You need to STOP with the "eye test" BS. You're doing fighters a disservice.

[_Rexy_]

So let’s pretend that the stoppage on Horn was “suspect” like OP claims...did anybody in here give Horn a single round?

[Combat Talk Radio]

I agree that 'eye test' should not be the only basis but we have to accept that it's also one the criteria on rating a fighter alongside 'level of opposition' and 'dominance'. The TS is making a case that Canelo should be #1 before Crawford and Loma but Canelo also lacks one of the criteria that I mentioned and that's 'dominance'.

That's because you're butchering the definition of "dominance".

A boxing masterclass is the same dominance as a KO. Either way, the guy across from you had no business being in the ring.

Canelo has had more boxing masterclasses and KOs than close, questionable victories. That's factual data.

Or are you seriously saying that going the distance with one-legged fighters somehow makes you more "dominant" simply because you moved better than them? OF COURSE YOU DID! By that logic, Cotto's best win is Sergio Martinez and you know that's BS. So why is Crawford held to some higher standard for beating Benavidez?

Neither Crawford nor Loma has NOT ONE single win on record that matches any of the top Cotto, Sergio, Marquez, Manny, Floyd, Cazalghe, or even Danny Garcia wins. None of them.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that. Time will tell for both guys. My issue is specifically with calling them P4P when they haven't fought or beat anyone of a caliber worthy of that title compared to Canelo who has.

So let’s pretend that the stoppage on Horn was “suspect” like OP claims...did anybody in here give Horn a single round?

I gave Horn Round 1 and that's it. And he probably would have gone out with a lopsided decision 11-1.

Had the suspect hand injury not happened that delayed the fight and threw off Horn's training (and you know it does, so that's not a lie) cycle, and had the ref let them fight the distance to that 11-1, I'd give Crawford major credit for an untainted, clear, decisive victory against the guy that was fresh off a unanimous win against Manny. I wouldn't think less of him for not KO'ing Horn, because Horn has a good chin.

That didn't happen.

Instead all sorts of asterisks got in the way to the point Horn himself called for a rematch immediately after the fight and made no excuses about losing. See, that's what real champions do. Not like Manny.

Mikey wouldn't call for a rematch against Spence because he KNEW he got dominated and there were no asterisks. Same couldn't be said of Horn.

[hugh grant]

Thurman is the best WW ouit of Spence, Crawford and Thurman. He was rated the best after win over Garcia. SPence and Crawford are mainly eye test currently.
Spence and Crawford didn't get the Thurman fight to prove otherwise. If Pac beats Thurman then Pac is no1 WW.

[_original_]

I'm against the dreaded eye test but this thread and argument against it is pure garbage juice.

[Boxing_1013]

Yes he did do that. With an asterisk - the weight class.


At Rigo's comfortable weight there's simply no way that fight goes the same.



A name is a name. We need to stop looking at age as excuse, otherwise we need to stop calling JCC, Trinidad, Camacho, Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes, etc. all-time greats. Because nothing's changed. Hell, Macho Camacho alone made his name on so-called "past prime" or "green" named fighters. What's his signature win? A COMPLETELY shot Sugar Ray Leonard.

Don't want to hear nonsense about resume padding.

Bro - how can you, in the same post, say that weight class is an asterisk - but when you fight a guy isn't an asterisk?

Trevor Berbick beat Ali, is that a great win? No it isn't. It's not just who you beat, but when/where/what weight/how effectively. All of that comes into play when evaluating a fighter.

Canelo beat Cotto and Mosley but neither of them was a prime, at their best weight, version of themselves. And a lot of people, me included, saw him lose twice to GGG, pretty clearly really.

So by your logic I have never seen Canelo get a win over a prime pfp HOF fighter...yet I have seen GGG get 2 wins of a prime HOF fighter.

You're injecting a lot of your own personal feelings and hopes and trying to put them out as facts lol.

Eye test can mean a lot for the reasons I mentioned - it's not just who you beat, but how, when, what weight, where, prime or not. If you do all of those last things well, then some wins over non HOF guys can look really good, rather than beating a washed up former great guy.

Appreciate your passion but I think you're too close to the computer screen or something bro.

[Boxing_1013]

Boone is a tough customer for any well schooled fighter. His toughness, sneaky power, and unorthodox style makes him dangerous. Bottom line is him beating an unproven fighter in Stevenson, dropping Ward and almost stopping a grossly overrated fighter like Kovalev is no surprise to anyone who knows boxing.

Stevenson was more of a quality fighter when he was younger than he was when he was older. Don't want to hear that.

Dropping Ward was NOT expected. Not sure where that's coming from.

And calling Kovalev overrated because he tends to drink too much in camp? He's already proven that when he doesn't drink and pays attention to what the F he's doing, he's a threat to anyone. He arguably won the first fight against Ward and he arguably got questionably stopped in the second fight. The only LEGIT loss he had was getting knocked out by Alvarez - a knockout he soundly avenged in the rematch.

So now you're going to pull random **** out of your @$$? Stevenson was 11 fights in, not even a champion, and a complete nobody. Him loosing to Boone would only be a surprise to a casual who doesn't know who Boone actually was. Same **** with Ward. Prime Boone gives trouble to any top super middle and most top light heavies, that just the way it is.



Lol with the dumb@$$ drunk Russian stereotypes. Kovalev was overrated because he was ranked top 3 P4P when there was nothing in his skillset or resume to warrant it.

Just admit it, you have no idea what you're looking at. There's not problem in doing math and feeling like you know something. Some of us are just limited.

Lol - anyone saying there was anything arguable about the robbery in Kov-Ward 1 is not to be taken seriously about boxing. End of story. Not even a close fight nor was it that hard to score.

[Grimgash]

Wait wilder? His eye test is exactly what we thought and he put fury on his ass twice once viciously. So ... why mention him?

[Ca$ual Fan]

That's because you're butchering the definition of "dominance".

A boxing masterclass is the same dominance as a KO. Either way, the guy across from you had no business being in the ring.

Canelo has had more boxing masterclasses and KOs than close, questionable victories. That's factual data.

Or are you seriously saying that going the distance with one-legged fighters somehow makes you more "dominant" simply because you moved better than them? OF COURSE YOU DID! By that logic, Cotto's best win is Sergio Martinez and you know that's BS. So why is Crawford held to some higher standard for beating Benavidez?

Neither Crawford nor Loma has NOT ONE single win on record that matches any of the top Cotto, Sergio, Marquez, Manny, Floyd, Cazalghe, or even Danny Garcia wins. None of them.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that. Time will tell for both guys. My issue is specifically with calling them P4P when they haven't fought or beat anyone of a caliber worthy of that title compared to Canelo who has.

Here we go again talking about KO discussion, which I obviously wasn't implying about. Are you gonna bring up Valero again?

I think it's very obvious when I stressed that 'dominance' is what Canelo lacked. Yes, he does have quality wins but a lot of them are questionable/debatable wins or wins with asterisks (*) which you always bring up whenever you talk Crawford against Horn/Benavidez/Khan. Canelo has * wins also and many of them in fact (no need to enumerate them you know which fights I'm talking about). That's what I mean about lacking dominance. Making your opponents look like they don't belong in the same ring with you - AND NO CANELO DIDN'T DO THAT.

I did agree with you that if the 3 of them would retire now, Canelo is more locked in that the other 2. But all 3 of them are still in their primes and their display of skills and dominance in what they do in the ring will show their potential against their future opponents which will also factor in when it comes to p4p ratings.