Quote Originally Posted by Majesty View Post
I was reading this and I thought of a point i'd like to ask you what to think.

Is someones p4p status in question if their biggest victories are always in question?

Because the only unmistakable uncriticized performance of Calzaghe was his domination of Kessler.

But there is always a but at the end of his other victories.

Roy Jones - Roy was past his prime and even then had Joe on dream street in the first round

Hopkins - Was a split decision and many felt Hopkins won

Lacy - american hype job that struggled against lesser competition that actually boxed him

Eubank - Eubank was weight drained and/or wasn't mentally the same fighter he was after the Watson fight.



Does it effect Joe's p4p status that most of his biggest wins have some sort of taint on them. Because imo p4p means you dominate everyone in their prime whether or not they are the hugest name. But that when it came to your biggest wins are against people in their prime. (Ray Leonard beat Hearns in his prime etc, Ali beat Foreman in his prime etc)

Hindsight is 20/20 but the only true credible prime Joe beat was Kessler, and I mean that in terms of no one questions it or criticizes Joe for it. Not like they do Lacy anyway.

If you look at someone like Pacquiao his biggest wins are almost never in question.

or if you look at Mayweather who's only question was against Castillo which he corrected later on.


Does this effect his ranking in p4p?

Some people do take tainted wins into effect on their personal P4P rankings. I think RING Rankings go with whatever the official decision was (AS DO I).