Is John Scott the best P4P fighter in the NHL?

[Wheatking]

Wait, so his actual fighting skills mean nothing?

As for legit top 5 guys, who has Rypien beat thats a legit top 5?

Rypien doesn't need to beat the same guys as Scott to be the best P4P fighter in the league. Rypien is 170 pounds. He's barely a lightweight. When he goes out and beats Stortini, Prust and Janssen, it's much more impressive than when Scott does it.

 

[Flapjack*]

You only talk about pound for pound when you want to equate the skill of a smaller player with that of someone in another class of weight/size.

In order to be the better fighter P4P, Scott would have to have exceptional fighting skill that would translate to a frame of any size. Has anyone really seen that from him? I haven't. And why would you? The be a successful fighter he has to capitalize on his obvious strengths (i.e. being a freakin giant).

He hasnt lost a fight yet.

How is that not exceptional? He has beaten people up to the point that he toys with fighters now.

How would this change if he was smaller when nobody knows if he would even be in the NHL as a mid sized goon?

What many of you have to understand is BJS is what he is, and there isnt some magic ray that can shrink him. There isnt a better figter in the NHL atm, hense the P4P title.

 

[Reve4Shab]

Scott has no technique?
He has an iron chin, great balance, and stamina to the point that he stops the fights so he doesnt hurt the person he is fighting. How would that change if he was smaller? Or would any of these things not matter? It makes no sense.


Once Silva retires.

Where did I say he had no technique? what I'm saying is that the main reason he is the best fighter in the NHL is because of his size. Of course he has a good technique but not the best one which is what P4P all about after all. Saying Scott is the best P4P is saying he has the best technique and pure skill fighting abilities. Do you think he'd win a fight against a player who is 7'6" and who weighs 300 pounds? Let me doubt it.

There isnt a better figter in the NHL atm, hense the P4P title.

That's where your logic is flawed, being the best fighter and being the best P4P is 2 totally different thing

 

[Wheatking]

Scott has no technique?
He has an iron chin, great balance, and stamina to the point that he stops the fights so he doesnt hurt the person he is fighting. How would that change if he was smaller? Or would any of these things not matter? It makes no sense.


Once Silva retires.

You're down playing his size just to prove a point. He hasn't fought anyone on his level and that's what it comes down to. Guys like GSP and Silva are considered the best P4P fighters because they've destoyed everyone in their weight class. You could make an argument that Scott hasn't fought anyone in his weight class yet....so how can he be the best?

 

[Flapjack*]

Rypien doesn't need to beat the same guys as Scott to be the best P4P fighter in the league. Rypien is 170 pounds. He's barely a lightweight. When he goes out and beats Stortini, Prust and Janssen, it's much more impressive than when Scott does it.

How so?

A fights a fight.Thats what this core group of players get paid to do, sadly.

Or are there special rules regarding Rypien that float underneath the surface?

 

[Wheatking]

How so?

A fights a fight.Thats what this core group of players get paid to do, sadly.

Or are there special rules regarding Rypien that float underneath the surface?

I don't see how this is even worth arguing. When Rypien goes out and fights Stortini, he's giving up 60 pounds. When Scott fights Stortini he out weighs him by 30 pounds. You don't see how that's not even?

 

[Flapjack*]

Where did I say he had no technique? what I'm saying is that the main reason he is the best fighter in the NHL is because of his size. Of course he has a good technique but not the best one which is what P4P all about after all. Saying Scott is the best P4P is saying he has the best technique and pure skill fighting abilities. Do you think he'd win a fight against a player who is 7'6" and who weighs 300 pounds? Let me doubt it.

There is no player that size.

He can only go against those willing to drop the gloves with him. How is it his fault many of the heavies wont try him? And those that do havent faired well for the most part.

And where, in his body of fighting work, have you not seen him having the best technique and pure skill fighting abilities when he hasnt lost a fight yet?

 

[Flapjack*]

You're down playing his size just to prove a point. He hasn't fought anyone on his level and that's what it comes down to. Guys like GSP and Silva are considered the best P4P fighters because they've destoyed everyone in their weight class. You could make an argument that Scott hasn't fought anyone in his weight class yet....so how can he be the best?

How is that his fault?

 

[Flapjack*]

I don't see how this is even worth arguing. When Rypien goes out and fights Stortini, he's giving up 60 pounds. When Scott fights Stortini he out weighs him by 30 pounds. You don't see how that's not even?

Stortini isnt a good fighter regardless of how much he weighs.

That isnt a good example.

 

[Reve4Shab]

There is no player that size.

He can only go against those willing to drop the gloves with him. How is it his fault many of the heavies wont try him? And those that do havent faired well for the most part.

And where, in his body of fighting work, have you not seen him having the best technique and pure skill fighting abilities when he hasnt lost a fight yet?

Alright so by your logic, Velasquez should be the best P4P in UFC because he'd beat the crap out of GSP because he is 75 pounds heavier and almost 4 inches taller. Am I right? because that's what you're doing here.

Being BIG doesn't equal talent. P4P means if Scott fought against Janssen at the same size and same weight then Janssen, then Scott would win because he has a better technique.

You want an exemple of what P4P means? at one point, BGL was best P4P and when he fought Chara, he held his own even if he was 5 inches smaller and was lighter because he has a better technique. And don't say that is because Chara isn't a fighter or can't fight, he has ragdolled many player before but that was because of his size but I don't think anyone said Chara was the best P4P because he ragdolled a few player smaller then him.

 

[Wheatking]

How is that his fault?

It's not his fault...but he is going to need to beat someone significant to be in the conversation of the best. You just can't justify saying Scott is the best when Boogaard, MacIntyre, Orr, Belak and Godard are going out there and winning against one another while Scott hasn't fought any of them yet.

Stortini isnt a good fighter regardless of how much he weighs.

That isnt a good example.

Stortini is just a guy that they've both fought. The name is irrelevant.

 

[Wheatking]

Alright so by your logic, Velasquez should be the best P4P in UFC because he'd beat the crap out of GSP because he is 75 pounds heavier and almost 4 inches taller. Am I right? because that's what you're doing here.

Being BIG doesn't equal talent. P4P means if Scott fought against Janssen at the same size and same weight then Janssen, then Scott would win because he has a better technique.

You want an exemple of what P4P means? at one point, BGL was best P4P and when he fought Chara, he held his own even if he had 5 inches smaller and was lighter because he has a better technique. And don't say that is because Chara isn't a fighter or can,t fight, he has ragdolled many player before but that was because of his size but I don,t think anyone said Chara was the best P4P because he ragdolled a few player smaller then him.

You don't even have to use Chara. Use the current Heavyweight champ. Laraque gave up 30 pounds to Boogaard but beat him probably 4-7 times rather easily in his career. If Laraque had his size and reach, he probably would have beat Boogaard into nothing.

 

[Reve4Shab]

You don't even have to use Chara. Use the current Heavyweight champ. Laraque gave up 30 pounds to Boogaard but beat him probably 4-7 times rather easily in his career. If Laraque had his size and reach, he probably would have beat Boogaard into nothing.

indeed, another good and better exemple.

 

[Ensane]

He hasnt lost a fight yet.

How is that not exceptional? He has beaten people up to the point that he toys with fighters now.

No one's arguing it's not exceptional. He's likely the consensus top heavyweight in the league at the moment. Limited sample size notwithstanding.

How would this change if he was smaller when nobody knows if he would even be in the NHL as a mid sized goon?

That's the point of the p4p argument, speculating if all things being equal, who would be the best. If you're not willing to consider the hypotheticals of others, then you probably shouldn't have started this thread.

There isnt a better figter in the NHL atm, hense the P4P title.

This statement is missing a major premise. Being the best fighter doesn't necessarily mean you're automatically the best p4p fighter as well. Considering Scott's reach is a major part of his ability as a fighter I don't see how you can't concede that his results would suffer if he were the same size as everyone else he fought.

Apparently the only thing that we can all agree upon here is that your definition of p4p is different from just about everyone else's. I don't know why you bothered bringing this up when the topic obviously isn't open for debate in your mind.

Lastly, no, he didn't destroy Koci. Try re-watching. Considering the fact that Koci is an awful fighter for a guy his size, I'd say it's a major blemish on his record that he didn't destroy him.

 

[Flapjack*]

Alright so by your logic, Velasquez should be the best P4P in UFC because he'd beat the crap out of GSP because he is 75 pounds heavier and almost 4 inches taller. Am I right? because that's what you're doing here.

If Silva fought GSP he would win on account of he is a better fighter, no matter if Silva dropped weight. The same holds true for Scott. He is the best fighter in the NHL.

Being BIG doesn't equal talent. P4P means if Scott fought against Janssen at the same size and same weight then Janssen, then Scott would win because he has a better technique.

Again, how do you know Scott wouldnt win? What part of he has excellent technique is hard to grasp? And, more importantly, what flaws in his fighting skill has he shown when the only thing questionable was his chin and it was proven against Janssens he has a good one? He hasnt lost yet, I dont understand what he needs to work on.

You want an exemple of what P4P means? at one point, BGL was best P4P and when he fought Chara, he held his own even if he was 5 inches smaller and was lighter because he has a better technique. And don't say that is because Chara isn't a fighter or can't fight, he has ragdolled many player before but that was because of his size but I don't think anyone said Chara was the best P4P because he ragdolled a few player smaller then him.

And BJS can only fight those willing to go against him.

Rypien never went near a heavy and many here considered him P4P best. Scott can only fight those will to chuck em. It doesnt work both ways and is kind of an insult to Scott since, you know, he hasnt lost a fight yet.

 

[Reve4Shab]

If Silva fought GSP he would win on account of he is a better fighter, no matter if Silva dropped weight. The same holds true for Scott. He is the best fighter in the NHL.

Again, how do you know Scott wouldnt win? What part of he has excellent technique is hard to grasp? And, more importantly, what flaws in his fighting skill has he shown when the only thing questionable was his chin and it was proven against Janssens he has a good one? He hasnt lost yet, I dont understand what he needs to work on.

And BJS can only fight those willing to go against him.

Rypien never went near a heavy and many here considered him P4P best. Scott can only fight those will to chuck em. It doesnt work both ways and is kind of an insult to Scott since, you know, he hasnt lost a fight yet.

And how do you know he would win? Scott is the best fighter in the NHL but the mainreason is his reach, even you said earlier that nobody knows if he'd be in the NHL is he was a mid-sized goon. if he was P4P, he'd be for sure in the NHL even if he was a mid-sized goon.

Many considered Rypien the best P4P because he fought and did good against player who were way bigger then him. Once again, Would Scott win against a 7'6'' and 300 pounds player? The question isn't if that player exist or not, the question is hypothetical because P4P is something hypotethical. Because if we was P4P, he'd still win or at least draw.

Like Ensane said, if you're not willing to consider the hypotheticals of others, then there is nothing to argue about.

 

[Reve4Shab]

This is some five-star trolling actually. Bravo!

That's what I've been thinking too, I should stop feeding him.

 

[Flapjack*]

That's the point of the p4p argument, speculating if all things being equal, who would be the best. If you're not willing to consider the hypotheticals of others, then you probably shouldn't have started this thread.

And where, if all things were equal, has Scott proved his isnt P4P the best?

This statement is missing a major premise. Being the best fighter doesn't necessarily mean you're automatically the best p4p fighter as well. Considering Scott's reach is a major part of his ability as a fighter I don't see how you can't concede that his results would suffer if he were the same size as everyone else he fought.

And many here cant concede that if everything was equal, what has Scott proven not to be P4P the best?
Just saying he isnt obviously isnt enough. Where and what are his flaws when, yet again, he has proven atm he has none?

Apparently the only thing that we can all agree upon here is that your definition of p4p is different from just about everyone else's. I don't know why you bothered bringing this up when the topic obviously isn't open for debate in your mind.

Always willing to debate, but would like more then speculation and conjecture to back up what Scott has done not to be considered P4P best.

Lastly, no, he didn't destroy Koci. Try re-watching. Considering the fact that Koci is an awful fighter for a guy his size, I'd say it's a major blemish on his record that he didn't destroy him.

Both easy wins, the second one Scott with 17 punches that connected to Kocis 5.

Now, how is that not destroying somebody?
When Scott pulls the jersey up, thats it, he finishes the fight on account of he thinks he will actually cause alot of damage. There was nothing in those two tilts that says BJS wasnt in control of either fight at any moment.

 

[Ranger482]

You give Cam Janssen or Rick Rypien, John Scott's size, Cam Janssen and Rick Rypien both destroy the real John Scott. Therefore, pound for pound, no, I don't think John Scott is the best fighter.

 

[Crossfire Hurricane]

Ah, I see now. You're just a massive Chicago homer.

Welcome back, Flapjak.

 

[TheFinalWord]

This is a sad thread.

1. Scott isn't the best P4P fighter. He's not even that great a fighter. He's just huge.

2. Scott isn't the best fighter in the league and won't be until he has some serious fighters on his card. Guys like MacIntyre, Boogard, Orr, Carkner, Engelland, Godard, King, etc. Once he can prove himself against some of those guys, then it would make for a much better discussion.

 

[dubey]

Scotts pretty much the flagship fighter in the league atm.

Who is John Scott?

 

[The Expert]

He's likely the consensus top heavyweight in the league at the moment.

He isn't even top 5.

How many top 5-10 heavyweights has Scott beaten?

Answer: None.

 

[Garl]

Both easy wins, the second one Scott with 17 punches that connected to Kocis 5.

Now, how is that not destroying somebody?
When Scott pulls the jersey up, thats it, he finishes the fight on account of he thinks he will actually cause alot of damage. There was nothing in those two tilts that says BJS wasnt in control of either fight at any moment.

Wrong. He pulled Koci's jersey because he couldn't stand toe2toe against him.)))))

Arguing with you is like arguing with 9 y.o. who isn't very good at logic thinking.

You have the facts that

a)Scott is 260 which makes him 3rd-4th biggest guy in NHL
b)Scott is 6'8 which makes him 2nd-3rd tallest guy in NHL
c)Scott wins his fights, but hardly destroys his opponents who are much smaller and are not top heavyweights, actually he has a draw versus Brad Winchester which is kinda embarassing.
d)P4P means raw fighting ability regardless of size. And a heavyweight must dominate his division not have narrow wins over middleweight Janssen, draw vs non-fighter Winchester and narrow win vs mediocre heavyweight Koci.

And you can't merge this facts and make a logical conclusion. Bad for you. You're not the worst though, I remember there was a guy who said that Evegeny Artyukhin is the best p4p fighter in NHL.

 

[Crossfire Hurricane]

This year, Scott has averaged 9 punches landed per fight to 1.6 for his opponent. If you don't think strength and reach have anything to do with that, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.