Comments Thread For: Canelo Alvarez is an Excellent Fighter... But Not The Best

[aboutfkntime]

With AFT being the exception, they won't say who is great, but they ''know'' who isn't........

They like how some guys steamroll over bums while hate how some guys have to go to hell and beck vs quality opponents.

I don't disagree at all with your sentiment

I disagree that knowledgeable insiders require a road-map

[aboutfkntime]

I never said Pac should be number 1. IN FACT, I stated otherwise. It was one of the earlier ''Please compare resumes'' replies I made to your p4p list.

It's all there if you're curious.

FACT: if " resume doe " is YOUR MAIN determining factor, then this is YOUR P4P list.....


1) Pacquiao
2) *****
3) *****
4) *****
5) *****
6) *****
7) *****
8) *****
9) *****
10) *****
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
* Golovkin


own YOUR shlt

you cannot have convenient double-standards

based on resume, who would you have ranked 2-10..... ?

[Curtis Harper]

FACT: if " resume doe " is YOUR MAIN determining factor, then this is YOUR P4P list.....


1) Pacquiao
2) *****
3) *****
4) *****
5) *****
6) *****
7) *****
8) *****
9) *****
10) *****
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
* Golovkin


own YOUR shlt

you cannot have convenient double-standards

based on resume, who would you have ranked 2-10..... ?

You need to read the quotes you're clearly IGNORING or this will be a very redundant circle jerk.

[Mexican_Puppet]

Well let me ask you this. How do we know whether or not he was clean in those fights? I am sorry but I don't know about you but I could never rank a drug cheat ahead of a clean fighter.

There's a very strong possibility that he was doping in both the Trout, Mayweather, Lara, Cotto, Chavez, Jr and the first Golovkin bout. We will never know because he was never enrolled in the year round, 365 day VADA Clean Boxing Program in association with the WBC.

Lomachenko and Crawford did theirs the right way cleanly. However, with Canelo Alvarez we will never know because there are just too many question marks.

Lastly that tainted contaminated beef excuse is all bullshit! LOL, Ginger knew exactly what he was doing. He had been doing it for years. He was cheating in order to gain an unfair edge and an advantage over his opponents.

Do you know how many bulls he would have to have eaten in order to test positive for Clenbuterol; Which is an Anabolic agent used as a performance enhancer?

Because Canelo showed against ggg in the rematch that' he is naturally very strong

And there werre a lot of test.in those fights

Man, a lot of people.die because tainted meat in México is a.big problem

[Citizen Koba]

No hopers are also easily identifiable, if a fight fan is honest enough to accept Vegas' odds. They don't give long odds just because and they don't have accountants picking names out of a hat.

Do you not believe there are ridiculous mismatches in boxing ?!?!? Yes, on the very rare occasion, an upset will happen so no need to bring up Buster vs Tyson.

The resume has everything an unbiased fan needs to know (the who -including that guys resume and his pertinent physical stats-, where, when and what, if anything, was at stake). It's all there.

''Wow, this Mr 25-0;25 kos absolutely destroyed Mr 5-17-3;2 kos. He's like the next big thing.''

1 fight later....

''WOW, Mr 25-0;25 kos got destroyed vs a 30-2;27 kos guy. How was this possible ?!?!? Let me check who Mr 25-0;25 kos was beating up prior to his loss. Ok, It makes sense now.''

When making a p4p list, a guys last 7 or so opponents should be the benchmark. Not how well a guy beats up a no hoper. If ''things'' are equal, then all that eye candy can be the tiebreaker.

Sure. Now we're getting somewhere. You are at least acknowledging that it ain't just as cut and dried as 'just resume'. I don't do P4P cos even a quick think about it reveals that conceptually it's nonsense (in fact, generally it's only the emotionally invested that seem to argue about that ish like it means something), but if you do subscribe to that BS you have to scale for time you have to take into account that we naturally assume that the fighters we see most of and are most heavily promoted are better (I call this exposure bias, and yes, we're all subject to it, even if you believe like everyone else that you're immune to advertising) we have to take into account age, weight draining, ring rust and a hundred other factors, not just how decisive a victory is... and of course, we have to take into account our own - unavoidable - preferences and biases.

To claim objectivity we'd need to have a precise formula to calculate just exactly, for instance - how many 2014 Donaires a 2013 Delvin Rodriguez is worth... when you've done that you can get back to me and tell me your way of establishing P4P is the only legitimate one. Until then Ima keep calling out folk who say that their way is the ONLY way. You want to say Saul is P4P #1, that's cool with me - I do think he's among the best fighters in the world - but you start saying everyone who thinks different DKS Ima point out how ridiculous such a claim is.

[Curtis Harper]

Sure. Now we're getting somewhere. I don't do P4P cos even a quick think about it reveals that conceptually it's nonsense, but if you do subscribe to that BS you have to scale for time you have to take into account that we naturally assume that the fighters we see most of and are most heavily promoted are better (I call this exposure bias) we have to take into account age, weight draining, ring rust and a hundred other factors, not just how decisive a victory is... and of course, we have to take into account our own - unavoidable - preferences and biases.

To claim objectivity we'd need to have a precise formula to Calculate just exactly, for instance - how many 2014 Donaires a 2013 Delvin Rodriguez is... when you've done that you can get back to me and tell me your way of establishing P4P is the only legitimate one. Until then Ima keep calling out folk who say that their way is the ONLY way. You want to say Saul is P4P #1, that's cool with me - I do think he's among the best fighters in the world - but you start saying everyone who thinks different DKS Ima point out how ridiculous such a claim is.

I reserve the right to clown those ''few'' people who ignore the obvious no hoper OR give a guy credit for beating up that no hoper.

If a fight fan is NOT surprised with the outcome, he just watched a guy beat a no hoper.

If a so called boxing fan can't recognize a guy with NO CHANCE at beating his opponent, that person is ripe for belittling.

I also have a right to mock those who include feelings into their opinions.

''I hate so and so and that will reflect on my opinion of him as a boxer (or athlete).''

No, we don't have to like everyone. But to say a boxer is less than he is because of it, well, that person isn't a fan.

Example....not the biggest Wlad fan (understatement) but the guy ran the show after making vast improvements. Credit was due.

Lastly, if a person says ''X definitely isn't the best !!!'', that person should say who is or at least why that person isn't.

People hate resumes until it serves their needs.

[R_Walken]

what does that reply actually mean.....?

look, if " resume doe " is YOUR MAIN determining factor, then this is YOUR P4P list.....


1) Pacquiao
2) *****
3) *****
4) *****
5) *****
6) *****
7) *****
8) *****
9) *****
10) *****
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
* Golovkin


right..... ?

because, you certainly cannot have double-standards..... either, resume is your MAIN criteria..... or it is just a determining factor

either, stick with resume..... ranking Pac at #1, and removing Golovkin..... or, leave it as-is..... with Pac removed and Golovkin keeping his (lower-ranked) spot

using style / skills / form is not only more accurate..... it prevents all of the flip-flopping and selective reasoning

Man stop it , the useless #1 P4P ranking is just a way for media / fans to have something to bullish.it about

Especially if there’s no clear cutn#1 like a Mayweather / Ward most of its just a way for some to d.ick ride fighters they like

In a Perfect World a Fighters CV should be what matters the most followed by I guess the eye test while getting their resume and maybe followed by accomplishments and Maybe marketability

But no surprise you use this thread as a reason to write sh.it against your sworn enemy Gennady and use it as a reason to justify your hate for the man.

Resume should be looked at and the most important part and yeah PAC has the deepest of any current fighter but when your 40 plus what you did and who you fought 10-15 years ago doesn’t mean much or hold weight when talking about who’s the best fighter today in 2019. Like Mayweather just fought and dummied some Japanese Child in a exhibition why not throw him in the mix.

If considering resume is a a main factor, Surely you’d have to also factor in fighters that got straight avoided for years by the top guys around their weight.

Should Rigo not have been included in the discussion because of the limited amount of pro fights he had , with only 1 notable W , Everyone knows he was avoided for years maybe with some of those other fighter during that span even having them compile deeper resumes then Rigo , but should they be rated higher P4P during that time Fuc .k No
There’s no way with a straight face and not looking like a clown and say put LSC / Frampton above Rigo even though at a point their resumes overall had sh.it all Over Rigos . Being avoided matters having World Champs and their teams showing no interest fighting matters

Not saying Golovkin was ever #1 because he never was he could never be put ahead of Ward. But having every MW of his era that had any clout swerve him for years like he had a bad case of the unknown Monkey Aids and was contagious to even be in the same room or mention should be factored in. Yes I know you’ll present your make believe list of fighters that Gennady avoided like the Latin Snake like Gennady wouldn’t have jumped at the opportunity to beat the brakes off him But the truth is all the MWs Of Gennadys era ( fighters roughly his same age ) who had some clout whether from a strap or a decent fan base. ( Sturm , Quillen, Lee , Chavez Jr , Barker , Martinez ,Abraham, Pavlik, Sylvester , Mundine, Taylor ) it’s not a fluke that these guys team not a single one of them would give Gennady a fight in and around his prime even after he had something that might be attractive to them ( WBA Junior Title ) Their teams never wanted to put their guys in with Gennady , Not becaus ehe was high risk low reward but probably because all of those teams feared the Monkey AIDS or watched Borat too many times and thought Gennady wanted to throw a j.ew down a well . I’m sure the high possibility of having their prized fighters getting b.itch slapped by a nobody had nothing to with it, I’m sure it was the Monkey AIDS

He only got the opportunity to fight even the fringe best at the division when he was 30+ and had HBOs backing. But the way he smacked around the fringe guys ( Geale , Macklin , Stevens ) probably didn’t do him any favours in getting fights with Martinez , Quillen, Chavez , Lee , Canelo ( at the time ).




He got to fight the best in the division when he was at a age that’s considered geriatric in boxing and all the best are prime and considered to be among the next era of fighters

And you and I know if the sport cared about integrity instead of $ , He’d still be undefeated.. Had his era fighters teams shook to even fight and if the sport wasn’t a dumpster fire Circus he’d undefeated against the 2 best MW fighters from the next Era.

Not bad for a damn near 40 year old fraud who shouldn’t be considered among the top 100 active fighters according to you.

[techliam]

Boxrec has Crawford at #2 and Canelo at #1.

I’ve never seen Boxrec rankings used with any qualification

[stealthradon]

not exactly a murderers row..... is it ?

should the fan of a fighter with a shlt resume, really be criticizing a fighter with a much better resume?

Much better? Name the fighters he fought in their prime, and then destroyed?

[aboutfkntime]

Sure. Now we're getting somewhere. You are at least acknowledging that it ain't just as cut and dried as 'just resume'. I don't do P4P cos even a quick think about it reveals that conceptually it's nonsense (in fact, generally it's only the emotionally invested that seem to argue about that ish like it means something), but if you do subscribe to that BS you have to scale for time you have to take into account that we naturally assume that the fighters we see most of and are most heavily promoted are better (I call this exposure bias, and yes, we're all subject to it, even if you believe like everyone else that you're immune to advertising) we have to take into account age, weight draining, ring rust and a hundred other factors, not just how decisive a victory is... and of course, we have to take into account our own - unavoidable - preferences and biases.

To claim objectivity we'd need to have a precise formula to calculate just exactly, for instance - how many 2014 Donaires a 2013 Delvin Rodriguez is worth... when you've done that you can get back to me and tell me your way of establishing P4P is the only legitimate one. Until then Ima keep calling out folk who say that their way is the ONLY way. You want to say Saul is P4P #1, that's cool with me - I do think he's among the best fighters in the world - but you start saying everyone who thinks different DKS Ima point out how ridiculous such a claim is.

that is EXACTLY how historians determine ATG rankings

they study their opposition, which is reliant upon resume

like I said earlier..... these guys are not talking about P4P when they use resume as their MAIN criteria, they are talking about current ATG..... which is actually an oxymoron

the question is not about who had the best career, or who performed the best over the longest period of time, or who had the best body of work..... the question is..... could you beat that guy tomorrow, based on style/skills/form

if resume is their MAIN criteria..... then Pac is #1, and they have a difficult case to make for Golovkin

there is no way to spin that