Just thought I'd point out that Bradley beat an undefeated top 15 welterweight in addition to his accomplishments at 140. He's proved he can fight effectively in two weight classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Printable View
Just thought I'd point out that Bradley beat an undefeated top 15 welterweight in addition to his accomplishments at 140. He's proved he can fight effectively in two weight classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
For one, I don't think you are considering that Martinez has accomplished this over two weight classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44and a lot seem to agree with youQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboDisagree. His first fight with Williams could have gone either way, many thought Williams won. And Williams, despite having a rather crude looking style is a very very effective fighter who was absolutely p4p worthy when he fought Martinez. He has beaten some good guys and Martinez argubaly went 2 up against him. Pavlik is a fine win and led himt o being the ring champ at 160 and a two weight world champ. Kintron is an acomplished fighter and I can only assume you didnt see the fight if you are counting that as a draw. Martinez KOd him in the middle rounds but he was allowed to continue, and he clearly outpointed him only to somehow get robbed in a frankly baffling decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
He is a beast for anyone around those weight classes.
you could put a different spin on it tho
he lost to williams first time, yes williams is a good fighter but he still lost
pavlik was a good win but what state was pavlik in at the time? and wasnt it the same pavlik who had been taken apart by hopkins? ok at a higher weight but still a hopkins who himself had not long since fought at middleweight
and the cintron fight may have been a bad descision but cintron wasnt exactly in great form and he still won enough rounds to make the descison acceptable
he is a cracking fighter, but I dont think he has done enough to warrant top 5
In addition, say what you want to say about Pavlik, but Pavlik was the universally recognized top middleweight in the world (AA had moved up in weight at that time) and probably a top 20 p4p fighter on most lists. His only loss of his whole career was to Hopkins at 170. Losing to a p4p fighter in Hopkins outside of your weight class isn't a bad loss.
Martinez beat Pavlik moving up in weight from 154 to 160.
Williams was a top ten p4p fighter on most lists at the time of each fight. Even if he lost to Williams the first time (many thought he won) he still lost a very close decision to a top ten p4p fighter. Recall that Marquez was completely and utterly dominated by Mayweather and barely went down at all in the p4p rankings. Bernard lost to Calzaghe and barely went down in the p4p rankings. The reason is that they both lost to other great p4p fighters. Either way, he then knocked out a top ten p4p Paul Williams in the rematch.
Beating the best middleweight in the world (top 20 p4p) and Paul Williams ( top ten p4p) gets you on the p4p list.
One more thing to add. Cintron was in fine form coming into that fight with Martinez. He had just beat Ndou and in his next fight he outboxed Alfredo Angulo.
Also, compare Martinez to other p4p guys. Look at Marquez. Marquez beat Kastidis, not a top 5 lightweight let alone p4p guy (I'm a huge fan, don't get me wrong), Diaz, not a top 5 lightweight and not very good, lost to Mayweather by a wide margin, Diaz again, and an old Casamayor who had just gone life and death with Kastidis. I'm not hating on Marquez, he should be top ten p4p. But, beating Paul Williams and Kelly Pavlik is better than anything he's done in his last 5 fights. How about comparing him to Donaire? Montiel (big win), Sidorenko (barely top ten in his division), Marquez (who?), Vargas (same), Concepion. I think a good argument can be made that Martinez's win over Paul Williams is as big as Donaire's over Montiel and his win over Pavlik is by far better than any name on Donaire's other four competitors. Yet, Donaire is a consensus top five p4p guy right now.
Either way, if Martinez beats Dzinziruk, the consensus top junior middleweight in the world, can we agree he should move back up to number three in the p4p list?
What kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
No it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
either way you put it Calderon was considered #1 at 108 before his loss, and at that time there were still fighters such as Omar Nino Romero, Ulises Solis, Brian Viloria, Hugo Cazares, Rodel Mayol, Nelson Dieppa, and well the only guy to beat Calderon in Giovani Segura
plenty of recognizable names so to be considered the best fighter of the bunch well it has to stand for something, especially when you were considered it for nearly a decade (cause yes even when he was just at 105 Calderon was still ranked #1 at both by Ring and ESPN), lets not forget his age while doing all of this either, Malignaggi fights at a higher weight (32 lbs north) is 30 (6 years younger than Calderon) and yet still doesn't have the ability to deal with guys his own size, on the other hand Calderon who started his career later than most has been dominating guys that tower over him, for that very reason i say if Calderon would have had the frame of a lightweight or welterweight he would have had just as much success cause when it comes to defense and technical ability he's on the same level as guys like Mayweather, Whitaker, etc.
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
im not sure he has accomplished all this at 2 weights, the two wins that you are shouting about were at middleweight werent they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
look i can understand yours and everyones love for him, he is a great boxer and a nice fella, and alt6hough those 2 wins are great wins i dont think that is enough to bring him the status he seems to be getting
cintron previous 2 fights were a loss to margarito and a win against ndou who is a good boxer but everyone in the top 15 beats
Not that you're asking me. It's a close call, but, I take Pavlik. Abraham's best win was against Taylor after Froch and Pavlik knocked him out. Pavlik's best win was against Taylor, but he was the first person to beat Taylor. He was also the first person to KO Miranda. Pavlik has only lost to perenial p4p boxer, Bernard Hopkins, at 170, and p4p boxer, Sergio Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
Using my simple criteria neither fighter is in the p4p.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
No love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
haha this is great now somebody sees me as a fanboy of Nonito Donaire ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsNo love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
Try reading all my posts in this thread. I have Martinez number 3 p4p, you are completely missing what I was talking about. It had nothing to do with Martinez really, I just said that Donaire was finally worthy of his lofty p4p status having destroyed his top rivals in a way that only Manny has been doing lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds
If you're basing your P4P ranking on achievements, then how does Andre Ward receive an honourable mention. As he's the only fighter you've given this to, I assume you place him at 6? But achievement wise, he's done very little to warrant such a lofty ranking. If you're basing it on skill and what you think may happen in the future, then I can see where you are coming from, but at this moment, Ward is not top 10 P4P IMO.
No Mayweather because he hasn't fought since last May? I give a fighter one year without a fighting being scheduled before taking them off the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsNo love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
1. Pac
2. PBF
3. Maravilla
4. Donaire
5. Marquez
6. Wlad
This could be wrong. I need to think about it a bit more.
Good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratNot that you're asking me. It's a close call, but, I take Pavlik. Abraham's best win was against Taylor after Froch and Pavlik knocked him out. Pavlik's best win was against Taylor, but he was the first person to beat Taylor. He was also the first person to KO Miranda. Pavlik has only lost to perenial p4p boxer, Bernard Hopkins, at 170, and p4p boxer, Sergio Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.
These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.
Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?
Fenster - question. don't you think that heavyweights that move up weight divisions - Adamek and Haye - should be considered p4p? Adamek has been a champion in two divisions and if he wins a title at heavyweight, three divisions. Haye has been a champ at two.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
That is tough. I would go with Chris John...maybe. Chris John has been a champion for soooo long and that has to count for something. On the other hand, he really has only two big wins in his whole career, Juan Manuel Marquez and Rocky Jaurez. John's win over Marquez is better than Ward's best win. Ward's best wins were against Kessler and Bika.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterGood points.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratNot that you're asking me. It's a close call, but, I take Pavlik. Abraham's best win was against Taylor after Froch and Pavlik knocked him out. Pavlik's best win was against Taylor, but he was the first person to beat Taylor. He was also the first person to KO Miranda. Pavlik has only lost to perenial p4p boxer, Bernard Hopkins, at 170, and p4p boxer, Sergio Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.
These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.
Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?
I believe Ward's style would translate at 175 and maybe even at 200. I don't believe John would be as effective at 130 or 135.
Bottom line is that right now, I'd probably go with John, but I like Ward's trajectory.
For example, if Ward beats Froch, I'd probably vote Ward.
Chris John is far below Andre Ward. Ward has seen enormous success against his top level opposition. Ward I hold a lot higher than most ppl. I'd compare Giovanni Segura with Chris John and that would be tough. OR Segura with Juanma... But I do I see your point Ratcantrant..
It's all relative with P4P take your best guess at it, then bash everyone else for their picks. It's what makes all of this fun for everyone. :)
And Mayweather will not be the same fighter after all this legal trouble. Mark my words. He is going to look very much like Pernell Whittaker after all his legal troubles. That shit catches up with you quick. I guarantee you he is not the same in the gym as he was even a year ago. He already has no love for the game. How long do you think it will take for him to have no respect for the game and come in untrained?
I think that is the exception - yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratFenster - question. don't you think that heavyweights that move up weight divisions - Adamek and Haye - should be considered p4p? Adamek has been a champion in two divisions and if he wins a title at heavyweight, three divisions. Haye has been a champ at two.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Adamek and Haye can both be considered P4P, if they did exceptionally well at heavyweight, because they have had big success in a lighter division. I believe they should get as much credit as any fighter winning titles in multi weight classes.
Johnny, I don't disagree. For me, that is why I say Ward has a better trajectory. I favor him against Froch and a win over Froch is big-time. John's over Yordan won't be close to as big. And wins over Froch and Kessler are marquee wins. My p4p list changes all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds
Ward has never beat a P4P fighter though. The offical record has John beating one - even if most think it was a robbery. But this is about provable scientific reasoning not opinion, right?
Beating a P4P star has to be a big boost to your own P4P credentials, right?
New Ring Mag ratings
Boxing Ratings | RingTV
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._4124697_n.jpg
You're actually demonstrating my point here. You deliberately picked these two as you know they have similar records. How do you know this? Because you are judging them and comparing according to the sort of criteria you are claiming doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterGood points.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratNot that you're asking me. It's a close call, but, I take Pavlik. Abraham's best win was against Taylor after Froch and Pavlik knocked him out. Pavlik's best win was against Taylor, but he was the first person to beat Taylor. He was also the first person to KO Miranda. Pavlik has only lost to perenial p4p boxer, Bernard Hopkins, at 170, and p4p boxer, Sergio Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.
These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.
Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?
All this example shows is that ranking fighters is not a fantasy. On the contrary you automatically asuumed us to be unanimous in agreeing with you that it would be hard to pick between these two fighters.
I agree, it is a close call. And we are all unanimous in agreeing that because are were all consciously or unconsiously using the same criteria to judge them.
Have a good day.
Tim has Nonito third. I wonder who he has as second p4p.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH1HRe2_lcs
Concepcion was 4.5 lbs overweight at the weigh-in. And Donaire won by UD.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsNo love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
Ward favors Nonito over Juanma!? :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoZbHHI5vS4
According to my scientific ranking system Ward is higher than John based on the 'what have you done for me lately' criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Ward dominated Mikkel Kessler,a fighter held in universal respect and also impressively outclassed Edison Miranda and Allan Green and beat Sakio Bika last time out.
Chris John battled to a draw with Rocky Juarez, a fighter who was 3-3 in his last before facing John and has gone 0-3 since.
He has fought only 3 times since 2008, winning twice with all three fights going to decision.
Ward meanwhile has fought 6 times in the same period, winning every fight and against a higher quality of opposition.
John's disputed win over Juan Manuel Marquez was 5 years ago and since he has hardly been significant.
Ward rates higer according to the now patented Baggin's Scale (B.S).
PacquiaoQuote:
Originally Posted by gest12645
Martinez
Marquez
Donaire
Lopez
Mayweather is inactive. Active he takes his regular spot at number 1 and everybody else drops one
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyou don't have to like the guy but don't ignore the fact that he's a 5 division champ (and none were at catch weights), he holds wins over Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Gatti, Judah and other good fighters at the lower weights such as Jesus Chavez, Carlos Hernandez, Genaro HernandezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboIf you are removing him from the ratings altogether on the grounds that he is inactive/retired then it's a fair position to hold, although for myself I still have him at two as he's not not publicly retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
If you're saying you have him further down your list however and just don't think his current opposition is worthy of a top 5 placement then that is the most retarded thing I've heard on Saddo's this week at least, certainly since Seanie's plan to get doctor's to lead the protests for better fight matchups ;D
Then it's the former. ;D
No, seriously... it's both. But Seanie's plan is STILL way more retarded. C'mon... you're still carrying Pretty Boy's torch even though he's done little in the last 3+ years to deserve it? Seriously? I mean... p4p should be based on recent accomplishments and on that basis alone. Are you honestly going to defend PBF's record in the last 3+ years as worthy of p4p? How long are you Floyd fans going to carry his jock... er... torch? C'mon!! The guy's dangling you fans on a string and playing you like yo-yo's. Look at his recent resume again:
Hatton - Enough said about that.
JMM - A true ATG... just not at the weight he fought Floyd. He was in WAY over his head.
Mosley - The guy aged before our very eyes.
What else has he done? Well.... besides dancing with the stars and wrestling Big Show. He's beaten up women and security guards... but those don't count for p4p ratings. What has he done? He ain't done JACK. All he does is run at the mouth, and... frankly... some of us are damn tired of it.
P4P? Not for this boxing fan.
:cool:
like i said in another thread you could say the same thing for Pacquiao that you've already said for Floyd
he's fought guys either past their primes or at weights where it's been to his advantage
DLH (completely shot and weight drained)
Hatton (on the slide and had looked like shit in his fights after Mayweather beat him)
Cotto (the general opinion was he lost a step after the Margarito fight and was at a catchweight)
Clottey (had already lost to Cotto prior to fighting Pacquiao)
Margarito (had only had two fights in nearly 2 years away, and he had gotten KO'd and won a UD against a journeyman and he looked like shit in that fight, giving the sense that without plaster he's crap, oh yea and it was another catchweight)
and now Mosley (if he aged front of your very eyes against Floyd, why the hell is Pacquiao recycling yet another one of Mayweather's opponents? oh and he wanted drug tests)
i mean there really is no difference between the two
Mayweather now taking on Paul Williams would be the equivalent of Pacquiao having taken on Margarito, which after what Martinez did to him well i really wouldn't say it means much
This is all well and good, El Terrible. But you neglect to mention one very important difference. Whereas Floyd fought his recent opposition at very little risk (face it... Hatton? and JMM was WOEFULLY undersized), Manny may have fought the same guys... BUT... for Manny, it was a huge risk. Sure, it's Monday-morning quarterbacking to say now that De La Hoya was weight-drained and shot. But before the fight... it was a huge risk. Remember... DLH was looking for an undersized scalp to add to his mantle and ride off into the sunset. Thank God it backfired on him (HAHAHAHAHAHA)! Remember that Pacquaio is coming from many divisions south of 147. And taking on Margarito?!? Say what you will... but that was ALSO a huge risk. And to be sure... Pac took some major body shots from Margacheato.
When you look at these fights AFTER the fact, it's easy to compare Manny's opponents with Floyd's. But it's not a fair nor accurate comparison. You have to look at when the fights were made in the first place. Sure... there's probably a lot of people who now claim to have known that Pac was going to walk through the opponents he did :rolleyes: ..... but in all reality, the majority of people were betting AGAINST Pac (myself included). Whereas I absolutely KNEW that Mayweather was going to beat the stuffing out both Hatton and JMM. No mystery there.
I personally prefer the fighters who fight anyone and everyone, regardless of risk... and legacies and unbeaten records be damned. That's why I dislike Floyd now, and why I disliked DLH even more toward the end of his career. Because neither of them fit that mold. They were both calculating, conniving, "image-first" type of fighters. Of course, this is strictly my opinion.
:)
thank you;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyou don't have to like the guy but don't ignore the fact that he's a 5 division champ (and none were at catch weights), he holds wins over Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Gatti, Judah and other good fighters at the lower weights such as Jesus Chavez, Carlos Hernandez, Genaro HernandezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboIf you are removing him from the ratings altogether on the grounds that he is inactive/retired then it's a fair position to hold, although for myself I still have him at two as he's not not publicly retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
If you're saying you have him further down your list however and just don't think his current opposition is worthy of a top 5 placement then that is the most retarded thing I've heard on Saddo's this week at least, certainly since Seanie's plan to get doctor's to lead the protests for better fight matchups ;D
Then it's the former. ;D
No, seriously... it's both. But Seanie's plan is STILL way more retarded. C'mon... you're still carrying Pretty Boy's torch even though he's done little in the last 3+ years to deserve it? Seriously? I mean... p4p should be based on recent accomplishments and on that basis alone. Are you honestly going to defend PBF's record in the last 3+ years as worthy of p4p? How long are you Floyd fans going to carry his jock... er... torch? C'mon!! The guy's dangling you fans on a string and playing you like yo-yo's. Look at his recent resume again:
Hatton - Enough said about that.
JMM - A true ATG... just not at the weight he fought Floyd. He was in WAY over his head.
Mosley - The guy aged before our very eyes.
What else has he done? Well.... besides dancing with the stars and wrestling Big Show. He's beaten up women and security guards... but those don't count for p4p ratings. What has he done? He ain't done JACK. All he does is run at the mouth, and... frankly... some of us are damn tired of it.
P4P? Not for this boxing fan.
:cool:
like i said in another thread you could say the same thing for Pacquiao that you've already said for Floyd
he's fought guys either past their primes or at weights where it's been to his advantage
DLH (completely shot and weight drained)
Hatton (on the slide and had looked like shit in his fights after Mayweather beat him)
Cotto (the general opinion was he lost a step after the Margarito fight and was at a catchweight)
Clottey (had already lost to Cotto prior to fighting Pacquiao)
Margarito (had only had two fights in nearly 2 years away, and he had gotten KO'd and won a UD against a journeyman and he looked like shit in that fight, giving the sense that without plaster he's crap, oh yea and it was another catchweight)
and now Mosley (if he aged front of your very eyes against Floyd, why the hell is Pacquiao recycling yet another one of Mayweather's opponents? oh and he wanted drug tests)
i mean there really is no difference between the two
Mayweather now taking on Paul Williams would be the equivalent of Pacquiao having taken on Margarito, which after what Martinez did to him well i really wouldn't say it means much
This is all well and good, El Terrible. But you neglect to mention one very important difference. Whereas Floyd fought his recent opposition at very little risk (face it... Hatton? and JMM was WOEFULLY undersized), Manny may have fought the same guys... BUT... for Manny, it was a huge risk. Sure, it's Monday-morning quarterbacking to say now that De La Hoya was weight-drained and shot. But before the fight... it was a huge risk. Remember... DLH was looking for an undersized scalp to add to his mantle and ride off into the sunset. Thank God it backfired on him (HAHAHAHAHAHA)! Remember that Pacquaio is coming from many divisions south of 147. And taking on Margarito?!? Say what you will... but that was ALSO a huge risk. And to be sure... Pac took some major body shots from Margacheato.
When you look at these fights AFTER the fact, it's easy to compare Manny's opponents with Floyd's. But it's not a fair nor accurate comparison. You have to look at when the fights were made in the first place. Sure... there's probably a lot of people who now claim to have known that Pac was going to walk through the opponents he did :rolleyes: ..... but in all reality, the majority of people were betting AGAINST Pac (myself included). Whereas I absolutely KNEW that Mayweather was going to beat the stuffing out both Hatton and JMM. No mystery there.
I personally prefer the fighters who fight anyone and everyone, regardless of risk... and legacies and unbeaten records be damned. That's why I dislike Floyd now, and why I disliked DLH even more toward the end of his career. Because neither of them fit that mold. They were both calculating, conniving, "image-first" type of fighters. Of course, this is strictly my opinion.
:)
Hey jerks, when the posts you're quoting get so long that there is only one letter per line, maybe you should stop including the entire post-history in your quote. It makes the thread unreadable.
He also sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by :::PSL:::Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsNo love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
Concepcion was 4.5 lbs overweight at the weigh-in. And Donaire won by UD.
He says after doing the exact same thing in his very next post!Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Fucking hypocritical mods think they can do what they like. I say we overthrow 'em! Who's with me? ;D
Hold up.. no, no, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYou're actually demonstrating my point here. You deliberately picked these two as you know they have similar records. How do you know this? Because you are judging them and comparing according to the sort of criteria you are claiming doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterGood points.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratNot that you're asking me. It's a close call, but, I take Pavlik. Abraham's best win was against Taylor after Froch and Pavlik knocked him out. Pavlik's best win was against Taylor, but he was the first person to beat Taylor. He was also the first person to KO Miranda. Pavlik has only lost to perenial p4p boxer, Bernard Hopkins, at 170, and p4p boxer, Sergio Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.
These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.
Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?
All this example shows is that ranking fighters is not a fantasy. On the contrary you automatically asuumed us to be unanimous in agreeing with you that it would be hard to pick between these two fighters.
I agree, it is a close call. And we are all unanimous in agreeing that because are were all consciously or unconsiously using the same criteria to judge them.
Have a good day.
I'm not claiming your criteria doesn't exist. However, It ONLY works for individual weight classes. And yet, as the AA-Pavlik example shows, it still leaves questions about who exactly is the superior fighter. It is not definitive.
Therefore, how do you possibly think you can definitively assess fighters from various divisions in this way? It is ridiculous.
You'll never be able to prove Froch is better than Donaire (for example) because they are so far apart in weight that they are basically operating in different sports. They will never fight. They will never have a single common opponent. There is no strict criteria that could possibly establish who is truly better. It would still be a GUESS. Which is no different to rating them by imagining them as the same size.
Simple as that.
I agree in as much as determining who would win in a fictional matchup between the two, that would be down to opinion.
That isn't the only way to approach the p4p rankings though.
As I said at the start of the thread, I approach the p4p rankings in terms of acomplishments, resume's, form, performances etc and rank who I think are the top 10 performing boxers right now.
On that scale, given that Donaire is unbeaten, and has brutally knocked out his two biggest rivals in his weight class, clearly he deserves to be higher p4p than Carl Froch, who lost only two fights ago, and who won a controversial victory over Andre Dirrell the previous time out.
Would you disagree that you are unable to claim whether one of these fighters has acomplished more, or has a better resume within their respective weight class, because I disagree.
For what it's worth, prior to the Montiel victory Donaire imo was below Carl Froch in terms of acomplishments, because of his relatively poor competition for the past 3 years.
Ultimately I'm not rating according to who I think is best in a ficitional matchup, I'm asking the question 'Whose acomplishments are greater?', and looking carefully at recent form as well.
That's why, in my p4p rankings, they are not necessarily who I think are the 10 best fighters in the world right now, but rather the 10 best achievers, with the 10 best resumes in boxing right now.
what does CHF stand for?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHold up.. no, no, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYou're actually demonstrating my point here. You deliberately picked these two as you know they have similar records. How do you know this? Because you are judging them and comparing according to the sort of criteria you are claiming doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterGood points.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratNot that you're asking me. It's a close call, but, I take Pavlik. Abraham's best win was against Taylor after Froch and Pavlik knocked him out. Pavlik's best win was against Taylor, but he was the first person to beat Taylor. He was also the first person to KO Miranda. Pavlik has only lost to perenial p4p boxer, Bernard Hopkins, at 170, and p4p boxer, Sergio Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterOK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNo it's not. Calderon is a different weight category to Kid Thunder but I have a fair idea who is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat kind of example is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterExactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboManny vs Wlad is an impossible matchup to speculate on as either reducing Wlad in size or giving Manny size changes who they are as fighters. its like saying what is stronger p4p an ant or an elephant? Certainly as a percentage of its bodyweight an any can lift hundreds of times than an elephant, but it is not physically possible for an ant to be substantially bigger than it is due to the limitations of its exoskeleton and atmospheric and gravitional pressures. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHeavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterIs it? How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HattonTheHammerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??
I don't think so though considering Pac has won in about a million different weight classes.
so conceivably a heavyweight could never make the p4p list if its all about the amount of potential fighters you could fight what with them being restricted solely to other heavyweights
P4P is about mythical match-ups with the size and weight leveled.
If Wlad fought Pac he would kill him - literally. However, in a mythical P4P setting would that still be the case? If your answer is no then Pac is clearly the superior fighter. Simple.
Likewise Manny as a heavyweight no longer has the speed and Wlad at welter no longer has the height, reach and size. You can argue that Wlad is good because he is big. But this is false, there are many other big guys out there but they routinely get beaten by smaller heavyweights. Big on its own is no more an advantage on its own as being fast. Skill and ability to make use of your assets is what is important and both Manny and Wlad are superb at utilising theirs.
P4P started a million years ago because the "experts" and writers recognised Sugar Ray Robinson as the worlds best practitioner of boxing, however, he would never be the KING of boxing because that mantle was held by the heavyweight champ Joe Louis, and a fight between the two would be an obvious mismatch because of the size discrepancy.
The same today with Pac-Wlad. Pac is the best fighter in the world but Wlad would kill him. It's just fun.
(before anyone says - I know P4P dates back to before Robinson ;))
I don't think that is a complete description of p4p as practiced today. When I (and I guess most others) try and rate people on a p4p scale I am comparing comparative acomplishments and resumes rather than imagining how they might get on against each other in a fictional matchup.
Rather than thing how Manny might do against Carl Froch I consider their achievements, their ability and their performances and determine who I think is the better fighter in terms of concrete, statistically measurable criteria.
It's perfectly possible to adhere to a set of marking criteria to come up with a fair and balanced p4p system. Yes disagreements will arise, that's part of the fun, but it is not random, or the just the whim of every person.
If you don't believe that it is possible to come up with a criteria for consistently and fairly rating fighter's acomplishments across the weight classes then how do you hope for a fair and consistent scoring system within a fight?
Judging fights is every bit as subjective but it's far from random. Just because there is no exact science to scoring doesn't mean we aren't capable of consistently judging fights with a high degree of accuracy, and indeed we get angry with judges when they make an incompetent decision. Why do we criticise them if it's just subjective and fantasy? They should be able to score how they like right?
Scoring fights is basically a simple exercise. The fighter that lands the best punches and controls the action wins. This is the exact same for every boxing match irrelevant of the weight category. What is fantasy about it (you've lost me)?
How does that simple concept compare with an attempt to offically rate fighters from differing weight classes, who not only can't meet but have no common formlines to combine them? That is impossible.
Using your example of Calderon - you have just rubbished the records of his opponents but that still doesn't mean ability wise they are inferior boxers to fighters from any other weightclass. It doesn't prove the heavyweights, supermiddles, lightweights etc are a better crop does it? The strength of each division is constantly changing.
It still comes down to - unless two fighters actually fight you can't determine for definte who is the better, and it's utterly impossible to determine the better when they are seperated by huge size differences.
Name the strict rules to compile a definitive P4P list?
As for criteria. There are not too hard to apply. A comparison of resume's is the starting point. Recent form. A visual assessment of their strengths and weaknesses based on actually watching them. An assessment of the competitiveness of the weight classes in which they fight.
It's not really difficult.
Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?
But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.
These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.
Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?
All this example shows is that ranking fighters is not a fantasy. On the contrary you automatically asuumed us to be unanimous in agreeing with you that it would be hard to pick between these two fighters.
I agree, it is a close call. And we are all unanimous in agreeing that because are were all consciously or unconsiously using the same criteria to judge them.
Have a good day.
I'm not claiming your criteria doesn't exist. However, It ONLY works for individual weight classes. And yet, as the AA-Pavlik example shows, it still leaves questions about who exactly is the superior fighter. It is not definitive.
Therefore, how do you possibly think you can definitively assess fighters from various divisions in this way? It is ridiculous.
You'll never be able to prove Froch is better than Donaire (for example) because they are so far apart in weight that they are basically operating in different sports. They will never fight. They will never have a single common opponent. There is no strict criteria that could possibly establish who is truly better. It would still be a GUESS. Which is no different to rating them by imagining them as the same size.
Simple as that.
What?
If you mean CFH , it's Canada's Finest Homosexual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
yes thats what I meant
a homosexual and a virgin eh?
Usually when a guy comes in overweight it is not good news for the fatter fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by :::PSL:::Concepcion was 4.5 lbs overweight at the weigh-in. And Donaire won by UD.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsNo love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
Did you read what I wrote, or are you trying to justify ALL of Donaire's fights blindly? I know he won by UD, but I also saw the fight and he gave him fits. NOT because of 4.5 lbs. :scratchchin:
Montiel outweight Donaire by 8 lbs fight night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsUsually when a guy comes in overweight it is not good news for the fatter fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by :::PSL:::Concepcion was 4.5 lbs overweight at the weigh-in. And Donaire won by UD.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFoldsNo love for Maritnez?? Why are you trying SO hard to discredit what the man has done? Don't even act like you know he was going to spark Williams in the rematch. I called that and nobody was with me. He didn't just WIN against Cintron he knocked him out with a PUNCH to the FACE. Cintron could only continue, bc he was give ample time to recover from that punch. (Yes the one he complained about being a headbutt)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHis opposition has been steller but he hasn't destroyed them the way Donaire has. He lost the first fight with Williams, fought to a draw with Kermit Cintron (yes I know it was bullshit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHow could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboEven I won't argue against a number 4 ranking now. He's fought the two fighters regarded as the best opposition out there at that time and totally smashed them. I don't think anybody else has done that lately. Martinez hasn't, Bradley, Marquez, Lopez, Ward etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKissergetting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by KananKrus
Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.
Meanwhile Donaire has wrecked his opposition, completely sparking them like Martinez did in the Williams rematch.
I think Martinez is 1-1-1 in his last three fights?
Oh he did beat Pavlik too. But again it was a competive fight until down the stretch and it went to the cards. Not a demolition like Donaire did tonight and against Vic.
Martinez stole the title from Pavlik in a guts performance. He got off the convas to lacerate Pavliks face and take his belts.
Donaire on the other had went life and death with a guy who was 13-3-1 in Rafael Conception. This does NOT matter anymore, but I am just saying everyone has blemishes on their record.
1 Pacquiao
2 Martinez
3 W Klitschko
4 Marquez (he just keeps winning, why boot him?)
5 Donaire
Honorable mention: Andre Ward
Did you read what I wrote, or are you trying to justify ALL of Donaire's fights blindly? I know he won by UD, but I also saw the fight and he gave him fits. NOT because of 4.5 lbs. :scratchchin:
Montiel outweight Donaire by 8 lbs fight night.
Even if Montiel outweighed him 8 million lbs, it would still be a fair fight cuz they both abided with the weight contract in that fight.
Donaire struggled to make the weight. Concepcion did not.
When Concepcion was asked to sweat it off after first failed weigh-in attempt, punk ass didn't do shit. He didn't care about the title. He just wanted to destroy Donaire.
I totally disagree with your evalulation of these fighters. Using your method Froch easily ranks above Donaire P4P. Here's why -Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Froch's last five opponents compared with Donaires conclusively prove Froch has been operating amongst a far more accomplished pool of fighters.
Pascal - current LH champ.
Taylor - former undisputed middleweight champ (retired).
Dirrell - current top 5 rated supermiddle.
Kessler - former no.1 and current top 5 rated supermiddle.
Abraham - former middleweight champion and current top 10 rated supermiddle.
Froch went 4-1.
Froch's competition shows that not only were they regarded amongst the best of their weight range when he fought them but still maintain that position (barring the retired Taylor of course).
Donaires last 5.
Concepcion - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Vargas - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Marquez - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Sydorenko - former "world" champion. No current top 10 ranking.
Montiel - former "world" champion. Current top 5 rated bantam.
Donaire has faced only two opponents of any note. Sydorenko's claim to being world-class was that he was an alphabet champion. Four of Froch's opponents can claim this. Montiel was potentially a genuine P4P fighter. All five of Froch's opponents are potentially genuine P4P fighters.
Your criteria CLEARLY shows that Froch has by FAR the superior form over Donaire. It's not even close. Froch MUST rate above Donaire in all current P4P rankings. Fact.