Tweet
I can 100% prove the orgs listed are all completely ignorant to the sport of boxing in almost every way shape or form in that they can't understand boxing if they don't know the most basic elementary fundamentals that govern the proper way fighters have always been rated, & the public reps of those orgs have never studied boxing properly (aside from most never lacing them up & the ones that do are biased af so they go along with colleagues)
Heres my proof:
They have ranked Crawford & others above Errol Spence & Canelo & they constantly lie that Canelo is cherrypicking & that he is somehow not doing the exact definition of what the greats are by definition supposed to do to be great(same thing goes to Spence to a lesser degree because hes fighting the best possible opponents back to back & taking dangerous chances when haters said he wouldn't & despite his rival's doing the opposite(they both went from surgery right to the best) (Spence is no different than Canelo in this regard) !
They have for years written countless articles justifying detracting against Canelo(& Spence) at all cost & the logic they use is this:
"Canelo has consistently faced the best champions from a young age who most said he was scared of,& he has pulled out several close/ish wins against the best,& Crawford has been knocking out completely overmatched no hopers in Omaha his entire career but he beat 3 B level fighters at 135 a half decade ago, therefore when you combine that with him koing his "no hopepponents" the last 5 years,it means hes better than everyone including Canelo"(to a lesser degree the same applies to the loma hype)
Ggg is yet another example,as are countless others of overhyped resumes & fighters while the same overhypers sht on resumes of real killers.
The msm can be completely debunked very simply using the standards that have ALWAYS governed whos the best in boxing.
These standards boil down to this: If fighter A(Bud) has been beating completely overmatched opponents for years & koing them(& despite that,the claims that he bulldozed them all is far from the truth,(he looked wack v Green machine & 1 foot),there is never a justifiable way to say hes better than fighters B(Canelo) & lesser extent fighter C(Spence), because Spence has been actually proving himself v the best & unlike cherrypicking puff Brook as an opponent,he instead chose DSG who many are saying will win by ko,& this being back to back with Champion Porter who Crawford ducked for Brook,& Spence is planning on fighting the best his next fight from here on out, just like Canelo has been doing most his entire career.
Canelo despite fighting in 2 non SMW divisions his last 2 fights,is now fighting the lineal #1 SMW despite just getting out of court,& he recently matched the great **** Tiger.
He almost always fights the best available opponents,the last few yrs especially,& he unified 160 regardless of Charlos paper title Canelo was rightfully WBC champ because he beat ggg more clearly 2nd fight.
So anytime you have someone saying that koing No hopers somehow makes you better than koing or winning close Decisions vs the Best of the best(especially when giving up huge amount of reach & height), they don't know even the most elementary things that have ALWAYS governed the inner workings of boxing,& if someone doesn't get this after a lifetime of watching,they are just fanbois & provable novices of analyzing boxing.
Heres my proof:
They have ranked Crawford & others above Errol Spence & Canelo & they constantly lie that Canelo is cherrypicking & that he is somehow not doing the exact definition of what the greats are by definition supposed to do to be great(same thing goes to Spence to a lesser degree because hes fighting the best possible opponents back to back & taking dangerous chances when haters said he wouldn't & despite his rival's doing the opposite(they both went from surgery right to the best) (Spence is no different than Canelo in this regard) !
They have for years written countless articles justifying detracting against Canelo(& Spence) at all cost & the logic they use is this:
"Canelo has consistently faced the best champions from a young age who most said he was scared of,& he has pulled out several close/ish wins against the best,& Crawford has been knocking out completely overmatched no hopers in Omaha his entire career but he beat 3 B level fighters at 135 a half decade ago, therefore when you combine that with him koing his "no hopepponents" the last 5 years,it means hes better than everyone including Canelo"(to a lesser degree the same applies to the loma hype)
Ggg is yet another example,as are countless others of overhyped resumes & fighters while the same overhypers sht on resumes of real killers.
The msm can be completely debunked very simply using the standards that have ALWAYS governed whos the best in boxing.
These standards boil down to this: If fighter A(Bud) has been beating completely overmatched opponents for years & koing them(& despite that,the claims that he bulldozed them all is far from the truth,(he looked wack v Green machine & 1 foot),there is never a justifiable way to say hes better than fighters B(Canelo) & lesser extent fighter C(Spence), because Spence has been actually proving himself v the best & unlike cherrypicking puff Brook as an opponent,he instead chose DSG who many are saying will win by ko,& this being back to back with Champion Porter who Crawford ducked for Brook,& Spence is planning on fighting the best his next fight from here on out, just like Canelo has been doing most his entire career.
Canelo despite fighting in 2 non SMW divisions his last 2 fights,is now fighting the lineal #1 SMW despite just getting out of court,& he recently matched the great **** Tiger.
He almost always fights the best available opponents,the last few yrs especially,& he unified 160 regardless of Charlos paper title Canelo was rightfully WBC champ because he beat ggg more clearly 2nd fight.
So anytime you have someone saying that koing No hopers somehow makes you better than koing or winning close Decisions vs the Best of the best(especially when giving up huge amount of reach & height), they don't know even the most elementary things that have ALWAYS governed the inner workings of boxing,& if someone doesn't get this after a lifetime of watching,they are just fanbois & provable novices of analyzing boxing.