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

[El Gitano]

Michael Rosenthal was fired by The Ring two years ago.

[Curtis Harper]

The most important factor in considering who is the best fighter is their resume. Everything else comes secondary. So looking at Canelo's resume is hard to argue that he is not the best active fighter today (although I consider him in top 3). Despite their strong athletic abilities, punching power, footwork, etc. Spence, Crawford, and others cannot be considered the best because they have weak resumes. Estrada, Loma, and Alvarez have the best resumes in boxing thus they are the best active fighters alive today.

To the letter

[Curtis Harper]

He's excellent but.....That but kinda takes away the excellent part

You're a very nice guy but
You're a good neighbor but
You're trust worthy friend and I'd lend you my car but

If you think about it, the but truly does cancel out the complement

[HarvardBlue]

I'm not really a fan of Canelo. I certainly don't think he's the best active fighter. However, a boxing writer writing that he's NOT the best, then going on to name others that are better than him seem kinda suspect. It's seem like there's an agenda here.

I still agree to a certain extent but don't trust the messenger.

[Goodtry]

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..

guillermo rigondeaux

[stealthradon]

Fielding was a tall 168 lber and Alvarez chopped him down, Chavez was huge vs Alvarez and Canelo didn't sit down once in between rounds, I can still see Liam Smith wilting in pain from the body shots that broke him down, I went "damn" when Amir Khan was knocked the eff out, same with James Kirkland, I remember Alfredo Angulo fight needing to be stopped, Austin Trout did the Bambi dance vs Alvarez, I remember Canelo taking it easy vs Gomez, then exploded forcing the stoppage, I still remember how Baldomir fell............. are those opponents at the same level of the guys the article mentions as the best opponents Loma and Crawford have faced?

Maybe Loma and Crawford have looked spectacular because they haven't faced anyone at the level of a GGG, Jacobs, Lara....?????

No, those names are much much worse.
Amir Khan was literally 3 or 4 weight classes below Canelo.
Liam Smith is a nobody.
James Kirkland was inactive for 18 months, before having been blown out by a tiny Japanese man.
Chavez was drained.
Angulo was old and shot.
Austin Trout was never good.
Gomez was at best a B- fighter.
Baldomir was literally more than 40 years.

[Goodtry]

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..

2nd pro fight is title fight for Loma. Risk? Of cause not. 3rd fight with record 1-1-0 to fight Gary Russell jr with possibility to go 1-2-0. 1st fight at 135 with #1 in the division (Mikey fought at 140 at the time) in Linares.
Root for your fighter but stop these nonsense things.

[aboutfkntime]

The bold....isn't it easy to flex when you have part timers for opponents ?

yep, that is why many questioned Golovkin's place on the P4P list

and, he was ranked too highly..... which is why he dropped a few places after fights with Jacobs/Canelo..... so, resume is relevant..... just not as relevant as style/skills/form, which is what got him there in the first place

Golovkin has only ever been ranked P4P because of style/skills/form

the thing is..... P4P is not definitive, nor is it supposed to be

resume adds a proven factor to the equation..... but plenty of supposed P4P fighters lost to non-P4P fighters..... and plenty of fighters hit that list, lost..... and were gone

P4P is over-rated

also, because style/skills/form are more relevant than resume..... as proven by the fact that Pacquiao has the best resume but is not ranked, and Golovkin has a poor resume but is ranked..... evaluating P4P requires knowledge and understanding.....

knowledgeable insiders are correct about Lomachenko and Crawford

I picked Loma to be P4P #1 well over two years ago, either just before or after the Walters fight, around that time

[Shadoww702]

Loma has a LOSS against an actual CAB DRIVER!!! And Khan Kr. lasted wayyy to long!!

Crawford good soo far but his competition isn't even HALF as good as Canelo's.


Dumb article full of FEELINGS and wishes.

[aboutfkntime]

Originally Posted by jdp28tx
The most important factor in considering who is the best fighter is their resume.

To the letter

nope, I completely disagree

that, is current ATG..... which is actually an oxy-moron

FACT: Pacquiao has the best active resume in boxing
FACT: Golovkin has a poor resume

meaning.....

FACT: resume doesn't mean shlt..... and does not win you fights

you are only as good as your last fight in boxing

allowing for style/skills/form.....

erosion of skills, and loss of form..... is why Pac is not currently P4P

and resume, is not why Golovkin is currently ranked P4P..... style, skills, and form..... are

style/skills/form..... with consideration given to resume

resume adds that " proven " factor..... but a " proven "factor, is just a factor..... it will NOT win you a fight..... who cares what you did yesterday..... style / skills / form, will win you a fight

plenty of P4P fighters lost to guys who were not ranked P4P