Is boxing the only sport where....

[Ironside]

And lets remember federer can play 7 matches in a week. Top boxers need two years to have that many fights. So the idea of beating all your rivals is generally hard to accomplish

True, but he has a point, if you win a world tournament in tennis, of course you're gonna be considered the best. You're saying whatever kind of tourney a tennis player wins he considers himself/is considered the best in the world. It doesn't work like that.

[Njord777]

I agree that your question is slanted. Being called the best in any sport has to do with relative achievement. Randy Moss can be called the best wide receiver in football even if he's never matched up with the best corner- and even if, during one game, a defender shuts him out- he just comes back the next game and cleans up and once again is considered the man.

You can be the best pitcher in baseball, if you strike out almost everyone or allow very few earned runs - and yet theoretically it's more than possible to never pitch against the best hitter. Sure, people would mention that fact but few would detract from calling that person the best pitcher.

Boxing is a brutal sport. If you lose it can be by being knocked out; by being battered into a bloody pulp. If T.O. has a **** game he comes back out the next and proves he still has it. If an MLB pitcher allows a homer he is credited with his overall game.

Boxing is a different sport. It's man against man. Most sports; basketball,football, baseball, soccer.....they're team sports. Even those that are one on one like tennis aren't the same level of physicality. Boxers have to chose their career path carefully; one loss can spell the end of your career.

So, even in boxing, we consider "the best" to be based on overall accomplishments. I've never known a case where the pound for pound champion was beaten decisively and the fighter that won didn't find himself among the sports elite. All he had to do was cement his position in his next few fights and he most likely would be top dog himself.

[Benny Leonard]

And lets remember federer can play 7 matches in a week. Top boxers need two years to have that many fights. So the idea of beating all your rivals is generally hard to accomplish

Roger is the best in Tennis. Floyd is the best under 147, since there is still room to prove he is the best at 47 and 54 if he goes that high. At 154, he only needs Forrest and I can call him the best there. At 47, a little more, Cotto and Williams.

Floyd is still the best P4P.

It's more difficult in boxing than Tennis. Tennis is hard, but there is more of a balance, unlike boxing where if you move up, size matters, which is why we have divisions and the fantasy of P4P status.

[pelonxsoldier28]

it's about who your promoter wants you to fight for the most money. fighters are fighting for money now. it's sad cause they think they're real champions, but just money hungry bums

[MrZeus]

True, but he has a point, if you win a world tournament in tennis, of course you're gonna be considered the best. You're saying whatever kind of tourney a tennis player wins he considers himself/is considered the best in the world. It doesn't work like that.

Nah man i ain't saying that, if you look i'm talking about the world rankings, which you can top whilst picking and choosing your tournaments.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

U dont have to go up against and beat the best in order to call yourself the best? ****, even in tennis there is a process of elimination, and u have to play and beat every top player in the world in order to call your self the best. Now a days in boxing, all u have to do is beat a weak title holder in order to say that your the "champ/best" of that division.

College Football.

[deevel79]

Nah man i ain't saying that, if you look i'm talking about the world rankings, which you can top whilst picking and choosing your tournaments.

So basically what your trying to say is, Roger Federer can "choose" to skip out on the U.S open if he likes, in order to avoid certain competition? I follow boxing and tennis very closely. Im a fan of one on one sports. I have yet to see Roger Federer avoid another top player in the game. He's played and beat just about all of them.

[deevel79]

it's about who your promoter wants you to fight for the most money. fighters are fighting for money now. it's sad cause they think they're real champions, but just money hungry bums

Seriously! its like u have a bunch of A-Rod's with boxing gloves on. They wont do this, or they wont do that unless the money is right. While it might benefit the athlete, it does **** for us fans who line these fighters pockets with our hard earned cash. I have to question any fan who approves of this type of behavior.

[MrZeus]

So basically what your trying to say is, Roger Federer can "choose" to skip out on the U.S open if he likes, in order to avoid certain competition? I follow boxing and tennis very closely. Im a fan of one on one sports. I have yet to see Roger Federer avoid another top player in the game. He's played and beat just about all of them.

No i'm not saying he does do it....i'm saying he could easily do it and retain his #1 ranking. You tried to say in tennis it couldn't happen and all i'm saying saying is there is plenty of scope to do so.

At the end of the day it comes down to the player and not the sport. That's all i'm saying

[Ironside]

Nah man i ain't saying that, if you look i'm talking about the world rankings, which you can top whilst picking and choosing your tournaments.

Can you please name me some tennis players that never entered Wimbledon or US open and were considered the best in the world?