[POLL] Who Has Faced The Softest Competition Overall?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

It's common practice. Even if it's not 1 year, it's sure as hell not their whole careers. If you were actually going to act like that, let's all just put Pacquiao at #1 right now followed by RJJ and Hopkins.

I get you're trying to troll here but have some integrity at least.

What you're asking and what you're trying to imply are 2 completely different things.

Pacquiao, Roy Jones and Hopkins have all been losing fights in one sided manners recently. You have to take losses and the manner of those defeats into account over the course of a career. Logic fail.

The three fighters I've listed are all undefeated and in their primes. It's a more than fair question.

[Raonic]

Pacquiao, Roy Jones and Hopkins have all been losing fights in one sided manners recently. You have to take losses and the manner of those defeats into account over the course of a career. Logic fail.

The three fighters I've listed are all undefeated and in their primes. It's a more than fair question.

So let me get this straight. You said yourself want us to judge a fighter based on their careers. But in the case of RJJ-Hopkins-Pacquiao, their RECENT losses affect their rankings (even though they still have a much better resume than everyone else in the sport despite those losses) but we have to take a full career for the wins and we can;t isolate it based on what they RECENT did?

I don't get what you're looking for either. I answered your question. I'm telling you you're too stupid to apply it properly.

[The Ninth Layer]

All three of these men are ranked in the top 5 pound-for-pound by Ring Magazine and are very highly thought of but who has faced the weakest competition in their whole careers?

Notice I have used their entire careers to give a fairer reflection unlike some other polls which are going around where the feminine thread starters have used a select period of time and blocked people from the thread to slant opinion in their favour.

I was under the impression that to be a top P4P fighter, you have to have proved yourself at least once against top level opposition. From what I can tell, only 2 of the 3 fighters listed have done that.

What's your opinion?

Record plays a big factor in P4P rankings. But so does activity and "what have you done for me lately" questions. Carl Froch has a better record than either Golovkin or Kovalev and Ward beat him, so obviously he has the best record without question. But Ward doesn't have a notable win on his record since 2012, and that win over Chad Dawson isn't as legacy-boosting as it looked at the time.

Talent obviously plays into it, and Ward unquestionably deserves to be near the top. But don't be surprised that fans have taken notice: GGG and Kovalev each have done more in this year than Ward has in the past THREE. Ward's fought twice since 2012 and not against anybody you could put in the top 100 pound-for-pound, let alone the top 10.

Juan Manuel Marquez is one of the best fighters in the sport, with a record that matches any fighter today. Should we keep him at p4p #3 status forever just because he hasn't lost yet? I don't think most people have Marquez in their top fives right now, and the reason is after knocking Pacquiao out Marquez hasn't done anything to keep his name in contention.

[Raonic]

You can't have it both ways.

If you want us to judge GGG-Ward-Kovalev for their CAREER resume then go ahead but don't be a pu$$y ***** about it and disqualify Pacquiao-RJJ-Hopkins because of RECENT ACTIVITY despite the fact that you just actually ****ing said to judge fighters based on their CAREER for P4P purposes and not their RECENT ACTIVITY and despite those 3 legends having a better CAREER resume.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

So let me get this straight. You said yourself want us to judge a fighter based on their careers. But in the case of RJJ-Hopkins-Pacquiao, their RECENT losses affect their rankings (even though they still have a much better resume than everyone else in the sport despite those losses) but we have to take a full career for the wins and we can;t isolate it based on what they RECENT did?

I don't get what you're looking for either. I answered your question. I'm telling you you're too stupid to apply it properly.

Yes we have to take into account that they've recently lost and lost quite badly into account. How do you not get that? Losing affects your standing. Am I speaking a foreign language here?

[Raonic]

Yes we have to take into account that they've recently lost and lost quite badly into account. How do you not get that? Losing affects your standing. Am I speaking a foreign language here?

I don't even get why you're still ****ing talking. Take the ether-ing I just gave you and just shut up.

I'm telling you that even with those loses, they still have a better career resume (the EXACT thing you just actually said you want us to judge fighters on). How do you not get that? Do you have Floyd's reading capabilities or something?

Maybe I should approach it another way. You said you want us to judge based on career resume right? Well do those recent loses by RJJ, Hopkins and Pacquiao make their career resume worse than the rest of the guys in the sport? Of course not. So by your ****ing standards, they should be ranked 1-3.

[The Ninth Layer]

I don't even get why you're still ****ing talking. Take the ether-ing I just gave you and just shut up.

I'm telling you that even with those loses, they still have a better career resume (the EXACT thing you just actually said you want us to judge fighters on). How do you not get that? Do you have Floyd's reading capabilities or something?

You're talking about fighters who lost though, so you can't for example rank Pacquiao above Floyd or Hopkins over Kovalev, because they just lost to those fighters. Dirk Diggler isn't saying recent activity doesn't count; he's saying that between the three unbeaten fighters Kovalev, Ward and Golovkin, Ward's inactivity is more than offset by his career accomplishments, which still overshadow anything the other two guys did.

The question is should Ward be ranked lower just because he hasn't been as active as the other two, even though he still has bigger wins legacy-wise?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I don't even get why you're still ****ing talking. Take the ether-ing I just gave you and just shut up.

I'm telling you that even with those loses, they still have a better career resume (the EXACT thing you just actually said you want us to judge fighters on). How do you not get that? Do you have Floyd's reading capabilities or something?

Of course they have better career resumes and if this thread was about who should go into the Hall of Fame first, you might sound like less of a spastic.

What I'm talking about is 3 undefeated fighters, all around the same age, all still in their prime and I'm asking who's faced the softest competition.

Simple and fair question.

[Raonic]

You're talking about fighters who lost though, so you can't for example rank Pacquiao above Floyd or Hopkins over Kovalev, because they just lost to those fighters. Dirk Diggler isn't saying recent activity doesn't count; he's saying that between the three unbeaten fighters Kovalev, Ward and Golovkin, Ward's inactivity is more than offset by his career accomplishments, which still overshadow anything the other two guys did.

The question is should Ward be ranked lower just because he hasn't been as active as the other two, even though he still has bigger wins legacy-wise?

Except he actually just said that your recent activity doesn't matter if it means you have the resume to back it up.

If he actually asked the question you just asked, then the answer is no, but he just argued that the answer to your question is yes BECAUSE of his career resume.

[Raonic]

Of course they have better career resumes and if this thread was about who should go into the Hall of Fame first, you might sound like less of a spastic.

What I'm talking about is 3 undefeated fighters, all around the same age, all still in their prime and I'm asking who's faced the softest competition.

Simple and fair question.

Except that's not really what you're doing here.

I already answered GGG. If you had left it simply at that, there no issues.

What you're trying to do is you're trying to tie it in with P4P rankings when the criteria for P4P rankings and criteria for best/worse resume are 2 different things.

It's possible for someone with a better resume to be ranked lower in the P4P rankings but for some reason, it seems you can't understand that.