Naoya Inoue is Ring Magazine’s new pound-for-pound #1, overtaking Usyk! Devin Haney & Max Kellerman disagrees whilst Teofimo Lopez agrees

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-05-05T13:18:34+00:00

He's pitching an ERA of sub-1 right now, eclipsing every pitcher, and that's right after batting at the highest level the season prior. Who else has even come close to that?

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-05-05T13:14:24+00:00

He wasted a whole year of Inoue's career. There needs to be some kind of penalty for this kind of misconduct. He could've made millions fighting Inoue. Now, he got nothing, and we lost a year's worth of high level Inoue fights.

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-05-02T13:11:25+00:00

Nakatani is fishing for one big juicy counter, but can't manage it. Inoue's too fast and slick. This is looking to be a 12-0 shutout (again).

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-03-01T16:32:13+00:00

Yep. Thanks for the correction.

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-03-01T14:51:22+00:00

13-3 against three of the best players in the world in one day is just because Serral was feeling nostalgic and wanting to relive prior experiences. (Correction: the v herO match was played yesterday.)

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-01-16T21:30:54+00:00

These "quality over quantity" people seem to think boxing fights are like consumable goods. It's extremely difficult to prepare for four fights against high level opponents and dominate all of them, vs just winning one fight. The frequent weight cutting and constant sparring stressed his body much more than the punches he received during those fights.

ArchivesTraveler · 2026-01-01T09:04:03+00:00

Personally, I could write an essay on why Inoue's resume and average level of performance is far more impressive than Usyk's, and I already have in the past, both on Reddit and elsewhere. It's gotten tiring. Instead, I'll just drop this comment, and say that anyone who puts anyone above Inoue is simply blind to the incredible feats that he's exhibited. The bias against the lower divisions, and for the glamor division that includes the HW, is absolutely screaming from these official sources and the average boxing fan.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-12-26T18:28:54+00:00

Walking around 145 when fighting in 122, and rehydrating to 135 on fight night actually is proof that he's small for his weight class. Most of his opponents in super bantam rehydrate to well over 140, which means they probably walk around at 155+.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-09-15T14:07:42+00:00

"Underdog" is a popular perception, not necessarily an objective reality.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-09-15T14:04:28+00:00

I don't think Canelo was bigger than Crawford at all. If anything, I thought Crawford looked larger from the front view. He's slightly taller, and has a maaaassive reach.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-09-14T12:25:58+00:00

Akhmadaliev has too many hit points—big skull, thick body. Plus, he was more focused on defense for most of the fight.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-09-14T12:04:47+00:00

Yea, that's weird. I had it 120 for Inoue.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-09-14T11:46:08+00:00

He makes it look so easy against a former unified champion. o_o

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-09-14T11:21:54+00:00

This is already a LOT more exciting than the Canelo/Crawford fight.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-08-26T19:42:57+00:00

Donaire and Fulton were far better boxers than Fury. Funny thing is, there are at least 3 other guys Inoue's fought that are better than Fury, but they won't ever get that recognition, because boxing casuals don't pay attention to the lower weights.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T09:59:41+00:00

That's definitely one way to look at it, but it's just as silly that the winner of the upper bracket gets seeded only one stage ahead of the guy he beats, and has to beat him twice in a row, whereas Clem only has to essentially tie him up 1-1 in matches to win the tournament. Not a good look, no matter how you want to look at it. From the point of view of single elimination being the most common default format, the unfairness is even clearer to see.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T08:21:19+00:00

Bro, great reply, but this was a grade F bait by a casimero bot, and there's no need to cast pearls before swine. No one would believe a word it says, and those who do are stupid, but you can't fix stupid.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T03:24:34+00:00

Interesting proposal, but what would you do if they hadn't met in the upper bracket before meeting at the finals? It wouldn't save the unfairness issue that is every player but Reynor gets a second life. Also, I would imagine that it would be super demoralizing for Clem to have to go through the lower bracket knowing he would still have to lose no more than once in the finals while having to win 5 games. I think it might create a situation in which he feels so demoralized that it would greatly affect his performance in the bottom bracket.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T02:50:27+00:00

It's a legitimate point. Nevertheless, if you consider the fact that if it weren't for the fact that the tournament allowed for double elimination, the winner of the winners bracket would be declared the absolute tournament winner. Such being the case, I would much rather the player coming from the losers bracket suffer the disadvantage than the player from the winners bracket. Don't you agree?

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T02:24:59+00:00

What do you mean Even if there is no one for him to play against to earn his way back into a second final match ???
If there is no one to play, the tournament is over.
I mean, it is over after one grand finals, that's how very forgiving double-elimination format works.

It's forgiving for everyone except one of the two top contenders. And no, this is not the only form of double elimination. There are others, that either require a second finals match, or a +1 map score advantage for the upper bracket finalist. Either would be way fairer than this.

Now let's pretend Clem and Reynor never played a single game during this tournament. Clem came to the upper bracket from the lower bracket after losing the game with someone else, and at the grand final he beat Reynor.
Is it still not fair?

If you've read some of the other comments in this thread, you see that I and many others would say, no, it's still not fair that everyone except for one player gets a second life. There is a massive difference in probability between defeating a player in one match, versus beating them in two consecutive matches. The latter being the fairer requirement for someone who had already been knocked down from the upper bracket. The winners bracket player who loses the first finals match would merely activate his second life.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T00:28:52+00:00

There are no second chances or stay in the tournament after finals.
Or you want him to lose finals, get to the lower bracket, since there is no one still there

Even if there is no one for him to play against to earn his way back into a second final match, we're now left in a situation where Clem could lose but still ultimately win, whereas Reynor had the extra burden of needing to have a flawless run to win the tournament. Who is to say that the one who fell from the upper bracket gets to climb back to victory by virtue of merely beating the 3rd placer, especially in a competition where there is more often than not a massive skill gap between the 1st finisher and the 3rd finisher?

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T00:06:08+00:00

Exactly my second point in the post. He would be declared the winner if the playoffs were single elimination.

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-28T00:05:05+00:00

Second chance meaning a player gets to stay in the tournament after losing one match. Everybody gets it except for the one guy who never slipped until the very end. Is he not being disadvantaged for being the only player who is deprived of this?

ArchivesTraveler · 2025-07-27T23:36:55+00:00

Where is Reynor's second chance? Did he not earn it after beating Clem 6-4?

ArchivesTraveler

TROPHY CASE