You dont know **** about boxing. Neither do I. Nobody knows **** about boxing. People call fighters great all the time. They throw it around casually. Only a fighter can prove hes great through in ring glory. They say, well he would have beat him anyways. You dont know that. For example, Terence Crawford might be great, but he sure as hell ain't great. His opposition hasnt been stiff enough to make that determination. How great is Crawford? Who ****ing knows. Remember everybody was picking Naz to beat Barrera and calling him great? People were calling him a top 5 Featherweight of all time. Now go look at his CV. What happened when he got into the ring with an elite fighter? He was made to look foolish. Turns out there was a great fighter in the ring, it just wasnt Naz. Wasnt Gvozdyk supposed to school Beterbiev? That's what everybody said. It's what the bookies said. Gvozdyk was hyped as the next great LHW. Turns out there was a great LHW in the ring, it just wasnt Gvozdyk. Great fighters like Usyk, Kovalev, Ward, Beterbiev, Gonzalez, Estrada, etc. They are great fighters because they showed it in the ring against top shelf opposition. Sport is a result oriented endeavor. You have to quite an arrogant boxing fan to call a fighter great and rate him before he handles top class opposition. These people think they know boxing, but the truth is, like the rest of us, they don't know **** about boxing. Only a fighter can prove hes great. And the only way to do that is in the ring against the best.
I tend to agree with how fans call fighters great, elite or an ATG. You are 100% correct. The only way you can determine and should determine a fighters status is by who they fought, how well they fought them and what they achieved.
So unifying four belts at 140 doesnt make him a great? Being a three division champion doesn't make him a great? Crawford also became the first male boxer to simultaneously hold all four major world titles in boxing (WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO) as well as the ring title and lineal title since Taylor in 2005, and is one of only five male boxers in history to do so. Damn you're right, sounds pretty average. A more appropriate statement might have been "Crawford isn't great yet at 147"
The longer I am a fan of boxing, the more I learn about the technical side of boxing and the more I realise there's so much more I don't know. Every time I get a prediction badly wrong or my assessment of a certain fighter proves to be utterly wrong I try to learn from it but I know it's impossible to ever be able to always predict the outcome correctly, there's too many variables. That's the thing I find fascinating about boxing it's like trying to solve a puzzle. How do the two fighters styles mesh, can you decipher each fighters style to the point you can make an accurate prediction? And yes the whole, eye test when assessing a fighter can be really deceiving. A fighter can look invincible until they step up or face a certain style and there's no way of knowing for sure how well they will do until step in that ring and are tested against that opponent or that style. For example Amir Khan turned pro and everyone was impressed by his speed and athleticism, but I wasn't he was fast but that's all he ever was, he didn't counter punch, his defence was rudimentary, he was probably the most physically gifted fighter ever from the UK but in terms of technical skill he was domestic level. As for Crawford. I think he is a genuine top 5 P4P fighter. He may not have the great names on his resume but he's done all that's asked of him in winning belts, moving up, unifying etc. Plus he does have great technical skills, he does things in the ring that most fighters don't, he doesn't just rely on physical attributes alone. I'm pretty confident we'll see him beat Porter more convincingly that anyone else has, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
He was in fairness, man talked like he was a real killer when he never had a proper fight in his life.
I guess Beterbiev ain't **** then right? After all, his best win, isn't great. Good to know. Great fighters like Usyk, Kovalev, Ward, Beterbiev, Gonzalez, Estrada, etc. Are great... because they beat other great fighters. You didn't think this one out very thoroughly, did you? I mean, even in your example. Kovalev beat Ward but got robbed, then Ward beat Kovalev. I guess that means they both suck and aren't great. Oh yeah, Inoue handled the best version we've seen of Donaire in years. One could say, a revitalized and truly great version of someone who is already an ATG.
And?? Bruce Lee was a Hollywood actor. You absolutely can not rate him as a great fighter, that would be completely absurd.
What confuses me is posters authoritatively stating that Fury is overrated when boxers from all weights seem to rate his skills. The 'eye test' is subjective but then you have to respect those with the best vision.
