How is Usyk better than Canelo P4P?

@CST80 Since you're so intent on discrediting Canelo's best wins by claiming controversy, maybe you can answer this question : First off, lets take the Mayweather fight out of this comparison because we know how delusional most fans are about that match OK.

The question is : just looking at Canelo vs Trout, Lara and the two GGG matches, regardless of who you thought won those, how would you rate Canelo's performances in each of those fights? Would you say that Canelo fought well in each of those fights? Even if you can't bring yourself to admit that Canelo won those fights, will you admit that Canelo was impressive in those bouts?

Throughout history, plenty of HOFers best fights and performances involved close disputed decisions, no? I mean if you look at Ali's 1970's career, there were a lot of close fights in there, who some fans thought he lost. (Norton 3 for example) Those in many's eyes were career defining wins for Ali despite how disputed the decisions were. I bring that up to show that just becuase fans disagree with a decision doesn't negate the performance itself. For Canelo, to fight any of those guys close even if you thought it was a draw, from a skills and difficulty perspective were way better than ("arguably") any of Usyk's wins.

So I'm asking you CST80 how you would rate Canelo's performances in each of those bouts, and from a P4P perspective, that is more important than how you scored them. Don't get stuck on the judges scoring, just look at how Canelo performed and the kind of skills he utilized. That at its core is what P4P is about. Canelo has the better resume (and naturally the more controversial decisions) but for me P4P isn't about Resume, it's about your actual performances, what you are able to do, what kind of a fighter you are right now, how versatile you are, what you can do in the ring, etc.

 

It's true. Before Floyd started talking about A side B side, fans didnt routinely use A side B side terminology to discuss fighters. Obviously throughout history there were name fighters who had the upper hand in negotiations. I'm not denying that, but it wasn't called "A side B Side" to the extent that it is now before Floyd started using that terminology.

Also I have to ask, what's behind you repeatedly calling me a "noob" or a "newbie". I've been here talking boxing since 2012 buddy. That alone makes that claim absurd. In your calling me a noob, are you trying to compensate for something?

 

Didn't say it was invented by him. Floyd made it famous. If you haven't noticed, Floyd is a trendsetter. Floyd started talking about random blood and urine testing and now it's become a standard in the sport. It's the same with A side B side. Floyd started talking about A side B side, fans have puppeted it ever since. This isn't hard.

 

Your input is much appreciated. And no I wasn't comparing Ali to Canelo, only to show that HOFers have had career defining wins that were also hotly disputed.

 

You get what I'm saying right : Floyd ducked Pacquiao for many years due to the insistance on random "Olympic style" blood and urine testing. Floyd was arguably the biggest person responsible for drug testing to become the standard in boxing that it has become. You wouldn't disagree with that would you?

The point I was making was similarly to that, when he started talking about A Side B side it became a big talking point for the fans, and just in general. While Lance tries desperately to twist my words on this, it's clear that similar to the drug testing, Floyd clearly was a trend setter. When he started talking about the need for drug testing, it became a talking point and now it' s a standard. When he started talking about A side B Side, it became a talking point and now everyone talks about it largely because of him. That was the point, and as hard as Lance may try to deflect and misrepresent what I'm saying, it holds true. When Floyd says stuff, the world listens and often adopts it. (however much he may have dodged drug testing or got around the rules himself)

 

But yet most of the arguments in this topic as to why Usyk should be higher P4P has little to do with being better at boxing.

 

Yeah apparently the word "How" is lost on tinman. Anyone can say somebody is better than someone else. The point of this topic is to explain how, which most have failed to do here.