Reevaluation 1: Eder Jofre

Many losses

harada was a fat undisclipined ******* and lost a couple he arguably shouldn't have in his prime, but id say most good posters here take that into account when rating him.

 

I have him in my top 25 purely for being the greatest bantamweight in history. That alone is enough of a legacy to surpass many boxers in history. H2h he has a great skillset and lost two close fights which I haven't personally watched so can't really comment on.

 

What could Eder have done to prove his greatness if what he did wasn´t enough for you ? Create an ATG fighter to fight against him ?
Or a win against prime Harada ( In my opinion, he was in his prime) being past prime and with weight problems ??

just asking buddy.....

 

No no,i'm not excusing any losses outright.I try not to deal in asbolutes like that.

anyway, it's always easy to call any attempt to break down or look into a loss an excuse when it's a fighter you don't like.

As for longevity it is one thing to consider, but only one.

Jofre incidentally fares remarkably well there.

 

Resume is not the only consideration that goes towards your all time standing.

The other big components of it are dominance, longevity and character - all of which, Jofre scores through the roof on.

And just on his resume, it's pretty underrated imo. Give it the modern equivalent where there's 12 belts between bantam and featherweight (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO bantamweight, super bantamweight and featherweight) and he beats a **** load of world champs - that is if he doesn't just hold all the belts in the first place, which I'm sure he'd set about doing.

Anyway, just as an aside, I'd like to say that Jose Medel's wins resume shits on just about any fighter fighting today :good

 

It's not that I haven't found the losses, it's just that I haven't sat down and watched them.

I'm more into heavyweights but I measure my greatness rankings on an equal combo of resume, legacy and h2h. Like wilde, jofre has a legacy that puts him in an elite group of 8. H2h he was good enough against his opposition to prove himself the greatest ever in his division. At this point the resume is not hugely important imo considering the achievements and dominance in the ring.

 

I think he needed a win over Harada for top pound for pound honours. A great fighter nonetheless. He took on anybody the division could offer at the time.

Arguably he was a bit unlucky too to not have been able to fight the previous champions who all seemed to retire rather young. Jose Becerra retired at 24 as the champion after losing a non-title bout, Raul Macias too was finished as a top fighter at 24, Alphonse Halimi & Mario D'Agata faded away from the title picture. It's not really that important that he didn't face these guys as the future generation that Jofre faced proved out to be better for the most part, despite not holding any titles.

 

:shock::think

 

He did beat a lot of name opponents that were past their best like Saldivar, Stevens, Elias, Crawford, Gomez etc. but how many fights is our reigning p4p king taking of late with guys in their prime? Those wins aren't all worthless.

I have to in order to convince someone like you. If all the guys that Jofre beat had titles, you wouldn't have been starting this thread and claiming his resume is subpar.

Ahuh, a journeyman that beat Harada, McGowan, Elias, Marques, Seki, Yaoita, Esparza, Hawkins, Pimentel, Corona and drew with Chucho Castillo and lost a MD to Rose. Is that a joke (with a capital J) ?

 

P4P CRITERIA

[FONT=&quot]RESUME (50 POINTS) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The focus is on the quality of fighters beaten, but:
- The size of the opponent and difficulty of the task is relevant to the quality of the opponent (e.g. John Ruiz is a better win for Roy Jones than Juan Manuel Marquez is for Floyd Mayweather, even though Juan Manuel Marquez is a better fighter than John Ruiz).
- Beating someone at their peak/in their prime counts for more than beating someone past their peak/prime, so it's not just the 'name' that is relevant to the quality of the fighter but the stage they were at in their careers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- Beating a fighter in a title fight should count for more than beating a fighter in a non-title fight, assuming that the fighter was at their best for the title fight and the fight was over a championship length, which tests a fighter’s limits to a greater extent than a fight scheduled for less rounds (e.g. a win in a 15 round fight is worth more than a win in a 6 round fight, all other things being equal).
- The quantity of fighters beaten counts a little too, so beating a quality opponent more than once is a plus.
- Close losses contribute to assessing the quality of one's resume.
- Not close but nevertheless honourable losses count somewhat too.

DOMINANCE (40 POINTS)
Indicators of dominance include:
- Consistently winning (early losses or past prime losses don't get penalised that much).
- The manner of victory (ko's, shut outs and near shutouts etc. are all indicative of dominance).
- Cleaning out divisions.
- Conquering in multiple weight divisions.

LONGEVITY (10 POINTS)
A fighter scores well for longevity if:
- They are around at a high level for a long duration of time.
- They have a lot of fights at a high level.
- Ideally a fighter should have a combination of both of the above to score extremely well for longevity.

CHARACTER (10 POINTS)
One gets points for character if they do things like:
- Take risks (e.g. fight everyone in and around their weight division and not duck opponents, offer rematches, go out on their shields in an effort to win fights rather than hold on just to survive etc)
- Overcome adversity.
- Bear up well to adversity even if they don't win (and this is shown by the ability to take an ass whipping when it's your way coming, so durability counts here).[/FONT]