BoxRec

Ricky_ wrote:Because Miguel Cotto is simply a different class of fighter, anyone who seriously thinks boxers such as Walters or Mikey Garcia are p4p better fighters than Miguel Cotto is watching the wrong sport.

Trout beat Cotto less than two years ago. Cotto isn't on another level than Walters or Garcia.

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Because Miguel Cotto is simply a different class of fighter, anyone who seriously thinks boxers such as Walters or Mikey Garcia are p4p better fighters than Miguel Cotto is watching the wrong sport.

Trout beat Cotto less than two years ago. Cotto isn't on another level than Walters or Garcia.

You don't know what you're watching.

Ricky_ wrote:You don't know what you're watching.

You thought Cotto beat Trout?

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:You don't know what you're watching.

You thought Cotto beat Trout?

No. But Cotto is still a different class to Walters & Garcia, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know wtf they are watching.

Ricky_ wrote:No. But Cotto is still a different class to Walters & Garcia, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know wtf they are watching.

P4P I think either of them would have a very good chance against Cotto, with both of them probably being favourites to beat him.

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:No. But Cotto is still a different class to Walters & Garcia, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know wtf they are watching.

P4P I think either of them would have a very good chance against Cotto, with both of them probably being favourites to beat him.

Maybe that's where you;re going wrong... you try to imagine how a fight would go if both guys were the same size in some wild, impossible fantasy. How would Duran do against Lennox Lewis if he were a heavyweight?

Ricky_ wrote:Maybe that's where you;re going wrong... you try to imagine how a fight would go if both guys were the same size in some wild, impossible fantasy. How would Duran do against Lennox Lewis if he were a heavyweight?

I don't know, but when doing a P4P list it's one of the main things to think about.

Cotto has achieved more than Walters or Garcia, but recently he hasn't been more impressive than either.

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Maybe that's where you;re going wrong... you try to imagine how a fight would go if both guys were the same size in some wild, impossible fantasy. How would Duran do against Lennox Lewis if he were a heavyweight?

I don't know, but when doing a P4P list it's one of the main things to think about.

Cotto has achieved more than Walters or Garcia, but recently he hasn't been more impressive than either.

using your imagination as to how a guy would perform with a completely different body type is ridiculous, it means an entirely different skeleton, therefore, different fighter. Martinez may be shot but he's a much, much bigger man than Cotto, the opposite is true of Walters and pretty much everyone he's faced. Skill-for-Skill, Cotto is a different league from Walters, infact he was very competitive boxing with Mayweather and has improved since that close-but-clear loss.

Ricky_ wrote:

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:You don't know what you're watching.

You thought Cotto beat Trout?

No. But Cotto is still a different class to Walters & Garcia, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know wtf they are watching.

Cotto is in a different class of PPV, but that same class of P4P.

I think Cotto is in fact in a different class than those undefeated fighters. A defeat from Trout moved him to a lower class. Since the close fight with Shane Mosley in 2007, there is nothing in Cotto's resume which could put him above Mikey or Walters.

Horse wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Good, interesting and well-thought-out list as per usual.

Where to rank Wlad P4P is a tricky one and depends largely on how you do P4P. If you do it on "who beats who if they were the same size", then Wlad shouldn't be in the Top 30. Based on domination of one's own division, he's got to be Top 5, but the fact that his division is so weak undermines this.

What is the average weight for a heavyweight? Wlad is a big guy, but he generally doesn't weigh that much more than his opponents.

I don't know, Wlad isn't particularly heavy for a heavyweight, but he is a naturally big guy. Chagaev weighs about the same as Wlad these days, but he's obviously smaller, just fatter. I'm actually OK with Wlad being in the P4P top ten (lower half) based on his dominance at heavyweight and the fact that he fights the best in his division. But shrink Wlad down to middleweight and I don't think he's any better than Felix Sturm. Silly hypothetical discussion of course, which is why I think results and quality of opposition are the most important factors in rating boxers, which is why I like your list.

Kovalev #7, Froch #9, Bradley is out of top 10.

jezzamundo wrote:I don't know, Wlad isn't particularly heavy for a heavyweight, but he is a naturally big guy. Chagaev weighs about the same as Wlad these days, but he's obviously smaller, just fatter. I'm actually OK with Wlad being in the P4P top ten (lower half) based on his dominance at heavyweight and the fact that he fights the best in his division. But shrink Wlad down to middleweight and I don't think he's any better than Felix Sturm. Silly hypothetical discussion of course, which is why I think results and quality of opposition are the most important factors in rating boxers, which is why I like your list.

I think people overstate Wlad's size when talking about his P4P abilities. A P4P Wlad at middleweight would be about 6' 1½" or so and a fairly big weight drainer, but not to a ridiculous level. Wlad has a lot more P4P power than Sturm and I'd favour him to beat him.

ikorolev wrote:Kovalev #7, Froch #9, Bradley is out of top 10.

Reasonable point of view.

fergusg wrote:

Horse wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Kovalev #7, Froch #9, Bradley is out of top 10.

Reasonable point of view.

You’re ranking Sergey Kovalev above the likes of Carl Froch, Gennady Golovkin and Timothy Bradley on the back of a victory over a 50 year old man that was physically much smaller than himself and who only landed an average of five punches per round?

Carl Froch would have dominated Bernard Hopkins in a similarly one-sided manner.

How conveniently Hopkins becomes a 50-year aold, "much smaller" man Nobody was mentioning him being smaller when making predictions. His age wasn't a big issue for majority of boxrec fans and boxing writers giving the fight to Hopkins. Were Bernard's two belts charitable donations to him ?

fergusg wrote:You’re ranking Sergey Kovalev above the likes of Carl Froch, Gennady Golovkin and Timothy Bradley on the back of a victory over a 50 year old man that was physically much smaller than himself and who only landed an average of five punches per round?

Carl Froch would have dominated Bernard Hopkins in a similarly one-sided manner.

What has Golovkin done that is better than beating Hopkins? Kovalev has a better record than Golovkin.

Froch wasn't interested in a Hopkins fight, he hasn't fought him, so he hasn't got the glory of beating Hopkins. We don't know if Froch could dominate Hopkins in the same way.

fergusg wrote:I can't really comment on Gennady Golovkin's status since I've always maintained a long-term belief that many have granted him an honorary rite of passage of membership to the mythical top ten pound-for-pound ranks without actually earning it by beating a quality opponent.

In regards to Carl Froch, the majority of his opponents he has faced over the last six years would be capable of beating the 50 year old version of Bernard Hopkins who could only connect with an average of five punches per round against Kovalev.

Hopkins is better on paper than anyone that Froch has ever beaten.

Hopkins being 49 doesn't mean he isn't still a world class fighter, because he is still world class. He didn't come out of retirement to fight Kovalev, he has been beating top 10/15 ranked fighters with ease in recent fights.

Hopkins is still a very good fighter. He deserves more respect than he is getting.

fergusg wrote: I respect Hopkins but he appeared shot as he couldn't land his shots and he made no attempt whatsoever to adapt to Kovalev's approach.

A lot of fighters at the end of their career engage in one or more fights too many... and that's precisely what Hopkins did.

He absolutely didn't appear shot. What happened is that he COULD NOT adapt. When you are feeling Kovalev's punches even ones not landing cleanly, it makes you cautious and ruins whatever plans you had. Hopkins is still a very good fighter, but Kovalev is just better.

fergusg wrote:I respect Hopkins but he appeared shot as he couldn't land his shots and he made no attempt whatsoever to adapt to Kovalev's approach.

A lot of fighters at the end of their career engage in one or more fights too many... and that's precisely what Hopkins did.

In regards to Hopkins resume on paper being better than any of Froch's opponents...let's not forget that paper burns, because it does not necessarily reflect the state of a fighters capability when they enter the ring (i.e. Ali-Holmes). So it's a redundant point.

He didn't appear shot to me. He was fighting a guy who has destroyed world class fighters like Cleverly and Campillo. He just couldn't do what he wanted to do against a physical beast like Kovalev.

Ali had been out of the ring for over two years before the Holmes fight, so that isn't really relevant.

fergusg wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

fergusg wrote: I respect Hopkins but he appeared shot as he couldn't land his shots and he made no attempt whatsoever to adapt to Kovalev's approach.

A lot of fighters at the end of their career engage in one or more fights too many... and that's precisely what Hopkins did.

He absolutely didn't appear shot. What happened is that he COULD NOT adapt. When you are feeling Kovalev's punches even ones not landing cleanly, it makes you cautious and ruins whatever plans you had. Hopkins is still a very good fighter, but Kovalev is just better.

It's not unreasonable to assume that a 50 year old man (in roughly 60 days), should be considered far past his physical prime based on his performance against a fighter in his thirties that is young enough to be his son.

Bernard Hopkins is a shot fighter who could only land an average of FIVE punches per round.

You can't make a conclusion about a fighter being shot based on a defeat from the best boxer in a division. Most of the other potential opponents would not last 12 rounds with Kovalev. Many wouldn't last 5.

fergusg wrote:Bernard Hopkins is a shot fighter who could only land an average of FIVE punches per round.

Hopkins isn't shot. He is still world class.

You are wrong.

fergusg wrote:I'm right and deep down in your heart, you know I am. Hopkins has nothing left in will lose his next fight if he's matched up with anyone half decent.

No, I do not. Hopkins is still world class. I say what I think and I do not lie.

fergusg wrote:If you've followed Ali's career, Hopkins has faced his own version of "Larry Holmes", the next opponent will become his "Greg Page".

What?

fergusg wrote:I'm saying that Hopkins is shot, but if he himself doesn't realise this yet, he will do when he loses his next fight, hence the Ali analogy.

He beat Shumenov very, very easily less than 7 months ago. He isn't shot, you are wrong.

fergusg wrote:As the old adage goes "fighters often grow old overnight." The phrase is used time-and-time again for a valid reason...

We'll agree to disagree... until Hopkins fights another half-decent opponent and loses in similar fashion.

Kovalev is far more than half-decent.

Hopkins deserves more respect than this. Disgusting!

fergusg wrote:I respect Hopkins... I really do, but it's a sad fact of life that we all grow old eventually... and Bernard isn't immune to this.

Losing to Kovalev doesn't mean he is washed up.

He doesn't deserve this level of disrespect for taking on a fighter like Kovalev and losing.