Timothy Bradley is one of the Most Overrated and Lucky Fighters in Recent History

[-PBP-]

My bias towards Cuban fighters?

I mean sure, you can pick out one fight where he might not have looked good. Mayweather didn't look good in the first Maidana fight but more often than not, he looks in a different league from the guy opposite him.

Bradley never seems to truly do that. And it's persistent. There's always something with his fights.

No your biased against Bradley because of the Khan situation.

Rigo gets put on his ass twice against A****sa and dropped by Cordoba and you excuse him. He looked great in 1 fight against a fighter that he matched up well with stylistically. Your excusing it for Rigo whereas you would use that same ammunition against Bradley if that were to happen to him.

Rigo fought one elite fighter in 15 pro fights and hasn't faced the various different styles that Bradley has. He's on the pound for pound list based on how he looked against Donaire.

[SeekDaGreat]

My bias towards Cuban fighters?

I mean sure, you can pick out one fight where he might not have looked good. Mayweather didn't look good in the first Maidana fight but more often than not, he looks in a different league from the guy opposite him.

Bradley never seems to truly do that. And it's persistent. There's always something with his fights.

He made Peterson and Alexander look like little kids in the ring. The undefeated, broke, hungry versions of those guys. Not the washed up, show up for checks version.

Bradley although feather duster, had a fantastic shot at dropping Rigo multiple tines in a fight. Very good chance.

Rigos claim to fame is beating a half retired Donaire who's mind was on his newborn child. And who's overrated himself.

It'd be nice if he fought someone with a pulse, and a punch for a change.

[The Ninth Layer]

Already explained. Fighters who go out and dominate or complete outclass their opponents. Who leave no doubt or controversy or "what ifs". Who put on virtuoso performances against top opposition.

Mayweather, Ward, Rigondeaux, Wladimir to an extent, Roman Gonzalez (although I'm not an expert on his weight class), Kovalev.

I only rate British fighters doe apparently.

Bradley is a good fighter who grinds out results and gets massive strokes of luck. I don't consider that elite P4P level material.

So, like, six or seven guys in the sport? That's a pretty narrow definition of what it means to be an elite fighter. Marquez isn't elite? Pacquiao isn't elite? Golovkin isn't elite? Froch isn't elite? Stevenson isn't elite? What about Hopkins? Was he elite before he lost to Kovalev? Or did Kovalev steal that status from him?

All the guys you listed are undefeated fighters except Klitschko, the one you had reservations about. So I guess the criteria for being elite in this sport is "have a notable amateur background and stay undefeated." Poor Lomachenko will never be an elite fighter.

[SeekDaGreat]

No your biased against Bradley because of the Khan situation.

Rigo gets put on his ass twice against A****sa and dropped by Cordoba and you excuse him. He looked great in 1 fight against a fighter that he matched up well with stylistically. Your excusing it for Rigo whereas you would use that same ammunition against Bradley if that were to happen to him.

Rigo fought one elite fighter in 15 pro fights and hasn't faced the various different styles that Bradley has. He's on the pound for pound list based on how he looked against Donaire.

Don't forget that was a Dobaire that just had a kid and was teetering retirement. And was showing huge signs of regression going into the Rigobdeaux fight. He hasn't looked impressive in awhile!

[Dirk Diggler UK]

No your biased against Bradley because of the Khan situation. .

I was saying this before the Khan situation arose. Did a thread on his fight with Alexander. People were trying to sell it as a "super fight" when it was a battle between two overrated boxers.

I have never rated Tim Bradley highly ever since I first saw him fight and he's done nothing to change my opinion.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

So, like, six or seven guys in the sport? That's a pretty narrow definition of what it means to be an elite fighter. Marquez isn't elite? Pacquiao isn't elite? Golovkin isn't elite? Froch isn't elite? Stevenson isn't elite? What about Hopkins? Was he elite before he lost to Kovalev? Or did Kovalev steal that status from him?

All the guys you listed are undefeated fighters except Klitschko, the one you had reservations about. So I guess the criteria for being elite in this sport is "have a notable amateur background and stay undefeated." Poor Lomachenko will never be an elite fighter.

"Elite" by definition is a very select group.

[Showtime..]

"Elite" by definition is a very select group.

Are Brook and Degale "elite"

[Syf]

Kell Brook, as far as I know, is ranked P4P by nobody and has nothing to do with this thread.

People just desperate to avoid the issue.

Name one dominant Bradley performance whereby he completely separated himself from the opposition to the point you could say "wow this guy is one of the top 3 in the world"

I'll start....Peterson....maybe. Any others?

What about the Marquez win? Even wobbled 'Quez in the end. I liked that performance

[The Ninth Layer]

"Elite" by definition is a very select group.

Your definition of elite is narrower than 99% of boxing fans. Also you can call any fighter overrated in this sport, it's the easiest thing in the world to do which is why there are so many people here posting threads doing it. If everyone Bradley beat is overrated, it still matters that he beat them. You can still have a legacy in this sport without being Floyd Mayweather. Bradley's had a great run in the sport and the only guy who can claim to beat him is Manny Pacquiao.

[mathed]