BoxRec

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 14:47

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 14:27

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 14:25 Same people who had Golovkin winning both fights put him under Canelo in the list. What a BS!

Official results ultimately count more than opinions. No matter how many of them there may be rankings have to reflect official results otherwise you have ridiculous sh*t where everyone ranks their favorites high because he's their favorite.

I think they were more influenced by DLH owning Ring.

I'm certain they were influenced by the fact that it was the official result, and whether they agree or disagree with it it's gonna stay the official result.

If they had bumped Canelo up to #1 I'd say they were sucking DLH's balls, but they didn't.

lol boxing rocks is so sore

ya, okay bruh, and some of those guys like coppinger also had dj 9-3ing ggg yet keep ggg high in the list. it goes both ways

canelo should obviously be higher then ggg now

No, he shouldn't. If they had balls, they would send cheaters a message.

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 15:09 No, he shouldn't. If they had balls, they would send cheaters a message.

I'd agree if it were a blatant robbery. This one was close enough that at least a case CAN be made. Not an especially good one, but a case can be made nonetheless.

I've seen far worse decisions I'll tell you that.

That was definitely not anywhere close to the worst decision, because the fight was close, but even if Golovkin clearly won 8 rounds, he wouldn't have gotten a win. The robbery was planned and executed.

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 15:25 That was definitely not anywhere close to the worst decision, because the fight was close, but even if Golovkin clearly won 8 rounds, he wouldn't have gotten a win. The robbery was planned and executed.

...And the beat goes on.

RKY wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 13:01 Meh. Perhaps its benefit of hindsight but Roman was never #1 imo. Great fighter and still in my top 10, but not quite sensational enough to be #1.

No benefit of hindsight. It was completely and utterly wrong to not have him as p4p #1. Look at his resume. He fought and beat everyone. You don't think he's sensational because you've likely not seen his fights. Not many follow the lower weights and think their opinion matters. I've exposed this countless times on this forum. This place goes full idiot when talking about the lower weights. Only a handful seem to be educated on that subject.

Sor Rungvisai not being in the top 5 is criminal.

Mexi-Box wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 17:30

RKY wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 13:01 Meh. Perhaps its benefit of hindsight but Roman was never #1 imo. Great fighter and still in my top 10, but not quite sensational enough to be #1.

No benefit of hindsight. It was completely and utterly wrong to not have him as p4p #1. Look at his resume. He fought and beat everyone. You don't think he's sensational because you've likely not seen his fights. Not many follow the lower weights and think their opinion matters. I've exposed this countless times on this forum. This place goes full idiot when talking about the lower weights. Only a handful seem to be educated on that subject.

Sor Rungvisai not being in the top 5 is criminal.

Wangek is worthy of top 5 - no argument from me there. And ofcourse I seen plenty of Roman in the years he was considered among top p4p... how coukd anyone not - he always co-starred on Golovkins cards. I don't believe he was ever better than co-star Golovkin though.

"GGG gets dropped in Ring Magazine’s updated pound-for-pound ratings"

1. Adding insult to injury

2. Ring magazine is worthless garbage

3. Pound for pound ratings are worthless garbage

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 14:27

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 14:25 Same people who had Golovkin winning both fights put him under Canelo in the list. What a BS!

Official results ultimately count more than opinions. No matter how many of them there may be rankings have to reflect official results otherwise you have ridiculous sh*t where everyone ranks their favorites high because he's their favorite.

Agree wholeheartedly. We all have our opinion but we have to understand we may, just may not be correct all of the time.

ya but tbf official results are 'wrong' all the time too, or at least as questionable, not in this case but a lot

Sometimes one or more of the trio of judges that score bouts get it wrong, but nowhere near as frequently as mainstream casuals allege. I’ve never seen anyone from this forum ever attempt to quantify their derogatory accusations, since they only comment on a handful of questionable decisions every year.

I also created a thread that explained my thoughts on the reasons why the judges’ scorecards often differ from the opinions of mainstream casuals, since many people employ a terribly ignorant “corruption-of-the-gaps” fallacy:

• "Unfair Accusations Made by Lazy Fight Fans!"

Let me attempt to explain what I mean by the phrase “corruption-of-the-gaps”…

Whenever there is a lack of a scientific explanation for the occurrence of a certain phenomenon in nature, some people automatically cite this as evidence to prove the existence of their religious deity. They won’t consider other causes that have yet to be quantified, which is commonly referred to as “god of the gaps”.

Similarly, when the outcome of a bout confuses mainstream casuals, they often believe their man has been “robbed”, which compels them to automatically cite this as evidence to prove that the judges are somehow “corrupt”. They will never consider other factors that may have influenced the result of a fight, which means their decision may either be entirely justified or not far removed from the truth.

I’d like to coin the phrase “corruption of the gaps” to provide a suitable name for this moronic way of thinking!

jamamb wrote: ↑20 Sep 2018, 03:20 ya but tbf official results are 'wrong' all the time too, or at least as questionable, not in this case but a lot

In a case where I disagree with the official result I'm always gonna rank the guy I felt should've won just under the guy that got the official nod.