Who's more ideally p4p #2, Kovalev or undefeated GGG?

[NYG]

Sooooo, how many weight classes?

I came inside your sister on purpose.

[Metho_4u]

I came inside your sister on purpose.

Great...sooooo, how many weight classes?

[New England]

I believe lomachencho is going to be the future as well...p4p and based on what? 8 fights? He's got a better resume that giftlovekin and serGAY already. Now he's taking on Sosa and only seems to want fights that matter, you have to respect that.

based on the fact that i think he'd beat any fighter on the planet if they were all teh same size.

a p4p list and resume aren't the same thing. it's an evaluation of ability. you don't weigh what somebody has done 5 years ago, which is what resumes end up doing. most of the best p4p fighters from 5 years ago are retired or way past it. should they be ranked higher than lomachenko because of their resumes, or behind him because he's in his prime and the most able fighter on the planet?


p4p lists are about using your imagination to picgure every fighter in the same division and figuring out who would win the fights. yes, you consider accomplishments, biut those are a means to an end. all you want to know is who is the most able fighter.


lomachenko would toy with golovkin if they were the same size. he's way too easy to hit. he'd make ward look liek the relatively ordinary offensive fighter he is, and he'd make him resort to being dirty and roughhousing to try and win. if he kept his eyes open he outboxes kovalev. gonzales would take a sustained beating and retire on his stool. he does virtually everything better than bud crawford. we all know this.

[BKM-]

p4p lists are about using your imagination to picgure every fighter in the same division and figuring out who would win the fights. yes, you consider accomplishments, biut those are a means to an end. all you want to know is who is the most able fighter.


lomachenko would toy with golovkin if they were the same size. he's way too easy to hit. he'd make ward look liek the relatively ordinary offensive fighter he is, and he'd make him resort to being dirty and roughhousing to try and win. if he kept his eyes open he outboxes kovalev. gonzales would take a sustained beating and retire on his stool. he does virtually everything better than bud crawford. we all know this.

No that's an idiotic way to judge pound for pound. If "Lomachenko was the same size" he would not be the same fighter he is now. Due to gravity and biology he would lose a lot of speed, flexability, impossible to figure out his durability etc. That's a child-like use of imagination.

What you do is you simply judge every fighter's greatness by how well they do in their own weightclass. That's the best fighter p4p. Not this computer game fantasy you're using.

[Metho_4u]

based on the fact that i think he'd beat any fighter on the planet if they were all teh same size.

a p4p list and resume aren't the same thing. it's an evaluation of ability. you don't weigh what somebody has done 5 years ago, which is what resumes end up doing. most of the best p4p fighters from 5 years ago are retired or way past it. should they be ranked higher than lomachenko because of their resumes, or behind him because he's in his prime and the most able fighter on the planet?


p4p lists are about using your imagination to picgure every fighter in the same division and figuring out who would win the fights. yes, you consider accomplishments, biut those are a means to an end. all you want to know is who is the most able fighter.


lomachenko would toy with golovkin if they were the same size. he's way too easy to hit. he'd make ward look liek the relatively ordinary offensive fighter he is, and he'd make him resort to being dirty and roughhousing to try and win. if he kept his eyes open he outboxes kovalev. gonzales would take a sustained beating and retire on his stool. he does virtually everything better than bud crawford. we all know this.

100% agree...this is why I have golovkin at 10 on my p4p list...there are wayyyy to many guys that whip his azz based on skills.

[New England]

No that's an idiotic way to judge pound for pound. If "Lomachenko was the same size" he would not be the same fighter he is now. Due to gravity and biology he would lose a lot of speed, flexability, impossible to figure out his durability etc. That's a child-like use of imagination.

What you do is you simply judge every fighter's greatness by how well they do in their own weightclass. That's the best fighter p4p. Not this computer game fantasy you're using.

weight classes are not all equal, you racist clown


he does super well at 115.5 lbs doe.


pound for pound is literally the use of your imagination. it's inherently subjective. it's a hell of a lot more usefull than determining who is doing best at his own weight class. that's called rank . we already do that in weight classes.

some weight classes have a top 10 full of clowns [like you.] see HW for the better part of the last 20 years.



use your imagination, pretend muslims don't run your life, and determine who you think the best fighter on the planet is, regardless of weight. how on earth does that not involve a prospective fantasy fight handicapping for size? what's "best" in boxing if not the winner ofa fight?


go be scared of women and muslims in the lounge . virgin.

[Redd Foxx]

Kovalev. He looked better in defeat than Golovkin did in victory. P4P is a fantasy/speculative system so we don't just go by Ws and Ls.

[BKM-]

A lot of pent up rage all just came out at once, didn't it my little snowflake? Keep that shit in the lounge where you're too scared to engage anymore.

weight classes are not all equal, you racist clown

Life's tough. If you appear to be better technically it still doesn't mean as much when you're not beating the quality of opposition that another guy(who may appear to be less technically sound) is beating.

The greatness of a boxer has always been mainly determined by the level of opposition he has beaten.

pound for pound is literally the use of your imagination. it's inherently subjective.

REALISTIC imagination, not complete and utter fantasy pulled out of your cucked arse, pal.

Comparing performances and quality of opponents between fighters of different weightclasses is nowhere near the ridiculous imagination required to think that "if everybody is the same size" they would all still be literally exactly the same fighters they would be in their own weightclass.

Like you take a speedy RG and put him up against one of the giant HW's we have now. By your logic the HW RG would literally be 3 times faster. Literally 3 times, even if he's also 6'7/250lbs. And you're also not taking into account body types of shorter people(typical because you're a manlet yourself) they have much shorter limbs than the taller folks, yet this appears to be no issue either in your fantasy world. No sense of gravity and biology from your dumbass at all.

Your observations and ideas on boxing are on the same level as your political ideas. You're a clown in every aspect.

[Metho_4u]

No that's an idiotic way to judge pound for pound. If "Lomachenko was the same size" he would not be the same fighter he is now. Due to gravity and biology he would lose a lot of speed, flexability, impossible to figure out his durability etc. That's a child-like use of imagination.

What you do is you simply judge every fighter's greatness by how well they do in their own weightclass. That's the best fighter p4p. Not this computer game fantasy you're using.

The p4p list is a MYTHICAL list to base ones skills vs those in other weight classes. Wtf did you think it was? Are you just stupid or what?

[Szef]

Out of the two? Kovalev.

But Roman Gonzalez is above both of them imo.

1.vacant
2. Roman
3. Ward and Kovalev
...