Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Ted Spoon, Mar 4, 2021.
Canelo is only 30 by the time he's done he will like it or not
Not the biggest fan but he's getting close
If there were no question marks over his resume, I'd say yes.
Unfortunately much of his resume is littered with short camps, weight clauses, ped use, favourable judging, stacked wraps, home town advantages, old fighters ... so, no.
That's your imagination BCS8. Your trying to make excuses to disqualify what Canelo has done. In the real-world, none of your loony theories hold any weight.
I rate him over Pac too.
Lets compare records :
Canelo Alvarez 55-1-2 37 KOs (never KO'd)
Marquez 56-7-1 40 KOs (never KO'd)
Pacquiao 62-7-2 39 KOs (KO'd 3 times)
Erik Morales 52-9 36 KOs (KO'd 3 times)
Marco Antonio Barrera 67-7 44 KOs (KO'd 2 times) 1 NC
Each of these legends have at least 7 losses, in the case of Morales 9 losses. Canelo only has 1 loss to arguably the greatest fighter of the last several decades who finished his career undefeated at 50-0.
Only having 1 loss is better than 7 losses or 9 losses. Never being KO'd is better than being KO'd 2 or 3 times. As it stands, Canelo Alvarez has a much higher winning % than each of these legends, and is closing in on their # of wins, # of KOs. He's fighting at higher weights, he's looked unbeatable in recent years. Pacquiao had several years where he looked unbeatable but he couldn't maintain it. Ended up getting KTFO and losing a lackluster decision to Mayweather not to mention losing to unheralded Jeff Horn. Granted many thought he beat Horn, and it was in Horn's backyard, but the fact is Pac didn't dominate Horn as expected. He let that fight be way too close for comfort.
Pac beating Thurman in his 40s is very impressive though. It's hard to argue Canelo isn't ahead of these greats unless he takes multiple losses. If this momentum continues, and he ends up with 60+ wins never losing again, or maybe only losing 1 or 2 disputed close decisions to top / undefeated fighters, it's going to be very hard to say he's not head and shoulders ahead of these legends when all is said and done. And that's saying a lot. Winning % and not being KO'd matters.
There's question marks over Pacquiao, Marquez', Morales' resumes. So.....
Don't think there are enough challenges around that weight for him to get him ranked above them
Except that all of that is true.
Let's start with this:
Canelo Alvarez Tests Positive For Traces Of Clenbuterol Ahead Of Rematch With Gennady Golovkin
This content is protected
That doesn't translate to PED use as "There were only trace levels of the drug, which are said to be consistent with meat contamination. This has impacted athletes training in Mexico over the past few years. Per Daniel Eichner, Director of SMRTL, the WADA-accredited lab that conducted the tests, these values are all within the range of what is expected from meat contamination."
Crawford has been showing he’s a different level from B level guys. The test will be if he does it with an A level fighter like Pac or Spence.
How ******ed. Mikey Garcia only has 1 loss. I guess he’s greater than Ali.
fk I didn’t know people could be these ******ed.
So Calzaghe > Roy Jones? Marciano > Ali?
If you take RJJ career through Tarver 1, where he was 49-1 and his only loss was by controversial DQ, and compare that to Calzaghe who finished 46-0, I think most would agree that RJJ was greater. More wins, while both essentially remained undefeated, about the same # of fights.
Out of his first 50 fights, only 11 of those wins by RJJ were by Decision, the rest were KO's, and all UD except for the 1 MD in Tarver 1.
Out of his 46 fights, 15 of Calzaghe wins were by Decision. He had 2 Split Decisions, one vs Robin Reid, one Vs Hopkins, and 1 Technical Decision Juan Carlos Giménez Ferreyra.
So RJJ had a much higher KO %, less decision wins, and more Unanimous Decisions. RJJ never had any remotely close decisions until he came back down from Heavyweight to fight Tarver.
Had Calzaghe fought on into his late 30s and 40s like RJJ did, surely he would have started to take mutliple losses as RJJ did. When you have essentially the same record and the same # of fights as someone else, up until a certain age where one guy retires in his mid-30s and the other guy goes on to fight for another 10-15 years, you have to take that into account and separate that when doing a comparison. Also RJJ took more risks than Calzaghe, spanned more weight like moving up to Heavyweight and winning a Heavyweight Title. Calzaghe debuted at Super Middleweight and stayed at that weight his entire career until his last couple of fights when he moved up to Light Heavyweight. RJJ started a Junior Middleweight and fought all the way to Heavyweight.
So there are many reasons to put RJJ ahead of Calzaghe as a comparison from debuting up until the age where Calzaghe retired. RJJ just fought on a lot longer into his late 40s and only started losing at ages after Calzaghe retired. The difference with Pacquiao compared to Canelo for example, is that Pacquiao took several losses early in his career and was knocked down and stopped several times while Canelo never was stopped or even put down.
Marciano vs Ali is an interesting debate, because Ali arguably fought in a much tougher era than Marciano did, or at least has what most be to be considered bigger name opponents and multiple better wins, even though many of those wins were controverisal later in his career like vs Norton for example. Marciano fought Joe Lewis for example when Lewis was old and at the end of his career. Ali fought Sonny Liston and stopped him twice when Liston was seen as unbeatable and was considered still in his prime. Ali also had 3 years of his prime taken away from him for refusing to enter the draft, and was never the same fighter he was when he came back.
So it needs to be taken into consideration when losses happened, when a fighter retires and if a fighter fights into advanced ages. Comparing RJJ and Calzaghe they had about the same # of fights until about the age that Calzaghe retired. RJJ fought on and took many losses afterwards. His greatness in the span of the amount of years that he and Joe fought until they were both in their mid 30s is a good barometer to compare. Winning % and # of KO losses isn't the be all end all, but it's certainly a very important factor when comparing fighters, perticularly if a fighter lost or was stopped multiple times early in his career as opposed to when he is seen as old and washed up.