Phrases that need eradicating from boxing.

If you are a belts guy, you should at least respect her for being undisputed in her weight. I'm not a belts guy, so I base my rating on pure skills and resume. Even if i were a belts guy, you have to look at the context. There was no one decent to beat, it’s like unifying the “Bridger” division. And she shouldn’t be undisputed, she should’ve lost twice already to a part time boxer in Persoon. Did you actually watch those fights?

No you don't you just need to win seven rounds. WIN them, not squeak by them where a judge on the left corner of the ring might leave one punch up to interpretation over what the judge on the left corner of the ring saw. If you won the round, you won the round. If the champion is the champion, then why does he get free rounds?

Dang, you just exposed yourself as a hypejob poster. Taylor got the **** beat out of her by a part time boxer only a few months ago. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/ea/50/3eea50702fcd911cd18a629c6e7f8c4b.gif If you are a belts guy, you should at least respect her for being undisputed in her weight. I'm not a belts guy, so I base my rating on pure skills and resume.

All sports are categorised in some ways, whether it be positions, weight classes, disciplines etc. Steph Curry is one of the greatest NBA players in the world but could he beat many players one on one? Same with Messi in football, could Tom Brady play defence in the NFL? P4P definitely has its flaws but I don’t think we should just recognise whoever the HW champion is as the greatest or premier fighter in the world, especially if they clearly aren’t as skilled or accomplished as fighters in lower weight classes. Skill and speed changes with size though to some extent. So does power. That's what the P4P model is trying to normalize. The football equivalent in football/soccer would be choosing a 'position for position footballer of the year'. Centre backs are usually bigger. So do we make allowance for that? If a centre back has a higher skill level than most other players in that position, do we elevate them above Messi on a position for position basis? I love the lower weight classes, but they're a bit false. There's only one champion of the world. We've forgotten that to a point where P4P seems to mean more. It shouldn't.

The champ already has the edge (he keeps the belt in case of draw). Boxing is full of close rounds. If they do what you say, you need a KO to beat the champion. No you don't you just need to win seven rounds. WIN them, not squeak by them where a judge on the left corner of the ring might leave one punch up to interpretation over what the judge on the left corner of the ring saw.

I get it to a degree, as I've always thought that a tie round should go to the champ (I dont believe in 10-10 rounds) but I don't think you need to win 11-1 to take the title, just 7 good rounds. The champ already has the edge (he keeps the belt in case of draw). Boxing is full of close rounds. If they do what you say, you need a KO to beat the champion.

My Best Fighters in the World Top 10: 1. Davis 2. Crawford 3. Canelo 4. Estrada 5. Spence 6. Usyk 7. Inoue 8. Jermall Charlo 9. Jermell Charlo 10. Katie Taylor As far as I can go for now. There are way more. Don't care about the order. Dang, you just exposed yourself as a hypejob poster. Taylor got the **** beat out of her by a part time boxer only a few months ago. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/ea/50/3eea50702fcd911cd18a629c6e7f8c4b.gif

Yes! I hate it when professional fighters even world champions get called “green”. A novice amateur who’s had a handful of senior contests is “green”, a professional fighter who’s boxed hundreds of rounds is not. People usually break out those terms when it fits their narrative. For example, Canelo Alvarez was a unified titlist coming off a then-career best win when he fought Floyd Mayweather Jr. Then all of a sudden he was green after Floyd won convincingly. And if Canelo had won then there would have been plenty of people saying that Floyd was old.

Yes, a belt shouldn't mean people award you the swing-y rounds just because they might be more familiar with who you are. Could be 114-113 but if the challenger scored a kd to get him there he should be the new champion. If somebody wins, they should win. “Tie goes to the champ” is nothing new. I’m not talking about just close rounds, but the ones where after three minutes you go “well ****, I don’t know.”

Not a specific phrase but everybody on this site seems to know with 100% certainty the exact length of every fighter's prime. Floyd beat Canelo? The 43 fight veteran, reigning unified and Ring champion, with six defenses was "too green" Floyd beat Pacquiao? Floyd, who retired after one more real fight and is two years older, was "prime" but Pacquiao, who is still a world champion five years later, was "washed up" I'm not even a Mayweather fan but it seems his prime lasted the entire length of his career while every one of his opponents magically peaked either way before or way after he beat them. That's a great point, and yes, people will often create their own narrative to fit their argument. I also think that people have different definitions of "prime". Some people think that a fighter is "prime" as long as they are competing at a high level (Mayweather) while others judge it strictly by age (i.e. a fighter's prime years are 25-32 years old). I look at a fighter's career in phases (and the names aren't to be taken literally) 1. Prospect (starting to make a name for himself) 2. Contender (fighter approaching their prime) 3. Titlist ( fighter entering their prime) 4. Unified Champion (A fighter's absolute peak) 5. Aging champion (fighter at the back end of their prime) 6. Former champion (past prime but still capable) 7. Stepping stone (way past prime, struggling with fighters they would have beaten easily before) 8. Shot fighter (time to retire)

he's the wba regular champ he's the wba super champ he's the wba champ ;-)

Eh I don't think p4p was intended to mean that we picture them at different weights going against each other. It's just so we can say, these are the fighters held in the highest regard right now. Otherwise if we were just to make a list of top 10 boxers outright, we'd have to pick all or mostly heavyweights. Yeah I see it more and who’s the most skilled and/or accomplished. Not who would theoretically win if all things were equal.

But that's exactly what p4p means. It's about as legitimate as asking "what would win a fight between a 200 pound spider and a 200 pound tiger?". We already have an overall ranking. It's the unrestricted weight class ie the Heavyweight Champion is the boxing champion. In what other sport do we attempt to normalise performance across classifications? Gender for Gender world soccer player? Race for Race sprinter? Disability for Disability Paralympian? All sports are categorised in some ways, whether it be positions, weight classes, disciplines etc. Steph Curry is one of the greatest NBA players in the world but could he beat many players one on one? Same with Messi in football, could Tom Brady play defence in the NFL? P4P definitely has its flaws but I don’t think we should just recognise whoever the HW champion is as the greatest or premier fighter in the world, especially if they clearly aren’t as skilled or accomplished as fighters in lower weight classes.

I get it to a degree, as I've always thought that a tie round should go to the champ (I dont believe in 10-10 rounds) but I don't think you need to win 11-1 to take the title, just 7 good rounds. Yes, a belt shouldn't mean people award you the swing-y rounds just because they might be more familiar with who you are. Could be 114-113 but if the challenger scored a kd to get him there he should be the new champion. If somebody wins, they should win.

Eh I don't think p4p was intended to mean that we picture them at different weights going against each other. It's just so we can say, these are the fighters held in the highest regard right now. Otherwise if we were just to make a list of top 10 boxers outright, we'd have to pick all or mostly heavyweights. But that's exactly what p4p means. It's about as legitimate as asking "what would win a fight between a 200 pound spider and a 200 pound tiger?". We already have an overall ranking. It's the unrestricted weight class ie the Heavyweight Champion is the boxing champion. In what other sport do we attempt to normalise performance across classifications? Gender for Gender world soccer player? Race for Race sprinter? Disability for Disability Paralympian?

For me, I spit on P4P. If you tell me there are a group of best boxers in the world top 10 or whatever, I accept gladly. If you then say you can rate them or number them as you like, I still follow you. I can respect that. But if you say P4P, if they were the same weight, Loma would beat Davis, Fury, Canelo, Spence, Inoue, etc., then I get confused. I can't determine that. It's utter BS. Eh I don't think p4p was intended to mean that we picture them at different weights going against each other. It's just so we can say, these are the fighters held in the highest regard right now. Otherwise if we were just to make a list of top 10 boxers outright, we'd have to pick all or mostly heavyweights.

A-side / B-side

"It's about levels" - said as though it is some deep observation...

My Best Fighters in the World Top 10: 1. Davis 2. Crawford 3. Canelo 4. Estrada 5. Spence 6. Usyk 7. Inoue 8. Jermall Charlo 9. Jermell Charlo 10. Katie Taylor As far as I can go for now. There are way more. Don't care about the order.

How about the second someone loses a 0, then suddenly they were "exposed" or a "hypejob". Those terms probably don't need to be eradicated, but they're definitely overused.