No, you're an idiot because apparently a guy who dominates his division for ten years against every top ranked contender can immediately get bumped below a guy who has fought nothing but bums and one decent fighter the minute he loses. Klitscko lost an ugly fight by decision, you're talking as though fury just went in there and beat him from pillar to post. It was actually pretty boring and many people felt fury didn't do enough to take the belt from the champion. That's why they're ordering an immediate rematch you twit. Nobody orders an immediate rematch when the champ gets knocked out or has the crap beat out of them for 12 rounds.ikorolev wrote:Yes, you are a hater, and you are stupid too. You don't understand that basing p4p standings purely on records which often means 5-10 year old achievements is ridiculous. One has to take most recent achievements, fighters domination of their respective divisions and eye test into consideration. All serious p4p sources use exactly that -- a combination of records and other factors I mentioned.
Klitchko was just humiliated by Fury who is not an exceptional boxer.
Pacquiao was flattened by Marquez and hasn't been the same fighter since then.
Bradley ??? The one who barely passed limited Provodnikov and drew with Chaves ?
Canelo who arguably lost to Trout and Lara and who finds excuses to not fight GGG ?
The only fighter you mentioned who could be put above GGG is Kovalev. Roman is another candidate. There are active fighters like Crawford, Thurman, Spence, Lomachenko, Inoue, Rigo (even though he may be too old) who have potential to be above GGG, but that is just a potential at this time.
By your logic, let's take the 19 year old Tyson before he won the belt and have him knockout some random bum around the same time Holmes struggled with spinks. According to you the minute Holmes drops the decision p4p rankings should immediately put Tyson (who hadn't beaten anyone of note yet) ahead of the champion who dominated every noteworthy opponent for 19 fights and finally lost for the first time in a controversial fashion. Do you see how stupid this argument sounds now? They don't update the rankings every 5 minutes the instant someone loses, circumstances and performance over a decent length of time are also factors.
As for pacquiao, he redeemed himself by beating Bradley in the rematch (the guy who beat the guy who beat him!).
Bradley absolutely should still be in the rankings. He fought provodnikov that way on purpose, he won both the judges and the fans and didn't he get fighter of the year? Do you even watch boxing or do you just like to argue? This is common knowledge. And if you insist on demanding "recent" performances he won against an undefeated 25 year old vargas and won a belt and as a result he gets a rematch with pac.
The lara and trout fights were close, yes, but he still won. As far as lara goes, I saw the fight and lara really didn't do enough to win he spent too much time just jabbing and moving and didn't do enough to stop canelo body shots. A win is a win. Funny you fail to mention he JUST beat cotto.
I've dealt with posters like you before. You are obsessed with a certain fighter who isn't all that so you need to project your insecurity onto others by calling them a "hater". Your strategy has been to completely tear apart his peer's records in order to prop ggg up because you KNOW deep down his resume isn't that great. Why else would you pretend like he's ahead of canelo who JUST beat the lineal belt holder Cotto (a future HOFamer) along with lara and trout. Ggg has...lemiuex. lol.
Funny how you say thurman has the "potential" to be above ggg...their resumes are almost the same. Then again maybe not, thurman won fighter of the year. Seriously, I want you to logically explain what ggg has done in recent memory that puts him in a league of his own compared to Crawford or thurman or rigondoux?