I want an insite into the mind of those rating Bernard Hopkins amongst the top 5 P4P

:happy

 

Well, I'd hope those posters can spot a hype job like Margarito at first sight then, or I'd credit them very little.

And I don't kiss up to CHJ. I find CHJ's material hysterical, but much of it on the right track in terms of international fairness when regarding underrated fighters, with this having nothing to do with nationality.

I don't attack other posters personally within a boxing debate unless they truly deserve it, in the case of a Carlito32 that knows damn nothing and keeps going on and on, CHJ is different, he really is a knowledgable boxing fan, but you fail to even recognise humorous character.

Then you want to go on about how much you dislike my way of boxing analysation and wish to send personal calls on me, when you know a limited amount, which is pretty much solely based upon what is accepted by most mainstream boxing fans as they eat whatever they are fed. It is not difficult to analyse something to the core and to be correct about 'factors' involved, whether this leads to a correct fight pick or not, calling something out that is dead obvious is not difficult to do... such as old time era fighters being absolutely inferior to modern era fighters.

I don't like when a person wishes to engage in a debate where they think they know what they are talking about and in all reality, they do not and this happens to be your case in this thread and a few others. Things that surprise the hell out of you are dead obvious things to others, not me even per say, but to people who can spot things that you can't and that I can't, or that any other top analyst around can't and if they point something out that is relevant, I am very glad to learn their point of view.

 

I was merely making a point and you percieve it how you like, see the post above.

 

loolololololololololollo NOPE SORRY! :nono

 

Oh come on now. If you're going to play the intellect, know-it-all of the board, don't be surprised when you get called on it. It's all good. :good

 

I still don't see how that's clearly explained in the graph...

And no fighter could ever be so fast and accurate they knock every opponent out with a jab, so its a useless extreme you just used.

Whether or not the Robot COULD do something is irrevelant, in boxing, it's what the Robot DOES that actually counts. Hence resume are important. A 0-0-0 robot with all the potential in the world is simply a "highly touted prospect"... Not near p4p recognition...

And the fact that we're talking about ****in' robots proves all I need to know about this discussion. Resumes MUST be included in any p4p discussion. For me. Bottom line (could be different for others, but each to their own, as CHJ so adquately proves).

 

You couldn't be more wrong about me. Maybe you weren't here on the baord when there were a TON more quality posters and thread and genuine discussions on the sport. Those days are gone, and posters like you, while capable of showing some knowlege, choose more often then not to be close minded towards anyone elses opinion you disagree with. I've lost the patience to engage with most people here, and would rather **** with those who seem to need it the most. ESB is NOT what is used to be. :-(

 

honestly the lb 4 lb list has more to do with Accomplishment and how you perform in doing what you're doing. If the lb 4 lb list had to do with physical capabilities of fighters which is ALWAYS a ? in boxing becase you never know if they can use their strengths or not, then we'd have placed Edwin Valero at lb 4 lb number 1 already!...lb 4 lb clearly has to do with accomplishment and not athleticism. Floyd isn't lb 4 lb because he can do his shoulder roll..He is lb 4 lb because he has won titles from 130-154 hasn't lost and has fought decent opponents till then. Same deal goes with Pacquiao, his success with the opponents hes faces puts him there not because of whatever he does. When you rank fighters in the ATG list..You don't rate them for their gifts or power..if that be the case Roy Jones would be number 1 all time or something. Clearly lb 4 lb has to do with Resume.

 

Imagine a fighter who is 100-0 lb 4 lb the best fighter in boxing fights an unknown boxer with a record of 0-0...And the 0-0 fighter schools the 100-0 fighter...That doesn't make the newly 1-0 fighter lb 4 lb the best fighter in the sport! lb 4 lb isn't about who can beat who or who can do what because those are always question marks and unknowns. the only factual REAL thing in boxing is accomplishments and their resume and thats how you weed out who was greater and who wasn't. It isn't what so and so coulda done its what so and so DID

 

The whole idea of P4P is pretty meaningless to begin with.

 

That concept seems to be lost to the Joe C faction. Probably due to the fact his resume and accomlishments are severly lacking compared to others.

 

It is only meaningless if you look at it as a list that states who can beat who. The lb 4 lb list isn't about who can beat who! It is about who's done what! Thats all that matters in this sport not how hard or how fast or how much defense you have...its about who you've beaten thats IT.

 

Bingo

I will admit that I do make pound for pound rankings every once and a while based on overall accomplishments.

However, unless everybody can agree on a criteria to use, it is virtually meaningless as there are going to be arguments between those who base it on skill level, head to head ability, accomplishments in different weight classes, or resume.

Most people I see base it on accomplishments, but then you will get some posters who base it on skill level and head to head ability between fighters of different weight classes...that's when you get the big and heated arguments!