Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lomachenko In The Firmament Of All Time

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
    - -U firmament ain't Valhalla firmament.
    In any firmament Lomachenko should rank below Teofimo Lopez. He just lost to him.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
      In any firmament Lomachenko should rank below Teofimo Lopez. He just lost to him.
      - -In LW rankings, perhaps.

      Ring rankings Monday and I suspect p4p Loma to be over him.

      Where did U rank Leon after he more comprehensibly whooped the jinn outta Ali?

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
        - -In LW rankings, perhaps.

        Ring rankings Monday and I suspect p4p Loma to be over him.

        Where did U rank Leon after he more comprehensibly whooped the jinn outta Ali?
        spinks f%cked ali up.

        deal with it 😎

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
          - -In LW rankings, perhaps.

          Ring rankings Monday and I suspect p4p Loma to be over him.

          Where did U rank Leon after he more comprehensibly whooped the jinn outta Ali?
          They dumped him all the way down to #27 (216) and moved Lopez up to #11 (327) -- I have no clue how their points system works.

          Sorry that was Boxrec, not The Ring

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
            They dumped him all the way down to #27 (216) and moved Lopez up to #11 (327) -- I have no clue how their points system works.

            Sorry that was Boxrec, not The Ring
            Boxrec rankings never make any sense. Loma is still a top 10 p4p fighter in my opinion.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
              Boxrec rankings never make any sense. Loma is still a top 10 p4p fighter in my opinion.
              None of it makes any sense; it's not the NBA, everything is subjective.

              I went back and looked at The Ring, they updated the loss but didn't move anybody, (yet).

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
                None of it makes any sense; it's not the NBA, everything is subjective.

                I went back and looked at The Ring, they updated the loss but didn't move anybody, (yet).
                I think a good criteria for ranking fighters would be who they beat and at what point of their careers were their opponents at. Add on who their opponents beat and when, and if they were on an upward, downward or even trajectory in their careers at that time. May take some work to perfect, but I think it's doable.

                The "eye" test doesn't work for me. A fighter doesn't have to look good to be good. It's all about who you beat and when in my opinion.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
                  I think a good criteria for ranking fighters would be who they beat and at what point of their careers were their opponents at. Add on who their opponents beat and when, and if they were on an upward, downward or even trajectory in their careers at that time. May take some work to perfect, but I think it's doable.

                  The "eye" test doesn't work for me. A fighter doesn't have to look good to be good. It's all about who you beat and when in my opinion.
                  I would agree with that more strongly if politics didnt get in the way so much. Unfortunately boxing is such a fractured sport that often times the best fighters are kept down or kept away from getting the fights they deserve, so the powers that be can make more money.

                  Also, and it doesnt happen as often as some think, but there are some shady scorecards now and then; that lend credence to needing an eye test. Until we get advanced metrics in boxing

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by DeeMoney View Post
                    I would agree with that more strongly if politics didnt get in the way so much. Unfortunately boxing is such a fractured sport that often times the best fighters are kept down or kept away from getting the fights they deserve, so the powers that be can make more money.

                    Also, and it doesnt happen as often as some think, but there are some shady scorecards now and then; that lend credence to needing an eye test. Until we get advanced metrics in boxing
                    That is a great point about shady score cards and needing an eye test in those circumstances. It's crazy how subjective scoring can be. Even with advanced metrics, do you think it would be able to measure the damage caused by punches or the effects on fighters? I think that has so much to do with scoring a fight.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
                      The "eye" test doesn't work for me. A fighter doesn't have to look good to be good. It's all about who you beat and when in my opinion.
                      totally agree with this, because what most people don't realize is boxing is mostly psychological.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP