Saddo's Pound For Pound Voting (Summer 2010) voting open till May 31st

[Kev]

P4P rankings are subjective, but only in accordance with strict criteria. B Hop's resume speaks for itself.

What criteria? Like I said, I believe p4p to be the best fighters in the world regardless of what they've done in the ring. It's more of a judge on talent then actual accomplishments, I leave that to 'greatest' lists. Martinez is 1-1-1 and could very wello be 3-0, the fact that he has the draw is a TRAVESTY. If you look at B Hop in the ring and then Martinez in the ring, who is the better more talented fighter? It's not even close it's Martinez.

If you limit that criteria to 'has won a title' like I did, then you get a more fair criteria and you judge actual p4p talent rather then stacking accomplishments against each other.

I think that's a ridiculous way to judge the rankings. It's no longer a rankings list but a predictions list.

Why not have Gamboa, Kell Brook, Devon Alexander all in the top 10? Hell I reckon that cashflow is going to be special in another 15 years or so....

Of course you have to take into account acomplishments, otherwise what is the point of acomplishments?

[amat]

P4P rankings are subjective, but only in accordance with strict criteria. B Hop's resume speaks for itself.

What criteria? Like I said, I believe p4p to be the best fighters in the world regardless of what they've done in the ring. It's more of a judge on talent then actual accomplishments, I leave that to 'greatest' lists. Martinez is 1-1-1 and could very wello be 3-0, the fact that he has the draw is a TRAVESTY. If you look at B Hop in the ring and then Martinez in the ring, who is the better more talented fighter? It's not even close it's Martinez.

If you limit that criteria to 'has won a title' like I did, then you get a more fair criteria and you judge actual p4p talent rather then stacking accomplishments against each other.

I think that's a ridiculous way to judge the rankings. It's no longer a rankings list but a predictions list.

Why not have Gamboa, Kell Brook, Devon Alexander all in the top 10? Hell I reckon that cashflow is going to be special in another 15 years or so....

Of course you have to take into account acomplishments, otherwise what is the point of acomplishments?

No as I clearly stated accomplishments do factor in, an unproven guy won't make it but honestly do you think B-Hop is one of the 5 best fighters in the world right now? You're giving in to the fact that he hasn't lost in a bit even though he's been made to look shit.

Predictions are subjective as are these lists, that's all they share in common. It's who I believe the best proven fighters in the world are. Go look at my list and tell me those aren't 20 very talented fighters worthy of acclaim. I don't have B-Hop on there because I don't think he's one of the 20 best fighters in the world right now, I'm not going to let big wins from years past cloud my judgement on whether he's the best or not, I find you're method of judging to be ridiculous just look at your argument against Martinez. Saying the middleweight champion can't be one of the 10 best fighters because he's 1-1-1 while other guys might be 3-0 is ridiculous. A different set of judges and he's possibly 3-0 or 2-0-1 or 2-1 with a knockout of Kermit Cintron rather then a draw.

What's your 'strict' criteria Bilbo if you want to call me ridiculous. This is why you piss me off on the boxing board sometimes with your generalities, go look at my list and tell me where to find Gamboa and Alexander I'm using my own judgement here not following some stupid little boxrec formula.

[miron_lang]

1. Pacquiao
2. Mayweather
3. Williams
4. Martinez
5. Dawson
6. Donairre
7. JMM
8. Mosley
9. Caballero
10. Wongjongkam

[Fenster]

P4P rankings are subjective, but only in accordance with strict criteria. B Hop's resume speaks for itself.

What criteria? Like I said, I believe p4p to be the best fighters in the world regardless of what they've done in the ring. It's more of a judge on talent then actual accomplishments, I leave that to 'greatest' lists. Martinez is 1-1-1 and could very wello be 3-0, the fact that he has the draw is a TRAVESTY. If you look at B Hop in the ring and then Martinez in the ring, who is the better more talented fighter? It's not even close it's Martinez.

If you limit that criteria to 'has won a title' like I did, then you get a more fair criteria and you judge actual p4p talent rather then stacking accomplishments against each other.

I think that's a ridiculous way to judge the rankings. It's no longer a rankings list but a predictions list.

Why not have Gamboa, Kell Brook, Devon Alexander all in the top 10? Hell I reckon that cashflow is going to be special in another 15 years or so....

Of course you have to take into account acomplishments, otherwise what is the point of acomplishments?

That's exactly what it is. You are predicting who the best fighters in the world are with size/weight leveled.

Your way is just as flawed. Each division constantly fluctuates in strength. A fighter in the welterweight divison may not be good enough to win a title but is still clearly far more talented than a "champion" from a weaker division.

Jermain Taylor entered The Rings top ten list after beating Hopkins. He was then booted off before losing because his performances against Ouma/Spinks were poor. Likewise Hopkins has been dropped because he's clearly only a top fighter on past accomplishments not current form.

Where did the "strict criteria" you apply come from?

[amat]

What criteria? Like I said, I believe p4p to be the best fighters in the world regardless of what they've done in the ring. It's more of a judge on talent then actual accomplishments, I leave that to 'greatest' lists. Martinez is 1-1-1 and could very wello be 3-0, the fact that he has the draw is a TRAVESTY. If you look at B Hop in the ring and then Martinez in the ring, who is the better more talented fighter? It's not even close it's Martinez.

If you limit that criteria to 'has won a title' like I did, then you get a more fair criteria and you judge actual p4p talent rather then stacking accomplishments against each other.

I think that's a ridiculous way to judge the rankings. It's no longer a rankings list but a predictions list.

Why not have Gamboa, Kell Brook, Devon Alexander all in the top 10? Hell I reckon that cashflow is going to be special in another 15 years or so....

Of course you have to take into account acomplishments, otherwise what is the point of acomplishments?

That's exactly what it is. You are predicting who the best fighters in the world are with size/weight leveled.

Your way is just as flawed. Each division constantly fluctuates in strength. A fighter in the welterweight divison may not be good enough to win a title but is still clearly far more talented than a "champion" from a weaker division.

Jermain Taylor entered The Rings top ten list after beating Hopkins. He was then booted off before losing because his performances against Ouma/Spinks were poor. Likewise Hopkins has been dropped because he's clearly only a top fighter on past accomplishments not current form.

Where did the "strict criteria" you apply come from?

Exactly, it's not like ranking a fighter in a division where you compare records in order to see who has actually earned a title shot. There generally is no P4P title to fight for so you're right it's really just a prediction contest. You shouldn't rank fighter A higher then fighter B because of a couple good wins when you think fighter B is BETTER. Hopkins is on there but do you think there are less then 5 fighters who have better form then Hopkins right now? NO WAY.

[fan johnny]

P4P rankings are subjective, but only in accordance with strict criteria. B Hop's resume speaks for itself.

What criteria? Like I said, I believe p4p to be the best fighters in the world regardless of what they've done in the ring. It's more of a judge on talent then actual accomplishments, I leave that to 'greatest' lists. Martinez is 1-1-1 and could very wello be 3-0, the fact that he has the draw is a TRAVESTY. If you look at B Hop in the ring and then Martinez in the ring, who is the better more talented fighter? It's not even close it's Martinez.

If you limit that criteria to 'has won a title' like I did, then you get a more fair criteria and you judge actual p4p talent rather then stacking accomplishments against each other.

I think that's a ridiculous way to judge the rankings. It's no longer a rankings list but a predictions list.

Why not have Gamboa, Kell Brook, Devon Alexander all in the top 10? Hell I reckon that cashflow is going to be special in another 15 years or so....

Of course you have to take into account acomplishments, otherwise what is the point of acomplishments?

The P4P lists are evolving. The thing is that promoters and others have discovered that although they are/were Hypothetical and Mythical that they do in fact carry value. And now that can be exploited.

People keep referring to the Ring Magazine as the bible of boxing thus it carries more credibility as a list.

Next comes the politics. (I define politics as "vying to get what you want".)