Comments Thread For: BoxingScene Update: Pound for Pound List and Review

[T18Z]

Actually the first two rounds were pretty much swing rounds, I remember being very much frustrated with Pacquiao for not going on the attack more around these rounds because of how slow Marquez was. I scored one round for Pacquiao and the other for Marquez, Pacquiao started more activity in the third round until he got knocked down. After that I say he took rounds 4 and 5 and the sixth could had been his but the fight was ultimately determined by a counter shot.

Is your name The Weebler III, if not you can kindly remove your consumption devices from my genitalia, you don't have answer my "dumb question" as it was not your birth right to answer. If you are The Weebler III man then I understand, but next time let the guy fight his own battles. Your response however is not very concrete, even though Tyson lost to Buster Douglas, he was not put to concussive sleep. As much as it pained me to witness, Pacquiao had to have smelling salts and support from others to bring himself to his feet. Also using Tyson as a reference for an ATG fighter is not very correct(It's still being debated whether he should considered one), as when he was faced with bigger challenges than ordinary joes, he lost. The ATG's have never been put to sleep on the canvas like that and they faced many of their rivals who's skill wasn't entirely far from theirs.

Why do you have to use such emotion and words like a female that needs to douche the bad smell from her crouch? My whole argument is not who you to lose to, it's HOW you lose. If memory serves me right Pacquiao have knocked out by lesser opponents, although early in his career, we are now late in his career and he have been knocked out again via worse because this time this was a concussive blow to the skull. DO you understand that in the history of the sport that no fighter stayed on the P4P list after getting knocked out like he did... When Hearns did that to Duran, he was off the list as quick as he hit the canvass.

Bro, why are you so bent out of shape? You are honestly debating out of emotion and not being considerate to your reasoning abilities.

I believe this is the case as well, although this site features a lot of traffic many people here do not seem to use reason at all. Even the site creator have a certain bias.. I do not believe Pacquiao due to how he lost still have a right to be on the P4P list. It's absurd for any of the fighters on the list to be taken out like that and still be on the list. Ward's inactivity shouldn't fault him as much but he definitely do not deserve the top spot or the runner up position.

My P4P list have to look like this:

1. Mayweather
2. Marquez
3. Ward
4. Klitchscho
5. Rigondeaux
6. Bradley
7. Mares
8. Froch
9. Donaire
10. Garcia



So this list is only put together by one person, makes sense that there will be much bias throughout it. I would check out that transnational boxing board and give my opinion on it, just hope Mayweather is actually #1 on that list. Ward was pretty close to the top spot in 2012 but so far in 2013 he is not actually runner-up in my opinion. Marquez and Mayweather should be the ones to hold those positions.


This I agree with completely.

Bradley as 6th on P4P, when he lost to Pacquaio, and arguably got destroyed vs Ruslan, who may I add is an ESPN fighter. Did Pacquaio lose to an ESPN fighter? Nope. For someone who says I'm using too much emotion, you seem to show the same signs, chatting some crap about a woman and douche like it has any relevance besides making you look .

The person someone loses to or wins against matters greatly, if you dispute it you're just being dumb. Pacquaio losing via KO when he was currently winning the fight is a whole different story to being dominated, knocked down multiple times, then KO'd, which obviously wasn't the case. You aren't using common sense, and that's why your list doesn't include Pacquaio but includes Timothy lol Bradley. Do you understand boxing isn't the same now as back then? Stop using it as a reference point, it literally holds no weight and just makes your argument crap. Fighters back then also fought 15 rounders, and multiple times a month, things change, deal with it.

Lastly, it's a boxing forum, I can respond to you if I wish, I'm not defending someone automatically just because I choose to attack a comment of yours which I don't agree with. Pacquaio is on the large majority of the official lists, I've explained why, and your only comment back seems to be "no other ATG has been KO'd and stayed on the list", like that matters? Bringing up the past also brings up your inability to construct an argument without chatting so much irrelevant crap which basically means nothing. (I've bolded the comments which are worthless)

[Supreme Being]

I put Bernard Hopkins #1 (Let us see if you can fight after 40 yr old...duh!) on top list!

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Really on the p4p list its: floyd, ward, rigo, jmm and then whoever you want...

There is a huge drop off after the top 4

[Ichee]

Bradley as 6th on P4P, when he lost to Pacquaio, and arguably got destroyed vs Ruslan, who may I add is an ESPN fighter. Did Pacquaio lose to an ESPN fighter? Nope. For someone who says I'm using too much emotion, you seem to show the same signs, chatting some crap about a woman and douche like it has any relevance besides making you look .

He did not officially lose to Pacquiao, he actually have a win against him technically speaking. Pacquiao actually looked his worse ever in the Bradley fight, the fight was not as dominant as you are trying to illustrate with your jargon. If it acts like a woman therefore it must be a woman, stop acting like a girl if that's not your identity, man up bro.

The person someone loses to or wins against matters greatly, if you dispute it you're just being dumb. Pacquaio losing via KO when he was currently winning the fight is a whole different story to being dominated, knocked down multiple times, then KO'd, which obviously wasn't the case. You aren't using common sense, and that's why your list doesn't include Pacquaio but includes Timothy lol Bradley. Do you understand boxing isn't the same now as back then? Stop using it as a reference point, it literally holds no weight and just makes your argument crap. Fighters back then also fought 15 rounders, and multiple times a month, things change, deal with it.

I never disputed that, however HOW you lose matters greater, you trying to say it doesn't shows that your knowledge of the sport is not very astute. Those fighters who are ATG fighting 15 rounders went all 15 without getting put to sleep against top competition in a matter of short periods. Greater activity as well as stress were on these fighters and yet they were still held to a high standard based on their skills, victories, and even losses. If someone gets put to sleep, the public will not have it where they are still consider P4P, new people will replace them it's just that simple. The P4P ranking is based off historical credentials so the past that is recorded should always be used as a reference point, unless you will like to abide by limited knowledge of the sport which you showcase ironically.

Lastly, it's a boxing forum, I can respond to you if I wish, I'm not defending someone automatically just because I choose to attack a comment of yours which I don't agree with. Pacquaio is on the large majority of the official lists, I've explained why, and your only comment back seems to be "no other ATG has been KO'd and stayed on the list", like that matters? Bringing up the past also brings up your inability to construct an argument without chatting so much irrelevant crap which basically means nothing. (I've bolded the comments which are worthless)

You should bold your knowledge of the sport because it is essentially worthless with the thinking you have and I am not trying to insult you here. It literally makes no sense to not use past fighters as a reference point for the P4P rankings. The P4P rankings were specifically made because of Sugar Ray Robinson, who was fighting in the mid 20th century based on the skill he displayed. This shows that the P4P ranking have a criteria based on that time. So no matter if it's only 12 rounds in a championship fight these days, the skill one displays takes precedence over all. Pacquiao is a great fighter but his skill lacked to avoid being K.O in to a concussive slumber which if it happened to anyone like P.Williams they are knocked off the list.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Bradley got owned by manny....

Bradley did better than margs or clottey or cotto did, but still got owned...
It was one of the worst decisions ever in a big fight....
I remember watching the fight with alot of friends and after the 12th round everybody left because it wasnt close and everybody assumed manny won...
I had to text and call them and say tim got the scorecards.....

116-112 manny

[T18Z]

He did not officially lose to Pacquiao

The world saw he lost, and the P4P rankings I imagine reflected that.

Pacquiao actually looked his worse ever in the Bradley fight, the fight was not as dominant as you are trying to illustrate with your jargon

You have proof it was not as dominant? I have 99% of the external scoring going for Pacquaio (Boxrec) and the punch stats which are certainly dominant. Ignoring those, it's pretty clear to most who won, and although it wasn't as spectacular as some of his other wins, he showed that Bradley just was not on the same level.

I never disputed that, however HOW you lose matters greater, you trying to say it doesn't shows that your knowledge of the sport is not very astute.

I didn't say how you lost didn't matter, don't put words in my mouth to fuel your argument. I said that who you lose to matters greatly, as losing to (or even going life and death) with a ESPN fighter shows you do not deserve to be on the ranking system (Bradley).

he P4P ranking is based off historical credentials so the past that is recorded should always be used as a reference point, unless you will like to abide by limited knowledge of the sport which you showcase ironically.

Just because it is based off previous performance does not mean it isn't open to discussion, there is no rule stating if a fighter is KO'd he is thrown off the list, just because that is what you think is right don't get upset that others don't agree with you, including most P4P rankings. If we are to base P4P rankings then skills, previous performances, opponents, division dominance and way of win/loss has to be taken into account. It appears you are only including how he lost, and not whom he faced, how he has climbed multiple divisions (directly relates to P4P logic) or his previous performances. If you ignore Marquez knockout, what do you have going against him besides his close 3rd fight with Marquez to signify he isn't P4P material?

You should bold your knowledge of the sport because it is essentially worthless with the thinking you have and I am not trying to insult you here. It literally makes no sense to use past fighters as a reference point for the P4P rankings. The P4P rankings were specifically made because of Sugar Ray Robinson, who was fighting in the mid 20th century based on the skill he displayed. This shows that the P4P ranking have a criteria based on that time. So no matter if it's only 12 rounds in a championship fight these days, the skill one displays takes precedence over all. Pacquiao is a great fighter but his skill lacked to avoid being K.O in to a concussive slumber which if it happened to anyone like P.Williams they are knocked off the list.

Here we go again... you act as if the ranking system is set in stone, and you ignoring Pacquaios previous accomplishments which contributed to his P4P ranking, all you can think of is Marquez vs. Pacquaio 4, besides that and some complaints about fight 3, you have nothing. It does not matter if that would not have happened in the past, because things are open to change. You focus soley on the KO and nothing more, you do not consider the true skill of the fight, and what both fighters did correctly and incorrectly, only the end result of the KO, and that's it.

If it acts like a woman therefore it must be a woman, stop acting like a girl if that's not your identity, man up bro.

And another section where you include something with no value to the topic whatsoever, you're very strange. Your logic of if it acts like X it must be an X is dumb and pointless, just stop. Anyways, I've bolded the part which I think is most important.

[Ichee]

The world saw he lost, and the P4P rankings I imagine reflected that.

It was an emotional time for everyone, including myself especially with the Mayweather showdown being in danger because a lost was going to give Mayweather another excuse to not fight Pac-man. Like others I suspected Bradley was given a gift decision and did not look at the fight afterward for quite some time. When I decided to watch the fight over, I noticed that Pacquiao was not in his top form, seemed to be somewhat out of it. Bradley didn't look impressive but he actually wasn't getting hit as much as we all thought. The fact is this that fight wasn't as dominant of a performance for Pacquiao as many think, in fact some can argue that it was so close that it wasn't even a robbery. That is not what I am trying to argue, I'm making the point that Bradley didn't look totally outclassed at all, and supposedly this dude ****ed his legs up..

You have proof it was not as dominant? I have 99% of the external scoring going for Pacquaio (Boxrec) and the punch stats which are certainly dominant. Ignoring those, it's pretty clear to most who won, and although it wasn't as spectacular as some of his other wins, he showed that Bradley just was not on the same level.

Jim Lampley is a great commentating voice but he is very bias for fighters he favor, sometimes counting what he sees as a punch which wasn't never there. It was not as dominant as most will like to say, as I said a second review of the fight in my opinion will change a lot of people scoring for the fight. You must also understand how much Pacquiao can influence one's perspective of a fight. Also you must take in to account the fascination everyone had at the time of a potential showdown with Floyd Mayweather. Those two things alone will greatly influence one to be bias for Pacquiao in any of his match-ups. As Pacquiao was on the other side of the P4P coin and Mayweather just recently beat Cotto in a compelling fight, everyone was paying more attention to Pacquiao than who he was fighting in June. Think about it.. Pacquiao won that fight but it was a lot more closer than him winning 8 rounds.

I didn't say how you lost didn't matter, don't put words in my mouth to fuel your argument. I said that who you lose to matters greatly, as losing to (or even going life and death) with a ESPN fighter shows you do not deserve to be on the ranking system (Bradley).

So basically your skills are determined by what networking program you was featured on? Interesting..

Just because it is based off previous performance does not mean it isn't open to discussion, there is no rule stating if a fighter is KO'd he is thrown off the list, just because that is what you think is right don't get upset that others don't agree with you, including most P4P rankings. If we are to base P4P rankings then skills, previous performances, opponents, division dominance and way of win/loss has to be taken into account. It appears you are only including how he lost, and not whom he faced, how he has climbed multiple divisions (directly relates to P4P logic) or his previous performances. If you ignore Marquez knockout, what do you have going against him besides his close 3rd fight with Marquez to signify he isn't P4P material?

Recent performance is what determines where a fighter is currently in their career. You are basically saying that if a boxing champion that been dominating for several years suddenly gets knocked out, he still should be considered champion based on his body of work. Pacquiao should stop fighting now then since everyone is not looking at his recent performances to determine his skill and ability to fight.

Here we go again... you act as if the ranking system is set in stone, and you ignoring Pacquaios previous accomplishments which contributed to his P4P ranking, all you can think of is Marquez vs. Pacquaio 4, besides that and some complaints about fight 3, you have nothing. It does not matter if that would not have happened in the past, because things are open to change. You focus soley on the KO and nothing more, you do not consider the true skill of the fight, and what both fighters did correctly and incorrectly, only the end result of the KO, and that's it.

A skill of a fighter is always determined by what they have done lately. I always scored Marquez higher than Pacquiao based on skill alone, even though Marquez have been knocked down by Pacquiao he essentially found a way to neutralize and slow down Pacquiao in every subsequent round. Pacquiao of course have dynamite explosiveness and made every fight he was in a spectacle to see, but skills must pay the bill to be consider on the P4P list at all times. Many always put Marquez below Pacquiao based on the technicalities of the judges rewarding Pacquiao the decision. However, you do not see that as wrong but only when it comes to the Bradley fight. You are showing favoritism which limits your argument, friend.

[HeroBando]

Pacquiao won that fight but it was a lot more closer than him winning 8 rounds.
.

Great, let this reflect in your rankings. For the named experts that put together p4p rankings people read, it was about a round wider. On average 117-111, with hardly any scores closer than 116-112, fringe minority. Mostly from ringside, for max Jim Lampley Effect:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Ma...imothy_Bradley

[T18Z]

However, you do not see that as wrong but only when it comes to the Bradley fight. You are showing favoritism which limits your argument, friend.

I would say exactly the same to you, ranking Bradley 6th is quite obviously favoritism or incompetence, despite what you may say Ruslan does not have much technical boxing skills nor a spectacular record. I like him as a fighter, and I believe he beat Bradley and the referee made bad decisions in calling knockdowns slips. How can you rank Bradley so highly when he faced compeition on such an un-proven level and literally went life and death, being hurt more times than I can count and showing very weak ring IQ. Bradley did everything he shouldn't have, and deserved what he got. He is not an established A rank fighter, the fight proved that. You are bias towards him, and it shows.

[Ichee]

Great, let this reflect in your rankings. For the named experts that put together p4p rankings people read, it was about a round wider. On average 117-111, with hardly any scores closer than 116-112, fringe minority. Mostly from ringside, for max Jim Lampley Effect:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Ma...imothy_Bradley

I am not trying to debate this Pacquiao-Bradley fight, fact of the matter is you are trying to say I am the only one who thought this fight was close, when that is not the case. My final score for fight will be 115-113 for Pacquiao, Pacquiao won but he did not look as dominant as we all wanted to believe that night.