Comments Thread For: Canelo Alvarez is an Excellent Fighter... But Not The Best

[aboutfkntime]

Man stop it , the useless #1 P4P ranking is just a way for media / fans to have something to bullish.it about

Especially if there’s no clear cutn#1 like a Mayweather / Ward most of its just a way for some to d.ick ride fighters they like

In a Perfect World a Fighters CV should be what matters the most followed by I guess the eye test while getting their resume and maybe followed by accomplishments and Maybe marketability

But no surprise you use this thread as a reason to write sh.it against your sworn enemy Gennady and use it as a reason to justify your hate for the man.

Resume should be looked at and the most important part and yeah PAC has the deepest of any current fighter but when your 40 plus what you did and who you fought 10-15 years ago doesn’t mean much or hold weight when talking about who’s the best fighter today in 2019. Like Mayweather just fought and dummied some Japanese Child in a exhibition why not throw him in the mix.

If considering resume is a a main factor, Surely you’d have to also factor in fighters that got straight avoided for years by the top guys around their weight.

Should Rigo not have been included in the discussion because of the limited amount of pro fights he had , with only 1 notable W , Everyone knows he was avoided for years maybe with some of those other fighter during that span even having them compile deeper resumes then Rigo , but should they be rated higher P4P during that time Fuc .k No
There’s no way with a straight face and not looking like a clown and say put LSC / Frampton above Rigo even though at a point their resumes overall had sh.it all Over Rigos . Being avoided matters having World Champs and their teams showing no interest fighting matters

Not saying Golovkin was ever #1 because he never was he could never be put ahead of Ward. But having every MW of his era that had any clout swerve him for years like he had a bad case of the unknown Monkey Aids and was contagious to even be in the same room or mention should be factored in. Yes I know you’ll present your make believe list of fighters that Gennady avoided like the Latin Snake like Gennady wouldn’t have jumped at the opportunity to beat the brakes off him But the truth is all the MWs Of Gennadys era ( fighters roughly his same age ) who had some clout whether from a strap or a decent fan base. ( Sturm , Quillen, Lee , Chavez Jr , Barker , Martinez ,Abraham, Pavlik, Sylvester , Mundine, Taylor ) it’s not a fluke that these guys team not a single one of them would give Gennady a fight in and around his prime even after he had something that might be attractive to them ( WBA Junior Title ) Their teams never wanted to put their guys in with Gennady , Not becaus ehe was high risk low reward but probably because all of those teams feared the Monkey AIDS or watched Borat too many times and thought Gennady wanted to throw a j.ew down a well . I’m sure the high possibility of having their prized fighters getting b.itch slapped by a nobody had nothing to with it, I’m sure it was the Monkey AIDS

He only got the opportunity to fight even the fringe best at the division when he was 30+ and had HBOs backing. But the way he smacked around the fringe guys ( Geale , Macklin , Stevens ) probably didn’t do him any favours in getting fights with Martinez , Quillen, Chavez , Lee , Canelo ( at the time ).




He got to fight the best in the division when he was at a age that’s considered geriatric in boxing and all the best are prime and considered to be among the next era of fighters

And you and I know if the sport cared about integrity instead of $ , He’d still be undefeated.. Had his era fighters teams shook to even fight and if the sport wasn’t a dumpster fire Circus he’d undefeated against the 2 best MW fighters from the next Era.

Not bad for a damn near 40 year old fraud who shouldn’t be considered among the top 100 active fighters according to you.

R_Walken..... give yourself an uppercut

I am saying that Golovkin should be ranked P4P..... based on style skills form..... the "resume" guys cannot justify him being ranked, and do not know what the fcuk to do with Pacquiao

read this entire thread again bro, starting from page 1 lol

you can pick up on the hate thing..... despite probably not being able to answer my questions about Golovkin..... on another thread

[aboutfkntime]

Much better? Name the fighters he fought in their prime, and then destroyed?

he did not destroy Jacobs you muppet

he destroyed flat-footed made-to-order opponents who would be "available".....

and he did that because..... they are the opponents he selected

why is it that almost all of the guy Golovkin ducked are mover/spoilers or master-boxers?

[Joshyohno]

Rosenthal is a bum.

Wtf is this Rosenthal bum even talking about? Pfp? I think he forgot to mention the fact that Canelo has gone up a few weight classes since becoming a champion. He's now facing naturally larger men. Larger skilled fighters with excellent resumes of their own. Crawford and Lomachenko are highly skilled fighters but have yet to even sniff the level of competition that Canelo has faced in all the different weight classes he's fought in. Canelo has stayed active and has not ducked or shied away from fighting anybody! He may not dominate the way Loma or Bud do but he is fighting larger stronger fighters. You can't compare what he does to what they do because 135lb and 145lb fighters are not as powerful as the 165lb guys. It's a different game with those big hitters. Rosenthal is comparing point guards to power forwards. Yes they're playing the same sport but we all know it's a different skill set. So pump your brakes ROSY! PFP is subjective and you need to have some knowledge of the sport to even comment and you obviously don't so gtfoh

[aboutfkntime]

Wtf is this Rosenthal bum even talking about? Pfp? I think he forgot to mention the fact that Canelo has gone up a few weight classes since becoming a champion. He's now facing naturally larger men. Larger skilled fighters with excellent resumes of their own. Crawford and Lomachenko are highly skilled fighters but have yet to even sniff the level of competition that Canelo has faced in all the different weight classes he's fought in. Canelo has stayed active and has not ducked or shied away from fighting anybody! He may not dominate the way Loma or Bud do but he is fighting larger stronger fighters. You can't compare what he does to what they do because 135lb and 145lb fighters are not as powerful as the 165lb guys. It's a different game with those big hitters. Rosenthal is comparing point guards to power forwards. Yes they're playing the same sport but we all know it's a different skill set. So pump your brakes ROSY! PFP is subjective and you need to have some knowledge of the sport to even comment and you obviously don't so gtfoh

you made that account over a year ago.... then waited, to say that?



Rosenthal is likely correct if the criteria is style/skills/form..... but truth be known, there is probably very little in the top 3 of Crawford, Lomachenko, and Canelo..... with Canelo having by far the best credentials

Rosenthal is probably correct..... judging by ceteris paribus..... IF all things were equal, and those guys were all naturally the same size..... Crawford and Lomachenko would give him fits..... they would be extremely difficult fights for Canelo, more difficult than his tests so far

[WOKnWOH]

Has crawford or Loma faced anyone close to beign on the top ten pound for pound list and the answer is no crawford wont fight spence and Loma wont fight Mikey.. thats the difference Canelo fought pound for pound guy GGG twice he takes the risk that these guys dont want to or theyre promoter doesent let them and that should count for something at least un my opinion..

I can see where your logic is taking you with this statement and I would agree with you if indeed it were the case, but it's been pretty well reported that Crawford is not the one blocking the fight against Spence. And Loma isnt the one avoiding Garcia. Garcia was the one who decided to forgoe Lomachenko to pursue a fight with Spence because he felt it was more beneficial for his career and legacy. You are correct that neither has fought a top 10 P4P list fighter(Linares had made honorable mention 11-15 before) but they have fought any top 10 contenders in their divisions willing to accept. Just so happens to be that the 2 fighters you mention are exactly those missing scalps, which again has never been reported they were being ducked in any way.
And with GGG, I'm compelled to say consideration needs to be taken to the fact that Alvarez vacated the title a number of years ago to avoid having to fight GGG at the time.
When they did make the fight, not only did GGG recieve a draw in a fight which should have been a victory(IMO, no educated(in boxing) honest boxing fan can claim Alvarez legitimately did enough to earn a draw let alone a 118-110 score), he did so at the age of 35yrs old generally considered the "declining stages for many fighters" compared to Alvarez prime age of 27yrs. In the 2nd fight the results were in favor of Alvarez but highly debatable and GGG was another year older.

And one last asterisk I believe shouldnt be overlooked. I could be mistaken, but to my knowledge there has never been a Professional Boxer in recent history who was afforded to remain on a pound for pound list when they subsequently had been suspended for testing positive for PEDs. Just my "two cents"

[CauliflowerEars]

“Canelo has his hand raised more often than not” I stopped reading after that the writer has an agenda. You use a comment like that with a fighter like Amir Khan or Lamont Peterson, no disrespect to them but a fighter with a few losses on their records

Just read this article for the first time today. I kid you not, when I read that "more often than not" qualifier, I started to think, "Wth is up with this guy ?" "What would posess him to describe a record containing 55 fights, with a SINGLE loss on it, to one of the best ever... as, more often than not" ?
As you said, that's reserved for people or teams that actually lose a fair amount of the time, yet are still batting over .500. In fact, 51% IS "More often than not". Anything over .500 is "more often than not".

Scenario : A marriage counsellor is discussing problems with a couple after 10 years of marriage. "Mr. Jenkins, how often do you tell your wife she looks pretty ?", asks the counsellor. "Um. Uh. More often than not", answers the husband, sheepishly. "Well, how often do you put the toilet seat back down after urinating ?", he asks. "More often than not", says the husband, with more conviction this time. By the end of the meeting, after more of the same answers, it was determined that if the couple was to have ANY chance of working out their marriage, they needed to do A LOT better than, "More often than NOT".

.
Moral : More often than not, "More often than Not" is NOT enough.

In other words, you generally don't use that phrase when things are going extremely well, and Canelo's record most certainly qualifies as... "extremely well". Either that writer needs a better understanding of American idiom usage, or he's undercover manifesting some negativity regarding the subject matter.

Anyhow, he maybe makes a couple valid points in the article IMO, but I agree with you. That phrase immediately gave me pause to question his motivation and agenda.

[CauliflowerEars]

Good opinion piece but you mistake your opinions for facts.
Example: "Alvarez has beaten better opposition", or "Loma has looked better". These are opinions, they might be true, but there's no way to prove it. It's not like saying Alvarez has 52 wins, which can be verified by checking a few sources.
P4P is always opinion and you can argue facts but you can't argue opinions.

You are totally spot on buddy, in your premise, but your assumption I'm fairly certain is mistaken.

This man mistook no OPINION for FACT. He openly acknowledged that the whole topic is quite "delicate", and that his personal formula is based on nothing but his humble OPINION. He acknowledges that though his formula may contain some fact, it still consists of opinion, and should be accepted as such.
You are contending that even resumes cannot be factually ranked against one another, thereby concluding that facts should essentially not even be mentioned in the argument.
And btw, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on that, nor do I have any "dogs in this fight" that I wish to see exalted over another. I'm just suggesting there is some redundancy here.

Now I know within his breakdown he further explains that accomplishments and resumes are factual, while the Eye-Test remains subjective. When he says, "Canelo has beaten better opposition", he's just saying the records of the fighters are what they are, and the records of Canelo's opponents are "better" than the others. He's just trying to tie that statement back into the "2 Factual, 1 Subjective" premise. Would you have preferred if he said, "Canelo's resume is better than Bud's and Loma's ? Or "Canelo's (52-1-2) is better than Bud's (35-0) and Loma's (13-1) ? Cuz that's just a matter of semantics.

And listen I know anyone can pick apart records too and argue resume (or comparing resumes) is not necessarily factual either, but it's really being redundant isn't it ? Everybody's contention is that "Eye-Test" is supposed to be the naughty taboo culprit here, right ? "Resume" is supposed to be the great "equalizer", but now even THAT can be argued not to be factual, right ? When people argue resumes or opponents, are they supposed to go down the entire list of the opponents' records and compare one by one ? "52 wins" may be a verifiable fact, but what that "52 wins" means is apparently still VERY subjective.

Either way, I feel like you're misinterpreting the poster's intentions regarding FACT verses OPINION, and his use of it. On multiple occasions he completely agrees with your assertion that, "P4P is always opinion and you can argue facts but you can't argue opinions". "Delicate", "Subjective", "Entitled to", "My 2 Cents" -- All key words suggesting "OPINION" and "controversial". When something is "delicate", it's easily broken, ruined, or damaged, so he understand the overall speculative nature of the topic.

Going down the rabbit hole of "comparing resumes is also opinion" or arguing "whose opponents were better" (the same thing), just brings us back to square one, and is redundant, isn't it ?
I mean that's basically saying there aren't really any facts at all, and resumes, records, and titles should all be pre-examined too. And actually there may be some truth to that. Point is, you can poke holes or question anything, if you want to. It's much easier to say as the OP did, this is just opinion and creating these kinds of lists are obviously very delicate. There's just no argument there.

Peace.