Re: P4P & PBC
Posted: 16 Aug 2016, 06:36
It intrigues me that so many fighters are granted an honorary rite of passage to membership of the mythical top-ten pound-for-pound elite, simply because they manage to remain unbeaten, whilst passing the proverbial “eyeball test” by appearing “impressive” against second-tier opposition, without having faced genuine talent…
Whereas those fighters with strong resumes’ that appear less dominant and having incurred a few losses, due to the fact that they regularly face top-drawer opposition, are usually excluded from consideration.
And people often wonder why certain fighters are protected, whilst also questioning the reason why casual fans over emphasize the significance of losses on resumes? Where’s the mystery?
The second that guys like Miguel Cotto, Wladimir Klitschko, Timothy Bradley, Manny Pacquiao etc. suffer a loss, they’re automatically disqualified from being a pound-for-pounder, whereas fighters that were previously rated below them are subsequently elevated to a higher position without having fought and despite having faced weaker opposition.
The pound-for-pound top ten list and comments in this thread seem to almost exclusively support unbeaten fighters, with a respectful mention to a couple of boxers that have suffered only one defeat very early on in their careers.
Hypothetically-speaking, if Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin and Terence Crawford all lose their very next fights, does this mean that they should be immediately placed on the proverbial “scrapheap”?
Whereas those fighters with strong resumes’ that appear less dominant and having incurred a few losses, due to the fact that they regularly face top-drawer opposition, are usually excluded from consideration.
And people often wonder why certain fighters are protected, whilst also questioning the reason why casual fans over emphasize the significance of losses on resumes? Where’s the mystery?
The second that guys like Miguel Cotto, Wladimir Klitschko, Timothy Bradley, Manny Pacquiao etc. suffer a loss, they’re automatically disqualified from being a pound-for-pounder, whereas fighters that were previously rated below them are subsequently elevated to a higher position without having fought and despite having faced weaker opposition.
The pound-for-pound top ten list and comments in this thread seem to almost exclusively support unbeaten fighters, with a respectful mention to a couple of boxers that have suffered only one defeat very early on in their careers.
Hypothetically-speaking, if Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin and Terence Crawford all lose their very next fights, does this mean that they should be immediately placed on the proverbial “scrapheap”?
