BoxRec

on my ratings being based on skills & athletiscm, rather than on record! a record can lie, skills cant lie, a record can lie, because of that fact you had not high quality opposition or the big name opponents you faced were past prime. but ability isnt a lie, either you are elite or you are not. you can train 24/7 year by year but never have the speed of meldrick, the technqiue of pernell, the chin of toney or the footwork of lara, that simple, you got it or you dont. ggg and gonzales dont in terms of the highest standard. they are not the complet package.

last saturday was again a perfect example. gonzales being called p4p king because he had the best record in boxing and GGG also being called by many p4p king in boxing (around 2-4) failed miserably to impress. why? people made to much of them than they actualy are. they focused on KO's and impressiv records rather on actual boxing ability. gonzales and GGG never had the quality of a lomachenko, but got rated higher on a p4p list and everybody who did was wrong, cause they simply were not the better boxer than loma, end of story. also the proof was obvious before the fight, cause in terms of footwork, speed and all around skills there were never in a league of loma! and now, now gonzales lost to a unknown thai and GGG had a draw

dont be fooled by records, focus on skills and physical attributes - jip

Damn, I thought this thread was about you being right. That's a once in a lifetime moment. Thanks for ruining it wrongboy.

hahahhahahhaha

OK, let's humour you Chep

Let's say you ignore records entirely and focus simply on what actually wins you fights

Skills are one part of that and skills alone won't make you p4p number anything

Even making the assumption that skills covers all manner of technical attributes, footwork and what you do with your hands, defensive skills and offensive, movement, punch selection, punch technique, accuracy and angles we still don't have:

Ring IQ - Tactics, Intelligence, Timing, Ring generalship, Ability to set the terms and tempo of a fight
Physical attributes - Speed, Power, Strength, Reflexes (both mental response times and physical reactions), Flexibility Stamina, Chin, even your own skins tendency to bruise and cut
The Intangibles - Heart, Determination, Composure, Desire to train like a fvcking demon

I could probably find 4 or 5 more if I thought about it long enough.
Skills don't cut it if you are slow, weak, can't take a punch and have the hearts of a field mouse

I really need to take a leaf out of Saads latest book - "Internet trolls and the art of not biting"

davie wrote:OK, let's humour you Chep

Let's say you ignore records entirely and focus simply on what actually wins you fights

Skills are one part of that and skills alone won't make you p4p number anything

Even making the assumption that skills covers all manner of technical attributes, footwork and what you do with your hands, defensive skills and offensive, movement, punch selection, punch technique, accuracy and angles we still don't have:

Ring IQ - Tactics, Intelligence, Timing, Ring generalship, Ability to set the terms and tempo of a fight
Physical attributes - Speed, Power, Strength, Reflexes (both mental response times and physical reactions), Flexibility Stamina, Chin, even your own skins tendency to bruise and cut
The Intangibles - Heart, Determination, Composure, Desire to train like a fvcking demon

I could probably find 4 or 5 more if I thought about it long enough.
Skills don't cut it if you are slow, weak, can't take a punch and have the hearts of a field mouse

I really need to take a leaf out of Saads latest book - "Internet trolls and the art of not biting"

amateur time and a life of training is enough, buy the time somebody becomes pro he is already at the top. therefore not much change from the time they enter pro boxing to the peak prime during their career. that realy a good point by me, well done jip.

looks at floyd first fight, jones first fight, they already look phenomenal, they already are p4p kings, only 1 pro fight. expert see that. floydf didnt change much from his first fight to his arguably best fight when he was prime against coralles. they become slightly better, but not a huge difference, therefore an expert only needs 1 pro fight to determin if a boxer is good, very good or world class.

in only 1 fight, you can see everything you mentioned. except if somebody is willing to train long years. but just because somebody had a short career doesnt mean he wasnt no good, just mean he doesnt had a long accoimplish career.

back than james toney was p4p king and jones with only 1 pro fight would have beat him, simply because records dont matter, skills and physical attributes do!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Damn, I thought this thread was about you being right. That's a once in a lifetime moment. Thanks for ruining it wrongboy.

Your in a pesky mood lately

MachoTime wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Damn, I thought this thread was about you being right. That's a once in a lifetime moment. Thanks for ruining it wrongboy.

Your in a pesky mood lately

Jip wrote:

davie wrote:OK, let's humour you Chep

Let's say you ignore records entirely and focus simply on what actually wins you fights

Skills are one part of that and skills alone won't make you p4p number anything

Even making the assumption that skills covers all manner of technical attributes, footwork and what you do with your hands, defensive skills and offensive, movement, punch selection, punch technique, accuracy and angles we still don't have:

Ring IQ - Tactics, Intelligence, Timing, Ring generalship, Ability to set the terms and tempo of a fight
Physical attributes - Speed, Power, Strength, Reflexes (both mental response times and physical reactions), Flexibility Stamina, Chin, even your own skins tendency to bruise and cut
The Intangibles - Heart, Determination, Composure, Desire to train like a fvcking demon

I could probably find 4 or 5 more if I thought about it long enough.
Skills don't cut it if you are slow, weak, can't take a punch and have the hearts of a field mouse

I really need to take a leaf out of Saads latest book - "Internet trolls and the art of not biting"

amateur time and a life of training is enough, buy the time somebody becomes pro he is already at the top. therefore not much change from the time they enter pro boxing to the peak prime during their career. that realy a good point by me, well done jip.

looks at floyd first fight, jones first fight, they already look phenomenal, they already are p4p kings, only 1 pro fight. expert see that. floydf didnt change much from his first fight to his arguably best fight when he was prime against coralles. they become slightly better, but not a huge difference, therefore an expert only needs 1 pro fight to determin if a boxer is good, very good or world class.

in only 1 fight, you can see everything you mentioned. except if somebody is willing to train long years. but just because somebody had a short career doesnt mean he wasnt no good, just mean he doesnt had a long accoimplish career.

back than james toney was p4p king and jones with only 1 pro fight would have beat him, simply because records dont matter, skills and physical attributes do!

What about Bernard Hopkins? Manny Pacquiao? Marvin Hagler? And I doubt Jones would've beat Toney after 1 pro fight. There's a reason he didn't fight Toney after 1 pro fight when Toney was at middleweight.

IKSRTFO wrote:

Jip wrote:

davie wrote:OK, let's humour you Chep

Let's say you ignore records entirely and focus simply on what actually wins you fights

Skills are one part of that and skills alone won't make you p4p number anything

Even making the assumption that skills covers all manner of technical attributes, footwork and what you do with your hands, defensive skills and offensive, movement, punch selection, punch technique, accuracy and angles we still don't have:

Ring IQ - Tactics, Intelligence, Timing, Ring generalship, Ability to set the terms and tempo of a fight
Physical attributes - Speed, Power, Strength, Reflexes (both mental response times and physical reactions), Flexibility Stamina, Chin, even your own skins tendency to bruise and cut
The Intangibles - Heart, Determination, Composure, Desire to train like a fvcking demon

I could probably find 4 or 5 more if I thought about it long enough.
Skills don't cut it if you are slow, weak, can't take a punch and have the hearts of a field mouse

I really need to take a leaf out of Saads latest book - "Internet trolls and the art of not biting"

amateur time and a life of training is enough, buy the time somebody becomes pro he is already at the top. therefore not much change from the time they enter pro boxing to the peak prime during their career. that realy a good point by me, well done jip.

looks at floyd first fight, jones first fight, they already look phenomenal, they already are p4p kings, only 1 pro fight. expert see that. floydf didnt change much from his first fight to his arguably best fight when he was prime against coralles. they become slightly better, but not a huge difference, therefore an expert only needs 1 pro fight to determin if a boxer is good, very good or world class.

in only 1 fight, you can see everything you mentioned. except if somebody is willing to train long years. but just because somebody had a short career doesnt mean he wasnt no good, just mean he doesnt had a long accoimplish career.

back than james toney was p4p king and jones with only 1 pro fight would have beat him, simply because records dont matter, skills and physical attributes do!

What about Bernard Hopkins? Manny Pacquiao? Marvin Hagler? And I doubt Jones would've beat Toney after 1 pro fight. There's a reason he didn't fight Toney after 1 pro fight when Toney was at middleweight.

hopkins is an exception. manny looked sensational from the start, even in defeat he looked incredibly fast and powerful, also dont forget, he was a kid, he went pro at 16. the reason why jones didnt face toney after only one fight is that back than you had to build your name before you got a shot at a champion boxer or p4p elite boxer. but yes, he would have beat toney right away had they fought for his first pro fight. i saw jones first fight on youtube, he was as physicly gifted as fast and slick as he was later when he easily defeated toney.

Jip wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

Jip wrote:

amateur time and a life of training is enough, buy the time somebody becomes pro he is already at the top. therefore not much change from the time they enter pro boxing to the peak prime during their career. that realy a good point by me, well done jip.

looks at floyd first fight, jones first fight, they already look phenomenal, they already are p4p kings, only 1 pro fight. expert see that. floydf didnt change much from his first fight to his arguably best fight when he was prime against coralles. they become slightly better, but not a huge difference, therefore an expert only needs 1 pro fight to determin if a boxer is good, very good or world class.

in only 1 fight, you can see everything you mentioned. except if somebody is willing to train long years. but just because somebody had a short career doesnt mean he wasnt no good, just mean he doesnt had a long accoimplish career.

back than james toney was p4p king and jones with only 1 pro fight would have beat him, simply because records dont matter, skills and physical attributes do!

What about Bernard Hopkins? Manny Pacquiao? Marvin Hagler? And I doubt Jones would've beat Toney after 1 pro fight. There's a reason he didn't fight Toney after 1 pro fight when Toney was at middleweight.

hopkins is an exception. manny looked sensational from the start, even in defeat he looked incredibly fast and powerful, also dont forget, he was a kid, he went pro at 16. the reason why jones didnt face toney after only one fight is that back than you had to build your name before you got a shot at a champion boxer or p4p elite boxer. but yes, he would have beat toney right away had they fought for his first pro fight. i saw jones first fight on youtube, he was as physicly gifted as fast and slick as he was later when he easily defeated toney.

Back then, Leon Spinks took on Muhamaad Ali after 7 fights.

Andre Ward is the p4p number 1.
It has to go off record because head to head's are guesses, everyone thought GGG would animalise Jacobs, Foreman would destroy Ali, Tyson would waltz past Douglas, etc...
Don't attack my belief, discuss it with me.

I'm not sure I'm following here...last Saturday showed again why you are right, why you're a boxing expert because you rate fighters based off skills and abilities rather than records. Is that what you're saying? Because your prediction before the fight was:

Jip wrote:GGG/Jacobs
TKO win for GGG by rd 4

And no prediction for the Chocolatito/Rungvisai fight. I've never actually seen you praising Srisaket anywhere, in fact you refer to him as an unknown Thai despite the fact that he was a former world champion. So you were right how exactly?

It's almost like this entire thread is bullshite...

Jip you are quickly becoming a caricature of yourself.