Curious...How does everyone here think the P4P rankings work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Simple just do some basic analysis of fighters and plug those numbers into this simple equation

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/HSR/gifs/eq8-8.gif

I've never been good at or put too much stock in p4p lists, it is just impossible to define, I think criteria for me is someone that shows consistent domination over class opponents over time. I try to stick with actual judges decisions, instead of how I feel a fight went. To do things like say is Calzaghe or JMM more worthy oof a number 2 p4p spot, I can't do it, I might try, but in the end it's all subjective and has no meaning.

---

;D

That's the thing, if you ask everyone for the their current list, almost everyone will have the same names, just in a slightly different order.

There is no right or wrong.

---

I agree about the top guys in a p4p list, but once you get down to 7,8,9 and 10 on the list, it gets even more blurry.

I have no clue, I never really got into the idea of it. Let the guys fight each other to see who is the best, you can't really lump divisions like that. How do you compare for example Vitali Klitschko vs Manny Pacquiao? Too many differences in their divisions. I think they are too biased as well, it usually comes down to preferences.....

One word:

Achievement.

Without question the P4P list are difficult to say the least...Personally like many of you I really put no stock into it...Though I do like making ATG P4P list...this way once the fighter is retired it makes it easier to base his achievements on ranking....

I was just curious on how some people made thiers

I was never a big fan of lists, I always picked my #1 guy or a "top 3" at the most.

I think its 50/50, accomplishments and skill. The #1 guy should be who you consider the best fighter in the sport currently.

Before Floyd retired, I think he was the obvious choice, because he was plainly the most skillful boxer in the game, and he was undefeated with a very impressive list of accomplishments.

It irked me that people would put Pac over him for the fact that Pac was more exciting. Excitement should have no bearings on P4P status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

Just not sure how some guys justify things like Calzaghe for example being so high after beating Jeff Lacy when Jeff had failed to beat a top quality fighter in their primes...But his win over Jeff no matter how dominate was supposed to make up for all the soft opp.....

---

i also don't think joe's done enough for his P4P ranking; for him to occupy the #2 spot (espn), he'd have to beat Roy worse than Tarver did (atleast a UD), and then beat Pavlik (if Pavlik beat Hopkins). i might even give him the #1 one spot if he could do all that and then beat Chad Dawson.

BUT-

given that today's thursday, i only take crazy pills on weekends when i can mix them with booze.

I think the best fighter should always be higher on the p4p ranking, in that I mean who can beat more guys. I perfect example of this all time is Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler, sometimes styles make fights, but that doesn't mean the victor is better than the defeated. I think Joe Calzaghe deserves his ranking, more or less, simply because Kessler should be a top 10 p4p, and Hopkins was #2 or 3 when he "Beat" him. I think Calzaghe should definitely be in the top five.

What is the definition of p4p, to see who is the best fighter at any weightclass, and I think thats what needs to the main factor. NOt who is the most exciting, who is fighting who necessarily, but who measures up against their quality of opposition the best. I think if a fighter totally dominates a B class fighter that its harder to do then barely beating an A or even in some cases a A+ fighter, and also I think because of style matchups a C class fighter can be a tougher fight for somebody than an A or B class fighter.

but that doesn't mean the victor is better than the defeated.


A point I was trying to make some understand

I think the more knowledgable you are of the sport, and the more you keep up with the fighters its pretty self evident how the p4p rankings stack out. Its like comparing quater backs, sure they all have different systems, wide receivers, offensive lines, but you can still tell which quater backs make which reads, call their own audibles, competitive edge.

I think in boxing the very top guys are the ones who dominate every fight, and don't have bad nights, Calzaghe is probably the first guy who has been near the top of my list to doesn't meet this criteria. The thing I respect most of Mayweather, Hopkins, Roy Jones JR, is that they didn't only expect to win the fight, they also wanted to dominate every minute of every roudn in their own way. Whether it was Roy Jones throwing his flurries, Mayweather or Whitaker making opponents look foolish by making them miss, or Hopkins nurfing his opponents output, and throwing them off their game plan. These guys knew how to fight their own fight, and how to make their opponents fight how they wanted the fight to go.

They work great as long as your favorite fighter is on top...other than that they don't.