I know fans like to think like that, but it's so silly because if GGG was 250 pounds, he wouldn't be the same fighter at all.
It's like saying who would win between a fish and a cow if the fish was actually a cow instead of a fish.
The fish obviously, because if it was a cow it would be able to breathe under water and swim, the cow would simply get out-classed by the 'fish-cow'. The 'fish-cow' could essentially do everything the cow can do whilst also having some of the more advantageous traits of a fish.
But if everything was equal, who would win? GGG would probably a more rugged Klits or Provetkin
I know fans like to think like that, but it's so silly because if GGG was 250 pounds, he wouldn't be the same fighter at all.
It's like saying who would win between a fish and a cow if the fish was actually a cow instead of a fish.
I have no problem with judging fighters based on how well they're performing in their weight class to determine who has been the most successful for their size.
Anthony Joshua would obviously destroy GGG, but "pound for pound" I would rate GGG higher because he has accomplished more at middleweight than Joshua has accomplished at heavyweight. GGG has unified more belts, made more defenses, proven himself more clearly as the #1 in his division, etc.
But if everything was equal, who would win? GGG would probably a more rugged Klits or Provetkin
So P4p is basically bull****
I have no problem with judging fighters based on how well they're performing in their weight class to determine who has been the most successful for their size.
Anthony Joshua would obviously destroy GGG, but "pound for pound" I would rate GGG higher because he has accomplished more at middleweight than Joshua has accomplished at heavyweight. GGG has unified more belts, made more defenses, proven himself more clearly as the #1 in his division, etc.
You only think that because of the attributes you've seen them display, attributes they only have because of their smaller size.
So P4p is basically bull****
Thurman would be a more athletic David Haye
Crawford would be a more fundamental Deontay Wilder
And Spence would be Anthony Joshua with more leverage.
You only think that because of the attributes you've seen them display, attributes they only have because of their smaller size.
if they were heavyweights, they wouldn't have the speed and finesse that makes you think they're great to begin with.
it's like saying what if a horse was an olympic runner. well if they were an olympic runner, they wouldnt have the attributes of a horse anymore.
Thurman would be a more athletic David Haye
Crawford would be a more fundamental Deontay Wilder
And Spence would be Anthony Joshua with more leverage.
if they were heavyweights, they wouldn't have the speed and finesse that makes you think they're great to begin with.
it's like saying what if a horse was an olympic runner. well if they were an olympic runner, they wouldnt have the attributes of a horse anymore.What you say is true. I think Spence is better for a welterweight than any of the current best heavyweights are for heavyweights.
I think these three would be the best three heavyweights if they were natural heavyweights. Discuss?
if they were heavyweights, they wouldn't have the speed and finesse that makes you think they're great to begin with.
it's like saying what if a horse was an olympic runner. well if they were an olympic runner, they wouldnt have the attributes of a horse anymore.