boxing is so exciting... and this explains why certain contests are so compelling to watch... as Larry Merchant puts it, "anything can happen in the theatre of the unknown."

That being said, a fighters' overall resume, such as titles won and the calibre of opposition faced, should normally be regarded as a "reliable" barometer for measuring the overall "proven" ability of a boxer.

Even though fighter "A" may appear absolutely devastating when destroying mid-tier level opposition, he should be applauded FAR LESS than fighter "B", who may frequently defeat the very best there is, but looking far less dominant in doing so.

For example: I am supremely confident at this point in time that Wladimir Klitschko is a better fighter than Anthony Joshua, even though he defeats his opponents in a less dominant fashion.

Therefore, this is the reason why I believe that "talent" is useless until it's "proven" and "potential" is equally pointless unless it's "fulfilled!"

a reliable barometer are my eyes. when i see that boxer a regardless of record poses more problem than boxer b, than boxer a is my favourite to win. very simple.

power
speed
technic
chin
footwork
reach
athletic
mentality

when i watch a fight i see what i see and judge by it. walthers was my favourite to win 3 weeks ago even so he had not prove himself the way donaire did. one win over old vic, compared to wins over montiel, nishioki, arce and prime vic.

but i saw walthers had longer reach,was way mroe athletic and seemed stronger to me and thats what happened. and for me it wasnt an upset. for me it is an upset when the fighter who i think will win losses. but walthers did win as i expected.


and what do you mean by "the best there is"

gennady didnt beat top guy, but macklin and geale werent no chumps either.

what did floyd do? avoid prime pacquiao and athletic guys like lara or martinez (who would have come down to 154, he often said it). that were the top guys.

what did floyd instead. guerrero, you kiddin me. old mosley. limited slugger maidana, than 2 times, because he had problems the first fight. GGG would totaly wreck maidana, even a dyhidrated GGG and you know why, because it is to damn obvious. a slugger leaves himself open, floyd couldnt hurt or impress maidana with his pitty patty punches. maidana would slugg as usual and slugg against GGG means you gettin knocked the f.... out.

[Chepppaaa]

i made it very clear and simple to understand.

by what I rate a boxer winning against the other one. because boxer a is either faster, stronger or has an better defensive or offensive mind game. and that you can easly anazyle by simply watching a guy fight and than judge it he is better than his opponent based on his qualities. what has this to do with trolling. its obvious and reasonable.

[PsychoGamerTwo]

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud.

I'm starting to become convinced this whole mfing site is a troll. You misspelling some common words, but acting like people f#cking up some much lesser known family name is odd.

Did it take that long to figure it out? Which words did i spell wrong though? "reascent wekks" has been provided by Cheppaa in his first post. English isn't my first language, i am still learning.

Just wondering why everyone calls him Bertebiev. Its actually not that hard, to write his name correctly. Seen that atleast four times now. Probably going to be some times more in future.

[ReggieDiggs]

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud.

I'm starting to become convinced this whole mfing site is a troll. You misspelling some common words, but acting like people f#cking up some much lesser known family name is odd.

Did it take that long to figure it out? Which words did i spell wrong though? "reascent wekks" has been provided by Cheppaa in his first post. English isn't my first language, i am still learning.

Just wondering why everyone calls him Bertebiev. Its actually not that hard, to write his name correctly. Seen that atleast four times now. Probably going to be some times more in future.

Fair enough. Sorta the same thing going on with you as with his last name probably. Its not a very common last name for most of the US/UK boxing fans that represent this site so people have trouble with his name.

[eastezrider]

I’m not going to continue any dialogue with you because you’re a troll and you are intentionally stirring the pot with your absurd claims!

What you’ve just said, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read! At no point, in your rambling incoherent response, were you even remotely close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone that uses this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no kudos and may god have mercy on your soul!

Great post!

[Chepppaaa]

Yee, reascent wekks showed that Lomachenko's Salido loss was better than any of Russell's wins. It showed that Beterbiev (Bertebiev, how is everyone f***ing up his name?) is better than Cloud.

I'm starting to become convinced this whole mfing site is a troll. You misspelling some common words, but acting like people f#cking up some much lesser known family name is odd.

Did it take that long to figure it out? Which words did i spell wrong though? "reascent wekks" has been provided by Cheppaa in his first post. English isn't my first language, i am still learning.

Just wondering why everyone calls him Bertebiev. Its actually not that hard, to write his name correctly. Seen that atleast four times now. Probably going to be some times more in future.

what has perfect articulation to do with making an statemant with common sense?

I make sense in saying that a lot of boxers who were considered favourite because of their records got a beaten from guys with sometimes only 2 or 5 fights. thats why my question "where are the record lover", who only rate p4p rankings by records, which is prety dumb to do, which showed my examples. so, basicly, perfect spelling or not, my point is right. and who cares at spelling in a forum anyway, i bet if i search loing enough i can find grammatical mistakes in most posts here.