Top 5 P4P Now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

Not really. Firstly he picked up belts in two divisions, he wasnt king as demonstrated by the fact he just got knocked out trying to unify.

Furthermore he never really moved up to become a two weight champ. He started his career at 107 then moved down to win a 105 title and then went back up

In his entire career the difference between his max and min weights is less than 4lbs. Against Segura he weighed the same as he did on his debut so he has hardly torn through the divisions a la Pacquaio or Barrera, Morales, Marquez etc.

Hes a great defensive fighter but I highly doubt he would have been as succesful as a welterweight without more power. IN fact I challenge you to name a fighter in the higher weight classes who was as highly rated as Calderon with as little power in the past 20 years? 30 years?

As for a comparison to Ward. Not many have Ward on their p4p lists unless I am much mistaken? Also I think Wards potential to achieve more than Calderon is very likely. Most would believe that Ward could ultimately be competitive as high as 175 and still be a world champ, certainly he will likely attempt that eventually.

Calderon has gone up 3 lbs, and even that was going back up th where started out originally rather than climbing to face bigger guys.

---

All of that is utterly irrelevant.

You are denigrating his achievements by highlighting a smaller pool of fighters in the lighter divisions. But he fought, and had world-class success, in two weightclasses, which gives him a pool of 800 fighters not 300.

800 is a similar amount to certain other high-profile divisions, where a fighter can be ranked P4P for his success purely at that weight.

Whether you think he's P4P or not doesn't matter to me. Just pointing out a slight flaw in your argument ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

Not really. Firstly he picked up belts in two divisions, he wasnt king as demonstrated by the fact he just got knocked out trying to unify.

Furthermore he never really moved up to become a two weight champ. He started his career at 107 then moved down to win a 105 title and then went back up

In his entire career the difference between his max and min weights is less than 4lbs. Against Segura he weighed the same as he did on his debut so he has hardly torn through the divisions a la Pacquaio or Barrera, Morales, Marquez etc.

Hes a great defensive fighter but I highly doubt he would have been as succesful as a welterweight without more power. IN fact I challenge you to name a fighter in the higher weight classes who was as highly rated as Calderon with as little power in the past 20 years? 30 years?

As for a comparison to Ward. Not many have Ward on their p4p lists unless I am much mistaken? Also I think Wards potential to achieve more than Calderon is very likely. Most would believe that Ward could ultimately be competitive as high as 175 and still be a world champ, certainly he will likely attempt that eventually.

Calderon has gone up 3 lbs, and even that was going back up th where started out originally rather than climbing to face bigger guys.

---

All of that is utterly irrelevant.

You are denigrating his achievements by highlighting a smaller pool of fighters in the lighter divisions. But he fought, and had world-class success, in two weightclasses, which gives him a pool of 800 fighters not 300.

800 is a similar amount to certain other high-profile divisions, where a fighter can be ranked P4P for his success purely at that weight.

Whether you think he's P4P or not doesn't matter to me. Just pointing out a slight flaw in your argument ;)

---

I don't really disagree with that. I've never objected to Calderon's status either when he did finally make it to the lower end of the p4p rankings. He was unbeaten and had proven himself over many years.

Not really sure Segura has done that though. Yes he's beaten the 36 year old Calderon, who by light flyweight standards is ancient, but he's not justified in that why he has done more to merit p4p status than for example Hopkins, Froch, Ward, Bute, Pascal, Mosley, Cotto etc all of whom are as officially not as good as him.

If he fought in an established weight class people would be far more critical of his resume , highlighting his defeat a couple years ago to Cesar Canchila, a fighter who boxrec shows me was destroyed by a 13-0 fighter last time out, being put down 5 times on way to being ko'd. His 'superstar' conquerer was himself defeated last time out by another 12-1-1 stud who in turn lost a close fight to a 11-1-1 beast in Jesus Gales. A quick look at his record shows he lost in 2009 to a 1-7-2 fighter.

Have you EVER seen such bullshit as this in the proper weight classes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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 ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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 impossible 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

To the other point - yes if you are using numbers to determine how strong a particular fighters pool of competition is then single weight P4P fighters are gonna be thin.

Bradley should struggle to make anyones list (I guess theres about 1000 lightwelters).

---

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 erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Martinez isnt top 5 lb4lb fighter in the world

he is a very good fighter but hasnt done enough to be top 5

geeky i know but i have just boxrecced his last 5 fights

Williams W KO 2
Pavlik W UD
Williams L MD
Cintron D
Bunema W RTD 8

there are many boxers with better records in their last 5 fights

---

Disagree. 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.
He is a beast for anyone around those weight classes.

---

and a lot seem to agree with you

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

---

For one, I don't think you are considering that Martinez has accomplished this over two weight classes.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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?

---

What kind of example is that?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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?

---

What kind of example is that?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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?

---

What kind of example is that?

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.

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.

---

OK.

Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

For one, I don't think you are considering that Martinez has accomplished this over two weight classes.

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?

---

im not sure he has accomplished all this at 2 weights, the two wins that you are shouting about were at middleweight werent they?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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?

---

What kind of example is that?

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.

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.

---

OK.

Using your simple criteria who rates higher P4P - Pavlik or Abraham?

---

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 Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HattonTheHammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Calderon was a two weight champion. That adds roughly 500 more fighters to the 311.

That means he was the king of 800 boxers. Which is the equivalent of topping the super-middleweight division.

So if you think Ward is P4P worthy based on his exploits at 168 then mathematically so is Calderon. Fact. ;)

---

thats the very same logic that could argue sergio martinez for p4p #1 isnt it??

---

Is it? How do you mean?

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

---

Heavyweights shouldn't be considered P4P anyway (unless they are absolute phenoms like prime Tyson who never had a size advantage).

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.

---

Manny 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.

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.

---

Exactly. That is why P4P is FANTASY. There is no strict scientific method to prove you are right. There is no right or wrong.

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?

---

What kind of example is that?

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.

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.

---

OK.

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 Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KKisser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KananKrus

..... let's not get carried away.

---

getting carried away is putting donaire at no. 2. imo he deserve to move at least a position up the p4p ranking.

---

Even 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.

Only Pacquaio has been toppling top guys as impressively.

---

How could Martinez recent opposition have been better? He completely outclassed the top fighters in two divisions.

---

His 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).

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.

---

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)

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