JP Fight # Comparison
#11
(09-19-2015, 04:13 PM)diehard Wrote: Well, I agree with you that rankings should be based on merit and not potential.  If that's the case, ignore my comments about AJ, Parker (who's #15 I think) and Ruiz.  How about this.  No one should be ranked in the fight news top 16, or any alphabet in the top 15, until you beat at least one person on that list.  Same with top 10.  Same with top 5.  As in, to be in the top 5, you have to beat someone in the top 5.

I think you'll agree with me about Povetkin.  He only lost to Klit, who octopussed him, and has beaten some top 5 guys.  I rate right behind Klit, and above Wilder.  Cunningham?  Too many losses, and he looked bad against Fury.

I definitely agree with you on Povetkin. Like I said originally he should be no lower than #2.


Cunningham has only 3 losses since moving to heavy. And only the Fury lose was convincing. In saying that he was doing well until Fury's greater size and all the leaning on him started taking over. He outweighed Cunningham by over 40 pounds. The other 2 to Adamek and Glazkov were controversial.
Reply
#12
Controversial for Cunningham, but still losses. Can't say he lost due to size in the heavys. There is no weight limit. Cunningham and Tarver are solid cruisers, not heavys.

Previously, I based my rankings on who I thought the best heavys were. But I agree, merit should be more important. If that were the case, there would be better match-ups as the only way to get your ranking is to beat someone who's ranked. So in that case, Parker and AJ would have had to fight someone in the top 10 to get their ranking. But hey, this is boxing, so it's not supposed to be fair!
Reply
#13
(09-19-2015, 05:05 PM)diehard Wrote: Controversial for Cunningham, but still losses.  Can't say he lost due to size in the heavys.  There is no weight limit.  Cunningham and Tarver are solid cruisers, not heavys.

Previously, I based my rankings on who I thought the best heavys were.  But I agree, merit should be more important.  If that were the case, there would be better match-ups as the only way to get your ranking is to beat someone who's ranked.  So in that case, Parker and AJ would have had to fight someone in the top 10 to get their ranking.  But hey, this is boxing, so it's not supposed to be fair!

Why would you say Cunnigham lost to Fury? Fury isn't the better fighter. Cunningham has much better technique. Isn't that why they say a good big man always beats a good small man?

Official loses yes but I believe what I see with my own eyes. Cunningham gets credit from me for fighting those ranked guys and arguably winning. Just because a fighter loses on the cards does not always mean he actually lost the fight.
Reply
#14
But Cunningham didn't lose on the cards against Fury, he got knocked out. Bizarre post.
Reply
#15
Yep, KO'd in the 7th. I saw that fight. Fury was down in the 2nd, I believe, but smacked Cunningham around from pillar to post in the 7th. Cunningham WAS too small against the bigger man, which is why he needed to stay at cruiser. But man, he's got some good abs.
http://boxrec.com/boxer/36642
Reply
#16
(09-19-2015, 05:42 PM)craigyid14 Wrote: But Cunningham didn't lose on the cards against Fury, he got knocked out. Bizarre post.

Referring to the Adamek and Glazkov fights, hence the controversial loses. Bizarre reply.
Reply
#17
(09-19-2015, 05:54 PM)diehard Wrote: Yep, KO'd in the 7th.  I saw that fight.  Fury was down in the 2nd, I believe, but smacked Cunningham around from pillar to post in the 7th.  Cunningham WAS too small against the bigger man, which is why he needed to stay at cruiser.  But man, he's got some good abs.  
http://boxrec.com/boxer/36642

Heavyweight is where the money is.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)