Why being high on a p4p all time list does not mean much

[koolkc107]

Of course Deontay is no where near an ATG, though arguements can be made he has taken the first few steps along that road.

What is really surprising isn't a typo or a poster defending a typo; it's how many posters, by not pointing out the typo, tacitly AGREED with the notion that Deontay is NOW an ATG!!!

[Chepppaaa]

Of course Deontay is no where near an ATG, though arguements can be made he has taken the first few steps along that road.

What is really surprising isn't a typo or a poster defending a typo; it's how many posters, by not pointing out the typo, tacitly AGREED with the notion that Deontay is NOW an ATG!!!

hahaha....sure, after you pointing that out, yeah true hahaha......DW is now atg ahahahaha

[punchoutsb]

you simpy dont get it, do you.

its and embarrasemant for yourself whe talking about a quality dude like wilder who has a good future at heavyweight and you talk nobodys like an unathletic, fat, slow fields

wilder fought an champion, with power and teckled him for 12 rounds. stiverne couldnt even speak clearly after the fight and you talk about c-level opponents, just stop your BS

Oh BTW, Tye Fields was a very good basketball player before boxing. He's not "unathletic or fat". He has more athletic background than Wilder does. He also has better wins on his resume than Wilder does

But you've backtracked anyway so it's all good.

[stevedoc]

What ATG is wilder?

call me crazy, but i do think he would beat guys like frazier or liston. he is more athletic than those guys, has a stronger punch and moves vetter inside the ring, more fluid, not as robotic and plum as liston and frazier. were exactly wilder is in a all time p4p list, tough to say, i had to think about it more, but he is good.

So are you now saying that 100 pound Jimmy Wilde would beat Joe Frazier and sonny Liston , stop typing brother you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself

[jezzamundo]

@ fergusg

p4p wise, meaning hearns a litle bit shorter and duran alitle bit taller, same weight, i still do believe prime hearns beats prime duran, simply because hearns was better than duran. i see you did not read what i said! it doesnt impress me duran, with all his title defences and all his fight against 18-14-3 guys.

I agree that Hearns beats Duran, but that doesn't mean he's better p4p. Boxing is rock-paper-scissors - styles make fights.

yeah because you rate on record, i get the point, had hearns well over 100 fights like duran, with 80 % garbage on the record, than you would rate hearns certainly above duran. but i dont go that way. look at floyd, he will finish his career having around 49 fights, just because of this reason i should rate him behind duran, because duran got more title fights and overall fighters, yet knowing that prime mayweather's style is all 100 % wrong for prime duran and that duran might only win a few rounds. no way.

I don't think you understand what people talk about when they say that they a fighter's resume is the most important thing in determining where they fit on a p4p all time list. Sheer number of fights is one of the least important factors - for instance, I rate Sugar Ray Leonard (36-3-1) ahead of Julio Caesar Chavez (107-6-2) and would still rate him ahead had Chavez retired with a perfect record at 87-0-0. I'm far more interested in WHO a boxer fights in their career, how good their opponents were and how well they performed against them. To be a truly elite in an all-time p4p sense, you have to fight other great fighters who are in their prime and perform well against them - this is the best way to gauge true greatness.

Hearns is my all-time favourite fighter, he is all wrong for Duran and I think he beats him 9 times out of 10, but objectively, I have to rate Duran higher p4p because Duran's achievements and performances against elite opposition is more impressive. The number of fights is almost irrelevant, as are wins over poor opposition. At the same time, we need to look past opponents' records to see who they fought - a toughly matched 25-10-5 fighter could well be far better than a 30-0-0 who has been feasting on cream puffs. Again, boxing is rock-paper-scissors - just because one fighter beats another doesn't mean they are better and ranking based on who you think would win is even worse, especially if you are making size adjustments, it's little better than guesswork.

Ranked as middleweights: 1) Hagler, 2) Hearns, 3) Leonard, 4) Duran
Ranked as welterweights: 1) Leonard, 2) Hearns, 3) Duran
Ranked p4p: 1) Duran, 2) Leonard, 3) Hagler, 4) Hearns
Duran's longevity and resume at lighter weights boosts his p4p rankings, as does his very impressive win over a prime Leonard at 147lb, which wasn't Duran's prime weight but was Leonard's.

I agree that Mayweather's style would pose problems for Duran, but I think the reverse is also true and I would pick a prime Duran over prime Mayweather, whether the fight was at lightweight, light welterweight or welterweight. I think it would be a brilliant fight and would probably end in a close but clear decision to Duran. Even if I agreed with you and thought Mayweather would easily beat Duran, he still would be well behind Duran in terms of greatness.

[dempseyfire]

yeah put words into my mouth i didnt said

Is that any different that rating Wilder off things he hasn't done? You listed his physical advantages over Foreman. Michael Grant had those same advantages (heck, Grant's victim Tye Fields also had those advantages). Grant didn't have the best chin...perhaps Wilder wouldn't either if he fought a better caliber of fighters than the C list of boxing

you simpy dont get it, do you.

its and embarrasemant for yourself whe talking about a quality dude like wilder who has a good future at heavyweight and you talk nobodys like an unathletic, fat, slow fields

wilder fought an champion, with power and teckled him for 12 rounds. stiverne couldnt even speak clearly after the fight and you talk about c-level opponents, just stop your BS

Michael Grant's resume pre-Lewis sh^&s all over Wilder's. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Chepppaaa]

you simpy dont get it, do you.

its and embarrasemant for yourself whe talking about a quality dude like wilder who has a good future at heavyweight and you talk nobodys like an unathletic, fat, slow fields

wilder fought an champion, with power and teckled him for 12 rounds. stiverne couldnt even speak clearly after the fight and you talk about c-level opponents, just stop your BS

Oh BTW, Tye Fields was a very good basketball player before boxing. He's not "unathletic or fat". He has more athletic background than Wilder does. He also has better wins on his resume than Wilder does

But you've backtracked anyway so it's all good.

are you dumb? just because somebody had an background in another sport doesnt mean he is more athletic than somebody who only did one sport.

i dont care if tye ever played basketball in his life, all i see is a tall big totaly unathletic dude with no footwork, who does not move well in the ring, who cares if he played ball?
on the opposite wilder is athletic, has great upper body movemant, great handspeed for a heavyweight and an good footwork, moves well.

sure, wilder might not be an arg yet, but comparing this kid with great future with a nobody like fields is just plain stupid.

[Chepppaaa]

What ATG is wilder?

call me crazy, but i do think he would beat guys like frazier or liston. he is more athletic than those guys, has a stronger punch and moves vetter inside the ring, more fluid, not as robotic and plum as liston and frazier. were exactly wilder is in a all time p4p list, tough to say, i had to think about it more, but he is good.

So are you now saying that 100 pound Jimmy Wilde would beat Joe Frazier and sonny Liston , stop typing brother you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself

why do you write him, when you know i mean another person? you wanna be a smart arse?

[punchoutsb]

you simpy dont get it, do you.

its and embarrasemant for yourself whe talking about a quality dude like wilder who has a good future at heavyweight and you talk nobodys like an unathletic, fat, slow fields

wilder fought an champion, with power and teckled him for 12 rounds. stiverne couldnt even speak clearly after the fight and you talk about c-level opponents, just stop your BS

Oh BTW, Tye Fields was a very good basketball player before boxing. He's not "unathletic or fat". He has more athletic background than Wilder does. He also has better wins on his resume than Wilder does

But you've backtracked anyway so it's all good.

are you dumb? just because somebody had an background in another sport doesnt mean he is more athletic than somebody who only did one sport.

i dont care if tye ever played basketball in his life, all i see is a tall big totaly unathletic dude with no footwork, who does not move well in the ring, who cares if he played ball?
on the opposite wilder is athletic, has great upper body movemant, great handspeed for a heavyweight and an good footwork, moves well.

sure, wilder might not be an arg yet, but comparing this kid with great future with a nobody like fields is just plain stupid.

So along with not knowing what ATG means, you also don't know what athletic means. Athleticism goes far beyond one sport. Tye Fields was a multi sport athlete who managed some success at a a relatively high level in boxing (he has better wins than Wilder has so far). Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, which does not necessarily equate to athleticism. We don't know who is more athletic between the two, but calling Fields unathletic just makes you look silly...I mean your posts in general makes you look silly but no need to add fuel to the fire

[Chepppaaa]

So along with not knowing what ATG means, you also don't know what athletic means. Athleticism goes far beyond one sport. Tye Fields was a multi sport athlete who managed some success at a a relatively high level in boxing (he has better wins than Wilder has so far). Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, which does not necessarily equate to athleticism. We don't know who is more athletic between the two, but calling Fields unathletic just makes you look silly...I mean your posts in general makes you look silly but no need to add fuel to the fire [/quote]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

bottum line is tye in unathletic and wilder is athletic, no matter if tye played ball or not. mutli sport hahaha....he was unathletic and bad at basketball and was bad and unathletic in boxing and lost every of his fights when he entered an "name" opponent, but because he did 2 sports in his life he is more athletic than wilder, because he only did 1 sport hahaha....you realy dumb. so i am more athletic than kobe bryant because i played a lot of golf, football and volley ball in my life in different leagues and kobe only played ball. stop that crap.

you are more athletic than the guy infront of you when you are faster, stronger, and you move more slick, more fluid and based of those advantages you score better results than the guy with less athletic ability. while being athletic isnt all and technic is also a big part. well, wilder has better footspeed, faster handspeed, has better footwork and is equaly as powerful as tye and that are the resasons why wilder is much more athletic than tye. and thats why wilder can beat a top opponent easily like stiverene and tye cant beat opponents comparable to the level of stiverne like perez or wach. that easy.

[punchoutsb]

So along with not knowing what ATG means, you also don't know what athletic means. Athleticism goes far beyond one sport. Tye Fields was a multi sport athlete who managed some success at a a relatively high level in boxing (he has better wins than Wilder has so far). Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, which does not necessarily equate to athleticism. We don't know who is more athletic between the two, but calling Fields unathletic just makes you look silly...I mean your posts in general makes you look silly but no need to add fuel to the fire

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

bottum line is tye in unathletic and wilder is athletic, no matter if tye played ball or not. mutli sport hahaha....he was unathletic and bad at basketball and was bad and unathletic in boxing and lost every of his fights when he entered an "name" opponent, but because he did 2 sports in his life he is more athletic than wilder, because he only did 1 sport hahaha....you realy dumb. so i am more athletic than kobe bryant because i played a lot of golf, football and volley ball in my life in different leagues and kobe only played ball. stop that crap.

you are more athletic than the guy infront of you when you are faster, stronger, and you move more slick, more fluid and based of those advantages you score better results than the guy with less athletic ability. while being athletic isnt all and technic is also a big part. well, wilder has better footspeed, faster handspeed, has better footwork and is equaly as powerful as tye and that are the resasons why wilder is much more athletic than tye. and thats why wilder can beat a top opponent easily like stiverene and tye cant beat opponents comparable to the level of stiverne like perez or wach. that easy.[/quote]

Wilder has better fundamentals, which does not necessarily equal athleticism. You don't seem to understand this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Athleticism is NOT based on the number of sports you played, but the type and level you played at obviously makes a difference. I'm sure you sucked at all the sports you dabbled in, whereas Fields played at the D-1 level as well as racking up some impressive wins as a boxer despite having zero background and a relatively low skill set.

Athleticism is a measure of raw abilities (running, jumping, swimming, throwing, etc) not limited to what you can do in the boxing ring.

[Chepppaaa]

So along with not knowing what ATG means, you also don't know what athletic means. Athleticism goes far beyond one sport. Tye Fields was a multi sport athlete who managed some success at a a relatively high level in boxing (he has better wins than Wilder has so far). Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, which does not necessarily equate to athleticism. We don't know who is more athletic between the two, but calling Fields unathletic just makes you look silly...I mean your posts in general makes you look silly but no need to add fuel to the fire

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

bottum line is tye in unathletic and wilder is athletic, no matter if tye played ball or not. mutli sport hahaha....he was unathletic and bad at basketball and was bad and unathletic in boxing and lost every of his fights when he entered an "name" opponent, but because he did 2 sports in his life he is more athletic than wilder, because he only did 1 sport hahaha....you realy dumb. so i am more athletic than kobe bryant because i played a lot of golf, football and volley ball in my life in different leagues and kobe only played ball. stop that crap.

you are more athletic than the guy infront of you when you are faster, stronger, and you move more slick, more fluid and based of those advantages you score better results than the guy with less athletic ability. while being athletic isnt all and technic is also a big part. well, wilder has better footspeed, faster handspeed, has better footwork and is equaly as powerful as tye and that are the resasons why wilder is much more athletic than tye. and thats why wilder can beat a top opponent easily like stiverene and tye cant beat opponents comparable to the level of stiverne like perez or wach. that easy.

Wilder has better fundamentals, which does not necessarily equal athleticism. You don't seem to understand this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Athleticism is NOT based on the number of sports you played, but the type and level you played at obviously makes a difference. I'm sure you sucked at all the sports you dabbled in, whereas Fields played at the D-1 level as well as racking up some impressive wins as a boxer despite having zero background and a relatively low skill set.

Athleticism is a measure of raw abilities (running, jumping, swimming, throwing, etc) not limited to what you can do in the boxing ring.[/quote]


and you dumbhead know if tye runs faster, jumps higher, swims faster and throws farer than wilder?

you dont know that, but i know by watching both box that wilder raw abilitys of power and handspeed and footspeed is better than tye's.
and in boxing those are amongs the most important athletic abilitys you need, foot and hand speed, the raw ability to move you uppder body up n down sideways etc..

[punchoutsb]

and you dumbhead know if tye runs faster, jumps higher, swims faster and throws farer than wilder?

you dont know that, but i know by watching both box that wilder raw abilitys of power and handspeed and footspeed is better than tye's.
and in boxing those are amongs the most important athletic abilitys you need, foot and hand speed, the raw ability to move you uppder body up n down sideways etc..

I'm a dumbhead with a Master of Science degree in Exercise Science...

Perhaps this time it will make sense: Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more athleticism. Could Wilder play basketball at the D-1 level? We don't know, so there is no point going on and on about it. Just don't call Tye Fields unathletic, when he reached a way higher than average level in two difficult sports.

[Chepppaaa]

and you dumbhead know if tye runs faster, jumps higher, swims faster and throws farer than wilder?

you dont know that, but i know by watching both box that wilder raw abilitys of power and handspeed and footspeed is better than tye's.
and in boxing those are amongs the most important athletic abilitys you need, foot and hand speed, the raw ability to move you uppder body up n down sideways etc..

I'm a dumbhead with a Master of Science degree in Exercise Science...

Perhaps this time it will make sense: Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more athleticism. Could Wilder play basketball at the D-1 level? We don't know, so there is no point going on and on about it. Just don't call Tye Fields unathletic, when he reached a way higher than average level in two difficult sports.

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?

so wilder moving better inside the ring and having faster hands and feet is a fundamental to you, okay, than what exatly is athletiscm in boxing for you?
so speed has nothing to do with athletiscm, basicly just a fundamental. okay. now i start tu undertand.

[punchoutsb]

and you dumbhead know if tye runs faster, jumps higher, swims faster and throws farer than wilder?

you dont know that, but i know by watching both box that wilder raw abilitys of power and handspeed and footspeed is better than tye's.
and in boxing those are amongs the most important athletic abilitys you need, foot and hand speed, the raw ability to move you uppder body up n down sideways etc..

I'm a dumbhead with a Master of Science degree in Exercise Science...

Perhaps this time it will make sense: Wilder has better boxing fundamentals, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more athleticism. Could Wilder play basketball at the D-1 level? We don't know, so there is no point going on and on about it. Just don't call Tye Fields unathletic, when he reached a way higher than average level in two difficult sports.

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?

I don't doubt Wilder is athletic. To say he is more athletics than Fields based on the fact that he's better in the ring is silly. Some time watch the boxing match between Butterbean and pro wrestler Barn Gunn. Butterbean moves better, has faster hands, and knocks Bart Gunn the heck out...and yet Bart Gunn is far more athletic. Dude could do back flips, deliver missile drop kicks off the top rope, etc. Can you see the difference now?

[Chepppaaa]

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?[/quote]

I don't doubt Wilder is athletic. To say he is more athletics than Fields based on the fact that he's better in the ring is silly. Some time watch the boxing match between Butterbean and pro wrestler Barn Gunn. Butterbean moves better, has faster hands, and knocks Bart Gunn the heck out...and yet Bart Gunn is far more athletic. Dude could do back flips, deliver missile drop kicks off the top rope, etc. Can you see the difference now?[/quote]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i understand, but its hard for you to answer the question?

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?

also, i compare a boxer with a boxer, not like you a boxer with a wrestler. every sport needs has his own kind of athletiscm, so athletism doesnt necessarfy means to be good in 4 different sports, but to be athletic in the one sport you do. the deffinition of athletism is wide, there is no clear deffintion, that you have to do this and that to be athletic. "muscular and trained" is one of few deffintion
.
all i know is that in boxing you are considered athletic when you are fast, move slick, have great upper body movemant and there wilder is miles away more athletic than tye. and even in other sport i would favour wilder over that fat tall guy.

[punchoutsb]

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?

I don't doubt Wilder is athletic. To say he is more athletics than Fields based on the fact that he's better in the ring is silly. Some time watch the boxing match between Butterbean and pro wrestler Barn Gunn. Butterbean moves better, has faster hands, and knocks Bart Gunn the heck out...and yet Bart Gunn is far more athletic. Dude could do back flips, deliver missile drop kicks off the top rope, etc. Can you see the difference now?[/quote]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i understand, but its hard for you to answer the question?

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?[/quote]

The question isn't hard to answer at all.

Fundamentals in a sport equate to the skills needed to perform the sport. In boxing, that would be primarily technique, but good speed, power, and movements are also fundamentals of the sport. Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well, and have a high power output, does that automatically mean you'll be a fantastic cricket player? Or golfer? Or boxer? Of course not. Is it finally making sense?

Wilder, while his amateur career was short, had FAR more of a boxing background than Tye Fields. He learned how to stand and move and throw a proper punch. Fields did not. Heck, right up to the last fight of his career he was still throwing arm punches. There's a reason why a fine athlete like Bart Gunn looked like a complete goober going up against Butterbean. So saying Tye Fields was unathletic based on his boxing achievements alone (even though his resume is still better than Wilder's current) is simply misinformed and quite stupid.

[Chepppaaa]

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?

I don't doubt Wilder is athletic. To say he is more athletics than Fields based on the fact that he's better in the ring is silly. Some time watch the boxing match between Butterbean and pro wrestler Barn Gunn. Butterbean moves better, has faster hands, and knocks Bart Gunn the heck out...and yet Bart Gunn is far more athletic. Dude could do back flips, deliver missile drop kicks off the top rope, etc. Can you see the difference now?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i understand, but its hard for you to answer the question?

what exactly in boxing is for you a fundamental and what an atheltic ability based on being athletic?[/quote]

The question isn't hard to answer at all.

Fundamentals in a sport equate to the skills needed to perform the sport. In boxing, that would be primarily technique, but good speed, power, and movements are also fundamentals of the sport. Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well, and have a high power output, does that automatically mean you'll be a fantastic cricket player? Or golfer? Or boxer? Of course not. Is it finally making sense?

Wilder, while his amateur career was short, had FAR more of a boxing background than Tye Fields. He learned how to stand and move and throw a proper punch. Fields did not. Heck, right up to the last fight of his career he was still throwing arm punches. There's a reason why a fine athlete like Bart Gunn looked like a complete goober going up against Butterbean. So saying Tye Fields was unathletic based on his boxing achievements alone (even though his resume is still better than Wilder's current) is simply misinformed and quite stupid.[/quote]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well...i did not ask you what someone needs on track or in a pool, i asked you about athletism in boxing.

try again.

what exactly in boxing is for you a atheltic ability based on being athletic?

[punchoutsb]

Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well...i did not ask you what someone needs on track or in a pool, i asked you about athletism in boxing.

try again.

what exactly in boxing is for you a atheltic ability based on being athletic?

Already answered. I know English isn't your first language, find someone to explain it to you

[Chepppaaa]

Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well...i did not ask you what someone needs on track or in a pool, i asked you about athletism in boxing.

try again.

what exactly in boxing is for you a atheltic ability based on being athletic?

Already answered. I know English isn't your first language, find someone to explain it to you

Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well, and have a high power output

this is what u said. you talking about running fast or jumping high, but what are the raw natural abilities in boxing, what is athkletic ability in boxing?

[punchoutsb]

Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well...i did not ask you what someone needs on track or in a pool, i asked you about athletism in boxing.

try again.

what exactly in boxing is for you a atheltic ability based on being athletic?

Already answered. I know English isn't your first language, find someone to explain it to you

Athleticism is the raw natural physical abilities that someone possesses. If you can run fast, jump high, swim well, and have a high power output

this is what u said. you talking about running fast or jumping high, but what are the raw natural abilities in boxing, what is athkletic ability in boxing?

Hand/foot speed, good movement, balance, weight transfer. And all of those things tie in with fundamentals. Without proper fundamentals, you cannot use that athletic ability. Seth Mitchell is probably on the best athletes to have recently fought at Heavyweight...how'd he do against Arreola?

So to say Tye Fields is unathletic is stupid.

[Syntax Error]

P4P lists are a great way to compare & rank fighters, but ultimately they're pure conjecture & speculation.

All they are are your personal opinion, because you absolutely have no way of proving you're correct, yet so many people think their opinions are facts.

Obviously, you have to be sensible when making your assessments, for example, if I said Julius Francis was the greatest boxer of all-time, everyone on here would have the right to request that the Men In Black remove me from the planet forthwith, but you shouldn't have your balls busted by folks because their mythical list is different to yours.

Every fight fan knows a great fighter when they see one, but we all have personal preferences & bias which shapes/clouds our judgement.