Andre Ward is the P4P #2

Doesn't look like I was either. Whew.

 

calzaghe top two ? sheesh musta been lean times

 

Fuck that jazzercising wop. Calzaghe's style :-

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xrRRIDUfOp0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

 

During the period Floyd "retired" after the Hatton fight, Calzaghe was #2 IMO behind Pacquiao

 

Just for what it is worth, I feel that Froch was definitely in the fight over the last 4 rounds as Ward tired badly.

 

Congratulations...:dunno:

Quite what this has to do with his ranking immediately after he beat Kessler, which was clearly the point I was making, I don't know.

What I DO know, though, is that you must have spent precious time and effort searching through about four year's worth of threads in an attempt to make an asinine point. Your insipid slide into idiotic pedantry continues apace I see.

MTF :clapagain:

 

Yeah, Calzaghe's rating would have bumped up quite a bit after the Hopkins fight, who I imagine was rated in the top 3-5 at the time.

 

Well, I just wasted precious minutes of my life reading that thread, and almost all the talk was of Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Who, of course, Ward has not fought at all.

That was an epic fail on Mike's part. Epic.

MTF

 

You have it wrong mate. Ward won all the rounds he wanted to win. That late round rally, which Froch almost always makes, was just Ward having a bit of a rest. P4P no.2

MTF :Thumbs:

 

:: No matter the reason, Froch didn't come close to actually defeating Ward.

 

Never said he did. I simply said that Ward didn't 'absolutely breeze' that fight. He won an 8-4, 7-5 type of fight. Championship fights don't last 8 rounds, they last 12. Ward 'absolutely breezed' a winning PART of the fight. He sure as hell didn't breeze the latter part.

MTF :dunno:

 

7-5 is just silly.

 

Not as silly as 10-2 or 'Ward won all the rounds he chose to win'

MTF

 

Look mofo, it was just the first thing I ran across and you're a fool if you think that Calzaghe suddenly became 'better' in a p4p sense after beating Hopkins.



Here's the delay where everyone goes "mikE's wrong! Of course, Calzaghe's stature improved after beating Hopkins!"




and here's where I show provide another link that shows that Calzaghe was already thought of as better than Hopkins by quite a bit so why should his performance have lifted his stature then?

http://www.bettorsworld.com/hopkins-calzaghe.htm

On Saturday Night, April 19, 2008, Bernard Hopkins (48-4-1, 32 KOs) will step into the ring once again, this time at the ripe old age of 43, to take on Super Middleweight Champion, the undefeated Joe Calzaghe, (44-0, 32 KOs). The Betting Odds currently favor Calzaghe who is a -240 favorite to Hopkins +190 at Sportsbook.com.


That isn't to say that some of these people didn't move him up after Hopkins...heck, most may have. But the point is, Calzaghe's ranking should not have changed based upon his Hopkins performance because his Kessler performance established just how good he was already.

 

Be quiet you fool.

MTF

 

Look, notwithstanding that you took my post completely out of context, here is some things from the thread you posted:

Now you are telling me that the Hopkins fight had no impact on people's lists after their fight? :dunno: Okay, no bother. Don't bother replying- I am going to spend what is left of my evening watching a film with the missus, rather than arguing asinine points with a pedant.

MTF

 

You'll see in my edit that I acknowedged that some may have and probably did move him up in their p4p lists after the Hopkins fight, but the point is, the Hopkins fight didn't make Calzaghe any better and the bettors had already known he was better than Hopkins by a substantial margin after the Kessler fight. So if people did move him up after Hopkins, it was only because they had (probably) incorrectly rated him prior to it.

Should Pacquiao's p4p stature have improved after JMM 3 when he had an off night over a guy he was already better than? No. Neither should Calzaghe's. Yes, there are differences, but the situations are comparable.

In fact, if anyone is being a pedant, it's you. I was just pointing out that Calzaghe's p4p status after Kessler was as high as you said it wasn't, but it was after the Hopkins fight. I didn't try to slip anything past anyone.

 

Right. But I imagine Calzaghe would get a bump p4p after beating Hopkins. If I'm not mistaken Hopkins was rated pretty high at the time. Higher than Kessler if I remember right.

 

What people who make p4p lists also usually don't consider is that when a fighter goes up in weight, he is not necessarily as good anymore and thus should be dropped in p4p rankings. For this reason it is also important for a fighter to PROVE his worth by defeating the best opponents of his own division. If you do not consider this, then you are not talking about best p4p anymore, but rather the most skillful or the most technical

Example A: Shane Mosley. He was ranked top p4p #5 or so as a lightweight, as he dominated that division and scored some impressive victories. Then he defeated Oscar (who at the time was in the top-2) and was thus ranked #1 by many. This would have been correct, had he returned back to lightweight. Then it would have been obvious that he is very much ahead of other fighters of his own size.

However, he became a welterweight. And as a welter, he was NOT as good anymore, his punch did not have the same effect, he had trouble with reach and he lost to the first top contender he faced. So these blind moles making p4p lists without thinking made Forrest in turn p4p. When he lost to Mayorga, they started to realize their mistake, but yet made Mayorga a p4p #4 or so.


Exhibit B Floyd Mayweather. He was p4p #1 without a question when he retired: he was still the size of jr. welter, but was also the best fighter of welterweight. After his return he could not make 140 lbs anymore, so obviously he would now need to prove how good he was at welterweight to be ranked at the top of p4p? No. Incredibly enough, PBF was ranked at #3 at welterweight (mosley being ahead of him), yet he was #2 p4p, with Mosley nowhere near. This despite they were in the same weight class? How on earth can this be?

This is my problem with p4p. If you want to see Euro-nuthuggery or other agenda here, go ahead.

As for Manny: since he can apparently still make 140 lbs and control that class but also tackle guys much bigger than him, I have no problem with him being at the top. If he rises up to 154 for good for example, he would need to prove himself again there.

 

Agreed. You have to judge a guy relative to his division or the whole process is impossible.

 

Nonsense.

Silly way to look at it. P4P is basically saying "how good is he for his size".

Pacquaio is a small guy, a former Flyweight. Now he's outgrown flyweight naturally, but he's not a Welterweight in Frame. he's a lightweight at best. The money and exposure is at Welterweight, though, hence why he's there. By beating able to beat up a guy like Margarito who is naturally a much bigger man...proves that pound for pound/kilo for kilo...he's one of the best in the business.

Wlad is bigger than all of his peers. His size one of teh main contributors to his success. Can you imagine Wlad beating up an equivalent tough guy like Margarito who, comparatively, would be 7"5, 300lbs and fit and aggressive?

 

Nonsense. If you can't fight in the lower division, then you are not that size, simple as that. If Manny can't go under 147 anymore, then we have to measure him at that weight, and if he lacks the power, endurance, reach or whatever at that weight, then he is no more p4p top. His achievement in lower weights do count when we rank his all-time status, but they don't make him better now.

What you are talking about is the most skilled fighter p4p, not the best. You can't give a fighter a pass for lacking power for his own weight

 

You have a clear and logical mind, Ugo. We should fight crime together.:cheer:

 

You don't like the P4P discussion, never have and so you try to fuck up P4P threads at every opportunity to suit your agenda.

Here's the deal:

Floyd can't beat Wlad in a straight up fight because of the size disparity. But when you compare both with their peers, Floyd has proven to be harder to beat than Wlad has. Therefore for his size, or weight class if you prefer, it is clear that Floyd is the better fighter.

Wlad is a very good fighter, I'm on the bandwagon, but Floyd is a better fighter...even Floyd haters would agree with this. Floyd wont beat Wlad in a straight up fight...he's giving away 100lbs...but he is the better fighter for his size.

 

-'size' + 'weight class'.

 

Weight class, size whatever....are you telling me that Floyd isn't the best fighter pound for pound?

 

No I agree with you there - I have him number 1. But I totally agree with Ugos last post.

 

Sure, I fuck up threads by telling my opinion, different from some as it is. Just like you fuck up every thread about Floyd by pushing your agenda, right? I mean, your opinion is different from many others too:notallthere:

 

::

I give up. Believe Wlad is P4P a better fighter than Floyd if that satisfies your euro-sensibilities...

 

I never said he is. All I said is Floyd hasn't proven himself enough lately in his weight class. The Euro-nuthuggery was made up by yourself