Canelo compared to other greats at age 26!

Probably not.

On what ,though? I don't really get what you're asking.
I've been complaining about Bob's bait and switch tactics for Pac since the third Bradley fight so I know what you mean. Loma's still coming up though he's not at the end of his career like Pac. I think the Garcia fight gets made because it's a money fight and the winner will be a PFP frontrunner.
 
Canelo best win was an old Cotto. Lara and Trout were wins by a thin margin and neither should be thought as elite.
wait, you don't think lara is elite? damn.

i don't understand how winning a close fight doesn't count as a win either.
 
wait, you don't think lara is elite? damn.

i don't understand how winning a close fight doesn't count as a win either.
In my definition of Elite there is not Many "elite fighters" out there. Lomo, Bud, Canelo, GGG, Ward, Kovalev, Roman and a few more I consider current Elite -- Trout and Lara are very good fighters.

And I never said the wins shouldn't count just they were controversial.
 
In my definition of Elite there is not Many "elite fighters" out there. Lomo, Bud, Canelo, GGG, Ward, Kovalev, Roman and a few more I consider current Elite -- Trout and Lara are very good fighters.

And I never said the wins shouldn't count just they were controversial.
What criteria do you use to classify a fighter elite
 
What criteria do you use to classify a fighter elite

All of the fighters that he listed are Top 10 P4P level fighters. I'm assuming that's his definition of "elite". Well, per division if you're in the Top 5 then you're also considered an "elite" fighter there, especially the Top 3. He's going by consensus Top 10 P4P players it seems.
 
Last edited:
People tend to confuse age with experience. You cant compare a 25 year old MuayThai fighter in Thailand who started fighting professionally at 10 and has had over 100 fights to another 25 year old MuayThai fighter from the US who started pro at 18 and has had 35 fights. Its very different. That's why I got annoyed when people were saying Canelo was too green when he fought Floyd. Canelo has been fighting pro since he was 15 and by the time he fought Floyd he had 43 fights no matter if he was 22 or 32 when the fight happened.

Age effects the body but so does the amount of time you've been training/fighting and how much damage the body has taken. The younger the fighter starts the younger that fighter tends to decline with age (depending on their style of fighting). Whilst Canelo may seem impressive at 26 its more comparable to a 30+ year old prime American boxer who turned pro in his early 20's. IMO Canelo is currently in his prime and although he may become smarter as the years pass I think he's reached his physical peak. But then again most fighters (all fighters) at that level these days have the help of PED's etc but thats another story :)
 
wait, you don't think lara is elite? damn.

i don't understand how winning a close fight doesn't count as a win either.

To be fair Lara arguably beat him ..... Lara is a superb fighter but elites? Ehhh I'm not sure elite is well elite
 
To be fair Lara arguably beat him ..... Lara is a superb fighter but elites? Ehhh I'm not sure elite is well elite
Lara didn't "arguably" beat him. He lost.
 
Sure sure the judges said so .... It was no PAC Bradley but yea
Pac lost to Bradley too.

You can't decide that the Patriots didn't really win the superbowl. If every fighter were disqualified from being great because some fans didn't agree with a decision, then you'd be disqualifying a lot of guys we call great.
 
To be fair Lara arguably beat him ..... Lara is a superb fighter but elites? Ehhh I'm not sure elite is well elite
yeah, he arguably beat him, in a very close fight. except he didn't, and that's really not a compelling argument to make against someone.

if lara was some bum, i'd understand the criticism. but i honestly believe he's a brilliant fighter who could beat anyone at 155 or 160. so how his fight is used to discredit canelo blows my mind... he's supposed to be everything that canelo can't handle, yet alvarez managed to beat him. it wasn't easy, but he did come out on top.
 
yeah, he arguably beat him, in a very close fight. except he didn't, and that's really not a compelling argument to make against someone.

if lara was some bum, i'd understand the criticism. but i honestly believe he's a brilliant fighter who could beat anyone at 155 or 160. so how his fight is used to discredit canelo blows my mind... he's supposed to be everything that canelo can't handle, yet alvarez managed to beat him. it wasn't easy, but he did come out on top.

Eh we are talking p4p here the top of the top....im not discrediting him at all I'm not saying lara is some bum either(see my above post) ay ay people don't read sometimes........ I'm not saying the win is discounted (his records shows a win) but when you win a decision that could have have gone against you... it shouldn't be a major argument for you being p4p. Just my humble opinion. Don't you agree that the way you perform in a win is argumentative towards rank in p4p?
 
Pac lost to Bradley too.

You can't decide that the Patriots didn't really win the superbowl. If every fighter were disqualified from being great because some fans didn't agree with a decision, then you'd be disqualifying a lot of guys we call great.

yea their records clearly show that....but that FIGHT was in particular a straight up robbery, it wasn't even close... and I think 99% percent of boxing world would agree. I never said that disqualifies from being great ,we are arguing number 1 P4P, and the way you perform in a win is definitely argumentative towards that.

p.s Again I repeat myself, I never said Lara is some bum, hes a great fighter that can cause (evidently has) a lot of fighters problems, Also football and clear cut number sports are not boxing when you can argue a round back and forth.. just saying.....
 
Last edited:
I apologize guys I mixed up the discussion with another response .... long day
 
I was a big supporter of Lara leading up to that Canelo fight, but giving Lara any more than a Draw would have been the robbery.

Arguably this, arguably that... he only arguably won 6 rounds at best, and spent the fight looking like he didnt want to fight.

Glad Canelo got the W
 
Eh we are talking p4p here the top of the top....im not discrediting him at all I'm not saying lara is some bum either(see my above post) ay ay people don't read sometimes........ I'm not saying the win is discounted (his records shows a win) but when you win a decision that could have have gone against you... it shouldn't be a major argument for you being p4p. Just my humble opinion. Don't you agree that the way you perform in a win is argumentative towards rank in p4p?
i read your post fine, i never said you think lara is a bum. i said i don't understand the criticism, because lara isn't a bum: everyone knows how slick he is, yet he's being used when criticizing canelo. come on mate, maybe you should read more closely yourself.

anyway, when you go "well... lara did almost beat him, and he's not elite", you are discrediting him. not in the sense that you're saying he sucks, obviously, but you are arguing against him. and i don't mind your opinion at all, really. in fact, i don't think canelo is a p4p great at all, i'm just baffled by the reasons some people list when having the same opinion. and i agree that how you win is important, i'm just saying the way he won against lara wasn't that bad. lara will make anyone look like shit, beating him in any way is impressive as fuck.
 
i read your post fine, i never said you think lara is a bum. i said i don't understand the criticism, because lara isn't a bum: everyone knows how slick he is, yet he's being used when criticizing canelo. come on mate, maybe you should read more closely yourself.

anyway, when you go "well... lara did almost beat him, and he's not elite", you are discrediting him. not in the sense that you're saying he sucks, obviously, but you are arguing against him. and i don't mind your opinion at all, really. in fact, i don't think canelo is a p4p great at all, i'm just baffled by the reasons some people list when having the same opinion. and i agree that how you win is important, i'm just saying the way he won against lara wasn't that bad. lara will make anyone look like shit, beating him in any way is impressive as fuck.

No i understand what you're saying , I apologized I mixed up the discussions( combination of a long day and using my cell) . My problem though is when you win a fight that many people thought you actually lost ( i have to rewatch it to get a better sense). I don't have a problem when a fighter wins a close decision. And yes Lara causes a lot of issues for a lot of fighters.
 
Back
Top