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

Just wondering on how people here think the P4P rankings work?...Or how they make their list......It seems that when reading the post of some people here they think just because a fighter beats another fighter or any fighter on the P4P list that they should either replace them or be put on the list...Some feel even higher......

Before I explain how I do mine or how it is actually complied by the experts (No BOXREC DOES NOT COUNT THEY ARE IDIOTS)....I think thereb is a lot pf confusion on how this works

This will be one messy thread :D

You need wins over some top P4P fighters to be in the top 10 IMO. Calzaghe (as much as I'm a fan of him) has only beaten one top 10 P4P fighter so why is he up there?

That's kind of my take on it. But people will do it in so many different ways.

P4P rankings are compiled on level of opposition(relative to the compiler) ,records ... and also as stated above will pretty much always need a win over a current P4P fighter. This is paramount. Joe had trouble making many lists prior to this but was on many due to his record and longevity as champ.

Honestly,I try to avoid them.So much subjectiveness and broad interpretation.The point about beating one fighter amongst the top ten and consequently being put into the p4p is spot on.I just can not buy that as a sole reason to make the rankings.I think it has to be a current evaluation on recent showings....fight by fight taking into consideration Caliber of competition,performance,and ....this is where it gets sujective....a broad assessment of skillset and how they compare.I'm already dizzy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

P4P rankings are compiled on level of opposition(relative to the compiler) ,records ... and also as stated above will pretty much always need a win over a current P4P fighter. This is paramount. Joe had trouble making many lists prior to this but was on many due to his record and longevity as champ.

---

That's what I don't agree with, an undefeated record means fuck all unless you have top guys on your resume, imagine if Valuev was made top ten because of his record (before he got beat that is) that would be nuts.

All the best fighters have losses because they fought the best there was. Marciano may be an exeption though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

P4P rankings are compiled on level of opposition(relative to the compiler) ,records ... and also as stated above will pretty much always need a win over a current P4P fighter. This is paramount. Joe had trouble making many lists prior to this but was on many due to his record and longevity as champ.

---

That's what I don't agree with, an undefeated record means fuck all unless you have top guys on your resume, imagine if Valuev was made top ten because of his record (before he got beat that is) that would be nuts.

All the best fighters have losses because they fought the best there was. Marciano may be an exeption though.

---

That's exactly what I was attempting to say... It does mean fuck all but if you're gonna let Marciano(one of my all time favorite fighters...) go you have to let a slew of others go...

So had Calzaghe not beat Hopkins and that fight never tool place... and his record was still intact... would he have been on you P4P list?

Like Marciano fought aging champs and aging challengers and a lot of tomato cans... (course Louis had his "bum of the month club as well) But he is still seen as one of the best not even taking into account his retiring undefeated when some say he was in his prime...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

P4P rankings are compiled on level of opposition(relative to the compiler) ,records ... and also as stated above will pretty much always need a win over a current P4P fighter. This is paramount. Joe had trouble making many lists prior to this but was on many due to his record and longevity as champ.

---

That's what I don't agree with, an undefeated record means fuck all unless you have top guys on your resume, imagine if Valuev was made top ten because of his record (before he got beat that is) that would be nuts.

All the best fighters have losses because they fought the best there was. Marciano may be an exeption though.

---

That's exactly what I was attempting to say... It does mean fuck all but if you're gonna let Marciano(one of my all time favorite fighters...) go you have to let a slew of others go...

So had Calzaghe not beat Hopkins and that fight never tool place... and his record was still intact... would he have been on you P4P list?

Like Marciano fought aging champs and aging challengers and a lot of tomato cans... (course Louis had his "bum of the month club as well) But he is still seen as one of the best not even taking into account his retiring undefeated when some say he was in his prime...

---

Without the Hopkins win I'd say no, Lacy and Kessler puts him easily in the top 20 maybe, but guys at smaller weights especially have fought better opposition more often than Joe. I dunno, P4P ratings really do fuck my head in.

I think I stated it wrong....I was trying to ask more or less...How do you determine a P4P list....

I see a lot of guys who believe that because one fighter beats a fighter on the P4P list they automatically belong on the list.....It is not so...They also seem to think because one fighter ranked 10 on the P4P list lets say beats another in same weight class who happens to be on the list but ranked 4...that they get the #4 spot....

Just wondering how they justify this

Sorry for the confusion on the original post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

That's what I don't agree with, an undefeated record means fuck all unless you have top guys on your resume, imagine if Valuev was made top ten because of his record (before he got beat that is) that would be nuts.

All the best fighters have losses because they fought the best there was. Marciano may be an exeption though.

---

That's exactly what I was attempting to say... It does mean fuck all but if you're gonna let Marciano(one of my all time favorite fighters...) go you have to let a slew of others go...

So had Calzaghe not beat Hopkins and that fight never tool place... and his record was still intact... would he have been on you P4P list?

Like Marciano fought aging champs and aging challengers and a lot of tomato cans... (course Louis had his "bum of the month club as well) But he is still seen as one of the best not even taking into account his retiring undefeated when some say he was in his prime...

---

Without the Hopkins win I'd say no, Lacy and Kessler puts him easily in the top 20 maybe, but guys at smaller weights especially have fought better opposition more often than Joe. I dunno, P4P ratings really do fuck my head in.

---

No, no... I entirely agree with you. I remember having this discussion prior to the Hopkins fight on one of the 2 trillion P4P threads we normally have... Some had him at like 8 or nine... I had him at like 14 or so. I distinctly remember it. My point was that many had Calzaghe there for his longevity alone prior to beating a P4P fighter which I did not agree with.

We're on the same page, bro;)

It's really very difficult due to the subjectiveness introduced in the rankings. Though I only consider one position from most P4P list, that of the no. 1 P4P position since it's easier to justify... A boxer reaching the no. 1 P4P ranking usually deserved the title...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I think I stated it wrong....I was trying to ask more or less...How do you determine a P4P list....

I see a lot of guys who believe that because one fighter beats a fighter on the P4P list they automatically belong on the list.....It is not so...They also seem to think because one fighter ranked 10 on the P4P list lets say beats another in same weight class who happens to be on the list but ranked 4...that they get the #4 spot....

Just wondering how they justify this

Sorry for the confusion on the original post

---

You know, I'll be honest... I don't know. I think it's normally fairly easy with the top three but after that it's hairy as hell...

I'd like to see what's said here though cuz I seriously don't know beyond what I've said.

Good Thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I think I stated it wrong....I was trying to ask more or less...How do you determine a P4P list....

I see a lot of guys who believe that because one fighter beats a fighter on the P4P list they automatically belong on the list.....It is not so...They also seem to think because one fighter ranked 10 on the P4P list lets say beats another in same weight class who happens to be on the list but ranked 4...that they get the #4 spot....

Just wondering how they justify this

Sorry for the confusion on the original post

---

Good stuff Daxx.There was a thread weeks ago about the upcoming Calzaghe/Jones face off.If Jones beats Calzaghe,what ever the circumstances....Should he make the P4P top ten.I don't think so.There is no reason to believe Jones Jr,an undeniable greatly skilled fighter and legit p4p ruler in his prime,is the p4p fighter he once was.Say,he.....or any other fighter, go's out and lands a brick on a p4p fighter and takes a win.Imo,that does not necessarily equate to current p4p skills and ranking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I think I stated it wrong....I was trying to ask more or less...How do you determine a P4P list....

I see a lot of guys who believe that because one fighter beats a fighter on the P4P list they automatically belong on the list.....It is not so...They also seem to think because one fighter ranked 10 on the P4P list lets say beats another in same weight class who happens to be on the list but ranked 4...that they get the #4 spot....

Just wondering how they justify this

Sorry for the confusion on the original post

---

Good stuff Daxx.There was a thread weeks ago about the upcoming Calzaghe/Jones face off.If Jones beats Calzaghe,what ever the circumstances....Should he make the P4P top ten.I don't think so.There is no reason to believe Jones Jr,an undeniable greatly skilled fighter and legit p4p ruler in his prime,is the p4p fighter he once was.Say,he.....or any other fighter, go's out and lands a brick on a p4p fighter and takes a win.Imo,that does not necessarily equate to current p4p skills and ranking.

---

See now that's where I have to disagree... Jones is clearly past it but should Jones eak this out and fights at a level I don't think he's capable of fighting at and OUT BOXES a P4P#4 sure I think he belongs somewhere on the list... Absolutely!

Personally I think that you have to include 3 things

1. Quality of opp of course...Most important...any fighter worth a half tablespoon of salt can beat guys 10-9 or 22-11 and make a career out of it....You have to beat top contenders as a champion and you have to beat the best available in or around your divisions

2. Longevity....You must have quality wins over a long period of time...A fighter with 2 or 3 wins over top guys in a 2 or so yr time period does not really get the nod for me...we have all seen guys peak and fizzle like the weather changes...You have to be able to prove over a period that you can continue to compete and win at the top level...This is why I hold Bernard Hopkins in such high regard....Sure he has lost some over his past few but fact is he is a top caliber figher who has been a champion almost constantly with the exception of his time between the 2nd Taylor fight and Tarver bout

3. How dominate are the wins.....Guys who squeek out wins by SD or win by KO after the opponent kicked their ass until they faded from stamina issues are not dominate fighters...They are picking the right opp at the right time....EG-- John Ruiz may have been a multi time champion but he won his belts from a faded Holyfield who would have disposed of him easily years before.....Yet Chris Byrd who was no KO puncher by far outboxed his opp convincingly...Making him the more dominate force

This is the way I was taught to decide on how a fighter should be considered in a P4P setting by Bert Sugar and Angelo Dundee...and it is the recipe I continue to keep........Just not sure how some guys justify things like Calzaghe for example being so high after beating Jeff Lacy when Jeff had failed to beat a top quality fighter in their primes...But his win over Jeff no matter how dominate was supposed to make up for all the soft opp.....

For me it comes down to a few things:

quality of opposition
their last performance(s)
talent & ability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I think I stated it wrong....I was trying to ask more or less...How do you determine a P4P list....

I see a lot of guys who believe that because one fighter beats a fighter on the P4P list they automatically belong on the list.....It is not so...They also seem to think because one fighter ranked 10 on the P4P list lets say beats another in same weight class who happens to be on the list but ranked 4...that they get the #4 spot....

Just wondering how they justify this

Sorry for the confusion on the original post

---

Good stuff Daxx.There was a thread weeks ago about the upcoming Calzaghe/Jones face off.If Jones beats Calzaghe,what ever the circumstances....Should he make the P4P top ten.I don't think so.There is no reason to believe Jones Jr,an undeniable greatly skilled fighter and legit p4p ruler in his prime,is the p4p fighter he once was.Say,he.....or any other fighter, go's out and lands a brick on a p4p fighter and takes a win.Imo,that does not necessarily equate to current p4p skills and ranking.

---

See now that's where I have to disagree... Jones is clearly past it but should Jones eak this out and fights at a level I don't think he's capable of fighting at and OUT BOXES a P4P#4 sure I think he belongs somewhere on the list... Absolutely!

---

It really can be a case by case.If Roy can reverse the aging process and finds his once superior skillset over night and takes a consistant win down the stretch.....Of course it would be hard to deny the Ranking among the top teir p4p.I guess what Im saying is I just don't see it happening,he is not the great dominating superb force he once was.I can see a scenario in which he does come off the ropes and really clips Joe....maybe hurting him bad,possibly finding that Brick I mentioned for KO...But if he goes in and outboxes & out hustles Joe....I'll be here to eat my words and make room on that list ;D.This really can be subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Good stuff Daxx.There was a thread weeks ago about the upcoming Calzaghe/Jones face off.If Jones beats Calzaghe,what ever the circumstances....Should he make the P4P top ten.I don't think so.There is no reason to believe Jones Jr,an undeniable greatly skilled fighter and legit p4p ruler in his prime,is the p4p fighter he once was.Say,he.....or any other fighter, go's out and lands a brick on a p4p fighter and takes a win.Imo,that does not necessarily equate to current p4p skills and ranking.

---

See now that's where I have to disagree... Jones is clearly past it but should Jones eak this out and fights at a level I don't think he's capable of fighting at and OUT BOXES a P4P#4 sure I think he belongs somewhere on the list... Absolutely!

---

It really can be a case by case.If Roy can reverse the aging process and finds his once superior skillset over night and takes a consistant win down the stretch.....Of course it would be hard to deny the Ranking among the top teir p4p.I guess what Im saying is I just don't see it happening,he is not the great dominating superb force he once was.I can see a scenario in which he does come off the ropes and really clips Joe....maybe hurting him bad,possibly finding that Brick I mentioned for KO...But if he goes in and outboxes & out hustles Joe....I'll be here to eat my words and make room on that list ;D.This really can be subjective.

---

Nope, once again you elaborated and we once again agree... As I stated I also don't believe it can be done but should it... then we have a case.

Well stated, sir;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

See now that's where I have to disagree... Jones is clearly past it but should Jones eak this out and fights at a level I don't think he's capable of fighting at and OUT BOXES a P4P#4 sure I think he belongs somewhere on the list... Absolutely!

---

It really can be a case by case.If Roy can reverse the aging process and finds his once superior skillset over night and takes a consistant win down the stretch.....Of course it would be hard to deny the Ranking among the top tier p4p.I guess what I'm saying is I just don't see it happening,he is not the great dominating superb force he once was.I can see a scenario in which he does come off the ropes and really clips Joe....maybe hurting him bad,possibly finding that Brick I mentioned for KO...But if he goes in and out boxes & out hustles Joe....I'll be here to eat my words and make room on that list ;D.This really can be subjective.

---

Nope, once again you elaborated and we once again agree... As I stated I also don't believe it can be done but should it... then we have a case.

Well stated, sir;)

---

Haa.....Fair enough POB.Pop's always told me I was abit repetitive ;D. I am actually warming to that Jones/Calzaghe match up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRIDE OF BOSTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

It really can be a case by case.If Roy can reverse the aging process and finds his once superior skillset over night and takes a consistant win down the stretch.....Of course it would be hard to deny the Ranking among the top tier p4p.I guess what I'm saying is I just don't see it happening,he is not the great dominating superb force he once was.I can see a scenario in which he does come off the ropes and really clips Joe....maybe hurting him bad,possibly finding that Brick I mentioned for KO...But if he goes in and out boxes & out hustles Joe....I'll be here to eat my words and make room on that list ;D.This really can be subjective.

---

Nope, once again you elaborated and we once again agree... As I stated I also don't believe it can be done but should it... then we have a case.

Well stated, sir;)

---

Haa.....Fair enough POB.Pop's always told me I was abit repetitive ;D. I am actually warming to that Jones/Calzaghe match up.

---

Ya know, me too... a bit;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

This will be one messy thread :D

You need wins over some top P4P fighters to be in the top 10 IMO. Calzaghe (as much as I'm a fan of him) has only beaten one top 10 P4P fighter so why is he up there?

That's kind of my take on it. But people will do it in so many different ways.

---

Your criteria makes no sense Kel. If a fighter needs to beat more than one p4p top 10 to get into the top 10 then nobody would make it.

Look at the current top 10, how many have beaten more than one top 10 p4p guy?

Margarito beat Cotto who was top 10 p4p but never got a win over a top 10 p4p fighter. Pavlik has only beaten Taylor who was in the p4p thanks to wins over B Hop and nobody else.

Ivan Calderon has never beaten a p4p fighter, neither has Paul Williams, unless you count Margarito retrospectively. He wasn't p4p when he fought Williams.

Mijares has never beaten a p4p fighter either.

In fact the ONLY fighters who have beaten more than one top 10 p4p are Pacquaio, Hopkins and Vazquez for sure.

JM Marquez beat Barrera but to my knowledge he hasn't beaten any other Ring top 10 p4p stars. I'm not R Marquez either? They have beaten probably loads of top 10 stars in their weight class but the top 10 p4p is an elite group and most divisions don't have any fighter in the top 10 p4p so according to your criteria if you are in those divisions you are fucked as you can never beat any top 10 p4p star to make your own claim for greatness.

The correct way to assess a fighter's worth is quality of opponents, dominating a division, fighting and beating the best in their respective divisions, being unbeaten, number of defenses, number of belts, number of weight classes and length of reign.

Under all of those criteria Joe Calzaghe excels, the longest reigning world champ out there, beat both the number 1 challengers at super middle, beat a genuine legend of the sport in B Hop, has the most title defenses of any current fighter, a double weight champ (in spirit at least if not on technicality) and completely unbeaten throughout.

His resume puts him deservedly at number 2 in the p4p rankings imo.

According to your scale, Margarito, Pavlik, Cotto, Mijares, Calderon and Hatton would all have to go as they havn't beaten more than one p4p star.

Actually according to your criteria I'm not sure we have enough active fighters who even qualify at all and we probably couldn't compile a top 10 at all. :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

The correct way to assess a fighter's worth is quality of opponents, dominating a division, fighting and beating the best in their respective divisions, being unbeaten, number of defenses, number of belts, number of weight classes and length of reign.

---

Great post, but I don't get why 'length of reign' is an independent variable to be reckoned with? Sergei Dzindiruk and Zsolt Erdei are currently the longest reigning champs at LMW and LHW respectively, but neither of them are half as interesting as other fighters in their divisions. In other words 'length of reign' is only worth mentioning when defined by 'quality of opponents', 'dominating a division' etc - as a factor itself it shouldnt matter [1].

Also I disagree that being unbeaten matters much on a P4P-list. Pac, Hopkins and Margarito all lost early in their career, but that doesnt take anything away from their current level or status. Juan Manuel Marquez losing to Pac does not make him unworthy of P4P-status either.

As for the rest of your post I completely agree, although I would add to your assesment, that the P4P-list for me is something more based on achievements than current level. In other words it does not necessarily reflect the 10 best fighters in the world, but the 10 fighters with the best (recent) career.

[1] This is not to say that it isnt a fine record, Calzaghe's 11 years surely are for example. It just has nothing to do with P4P.

P4P rankings are basically a popularity/flavour of the month contest.

I believe far more emphasis should be put on TALENT/ABILITY rather than wins over "quality" opposition. Reason being - the strength in depth per division varies greatly, and is constantly changing.

Pavlik would currently make MOST peoples top 10 because of his standing in the middleweight divison and wins over Taylor. Joan (the disgrace) Guzman wouldn't make hardly anyones because he doesn't have a standout name on his record (Soto and Barrios are good wins). But who would honestly back Pavlik to beat Guzman in a mythical match-up with their size and weight EQUAL? I'd bet my life Guzman would SLAUGHTER him.

It's all nonsense.. but good fun ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

P4P rankings are basically a popularity/flavour of the month contest.

I believe far more emphasis should be put on TALENT/ABILITY rather than wins over "quality" opposition. Reason being - the strength in depth per division varies greatly, and is constantly changing.

Pavlik would currently make MOST peoples top 10 because of his standing in the middleweight divison and wins over Taylor. Joan (the disgrace) Guzman wouldn't make hardly anyones because he doesn't have a standout name on his record (Soto and Barrios are good wins). But who would honestly back Pavlik to beat Guzman in a mythical match-up with their size and weight EQUAL? I'd bet my life Guzman would SLAUGHTER him.

It's all nonsense.. but good fun ;)

---

You've put it all in the exact words I wanted to say.:cool: Reps when able.

Forgive my ignorance but how is the actual P4P list compiled? Is it done a la Boxrec and calculated statiscally or is it purely based on opinion?

Either way it's no definitive list and will always be contested , that's down to the hyperthetical nature of it.

The world FIFA football rankings have always baffled me. You look at the current standings and England are a miserable 14th, with the likes of Cameroon and Turkey above us. Not to mention Croatia at 6th who we stuffed 4-1 in Croatia last month. :confused: (que sly dig from welsh/scot/irish member reminding me of our failure to qualify for the Euros! ;))

The correct way to assess a fighter's worth is quality of opponents, dominating a division, fighting and beating the best in their respective divisions, being unbeaten, number of defenses, number of belts, number of weight classes and length of reign.



Very good assesment except the unbeaten factor does not really need apply,,,,Guys can go unbeaten for long periods of time but not be considered P4P...EG- Chris John.......

Having losses on your record does not disqualify you from P4P it is who you lost to that is important...

If an elite fighter loses to a decent fighter it proves nothing if the elite fighter continues on his ways come the next fights...

Anyone can have an off night or 2 in their careers...fighters like everyone else are entitled to it......It also does not mean the guy who beat them that 1 night is P4P worthy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

The correct way to assess a fighter's worth is quality of opponents, dominating a division, fighting and beating the best in their respective divisions, being unbeaten, number of defenses, number of belts, number of weight classes and length of reign.



Very good assesment except the unbeaten factor does not really need apply,,,,Guys can go unbeaten for long periods of time but not be considered P4P...EG- Chris John.......

Having losses on your record does not disqualify you from P4P it is who you lost to that is important...

If an elite fighter loses to a decent fighter it proves nothing if the elite fighter continues on his ways come the next fights...

Anyone can have an off night or 2 in their careers...fighters like everyone else are entitled to it......It also does not mean the guy who beat them that 1 night is P4P worthy

---

I think you're missing what I'm saying a bit. Not losing IS an important part of a p4p assessment. If it were not Shane Mosely and Oscar De La Hoya would still be near the top of the p4p.

B Hop would be number 1 p4p in the world and Hatton wouldn't have dropped out of the list.

I'm not saying that once a fighter is beaten they cannot be p4p, not at all that is absurd, but of course to be considered a great fighter you have to win fights.

As for Calzaghe the fact that he has reigned for so long, had so many defenses and never lost of course all factor into the equation when assessing his status and position in the p4p rankings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad

Forgive my ignorance but how is the actual P4P list compiled? Is it done a la Boxrec and calculated statiscally or is it purely based on opinion?

Either way it's no definitive list and will always be contested , that's down to the hyperthetical nature of it.

The world FIFA football rankings have always baffled me. You look at the current standings and England are a miserable 14th, with the likes of Cameroon and Turkey above us. Not to mention Croatia at 6th who we stuffed 4-1 in Croatia last month. :confused: (que sly dig from welsh/scot/irish member reminding me of our failure to qualify for the Euros! ;))

---

The Ring magazine (which most class as the legit list) is done by their opinion in conjunction with certain other boxing journalists from around the world.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

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

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

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

---

;D

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

There is no right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

The correct way to assess a fighter's worth is quality of opponents, dominating a division, fighting and beating the best in their respective divisions, being unbeaten, number of defenses, number of belts, number of weight classes and length of reign.



Very good assesment except the unbeaten factor does not really need apply,,,,Guys can go unbeaten for long periods of time but not be considered P4P...EG- Chris John.......

Having losses on your record does not disqualify you from P4P it is who you lost to that is important...

If an elite fighter loses to a decent fighter it proves nothing if the elite fighter continues on his ways come the next fights...

Anyone can have an off night or 2 in their careers...fighters like everyone else are entitled to it......It also does not mean the guy who beat them that 1 night is P4P worthy

---

I think you're missing what I'm saying a bit. Not losing IS an important part of a p4p assessment. If it were not Shane Mosely and Oscar De La Hoya would still be near the top of the p4p.

B Hop would be number 1 p4p in the world and Hatton wouldn't have dropped out of the list.

I'm not saying that once a fighter is beaten they cannot be p4p, not at all that is absurd, but of course to be considered a great fighter you have to win fights.

As for Calzaghe the fact that he has reigned for so long, had so many defenses and never lost of course all factor into the equation when assessing his status and position in the p4p rankings.

---

I understand you mate...I am pretty much in agreement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

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

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

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

---

;D

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

There is no right or wrong.

---

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

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

One word:

Achievement.

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

I was just curious on how some people made thiers

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

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

---

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

BUT-

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

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

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

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


A point I was trying to make some understand

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

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

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