Top 5 P4P Now?

[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?

[Kev]

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.

[ElTerribleMorales]

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.

[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?

[Rantcatrat]

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.

[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.

Good points.

But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.

These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.

Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?

[Rantcatrat]

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.

Good points.

But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.

These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.

Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?

That is tough. I would go with Chris John...maybe. Chris John has been a champion for soooo long and that has to count for something. On the other hand, he really has only two big wins in his whole career, Juan Manuel Marquez and Rocky Jaurez. John's win over Marquez is better than Ward's best win. Ward's best wins were against Kessler and Bika.

I believe Ward's style would translate at 175 and maybe even at 200. I don't believe John would be as effective at 130 or 135.

Bottom line is that right now, I'd probably go with John, but I like Ward's trajectory.

For example, if Ward beats Froch, I'd probably vote Ward.

[JonnyFolds]

Chris John is far below Andre Ward. Ward has seen enormous success against his top level opposition. Ward I hold a lot higher than most ppl. I'd compare Giovanni Segura with Chris John and that would be tough. OR Segura with Juanma... But I do I see your point Ratcantrant..

It's all relative with P4P take your best guess at it, then bash everyone else for their picks. It's what makes all of this fun for everyone.

And Mayweather will not be the same fighter after all this legal trouble. Mark my words. He is going to look very much like Pernell Whittaker after all his legal troubles. That shit catches up with you quick. I guarantee you he is not the same in the gym as he was even a year ago. He already has no love for the game. How long do you think it will take for him to have no respect for the game and come in untrained?

[Rantcatrat]

Chris John is far below Andre Ward. Ward has seen enormous success against his top level opposition. Ward I hold a lot higher than most ppl. I'd compare Giovanni Segura with Chris John and that would be tough. OR Segura with Juanma... But I do I see your point Ratcantrant..

It's all relative with P4P take your best guess at it, then bash everyone else for their picks. It's what makes all of this fun for everyone.

And Mayweather will not be the same fighter after all this legal trouble. Mark my words. He is going to look very much like Pernell Whittaker after all his legal troubles. That shit catches up with you quick. I guarantee you he is not the same in the gym as he was even a year ago. He already has no love for the game. How long do you think it will take for him to have no respect for the game and come in untrained?

Johnny, I don't disagree. For me, that is why I say Ward has a better trajectory. I favor him against Froch and a win over Froch is big-time. John's over Yordan won't be close to as big. And wins over Froch and Kessler are marquee wins. My p4p list changes all the time.

[Kev]

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.

Good points.

But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.

These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.

Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?

You're actually demonstrating my point here. You deliberately picked these two as you know they have similar records. How do you know this? Because you are judging them and comparing according to the sort of criteria you are claiming doesn't exist.

All this example shows is that ranking fighters is not a fantasy. On the contrary you automatically asuumed us to be unanimous in agreeing with you that it would be hard to pick between these two fighters.

I agree, it is a close call. And we are all unanimous in agreeing that because are were all consciously or unconsiously using the same criteria to judge them.

Have a good day.

[Julius Rain]

Tim has Nonito third. I wonder who he has as second p4p.

[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.

Good points.

But, whatever the circumstances of their opponents at the time, both have their best wins over the same guys. They both have operated around the same opponents. Neither has been knocked out. Both are big punchers. Pavlik has never fought Froch or Dirrell and Abraham has never fought Hopkins or Martinez. So it's impossible to definitively know how each would compare against their conqueror's. However, all are respected world-class fighters.

These guys are pretty similar. It's hard to rate one above the other. Yet they are dealing in the same pool of fighters.

Now compare who is better between - Chris John and Andre Ward?

You're actually demonstrating my point here. You deliberately picked these two as you know they have similar records. How do you know this? Because you are judging them and comparing according to the sort of criteria you are claiming doesn't exist.

All this example shows is that ranking fighters is not a fantasy. On the contrary you automatically asuumed us to be unanimous in agreeing with you that it would be hard to pick between these two fighters.

I agree, it is a close call. And we are all unanimous in agreeing that because are were all consciously or unconsiously using the same criteria to judge them.

Have a good day.

Hold up.. no, no, no.

I'm not claiming your criteria doesn't exist. However, It ONLY works for individual weight classes. And yet, as the AA-Pavlik example shows, it still leaves questions about who exactly is the superior fighter. It is not definitive.

Therefore, how do you possibly think you can definitively assess fighters from various divisions in this way? It is ridiculous.

You'll never be able to prove Froch is better than Donaire (for example) because they are so far apart in weight that they are basically operating in different sports. They will never fight. They will never have a single common opponent. There is no strict criteria that could possibly establish who is truly better. It would still be a GUESS. Which is no different to rating them by imagining them as the same size.

Simple as that.

[Kev]

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.