Unlike everyone else, I'm not gonna nitpick the listed examples and focus on the crux of the thread. I agree that the eye test shouldn't supplant resume when ranking a fighter. The eye test is what you believe a fighter will eventually do in the FUTURE based on their talent. A resume is what a fighter has already PROVEN. Ranking fighter with the eye test above proven fighters is a slap in the face to fighters who have accomplished what you think a supposedly more talented fighter will achieve eventually.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
You need to STOP with the "eye test" BS. You're doing fighters a disservice.
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by revelated View Post
Consider though: I don't think Darnell Boone EVER was on any "eye test" - yet he stopped Adonis Stevenson and gave Kov and Ward fits. That's why I don't give credibility to the "eye test" BS, it works in reverse too.
And most of y'all are hypocriical focks too. You were the ones using the eye test to claim that Golovkin would just bulldozer his way through Canelo, even is resume is paper thin. I on, the other hand, was certain that Golovkin could never land anything significant on Canelo given his slow hands and feet and Canelo razor sharp reflexes. Guess what happened.
Comment
-
im cant really make it out if you are joking or being serious.
Anthony Mundine is considered a Hall of famer?
Is danny green an ATG because he has beaten 2 hall of famers (roy jones and mundine)?
crawfords win over horn has an asteriks?
Comment
-
Originally posted by lizard_man View PostI do get it. We know it's bullshlt though. Raheem beat a prime Morales in 2005. When did horn make his debut? 2014? Come on man.
The bottom line is, when you beat a NAMED PPV QUALITY FIGHTER, it's in the books and that's all that matters. So for Jeff Horn...he was smart. He fought and continues to call out named fighters. He's now fought FOUR of them and knocked out three, UNANIMOUS'd the other one - feat only Erik Morales and Floyd Mayweather have accomplished.
See, if Jeff 'The Hornet' Horn hadn't pulled it out against Manny, we wouldn't be having this conversation. See below
Originally posted by DumpkinsPlus5 View PostUnlike everyone else, I'm not gonna nitpick the listed examples and focus on the crux of the thread. I agree that the eye test shouldn't supplant resume when ranking a fighter. The eye test is what you believe a fighter will eventually do in the FUTURE based on their talent. A resume is what a fighter has already PROVEN. Ranking fighter with the eye test above proven fighters is a slap in the face to fighters who have accomplished what you think a supposedly more talented fighter will achieve eventually.
Originally posted by KingHippo View PostAnyone who knows boxing knows Darnell Boone would be a challenge for any champion. You simply using boxing math because you have no idea what you're looking at.
The thing is, that's less about Boone than those fighters. Boone is a challenge for fighters who tend to stop fighting smart when they get ****y about who's across from them. Loma and Crawford BOTH fit in that category. Which is why Loma holds an L from Salido and got dropped by Linares, and why Crawford was Bambi'd by Gamboa and had to resort to low blowing Khan. If he couldn't spark Khan's chin to get him out of there fair, there's no way he's getting Boone out of there - and Boone walks through the punches.
Originally posted by asgarth View PostAnthony Mundine is considered a Hall of famer?
Originally posted by asgarth View PostIs danny green an ATG because he has beaten 2 hall of famers (roy jones and mundine)?
Originally posted by asgarth View Postcrawfords win over horn has an asteriks?
See, that's the measurement. If people didn't consider him some P4P, the measuring stick wouldn't be so damn high.
Comment
-
Rigo was Pound for Pound top 5 when loma beat him. Many on here and many experts picked rigo over loma. Fact of the matter is Loma DOMINATED another pound for pound fighter and made him quit. He made a masterclass boxer like rigo look like a lost amateur.
sorry bud, Loma IS THAT GOOD.
Comment
-
A resume can be "faked" to a degree, fighters can pad their records and take fights against opponents with name value who are past their prime or subject to other extenuating circumstances. I'd say you HAVE to apply the eye test to ascertain how good a fighter is, otherwise there'd be no point in actually watching fights, you're implying that you could just look at boxrec and instantly have expert knowledge.
So yeah, naw, this thread is stupid
Comment
-
Originally posted by Southpawology View PostRigo was Pound for Pound top 5 when loma beat him. Many on here and many experts picked rigo over loma. Fact of the matter is Loma DOMINATED another pound for pound fighter and made him quit. He made a masterclass boxer like rigo look like a lost amateur.
sorry bud, Loma IS THAT GOOD.
At Rigo's comfortable weight there's simply no way that fight goes the same.
Originally posted by Scopedog View PostA resume can be "faked" to a degree, fighters can pad their records and take fights against opponents with name value who are past their prime or subject to other extenuating circumstances.
Don't want to hear nonsense about resume padding.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sunny31 View PostEnd of thread tbh
Some of the examples given in the OP are poor as well
GGG is another "eye test" experiment gone wrong.
Comment
Comment