BoxRec

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 22:26 It's obviously not just a win or lose thing, you have to consider the level of who they fought and then also how they performed whether it was a loss or not. Take a rough top 50 and look how sh!tty it gets, there are guys there or near there who haven't even fought 1 half relevant opponent, so giving the clear top man a hard night should be worth a lot

And I find it a bit ironic that you're a guy who constantly complains about fighters fighting poor opponents, but then when they actually have a good showing vs the top guy in the world you don't think it's worth anything either and still complain on the guy for gettiing air time. Like come on man lol. I thought we'd agree that it means a hell of a lot more than just building up wins over 4th tier guys who themselves havent beat anyone

That's the problem with just going on win or loss, it completely disregards a good showing vs a top guy for some handpicked wins at much lower levels. I think the first has a lot more value to it.

I mean, to be specific, what type of top 50 would you have if Wallin doesn't cut it?

jujigatame wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:04

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 22:26 It's obviously not just a win or lose thing, you have to consider the level of who they fought and then also how they performed whether it was a loss or not. Take a rough top 50 and look how sh!tty it gets, there are guys there or near there who haven't even fought 1 half relevant opponent, so giving the clear top man a hard night should be worth a lot

And I find it a bit ironic that you're a guy who constantly complains about fighters fighting poor opponents, but then when they actually have a good showing vs the top guy in the world you don't think it's worth anything either and still complain on the guy for gettiing air time. Like come on man lol. I thought we'd agree that it means a hell of a lot more than just building up wins over 4th tier guys who themselves havent beat anyone

That's the problem with just going on win or loss, it completely disregards a good showing vs a top guy for some handpicked wins at much lower levels. I think the first has a lot more value to it.

I mean, to be specific, what type of top 50 would you have if Wallin doesn't cut it?

That's an odd reading. Just because I hate mismatches means I should give outsized credit to any underdog who manages to take a few rounds? I don't really follow that logic.

I'm not going purely on win/loss. I'm going on context. I think Fury was probably a bit undertrained and undermotivated, and that the cut (which tend to be chance events, not some sort of repeatable skill) changed the fight significantly. I don't think he is definitively in or out of the top 50 based on that performance, and in terms of his wins, they've been 100% against scrubs.

jujigatame wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:06 BTW, did anyone else think that fight was a huge robbery? Romero looked absolutely mediocre and when they announced the cards I thought the scores were reasonable, but with Marinez as the winner.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:23 It's weird because he used to be a bit of a slow clunky plodding stalker, but somehow started getting ridick hand speed in combos

lazboy wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:29 Not to disagree but I can shake a Carl Froch comparison.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:31

lazboy wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:29 Not to disagree but I can shake a Carl Froch comparison.

Don't see that one too much

lazboy wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:34

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:31

lazboy wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 23:29 Not to disagree but I can shake a Carl Froch comparison.

Don't see that one too much

Well I said I can’t shake it, didn’t mean I was right.