This is just like you Ramonza - coming into to discussions of modern fighters and bringing the past into everything. Bert Sugar wannabe. issed:::
I would find it less offensive if you could be so kind as to compare my alleged shoe-horning to Max Kellerman ::
I'm amazed you don't have Ward as top 5 Hut, who you seem to be exceptionally high on. It's good you don't though, because he's not in the same league as Donaire or even Martinez. But Hut, Pirog? Really Pirog? Top 5 P4P? Really? Really? Why? 1) Pacquiao (Come on Jake, even based purely on ability, Donaire hasn't proven to be as good or better than Pacquiao. I think Nonito himself would acknowledge this). 2) Donaire (No question he is number 2. Destroying supposedly evenly matched foes, making them look outclasses and brutally KOing them). 3) Martinez (Again, pretty clear number 3 for me. Skilled, athletic, solid fighter, with 2 very nice recent wins). 4) Bradley (Solid but unspectular as I keep saying. But REALLY solid. Looked sloppier than usual against Devon, but still got the job done pretty easily. Has the intagible winning qualities, mentally tough and determined.) 5) Marquez (Obviously old, past his best, and past his weight class, but his sheer skill and craft enable him to be a dominant champion against younger, bigger guys). Vitali and Wlad simply don't count, sorry. Both skilled and dominant, but how effective would they be if they were the same size as their opponents? We simply don't know. My guess is not as effective, so they're not really good P4P candidates.
You judge guys relative to their division, surely. Above 200lb, everyone is a 'heavyweight', doesn't matter if they're 201 or 450.
I dunno if you're trying to fuck with my head, but please try and make sense if you're gonna rely to my posts it's late here. I didn't say best heavyweights I said best fighters in the sport, then gave a list of 5 fighters from all different weights.
I'm wondering if TLC literally doesn't understand the concept of a P4P list. Best = P4P really. If you're the best fighter in the sport, it just means you're the best of any weight class, ie the best P4P, and judged on ability rather than accomplishments. BTW Hut you didn't justify your rather insane pick of Pirog.
TLC don't be a fucking idiot. Nobody is going to think best in the sport means best heavyweight, otherwise you'd simply state best in the HW division. Best in the sport means best out of any weightclass in terms of their respective weightclass.
I dont need to justify it, that was meant to be the point in this thread, to allow scope for unorthodox choices rather than everyone just giving the same old predictable answer. Eyes and opinions. He looks top drawer to me.
Something like that is just silly though. He's beaten Daniel Jacobs. Even if it is ability rather than accomplishments, you need to be more proven than that. The guy looks like a good, solid, aggressive boxer puncher, but one of the 5 best fighters in ther world, really? Incidentally, isn't Jim Watt a total fucktard? Hard to imagine he was actually a pro boxer. Against Jacobs - "There's nothing subtle or clever about Pirog's approach". This is said simultaneously to Pirog using excellent footwork to stay in Jacob's face, feinting, dodging 90% of Jacob's punches with nice head movement, and landing some nice counters of his own ::
I detest Jim Watt with a throbbing passion. As for the thread I thought a little silliness might be diverting.
I have no problem with being high on Pirog. Daniel Jacobs is not a bad fighter and Pirog put a clinic on him prior to flattening him. That was clearly no fluke performance.