Originally posted by lieutenant
View Post
Simple fact is there is no precise calculus that tells us whether a blowout win over a one fighter should be counted more highly than a close disputed win or loss over a more highly regarded one... well there's the Boxrec rankings of course (- I mean that is quite literally a comparison of resumes - but it's still fallible human beings who devised the algorithms) but everyone thinks that's shit too.
I mean - here's a ponder for you - say I believed Andre Ward was a top P4P fighter before the super 6 and should be ranked above the likes of Kessler, Froch or Abraham given that P4P is simply the answer to the question 'who would win if they were the same weight?' Would that have been a rational claim based on looking at their resumes? I would say not. Would it have been correct? Most would say - in hindsight - yes. See where I'm going?
Listen... what it boils down to is that I think P4P is nonsense and people calling good fighters stuff like 'tomato cans' and 'bums' or whatever rubs me the wrong the way. Whether you think Estrada is a better fighter than Inoue or whatever ain't my issue at all.
Comment