The New Pound-for-Pound Rankings: A Comparison of Three Polls

POUND-FOR-POUND TOP 10 — In the last few days, three tribunals – The Ring, ESPN, and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board – issued a new set of ratings. The consensus #1 pound-for-pound fighter heading into last weekend – Roman “Chocolatito” Gonzalez – dropped to #3, #4, and #5, depending upon the source.

Here are the three Top 10 lists, current as of March 23:

THE RING

  1. Andre Ward
  2. Kovalev
  3. GGG
  4. Chocolatito
  5. Crawford
  6. Lomachenko
  7. Rigondeaux
  8. Canelo
  9. Yamanaka
  10. Inoue

ESPN

  1. GGG
  2. Andre Ward
  3. Lomachenko
  4. Kovalev
  5. Chocolatito
  6. Crawford
  7. Canelo
  8. Pacquiao
  9. Keith Thurman
  10. Rigondeaux

TBRB

  1. Andre Ward
  2. Kovalev
  3. Chocolatito
  4. Pacquiao
  5. Crawford
  6. GGG
  7. Lomachenko
  8. Inoue
  9. Leo Santa Cruz
  10. Yamanaka

The new consensus #1 is Andre Ward (pictured) who finished first in two of the polls and second in the other. Gennady “GGG” Golovkin topped the ESPN poll, notwithstanding the fact that panelist Teddy Atlas left him off altogether.

This wasn’t the first time that Atlas omitted GGG from his top 10. In an article first published on ESPN on Feb. 2, Atlas explained his reasoning: “I believe, relatively speaking, Golovkin is as physically strong and tough as anyone…But I also believe there are others with better technique. I also believe he may be slipping. I understand he might have been sick when he looked very ordinary at times against Kell Brook. But sick or not, his technical flaws were evident. Also, his level of competition has been questionable or at least very advantageous for him.”

Dan Rafael, the face of ESPN boxing, was the only ESPN panelist who kept Roman Gonzalez in the top spot. Rafael scored the fight between Gonzalez and Srisaket Sor Rungvisai 117-109 in favor of the Nicaraguan.

Check out more boxing news on video at The Boxing Channel.

COMMENTS

-dino da vinci :

POUND-FOR-POUND TOP 10 -- In the last few days, three tribunals ? The Ring, ESPN, and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board ? issued a new set of ratings. The consensus #1 pound-for-pound fighter heading into last weekend ? Roman ?Chocolatito? Gonzalez ? dropped to #3, #4, and #5, depending upon the source. Here are the three Top 10 lists, current as of March 23: THE RING 1. Andre Ward 2. Kovalev 3. GGG 4. Chocolatito 5. Crawford 6. Lomachenko 7. Rigondeaux 8. Canelo 9. Yamanaka 10. Inoue ESPN 1. GGG 2. Andre Ward 3. Lomachenko 4. Kovalev 5. Chocolatito 6. Crawford 7. Canelo 8. Pacquiao 9. Keith Thurman 10. Rigondeaux TBRB 1. Andre Ward 2. Kovalev 3. Chocolatito 4. Pacquiao 5. Crawford 6. GGG 7. Lomachenko 8. Inoue 9. Leo Santa Cruz 10. Yamanaka The new consensus #1 is Andre Ward (pictured) who finished first in two of the polls and second in the other. Gennady ?GGG? Golovkin topped the ESPN poll, notwithstanding the fact that panelist Teddy Atlas left him off altogether. This wasn?t the first time that Atlas omitted GGG from his top 10. In an article first published on ESPN on Feb. 2, Atlas explained his reasoning: ?I believe, relatively speaking, Golovkin is as physically strong and tough as anyone...But I also believe there are others with better technique. I also believe he may be slipping. I understand he might have been sick when he looked very ordinary at times against Kell Brook. But sick or not, his technical flaws were evident. Also, his level of competition has been questionable or at least very advantageous for him.? Dan Rafael, the face of ESPN boxing, was the only ESPN panelist who kept Roman Gonzalez in the top spot. Rafael scored the fight between Gonzalez and Srisaket Sor Rungvisai 117-109 in favor of the Nicaraguan. Check out more boxing news on video at [url=http://theboxingchannel.tv]The Boxing Channel.
Dan Rafael is as good as it gets when it comes to scoring a fight. None better. With that ability in tow, I'd lean in his direction first for any mythical P-4-P Rankings.


-stormcentre :

Dan Rafael is as good as it gets when it comes to scoring a fight. None better. With that ability in tow, I'd lean in his direction first for any mythical P-4-P Rankings.
It's a brave man that hails Dan Rafael's ability to call a fight in terms of; "there being "none better"". Still, each to his own. Personally, I think Jim Watt (Scottish commentator), Roy Jones, and Paulie Malignaggi, crap all over Rafael for commentary. Manny Steward was pretty good too. Nothing personal against Dan; he is good at some things. Appreciate you're not necessarily talking about the writing some of his articles (although they sometimes entail fight score breakdowns) either; but some of Dan's articles are a bit eyebrow raising and/or rich. Still, there are plenty worse than Dan out there. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Dan Rafael is as good as it gets when it comes to scoring a fight. None better. With that ability in tow, I'd lean in his direction first for any mythical P-4-P Rankings.
It's a brave man that hails Dan Rafael's ability to call a fight in terms of; "there being "none better"". Still, each to his own. Personally, I think Jim Watt (Scottish commentator), Roy Jones, and Paulie Malignaggi, crap all over Rafael for commentary and scoring fights as they unfold. Manny Steward was pretty good too. Nothing personal against Dan; he is good at some things. Appreciate you're not necessarily talking about the writing some of his articles (although they sometimes entail fight score breakdowns) either; but some of Dan's articles are a bit eyebrow raising and/or rich. Still, there are plenty worse than Dan out there. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Dan Rafael is as good as it gets when it comes to scoring a fight. None better. With that ability in tow, I'd lean in his direction first for any mythical P-4-P Rankings.
It's a brave man that hails Dan Rafael's ability to call a fight in terms of; "there being "none better"". Still, each to his own. Personally, I think Jim Watt (Scottish commentator), Roy Jones, and Paulie Malignaggi, crap all over Rafael for commentary and scoring fights as they unfold. Manny Steward was pretty good too. Nothing personal against Dan; he is good at some things. Appreciate you're not necessarily talking about the writing some of his articles (although they sometimes entail fight score breakdowns) either; but some of Dan's articles are a bit eyebrow raising and/or rich. Still, there are plenty worse than Dan out there. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-KO Digest :

I'm no Dan Rafael, But I'll throw my hat into the ring: KO Digest P4P Ratings Top 10 Pound For Pound 1. Vasyl Lomachenko 2. Andre Ward 3. Sergey Kovalev 4. Canelo Alvarez 5. Gennady Golovkin 6. Terence Crawford 7. Manny Pacquiao 8. Roman Gonzalez 9. Guillermo Rigondeaux 10. Keith Thurman (As of 3/24/2017)


-KO Digest :

I'm no Dan Rafael, But I'll throw my hat into the ring: KO Digest P4P Ratings Top 10 Pound For Pound 1. Vasyl Lomachenko 2. Andre Ward 3. Sergey Kovalev 4. Canelo Alvarez 5. Gennady Golovkin 6. Terence Crawford 7. Manny Pacquiao 8. Roman Gonzalez 9. Guillermo Rigondeaux 10. Keith Thurman (As of 3/24/2017)


-dino da vinci :

Storm, my above comment was simply talking about scoring a bout, which, as more and more time passes, becomes evident most people are completely clueless about.


-stormcentre :

Storm, my above comment was simply talking about scoring a bout, which, as more and more time passes, becomes evident most people are completely clueless about.
Yes..... so was mine (about scoring a bout). I agree many are clueless about it. Cheers, Storm. :) :)


-dino da vinci :

As good a list as any. But of course I'd question the placement of Gonzalez. Kid had never lost, moves up in weight to take on greater challenges and from a percentage of body weight, makes it real impressive. Remember, these men are exceptionally light. I have greater respect for a guy who'll say "just because you happened to get the scoring very wrong doesn't mean I have to make the same mistake with taking that same information and using it going forward". If Saint Peter makes this the entrance question to get into heaven: Who did the Big Guy have in that "controversial" bout with Gonzalez, state R"C"G with great conviction, and walk on forward to check out your new living space. They love confidence up there... when you're right, of course.


-KO Digest :

Roman got the ever loving tar pounded out of him. I thought the decision was fine, a very close brawl. And there was a clean knockdown.


-stormcentre :

Gonzalez is probably ahead of most people's number 1 or 2. But Pac has probably been the best P4P fighter that is still active today; albeit in a less dominating guise than he used to be. If P4P is all about the best guy - no matter what weight - then nobody currently fighting has proven their worth in more weight divisions than Pac. Cheers, Storm. :) :) :)


-KO Digest :

The real question is: Who's #1? I don't think it can be Ward, yet. Not until he conclusively beats Kovalev. Looking at Loma fight, I see skills far beyond the norm.


-Kid Blast :

Storm, my above comment was simply talking about scoring a bout, which, as more and more time passes, becomes evident most people are completely clueless about.
Steve Farhood does a very fine job of scoring. Teddy Atlas is horrible though he does use even rounds. In fact He is like a stock that you might short. Whatever he says, go the opposite way.


-ArneK. :

That being said, KB, Teddy Atlas, who had it 97-93, had a far better score than any of the three judges in last night's Quigley-Tapia fight. I'm flabbergasted that one of the judges gave Quigley every round. In my eyes, Tapia clearly won two rounds and I gave him the edge in two others. And I loved the fact that Atlas didn't mince words after the scores were read, saying that maybe the judges should go and take a few punches so they will be more respectable of the sport. Alas, Teddy talked too much during the course of the bout. His incessant chatter was off-putting.


-dino da vinci :

Steve Farhood does a very fine job of scoring. Teddy Atlas is horrible though he does use even rounds. In fact He is like a stock that you might short. Whatever he says, go the opposite way.
I used to tell people, Rafael, Farhood, and Steve Kim. I've disagreed with the last two in spots over the last several years.


-dino da vinci :

Roman got the ever loving tar pounded out of him. I thought the decision was fine, a very close brawl. And there was a clean knockdown.
Don't agree. Certainly not the fight I watched.


-amayseng :

Roman may have gotten hit and beat up a bit but he clearly won more rounds. After 4 flush bone jarring head butts u could see he lost snap on his punches and his legs were heavy. Btw forst round knockdown was due to a head butt after that body shot which put him down. Roman got robbed, so he should not be dropped lower from the rankings. Also how in the world does ward gwt ranked above Kovalev when Kovalev CLEARLY best him? I dont go by 3 fake corrupted pos judges. Roman Kovalev Ggg None should go amy lower in my opinion. Lomachenko is very well the most talented and is right up there. Needs a couple elite wins to get there.


-stormcentre :

Sometimes it comes down to philosophy. Is the best P4P fighter the guy that;


A) Based on current form - would (if he were somehow miraculously inflated/deflated to fit all/any different weight divisions) beat anyone.
B) Based on any form (in his most recently active tenure; provides for active fighters that have previously retired) he can reasonably be said to achieve - would (if he were somehow miraculously inflated/deflated to fit all/any different weight divisions) beat anyone.
C) Has already shown - in past or current form - that he can win championships in the most weight divisions, therefore seemingly substantiating the closest approximation to a fighter that (if he were somehow miraculously inflated/deflated to fit all/any different weight divisions) - would beat anyone.

If "
A", then Gonzales, Ward, Triple, and possibly Loma.

You can break this interpretation of the imaginary P4P list down further into whether the metrics of wins and skills are weighted the same or differently. Often people confuse the 2 when they discuss P4P prospects. Triple fights and achieves KO victories more often (but against lesser opposition) than Ward. However, Triple's skills - based on recent events - may not allow him to venture into the heavier weights quite as well as Ward, and the imaginary P4P list places perhaps the greatest emphasis/weight on skills/ability that are transferable up/down weight divisions; hence point "C" and Pac.

If "
B", then probably Rigondeaux.

As, this interpretation of the imaginary P4P list places heavy weight on skills/ability and acknowledges that there may be reasons that are not entirely in the fighter's control as to why he hasn't yet dominated the competition as his potential suggests and some think, he could.

If "
C", then Pacquaio.

As, this interpretation of the imaginary P4P list places weight in the area that probably has the greatest emphasis/weight that the imaginary P4P list can have and has; on skills/ability that have already been
proven to be successfully transferable up/down weight divisions.

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

"...and possibly Loma." He can pivot and whirl and immediately come back with flurries in one fell motion. Like a figure skater with gloves on. He uses his stamina as a strategic weapon. Mixes in his power when least expected (PORR Martinez).. Can jab, punch, counter punch, can do all the important different levels of defense (especially great foot movement) and ducking. Beat Suriya Tatakhun (63-3) with one hand for most of the fight after flooring the guy. Made Walters quit. Champion after 3 fights and schooled a very good Gary Russell. Won lost record of opponents so far is 247-23-9 and 12 of those losses belonged to Salido. Lomachenko finished his amateur career with an impressive career record of 396 wins and only one loss, to Albert Selimov, which was avenged twice I have seen great moves by guys like Pep, Ali, Duran, and others, but I have never seen someone that could use everything in the tool box. It's a first for me, though Monzon came close and so did SRR.


-oubobcat :

That being said, KB, Teddy Atlas, who had it 97-93, had a far better score than any of the three judges in last night's Quigley-Tapia fight. I'm flabbergasted that one of the judges gave Quigley every round. In my eyes, Tapia clearly won two rounds and I gave him the edge in two others. And I loved the fact that Atlas didn't mince words after the scores were read, saying that maybe the judges should go and take a few punches so they will be more respectable of the sport. Alas, Teddy talked too much during the course of the bout. His incessant chatter was off-putting.
This is where I am strongly for a grading system for the judges. There is no way that Tapia could not have won a single round. The judge that had that card, though for the correct fighter, would receive a poor grade and have to work their way back up. A grading system would force judges to be held much more accountable then they are at this time. Unfortunately, over time that card will be forgotten and that judge probably receives no repercussions. For the record, I scored the bout 97-93.


-oubobcat :

My pound for pound list is as follows: 1. Golovkin 2. Lomachenko 3. Gonzalez 4. Crawford 5. Kovalev 6. Ward 7. Pacquiao 8. Santa Cruz 9. Thurman 10. Rigo A few notes...I did think Gonzalez won last week and should have clearly gotten that decision. I also have been inching Gonzalez down my p4p rankings of late on the basis of his performances. Going back to the Arroyo fight, they have been solid but not as thoroughly dominant as I had once seen. It is not the questionable loss alone in this last fight but the body of work over the last 3 that has me putting Gonzalez down a little. Still though a terrific fighter and still fighting at a very high level. I thought Kovalev beat Ward. Ward's body of work since the Super 6 is frankly weak. I mean just look at some of the names (Smith, Brand) and he didn't look all that great or impressive in those showcases/sparring sessions. Still a top level guy obviously but he lost to Kovalev too in my eyes and does not warrant higher than 6.


-Kid Blast :

My pound for pound list is as follows: 1. Golovkin 2. Lomachenko 3. Gonzalez 4. Crawford 5. Kovalev 6. Ward 7. Pacquiao 8. Santa Cruz 9. Thurman 10. Rigo A few notes...I did think Gonzalez won last week and should have clearly gotten that decision. I also have been inching Gonzalez down my p4p rankings of late on the basis of his performances. Going back to the Arroyo fight, they have been solid but not as thoroughly dominant as I had once seen. It is not the questionable loss alone in this last fight but the body of work over the last 3 that has me putting Gonzalez down a little. Still though a terrific fighter and still fighting at a very high level. I thought Kovalev beat Ward. Ward's body of work since the Super 6 is frankly weak. I mean just look at some of the names (Smith, Brand) and he didn't look all that great or impressive in those showcases/sparring sessions. Still a top level guy obviously but he lost to Kovalev too in my eyes and does not warrant higher than 6.
That's a very good list. Better than the three in the post. I'd maybe replace Rigo with Linares now, but that's a big maybe.


-SuperLight :

Kid Blast;110685]"...and possibly Loma." He can pivot and whirl and immediately come back with flurries in one fell motion. Like a figure skater with gloves on. He uses his stamina as a strategic weapon. Mixes in his power when least expected (PORR Martinez).. Can jab, punch, counter punch, can do all the important different levels of defense (especially great foot movement) and ducking. Beat Suriya Tatakhun (63-3) with one hand for most of the fight after flooring the guy. Made Walters quit. Champion after 3 fights and schooled a very good Gary Russell. Won lost record of opponents so far is 247-23-9 and 12 of those losses belonged to Salido. Lomachenko finished his amateur career with an impressive career record of 396 wins and only one loss, to Albert Selimov, which was avenged twice I have seen great moves by guys like Pep, Ali, Duran, and others, but I have never seen someone that could use everything in the tool box. It's a first for me, though Monzon came clo
I've been thinking of (C) lately, and want to start a new thread to address it. It's not the definition of a pound for pound great, as I see it. Rather, that's more like A) for active fighters or B) in retrospect. [QUOTE=Kid Blast;110685]"...and possibly Loma." He can pivot and whirl and immediately come back with flurries in one fell motion. Like a figure skater with gloves on. He uses his stamina as a strategic weapon. Mixes in his power when least expected (PORR Martinez).. Can jab, punch, counter punch, can do all the important different levels of defense (especially great foot movement) and ducking. Beat Suriya Tatakhun (63-3) with one hand for most of the fight after flooring the guy. Made Walters quit. Champion after 3 fights and schooled a very good Gary Russell. Won lost record of opponents so far is 247-23-9 and 12 of those losses belonged to Salido. Lomachenko finished his amateur career with an impressive career record of 396 wins and only one loss, to Albert Selimov, which was avenged twice I have seen great moves by guys like Pep, Ali, Duran, and others, but I have never seen someone that could use everything in the tool box. It's a first for me, though Monzon came close and so did SRR.[/QUOTE] With you on your assessment of Lomachenko. He said himself he's not proven as top pound-for-pound fighter. So in Storm's (A) criteria he has the skills side but not yet all the pro wins to cement his place.


-Kid Blast :

Point taken


-stormcentre :

I've been thinking of (C) lately, and want to start a new thread to address it.
*It's not the definition of a pound for pound great, as I see it. Rather, that's more like A) for active fighters or B) in retrospect. With you on your assessment of Lomachenko. He said himself he's not proven as top pound-for-pound fighter. So in Storm's (A) criteria he has the skills side but not yet all the pro wins to cement his place.
*You're probably right, but it fits the definition that (whether they know it or not) underpins some people's discussions/opinions of what P4P is. Loma is not completely proven enough yet. (Like how Gamboa was a technical wizard but had serious defensive lapses); Loma also exhibits obvious defensive lapses that a fast fighter could capitalize on. Loma has great potential, but in the professional ranks (regardless of whether he can pivot or not) and as you (and also, he himself) says; he's not really proven. The above point "
B" of my earlier post exists for boxers like him and also those that sing his praises without necessarily understanding boxing and being able to contain the excitement they may feel (when a fighter performs well) long enough to apply meaningful scrutiny. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

'The above point "B" of my earlier post exists for boxers like him and also those that sing his praises without necessarily understanding boxing and being able to contain the excitement they may feel (when a fighter performs well) long enough to apply meaningful scrutiny.' I'm beginning to think you don't know all that much about boxing yourself. I am in the RING 4 Boxing Hall of Fame because of my knowledge of the sport and my amateur background.(See Box-rec). What have you done that makes you an "expert?' You seem to love Rigo, but he and Loma both hit the pro game running because of their incredible amateur backgrounds. You seem to be somewhat selective in your praise. Loma can pivot and whirl and immediately come back with flurries in one fell motion. Like a figure skater with gloves on. He uses his stamina as a strategic weapon. Mixes in his power when least expected (PORR Martinez).. Can jab, punch, counter punch, can do all the important different levels of defense (especially great foot movement) and ducking. Beat Suriya Tatakhun (63-3) with one hand for most of the fight after flooring the guy. Made Walters quit. Champion after 3 fights and schooled a very good Gary Russell. Won lost record of opponents so far is 247-23-9 and 12 of those losses belonged to Salido. Lomachenko finished his amateur career with an impressive career record of 396 wins and only one loss, to Albert Selimov, which was avenged twice. Where is this wrong? I do understand the need for more pro bouts to cement his place, but that overlooks his incredible amateur pedigree that, in my view, offsets his realtivley few number of pro fights. Also, his securing of a world championship early on is another offset.


-Domenic :

My pound for pound list is as follows: 1. Golovkin 2. Lomachenko 3. Gonzalez 4. Crawford 5. Kovalev 6. Ward 7. Pacquiao 8. Santa Cruz 9. Thurman 10. Rigo A few notes...I did think Gonzalez won last week and should have clearly gotten that decision. I also have been inching Gonzalez down my p4p rankings of late on the basis of his performances. Going back to the Arroyo fight, they have been solid but not as thoroughly dominant as I had once seen. It is not the questionable loss alone in this last fight but the body of work over the last 3 that has me putting Gonzalez down a little. Still though a terrific fighter and still fighting at a very high level. I thought Kovalev beat Ward. Ward's body of work since the Super 6 is frankly weak. I mean just look at some of the names (Smith, Brand) and he didn't look all that great or impressive in those showcases/sparring sessions. Still a top level guy obviously but he lost to Kovalev too in my eyes and does not warrant higher than 6.
Agreed 100%. Especially so on the Andre Ward analysis. He was also absent/inactive for an eternity. To me, he pays the piper for that. Then you add the Kovalev gift, and he's appropriately in the 6 range. Great list. What is so impressive about Lomachenko to me is he goes the anti-soft-touch route. He's challenged the highest level from day one. Probably doesn't bode for a 50 win career, but so what. Refreshing change.


-stormcentre :

'The above point "B" of my earlier post exists for boxers like him and also those that sing his praises without necessarily understanding boxing and being able to contain the excitement they may feel (when a fighter performs well) long enough to apply meaningful scrutiny.'
1 = I'm beginning to think you don't know all that much about boxing yourself. 2 = I am in the RING 4 Boxing Hall of Fame because of my knowledge of the sport and my amateur background.(See Box-rec). What have you done that makes you an "expert?'
3 =
You seem to love Rigo, but he and Loma both hit the pro game running because of their incredible amateur backgrounds. You seem to be somewhat selective in your praise. Loma can pivot and whirl and immediately come back with flurries in one fell motion. Like a figure skater with gloves on. He uses his stamina as a strategic weapon. Mixes in his power when least expected (PORR Martinez).. Can jab, punch, counter punch, can do all the important different levels of defense (especially great foot movement) and ducking. Beat Suriya Tatakhun (63-3) with one hand for most of the fight after flooring the guy. Made Walters quit. Champion after 3 fights and schooled a very good Gary Russell. Won lost record of opponents so far is 247-23-9 and 12 of those losses belonged to Salido. Lomachenko finished his amateur career with an impressive career record of 396 wins and only one loss, to Albert Selimov, which was avenged twice. Where is this wrong? I do understand the need for more pro bouts to cement his place, but that overlooks his incredible amateur pedigree that, in my view, offsets his realtivley few number of pro fights. Also, his securing of a world championship early on is another offset.
Whooo Hoooo . . . . and he's off the leash. Woof !!! Ha ha ha . . . Having a little cry are we? Harden up princess. I couldn't care less about your "Mr. Ring BHOF" title. It's clear to me you have very little;


A) Experience fighting as a boxer.
B) Knowledge about some of the things you vehemently talk and beat your chest about.
C) Ability to back up what you say.
D) Follow through on all your claims that assert (soon) you will back up what you say.
E) Knowledge about your own limitations.

So many questions from you "Mr. Ring BHOF". If only you meaningfully answered questions and also reliably explained yourself, half as well as you ask the questions. Anyway, here are my responses to your latest emotional outbursts . .


2)


a) Let's look at your "Ring BHOF" claim to fame.

For a guy that's in the Ring BHOF, you sure run from explaining yourself (in the other below pasted posts) a lot and show nowhere near (not even 1/10th) the same interest in providing clear/concise and referenced answers - as you do in constantly failing to back up and/or follow through on your own claims.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110754&viewfull=1#post110754

80 posts in this thread, and to date (aside from numerous complaints about the posts that expose and track him and all his changing claims) all Dr. Consistency has delivered (to support calling me out and his own hopeless debate/stance) is an IBF rule quoted from a pretend IBF website that he himself claims was sourced from a genuine IBF website.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110734&viewfull=1#post110734

For a guy that's in the Ring BHOF it sure seems strange that your only attempt to explain yourself in the above posts comes down to a quote of the IBF rules that you falsely claimed you lifted from the IBF website; only to then (once that ruse was exposed) stink the joint out as you ran from explaining anything about it. Including how it underpins the silly little arguments you get yourself into and can't substantiate and/or explain. No-one forced you to (ignore all the warning signs, and blunder ahead and) pretend that the IBF rules you pasted were directly from the IBF website KB - when in fact they weren't and had you really known what you were talking about you would not have even resorted to such an immature response to the arguments you needlessly started. If course we won't go into all your little victory dances that were based on the above blunder. :) You did all those successive and huge blunders all by yourself, and as you swept aside all my friendly warnings to slow down. So, a good question for you, "Mr. Ring BHOF", might be . . . Does the RING BHOF know that you operate like this? Where such a glaring and monstrous disparity between how you release claims and substantiate them, exists? Another good question for you, "Mr. Ring BHOF", might also be; if you really can properly explain yourself then just do it here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110734&viewfull=1#post110734




b) What have I done you may ask?

Well, just for starters, (and this is only outside the ring and without directly quoting what organisations and qualifications I have) I have accomplished the following list;


A) Cleaned up bigger and better writer's scalps than yours, right here in this forum.

As detailed within this brief history lesson (that you will soon become a part of) for you . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110730&viewfull=1#post110730




B) Proven that I am someone that you will constantly email and request to post in your articles/threads; so that I will condone, visit, and pump up the read numbers on your thread/posts right here in this forum.
C) (Unlike you) I always back up what I say.
D) (Unlike you) I always follow through on claims that assert I will back up what I say.
E) I have real runs on the board here in this forum; and have created threads and posted on many unique and insightful subjects.
E) I can and have provided many accurate boxing write ups that are easily the equivalent of any paid writer, that also (if I choose so, can simultaneously do any/all the following) deeply/broadly cover legal, strategical (boxer and fight-game wise), strategical (legal/business wise) and most general business areas of the sport.
F) Have been offered to join almost every kind of boxing writers association and club out there; but have not accepted.
G) First in the world to (back up what I say and stand up and be counted, by) lay(ing) out a prediction about the PBC/Haymon V Arum writ; whilst also taking on some Puppies that claimed my predictions would be wrong. The the PBC/Haymon V Arum writ was by no means the only legal/boxing matter that I have successfully analysed.
H) Currently have a good track record predicting fights, and one that is better than yours here on this site.
H) Currently have proven several boxing/odds analysts here and at other sites wrong.
I) Currently running a team of several technology experts (each whom would run rings around you and your "Mr. Ring BHOF title" but would see the exercise of proving it as being too easy and childish to even get off their chairs for) that deliver on an investment that will mark out new territory for odds in motorcycle racing; itself a development levered off of something similar I have designed for gaming and boxing.
J) Longstanding connections with the Australian and some other institutes of sport in both a sporting/boxing and research context.
K) Longstanding, deep, and trusted connections with many Eastern Bloc, Australian, and UK (amateur/professional) gyms and professional fighters of note.

In most scenarios I can usually pick up the phone and get strategical and other information almost anytime because I am (not simply a writer looking for a story, but) an ex-boxer whom is respected and trusted, and I have (the real) runs (that count) on the board.


L) And, last but not least "Mr. Ring BHOF", I am the one that is kicking your azz at will - that you are currently running from here . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110733&viewfull=1#post110733

Due to the glaring fact that you are (still and once again) yet to meaningfully, non-ambiguously, and with references, substantiate/elaborate on your views with respect to how the IBF rules supposedly work within the context of your posts (#62, #68, & #74) that are pasted here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110754&viewfull=1#post110754








1) Given how easily I am running rings around you without even trying; I am sure you are publicly (pretending) to think this. After all, if you don't do something like that, your only other option is to explain yourself in a form that can be referenced and easily understood.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110733&viewfull=1#post110733

Just like anyone with a PhD would do.
3) As I have stated either in previous posts within this thread or others; anyone (this includes you, "Mr. Ring BHOF"), feel free to show me a video of someone (and explain how they are) more complete and talented than the best performance(s) from Rigondeaux. Please accept my apologies in advance "Mr. Ring BHOF" for expecting you to deliver an explanation and proof to support both, your claims and debunk of mine; as I know you only like to ask the questions and run.

Look . . . . I told you your azz would be sore if you went down the path of pretending/lying. I told you to consider your reputation. But, you alone ignored all the warnings and you alone got yourself into this mess "Mr. Ring BHOF". And, it's only round 2 and you're already having a little cry about it all. Doesn't look good for "Mr. Ring BHOF" (and our resident IBF rules expert) does it? Anyway, this is not the thread to flog you into submission in. Please go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110734&viewfull=1#post110734

And explain yourself. As it is there that I will eat you alive, kick your azz, and laugh as I do it; "Mr. Ring BHOF". Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Way too personal there buddy. You want to go down that road, that's your decision. I won't. Like I said, I'm done. This is about another subject--the Top Ten. I'll stay with that subject.


-dollar bond :

I agree with Bobcat. Nice list.


-stormcentre :

Way too personal there buddy. You want to go down that road, that's your decision. I won't. Like I said, I'm done. This is about another subject--the Top Ten. I'll stay with that subject.
I appreciate that it is probably a concept that is most likely foreign to you. But my last post that actually responded to both yours that preceded it and its enclosed requests; did so point for point, and also in detail. May I suggest that, if you can't learn from it and/or follow the example set, and instead you find it unpleasant; then don't ask questions about experience from those whom possess it more than you. Hey, look here . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782

Someone's latest evasive/incomplete claims and azz is getting exposed/kicked. Love it !!!!! Kind regards,
Storm. :) :)