I wouldn't argue with it, although Inoue still has a solid argument. I think it's beyond dispute that we know who the best two fighters are, however. Both had performances worthy of ATG fighters against what was supposed to be their biggest test and a 50/50 fight. Feels like it cheapens the performance to try to split hairs about who is better.
Can say, without question, that Bud is the best welterweight though.
It's not splitting hairs when one is undisputed in two weight classes and the other isn't. Spence was on the pound for pound list. Fulton wasn't.
p4p is an inherently unfair list, to the heavyweights that is, how the hell are those big lumps supposed to boil down to cruiser
how about a points based p4p list where each fighter is allocated a certain amount of points based on their wins against other fighters who have a certain amount of points so we can all argue about which fighters deserve what points instead
I wouldn't argue with it, although Inoue still has a solid argument. I think it's beyond dispute that we know who the best two fighters are, however. Both had performances worthy of ATG fighters against what was supposed to be their biggest test and a 50/50 fight. Feels like it cheapens the performance to try to split hairs about who is better.
Can say, without question, that Bud is the best welterweight though.
Please stop the bs. Inoue has zero solid argument, even if he was to fight and beat Tapales and become two weight champion. All those guys are average fighters. Inoue an ATG? WTF, nonsense.
If Bud retired today he'd be considered an ATG but if Inoue retired he'd be an Hall Of Famer. That's the best way to put it.
Inoue would be a Chocalitito type career level with less marquee wins on his resume and Bud would be somewhere in between Pac, Floyd, Roy, Sweet Pea. So no it's not close even remotely.
It's not splitting hairs when one is undisputed in two weight classes and the other isn't. Spence was on the pound for pound list. Fulton wasn't.
It's easy to point out that Inoue is one fight away from his second undisputed, and fought the #1 unified champion in his divisional debut, rather than settling into a division, and earning a lone title against a guy who benefited from a robbery vs Pacquiao, and not fighting for undisputed for 5 years and 7 fights.
And Spence didn't deserve to be on the P4P list in the first place, with his limited resume. He was only there because of American media bias.
As I said, I don't have a problem with Crawford being #1. But I don't think appreciating Crawford's sublime performance requires devaluing Inoue. It's ok though. Crawford is at the tail end of his career. Inoue will continue to prove why people who overlook the smaller divisions are idiots. People said the same things about Pacquiao too. If you can't see greatness in both performances, you don't understand or appreciate the sweet science.
p4p is an inherently unfair list, to the heavyweights that is, how the hell are those big lumps supposed to boil down to cruiser
how about a points based p4p list where each fighter is allocated a certain amount of points based on their wins against other fighters who have a certain amount of points so we can all argue about which fighters deserve what points instead
The heavyweights could help themselves by simply getting fights made at this point.
Comment