...(A level, B level, etc)...is that boxer always going to be considered for example a B level boxer? I think that it is a very lazy way of labeling a boxer IMO. In another thread, this seems to be the opinion of certain posters though. If a 'C level' boxer loses to another boxer, or is competitive with a boxer who is not considered on their own level, then their opinion is forged...they can never put in the standard of performance that merits a 'B' or 'A' level rating. IMO, these types of opinions are lazy (like I said) and narrow-minded. Some examples to back up your input would be appreciated. I hope I've made the point I was trying to make clear, it's late and I am tired. :dead Good to hear some feedback when I get up tomorrow. :good
Ruining threads by posting gifs is my job, and don't forget it motherfunker... This content is protected
Yeah it also completely takes styles out of the equation which is stupid when it comes to comparing resumes. For example Floyd beating Jmm in a 8-4UD would be not as impressive as Pac beating JMM in 8-4 UD because stylistic it is a very bad fight for pac, however JMM is an A level fighter so the victory's are the same etc BTW them 8-4 scores were completely hypothetical ( do not argue with them please) edit: or one 'A' level fighter could find it harder against one 'B' level fighter because of styles , E.G your guy sucks he only won a UD my guy KO'ed him in 6. Which may be a BS comparison BC of styles.
I agree with you. It is a pretty lazy way to look at things, although I do think it applies to some boxers. Take Collazo. Always the contender, one of the top names of his division but he never manages to get that title, whether by hook or crook. I'd consider him to be a C-level fighter. He never got that strap to make him a B-level boxer, or that great win to drag him up to elite standards or A-level as one may term it. Vargas on the other hand. After the Wright, Quartey, Marquez and Campas fights. Guaranteed A Level fighter, yet after the Trinidad and de la Hoya fights one would say, well he was a B-fighter, thats why he was never able to pull out wins there. Could say the same about his fights with Shane. Come to the Mayorga fight, the guy must have been languishing as a D-level fighter. A gatekeeper. I think that sort of shows just what a lazy system it kind of is. Collazo, the C level fighter, could very well have got win on many scorecards to make him a B level fighter. While Vargas was a brilliant fighter, who was by all means an A fighter, but couldn't hack it with the A-levels. I think the best way to look at it is too be completely analytical and try not to quantify what you find into sort blank tiers like that. I think there are more efficient ways, whether its more in-depth tiers or lists. Of course one must accept the objectivity of those lists. I'll raise another point. Martinez and Marquez should by all means be the A-level fighters of now. Duran was the A-level fighter of his day. Compare those two to Duran and the gulf in class or distance on most ATG lists would be massive.
Great post, Lancs. Can't say I disagree with anything. :good And like Hook! mentioned, styles do need to be taken in to consideration, as do many other factors. :thumbsup (I think I've heard what I needed to hear, resume with the funny gifs...that is unless anyone feels like adding their own input. They are more than welcome, and I will read :deal).
No worries man. Like with any system of ranking or whatever, you're going to see problems. And on that note... This content is protected GIFSoup