BoxRec

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:
Laughs hard as hell at GGG being ranked ahead of Kovalev and Canelo, laughs even harder at Lara being ranked ahead of Crawford and Pacquiao.

Why wouldn't GGG be ranked ahead of Canelo when Canelo is afraid to fight him ?

So this is how one is determined to be ahead of another just because (you think) he might be afraid to fight him??

That is some seriously idiotic and ridiculous stuff.

Canelo has a far better resume than GGG, he is far more accomplished than Golovkin and he's beaten better competition than GGG.

What else is there to determine who should be ahead of who in P4P??

Chepppaaa wrote:canelo lost on points to lara and floyd. canelo beat some b and c level dudes. same did ggg, he also beat some b and c level opponents, only difference is ggg was always imnpressiv all the way, terrorizing everybody who ever went into the ring with him. ggg wrecks canelo at 154 or middleweight, thats why he is higher.

punchoutsb wrote:If you're solely going by resume then Pac is still number one. There's much more that goes into the most vilified of all fictional doesn't mean anything lists than just resume.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:If you're solely going by resume then Pac is still number one. There's much more that goes into the most vilified of all fictional doesn't mean anything lists than just resume.

It's funny that you're picking me to reply to when he said this: Why wouldn't GGG be ranked ahead of Canelo when Canelo is afraid to fight him ?

I think that is far more significant than trying to debate my post, besides Canelo beat everyone on his resume outside of Mayweather. Who the hell has GGG beaten?

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:If you're solely going by resume then Pac is still number one. There's much more that goes into the most vilified of all fictional doesn't mean anything lists than just resume.

It's funny that you're picking me to reply to when he said this: Why wouldn't GGG be ranked ahead of Canelo when Canelo is afraid to fight him ?

I think that is far more significant than trying to debate my post, besides Canelo beat everyone on his resume outside of Mayweather. Who the hell has GGG beaten?

ikorolev wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:If you're solely going by resume then Pac is still number one. There's much more that goes into the most vilified of all fictional doesn't mean anything lists than just resume.

It's funny that you're picking me to reply to when he said this: Why wouldn't GGG be ranked ahead of Canelo when Canelo is afraid to fight him ?

I think that is far more significant than trying to debate my post, besides Canelo beat everyone on his resume outside of Mayweather. Who the hell has GGG beaten?

First of all, there are different opinions on whether Canelo has beaten his top opponents (beside Floyd), Trout and Lara. Golovkin never leaves a doubt of whether he won or not.

A win over Cotto, was also way closer than judges' cards.

What punchoutsb said is that basing p4p status on resume only produces wrong results. That has already been established multiple times, but some people don't learn.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:canelo lost on points to lara and floyd. canelo beat some b and c level dudes. same did ggg, he also beat some b and c level opponents, only difference is ggg was always imnpressiv all the way, terrorizing everybody who ever went into the ring with him. ggg wrecks canelo at 154 or middleweight, thats why he is higher.

Wrong!! Canelo won on points to Lara, regardless of how you feel the card show otherwise. Isn't GGG supposed to look impressive vs Bums??

Imagine Canelo fighting a bunch of bums, I'm sure he'd have KO after KO also.

Chepppaaa wrote:lara won,, it was a robbery. if you consider top 10 boxers bums, than 99,9 % of all boxers in the world are bums.

lemieaux is a good b level boxer with a ko ratio of 84 %, at that time a top 5 rated middleweight in the world. murray, some say beat serio, he also was a top 10 midd., geale beat sturm and was also considered a top 10 midd. and still is.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lara won,, it was a robbery. if you consider top 10 boxers bums, than 99,9 % of all boxers in the world are bums.

lemieaux is a good b level boxer with a ko ratio of 84 %, at that time a top 5 rated middleweight in the world. murray, some say beat serio, he also was a top 10 midd., geale beat sturm and was also considered a top 10 midd. and still is.

Again, your opinion on who you "think" won means nothing, absolutely zero. As I recall Canelo was the aggressor and was highly effective, if Floyd fought Canelo the way that Lara did then you would be the first to say he was running but that's what I saw, sure Lara landed the cleaner and harder shots but Canelo was busier, controlled ring generalship, and effectively aggressive plus he landed as much as Lara did so the judges awarded the man the victory he earned.

ikorolev wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lara won,, it was a robbery. if you consider top 10 boxers bums, than 99,9 % of all boxers in the world are bums.

lemieaux is a good b level boxer with a ko ratio of 84 %, at that time a top 5 rated middleweight in the world. murray, some say beat serio, he also was a top 10 midd., geale beat sturm and was also considered a top 10 midd. and still is.

Again, your opinion on who you "think" won means nothing, absolutely zero. As I recall Canelo was the aggressor and was highly effective, if Floyd fought Canelo the way that Lara did then you would be the first to say he was running but that's what I saw, sure Lara landed the cleaner and harder shots but Canelo was busier, controlled ring generalship, and effectively aggressive plus he landed as much as Lara did so the judges awarded the man the victory he earned.

Of course, only what Brut thinks means something

jockpunk wrote:Lara winning was not a robbery. I had it 7-5 lara which suggests it was a close fight that could have gone either way. Turns out the judges preferred the guy who moved forward and threw punches rather than running like a little girl.

The scorecards may have been too wide, but to say lara got robbed is silly.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jockpunk wrote:Lara winning was not a robbery. I had it 7-5 lara which suggests it was a close fight that could have gone either way. Turns out the judges preferred the guy who moved forward and threw punches rather than running like a little girl.

The scorecards may have been too wide, but to say lara got robbed is silly.

This is what they fail to consider that there's more to scoring a fight than who landed the cleaner shots.

Canelo controlled the ring the entire night (Ring Generalship), he was the Effective Aggressor (he landed as much as Lara although not as cleanly all the time and not as visual in impact), his Defense was on par with Lara's because again he landed just as much as Lara.

Judges have to take into account all of the criteria of judging a bout and not just on the Clean Punching (which Lara won in that department) but when you add up all the other facets then Canelo was clearly dominant.

ikorolev wrote:The point is: against his 3 best opponents, Canelo had a wide loss and two very close if not questionable wins. Who did he really beat who is better than Golovkin's opposition ??? Don't say Cotto, because the only reason Canelo defeated him was size advantage.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:The point is: against his 3 best opponents, Canelo had a wide loss and two very close if not questionable wins. Who did he really beat who is better than Golovkin's opposition ??? Don't say Cotto, because the only reason Canelo defeated him was size advantage.

You think the record books care about how close a fight was??

ikorolev wrote:This thread is about p4p lists, not record books.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:This thread is about p4p lists, not record books.

Which coincides with winning or does your P4P includes fighters who lost every fight

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:lara won,, it was a robbery. if you consider top 10 boxers bums, than 99,9 % of all boxers in the world are bums.

lemieaux is a good b level boxer with a ko ratio of 84 %, at that time a top 5 rated middleweight in the world. murray, some say beat serio, he also was a top 10 midd., geale beat sturm and was also considered a top 10 midd. and still is.

Again, your opinion on who you "think" won means nothing, absolutely zero. As I recall Canelo was the aggressor and was highly effective, if Floyd fought Canelo the way that Lara did then you would be the first to say he was running but that's what I saw, sure Lara landed the cleaner and harder shots but Canelo was busier, controlled ring generalship, and effectively aggressive plus he landed as much as Lara did so the judges awarded the man the victory he earned.

ikorolev wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:This thread is about p4p lists, not record books.

Which coincides with winning or does your P4P includes fighters who lost every fight

p4p is based on people's opinions, and people certainly take into considerations how wins are achieved and how close they were.

p4p lists based strictly on resumes would be ridiculous, and you were already explained that multiple times, but you keep demonstrating learning disabilities.

Undefeated49-0 wrote: The point of this is that Canelo has a better resume and better wins on his resume than GGG something turds like you fail to acknowledge and therefore should not be anywhere near Canelo on anyone's P4P list but of course a d*cksuck*ng weenie like you would blow GGG's b@ll$@ck at any cost and will not admit that this is the truth regardless of how close or controversial those fights you think he may have lost.

The judges got the decisions correct.

ikorolev wrote:People who can use their brain see that if you remove the loss to Floyd and two questionable wins, then Canelo's resume is no better than Golovkin's.

... and once again, for dummies, I will repeat that this thread is about p4p lists which can't be based just on paper resumes.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:People who can use their brain see that if you remove the loss to Floyd and two questionable wins, then Canelo's resume is no better than Golovkin's.

... and once again, for dummies, I will repeat that this thread is about p4p lists which can't be based just on paper resumes.

Intelligent people can see that you CANNOT remove any losses or wins at all nor can you do that favorably so that it favors the guy you like and still try and justify the lesser man being ahead of the more proven one on any P4P list.

P4P list are not about personal convenience because you favor another fighter over everyone else.

Only dumb asses think they can remove losses to make it fair for their guy.

ikorolev wrote:You are a complete idiot who can't understand the simple thing: a loss or questionable wins don't move a fighter higher in p4p lists. Without those two questionable wins, Canelo's resume is no better than Golovkin's.