BoxRec

This is the last time i will mention this. I thought this would be a good moment because we have a good ecample. If this time you guys dont understand it than so be it. The is my last attempt to make you understand what quality of a bixer realy means.

Days ago we had the biggest match up of the year. People talked about the winner becoming p4p 1, just like they talked about it when ward faced kovalev. Ggg canelo showed 1 thing.

That record means less than quality when considering how good a boxer is!!!

Ggg and canelo both have many more fights, fought much more high quality opponents, yet looked like b level boxer compared to somebody with much worse record, somebody loma. Ggg looked looked robotic and stiff at times, techniquly limited, clueless and canelo slow, limited technique as well compared to loma. Why is that. Because quality (speed power footwork technique chin) is what matters and not the amount of fights or who you fought. A roy jones jr at his debut with 0 fights was a better boxer than james toney with 40 fights, why. Because he simply had more quality.

P4p, who beats who at the same weight. This what it means and not p4p who had the best record at the same weight. Most get this wrong but thats how it is right.

If I understand correctly you are saying that boxers should be judged by 'the eye-test' rather than resume? This is all very well but the eye-test is extremely subjective, people can't always even agree on a winner when they've watched the same fight from the same viewpoint (tv), never mind make an accurate assessment of each boxer that others will necessarily agree with. Everyone thinks their opinion is the correct one, it's human nature - I never once had an opinion I didn't agree with

Realistically, comparison of ring-records and head-to-head results can be the only way to judge the respective merits of boxers and even that is a minefield, especially when you try to compare fighters of different eras or different weight classes.

and jip - it's 'once and for all'.

candyslim wrote:If I understand correctly you are saying that boxers should be judged by 'the eye-test' rather than resume? This is all very well but the eye-test is extremely subjective, people can't always even agree on a winner when they've watched the same fight from the same viewpoint (tv), never mind make an accurate assessment of each boxer that others will necessarily agree with. Everyone thinks their opinion is the correct one, it's human nature - I never once had an opinion I didn't agree with

Realistically, comparison of ring-records and head-to-head results can be the only way to judge the respective merits of boxers and even that is a minefield, especially when you try to compare fighters of different eras or different weight classes.

and jip - it's 'once and for all'.

Great post.

Thanks Tiny

Eye test is good when you see a fighter against top opposition. Also, it shouldn't be Jip's eye

Jip wrote:This is the last time i will mention this.

We are going to hold you to that, Jiplan.

Terrible post, thanks for trying to shill your bullshit for the last time.

You realy dont get it.

Canelo and ggg fought numerous times more than loma, would you say they are therefore better, bevause yall didnt have enough eye tests of loma

boxing_rocks wrote:Eye test is good when you see a fighter against top opposition. Also, it shouldn't be Jip's eye

Ain't that the truth

Loma is faster and sharper looking than Canelo or GGG, no shit he's 30Ibs lighter.

Thanks for explaining to us what makes a good bixer. I always figured it took good timing on your jib, hiik's and right crisses, you also gotta have good timing on those uppercits.

All it takes is a good eye people. If you can't see that, you're stipid

In all seriousness let me tell you why "The Eye Test" is a sh*tty way to rate fighters using one example. There could be more, but I don't need them.

You ever hear of Donald Curry? Well in the 80's everyone was singing the praises of Donald Curry. "He's the next Sugar Ray Leonard" and so forth...and yes, he did look quite spectacular. Watch his fight with Milton McCrory, and you can see where all the excitement came from, but he wound up getting knocked out by Lloyd Honeyghan and Mike McCallum in his prime, and would go on to suffer 4 more losses, and never recapture his former glory. He wasn't the next "Sugar Ray Leonard" after all, but..."The Eye Test" said he was. Reality said he wasn't.

BitPlayer wrote:Loma is faster and sharper looking than Canelo or GGG, no poo he's 30Ibs lighter.

P4p. Prime jones was as sharp and faster than loma while being a super middleweight. Heavier than canelo or ggg.

Prime tyson was sharper than both middleweights haha....quality regardless of weight. That is p4p young padavan

JCC would have terminated Lomassiah at 130.

Onesies for all
Must have an intellectual heavyweight here

Jip wrote:You realy dont get it.

Canelo and ggg fought numerous times more than loma, would you say they are therefore better, bevause yall didnt have enough eye tests of loma

Tanzio wrote:JCC would have terminated Lomassiah at 130.

He's beyond overrated at 130. He'd probably win though.

gilgamesh wrote:In all seriousness let me tell you why "The Eye Test" is a sh*tty way to rate fighters using one example. There could be more, but I don't need them.

You ever hear of Donald Curry? Well in the 80's everyone was singing the praises of Donald Curry. "He's the next Sugar Ray Leonard" and so forth...and yes, he did look quite spectacular. Watch his fight with Milton McCrory, and you can see where all the excitement came from, but he wound up getting knocked out by Lloyd Honeyghan and Mike McCallum in his prime, and would go on to suffer 4 more losses, and never recapture his former glory. He wasn't the next "Sugar Ray Leonard" after all, but..."The Eye Test" said he was. Reality said he wasn't.

Guilty as charged M'lord. I thought "The Lone Star Cobra" was the dog's bollocks and Lloyd Honeyghan was going to be a sacrificial lamb. At least I was in good company. That just reminded me of "The Gorseinon Grave-digger" Colin Jones. Not the greatest Welterweight you'll ever see but was very exciting to watch.

Jip wrote:You realy dont get it.

Canelo and ggg fought numerous times more than loma, would you say they are therefore better, bevause yall didnt have enough eye tests of loma

Is this what you call "toos?"

candyslim wrote:If I understand correctly you are saying that boxers should be judged by 'the eye-test' rather than resume? This is all very well but the eye-test is extremely subjective, people can't always even agree on a winner when they've watched the same fight from the same viewpoint (tv), never mind make an accurate assessment of each boxer that others will necessarily agree with. Everyone thinks their opinion is the correct one, it's human nature - I never once had an opinion I didn't agree with

Realistically, comparison of ring-records and head-to-head results can be the only way to judge the respective merits of boxers and even that is a minefield, especially when you try to compare fighters of different eras or different weight classes.

and jip - it's 'once and for all'.

So if a prime loma or prime mosley fights like 10 times and you had 10 times the opportunity of an eye test. Is that enough for you to determin the quality of the boxer or not.

Do the ~13 fights of loma give you an answer if he is a better boxer than canelo for ecample for has around 50 fights. Or do you need loma to fight another 30 fights to than determin if he is better or worse than canelo?

Jip wrote:
So if a prime loma or prime mosley fights like 10 times and you had 10 times the opportunity of an eye test. Is that enough for you to determin the quality of the boxer or not.

Do the ~13 fights of loma give you an answer if he is a better boxer than canelo for ecample for has around 50 fights. Or do you need loma to fight another 30 fights to than determin if he is better or worse than canelo?

It's easy to look spectacular against overmatched opponents. Not so easy to look spectacular against tough opponents. Lomachenko lost to Orlando Salido already. Salido isn't some world beater, he's just a tough, gritty banger who just keeps on coming. That was enough to beat Lomachenko.

And probably not coincidentally, Lomachenko hasn't fought another guy LIKE Salido since.

I know he wants a rematch with Salido so I'm not saying he's ducking anybody or anything, I'm just saying there's a style out there that can and already HAS made Lomachenko look beatable...it's already seen him beaten.

Berchelt and Francisco Vargas would be a handful for him too. The way to trouble guys like Lomachenko is to attack them very hard. Trying to pick your shots carefully, and outbox a guy like Loma ain't gonna work.

gilgamesh wrote:In all seriousness let me tell you why "The Eye Test" is a sh*tty way to rate fighters using one example. There could be more, but I don't need them.

You ever hear of Donald Curry? Well in the 80's everyone was singing the praises of Donald Curry. "He's the next Sugar Ray Leonard" and so forth...and yes, he did look quite spectacular. Watch his fight with Milton McCrory, and you can see where all the excitement came from, but he wound up getting knocked out by Lloyd Honeyghan and Mike McCallum in his prime, and would go on to suffer 4 more losses, and never recapture his former glory. He wasn't the next "Sugar Ray Leonard" after all, but..."The Eye Test" said he was. Reality said he wasn't.

I aggree with you. The eye test aint perfect.

But is record vs record and choosing the boxer withe better record over the boxer with the worse record better?

Donaire fought montiel, darchinyan had around 35 fights and koing opponents, fought rigo who had like 12 fights and got schooled by him. I predicted a rigo win bevause my eyes told me rigo a more complet boxer, rscird couldnt fool me. Glowacki kod huck had like 27 fights fought usyk who had like 10 fights and got schooled. De la hoya, fought much better opponents in chavez, pernell and tito, faced mosley who previously had 0 big name opponents who won?

All i am trying to say is that neither record comparison or eye test are perfect tactics to determin who the better boxer is, but an expert eye should be able better to rank a boxer, than just going by the record.

Jip wrote:
I aggree with you. The eye test aint perfect.

But is record vs record and choosing the boxer withe better record over the boxer with the worse record better?

Donaire fought montiel, darchinyan had around 35 fights and koing opponents, fought rigo who had like 12 fights and got schooled by him. I predicted a rigo win bevause my eyes told me rigo a more complet boxer, rscird couldnt fool me. Glowacki kod huck had like 27 fights fought usyk who had like 10 fights and got schooled. De la hoya, fought much better opponents in chavez, pernell and tito, faced mosley who previously had 0 big name opponents who won?

All i am trying to say is that neither record comparison or eye test are perfect tactics to determin who the better boxer is, but an expert eye should be able better to rank a boxer, than just going by the record.

There are lots of factors to consider when picking "Who's gonna win a fight"

The age of the two fighters, how they've looked of late coming into the fight, what kinda style match-up it is...etc.

But as far as ranking them when it's all said and done, their record and who they beat is the best indicator of their achievement in the sport.

There's MANY times that I'll pick a guy with a lesser record on paper to beat a guy with a better record when they're about to face off, but in terms of ranking them overall their record (and I'm not talking about numbers I'm talking about WHO they beat) is the key thing.

gilgamesh wrote:

Jip wrote:
So if a prime loma or prime mosley fights like 10 times and you had 10 times the opportunity of an eye test. Is that enough for you to determin the quality of the boxer or not.

Do the ~13 fights of loma give you an answer if he is a better boxer than canelo for ecample for has around 50 fights. Or do you need loma to fight another 30 fights to than determin if he is better or worse than canelo?

It's easy to look spectacular against overmatched opponents. Not so easy to look spectacular against tough opponents. Lomachenko lost to Orlando Salido already. Salido isn't some world beater, he's just a tough, gritty banger who just keeps on coming. That was enough to beat Lomachenko.

And probably not coincidentally, Lomachenko hasn't fought another guy LIKE Salido since.

I know he wants a rematch with Salido so I'm not saying he's ducking anybody or anything, I'm just saying there's a style out there that can and already HAS made Lomachenko look beatable...it's already seen him beaten.

Berchelt and Francisco Vargas would be a handful for him too. The way to trouble guys like Lomachenko is to attack them very hard. Trying to pick your shots carefully, and outbox a guy like Loma ain't gonna work.

Sorry. I cant take you serious. You did answer 1 single question.

First thing. The quality, the atributes of a bixer boxer dont change. If you got atg power, atg speed or atg footwork, than you got it, if you dont than not. Regardless if the opponent. After 5 fights anybody with a brain could see that someone like bailley had atg power, after 1 fight anybody could see that jones had atg speed, after 5 fights anybody could see that oscar wasnt just a normal talent but a phenomenal talent.

You get my point. Even so jones, oscar fought poor opposition and therefore looked brilliant doesnt take away the fact that anybidy could see that they were blessed with outstanding atributes

gilgamesh wrote:

Jip wrote:
I aggree with you. The eye test aint perfect.

But is record vs record and choosing the boxer withe better record over the boxer with the worse record better?

Donaire fought montiel, darchinyan had around 35 fights and koing opponents, fought rigo who had like 12 fights and got schooled by him. I predicted a rigo win bevause my eyes told me rigo a more complet boxer, rscird couldnt fool me. Glowacki kod huck had like 27 fights fought usyk who had like 10 fights and got schooled. De la hoya, fought much better opponents in chavez, pernell and tito, faced mosley who previously had 0 big name opponents who won?

All i am trying to say is that neither record comparison or eye test are perfect tactics to determin who the better boxer is, but an expert eye should be able better to rank a boxer, than just going by the record.

There are lots of factors to consider when picking "Who's gonna win a fight"

The age of the two fighters, how they've looked of late coming into the fight, what kinda style match-up it is...etc.

But as far as ranking them when it's all said and done, their record and who they beat is the best indicator of their achievement in the sport.

There's MANY times that I'll pick a guy with a lesser record on paper to beat a guy with a better record when they're about to face off, but in terms of ranking them overall their record (and I'm not talking about numbers I'm talking about WHO they beat) is the key thing.

And i say it is not the key thing.

Bevause p4p means: who beats who at the same weight!

And not who has the better record, who fought better opponents.