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

[Kev]

This will be one messy thread

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.

[Mikkel_K]

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.

[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

[brucelee]

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. Reps when able.

[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. (que sly dig from welsh/scot/irish member reminding me of our failure to qualify for the Euros! )

[Fenster]

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. (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.

[killersheep]

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



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.

[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

[Kev]

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.

[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