Top 5 P4P Now?

[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]

I agree in as much as determining who would win in a fictional matchup between the two, that would be down to opinion.

That isn't the only way to approach the p4p rankings though.

As I said at the start of the thread, I approach the p4p rankings in terms of acomplishments, resume's, form, performances etc and rank who I think are the top 10 performing boxers right now.

On that scale, given that Donaire is unbeaten, and has brutally knocked out his two biggest rivals in his weight class, clearly he deserves to be higher p4p than Carl Froch, who lost only two fights ago, and who won a controversial victory over Andre Dirrell the previous time out.

Would you disagree that you are unable to claim whether one of these fighters has acomplished more, or has a better resume within their respective weight class, because I disagree.

For what it's worth, prior to the Montiel victory Donaire imo was below Carl Froch in terms of acomplishments, because of his relatively poor competition for the past 3 years.

Ultimately I'm not rating according to who I think is best in a ficitional matchup, I'm asking the question 'Whose acomplishments are greater?', and looking carefully at recent form as well.

That's why, in my p4p rankings, they are not necessarily who I think are the 10 best fighters in the world right now, but rather the 10 best achievers, with the 10 best resumes in boxing right now.

[Fenster]

I agree in as much as determining who would win in a fictional matchup between the two, that would be down to opinion.

That isn't the only way to approach the p4p rankings though.

As I said at the start of the thread, I approach the p4p rankings in terms of acomplishments, resume's, form, performances etc and rank who I think are the top 10 performing boxers right now.

On that scale, given that Donaire is unbeaten, and has brutally knocked out his two biggest rivals in his weight class, clearly he deserves to be higher p4p than Carl Froch, who lost only two fights ago, and who won a controversial victory over Andre Dirrell the previous time out.

Would you disagree that you are unable to claim whether one of these fighters has acomplished more, or has a better resume within their respective weight class, because I disagree.

For what it's worth, prior to the Montiel victory Donaire imo was below Carl Froch in terms of acomplishments, because of his relatively poor competition for the past 3 years.

Ultimately I'm not rating according to who I think is best in a ficitional matchup, I'm asking the question 'Whose acomplishments are greater?', and looking carefully at recent form as well.

That's why, in my p4p rankings, they are not necessarily who I think are the 10 best fighters in the world right now, but rather the 10 best achievers, with the 10 best resumes in boxing right now.

I totally disagree with your evalulation of these fighters. Using your method Froch easily ranks above Donaire P4P. Here's why -

Froch's last five opponents compared with Donaires conclusively prove Froch has been operating amongst a far more accomplished pool of fighters.

Pascal - current LH champ.
Taylor - former undisputed middleweight champ (retired).
Dirrell - current top 5 rated supermiddle.
Kessler - former no.1 and current top 5 rated supermiddle.
Abraham - former middleweight champion and current top 10 rated supermiddle.

Froch went 4-1.

Froch's competition shows that not only were they regarded amongst the best of their weight range when he fought them but still maintain that position (barring the retired Taylor of course).

Donaires last 5.

Concepcion - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Vargas - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Marquez - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Sydorenko - former "world" champion. No current top 10 ranking.
Montiel - former "world" champion. Current top 5 rated bantam.

Donaire has faced only two opponents of any note. Sydorenko's claim to being world-class was that he was an alphabet champion. Four of Froch's opponents can claim this. Montiel was potentially a genuine P4P fighter. All five of Froch's opponents are potentially genuine P4P fighters.

Your criteria CLEARLY shows that Froch has by FAR the superior form over Donaire. It's not even close. Froch MUST rate above Donaire in all current P4P rankings. Fact.

[Kev]

I agree in as much as determining who would win in a fictional matchup between the two, that would be down to opinion.

That isn't the only way to approach the p4p rankings though.

As I said at the start of the thread, I approach the p4p rankings in terms of acomplishments, resume's, form, performances etc and rank who I think are the top 10 performing boxers right now.

On that scale, given that Donaire is unbeaten, and has brutally knocked out his two biggest rivals in his weight class, clearly he deserves to be higher p4p than Carl Froch, who lost only two fights ago, and who won a controversial victory over Andre Dirrell the previous time out.

Would you disagree that you are unable to claim whether one of these fighters has acomplished more, or has a better resume within their respective weight class, because I disagree.

For what it's worth, prior to the Montiel victory Donaire imo was below Carl Froch in terms of acomplishments, because of his relatively poor competition for the past 3 years.

Ultimately I'm not rating according to who I think is best in a ficitional matchup, I'm asking the question 'Whose acomplishments are greater?', and looking carefully at recent form as well.

That's why, in my p4p rankings, they are not necessarily who I think are the 10 best fighters in the world right now, but rather the 10 best achievers, with the 10 best resumes in boxing right now.

I totally disagree with your evalulation of these fighters. Using your method Froch easily ranks above Donaire P4P. Here's why -

Froch's last five opponents compared with Donaires conclusively prove Froch has been operating amongst a far more accomplished pool of fighters.

Pascal - current LH champ.
Taylor - former undisputed middleweight champ (retired).
Dirrell - current top 5 rated supermiddle.
Kessler - former no.1 and current top 5 rated supermiddle.
Abraham - former middleweight champion and current top 10 rated supermiddle.

Froch went 4-1.

Froch's competition shows that not only were they regarded amongst the best of their weight range when he fought them but still maintain that position (barring the retired Taylor of course).

Donaires last 5.

Concepcion - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Vargas - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Marquez - never won a "world" title. No current top 10 ranking.
Sydorenko - former "world" champion. No current top 10 ranking.
Montiel - former "world" champion. Current top 5 rated bantam.

Donaire has faced only two opponents of any note. Sydorenko's claim to being world-class was that he was an alphabet champion. Four of Froch's opponents can claim this. Montiel was potentially a genuine P4P fighter. All five of Froch's opponents are potentially genuine P4P fighters.

Your criteria CLEARLY shows that Froch has by FAR the superior form over Donaire. It's not even close. Froch MUST rate above Donaire in all current P4P rankings. Fact.

No. First off, let me be clear, prior to Donaire's win over Montiel I didn't have him in my p4p either and Froch WAS higher, so I agree up to a point.

But Froch was beaten by Kessler in a close fight, a fighter coming off a loss, and in the eyes of most fight fans should have lost to Andre Dirrell. His win over Abraham was impressive but he too was coming off a loss.

Contrast that with Montiel who was coming off a huge win over Hasegawa and was unbeaten in several years.

No question Montiel was considered by the vast majority to be higher rated in a p4p sense than either Kessler, Abraham or Dirrell. Darchinyan also, until last year was a ligitimate p4p star.

Destroying 2 top fighters like Darchinyan and Montiel is better than losing to one, getting a hotly contested split decision win over another and beating one in an impressive performance.

For me Carl Froch is definitely getting close to the p4p rankings. Unfortunately for him, he is only one fight removed from a defeat, and is not yet close to being acknowledged the best fighter in his weight class. Ward and Bute both heavily contest this.

Donaire is now widely regarded as the best fighter in his division, a claim you simply cannot make for Carl Froch.

Donaire is justifiably above Froch in the p4p because a) defeats cost ranking points, b) being the acknowledged number 1 in your weight class adds ranking points c)quality and decisiveness of victories add ranking points, the better the win and performance, the higher the credit.

I think the vast majority of pundits, experts and informed fight fans would rate Donaire above Froch on the p4p scale and they would likely use the criteria I have laid out above to do so.

You can dissent of course, that is your right. But you are wrong.

[Fenster]

So you're saying even though Froch is CLEARLY operating amongst a much stronger pool of fighters than Donaire, which clearly makes it harder to become no.1, he gets penalised for it?

1. defeats cost ranking points

Chris John has never lost.

2. being the acknowledged number 1 in your weight class adds ranking points

Chris John can claim this.

3. quality and decisiveness of victories add ranking points, the better the win and performance, the higher the credit.

Chris John has beat the legend Juan Manuel Marquez.

He must be HIGH on your P4P list, right? Just behind Pac?

[Kev]

1. A draw agains a fighter with only 3 wins in his last 11 fights and none in his last 5 loses a serious number of ranking points.

2. With Juan Manuel Lopez, and Gamboa in his weight class John certainly cannot claim this.

3. Chris John did get onto my p4p list when he beat Marquez. But that was 5 years ago in 2006. As I said before, one of the key critieria is 'What have you done lately', and in under that criteria John has done very little.

If John was to fight and beat a Gamboa or Manuel Lopez he would be fufilling that criteria and absolutely would jump back into the p4p rankings.

All in accordance with a simple straight forward and systematic ranking criteria.

[Violent Demise]

So you're saying even though Froch is CLEARLY operating amongst a much stronger pool of fighters than Donaire, which clearly makes it harder to become no.1, he gets penalised for it?

1. defeats cost ranking points

Chris John has never lost.

2. being the acknowledged number 1 in your weight class adds ranking points

Chris John can claim this.

3. quality and decisiveness of victories add ranking points, the better the win and performance, the higher the credit.

Chris John has beat the legend Juan Manuel Marquez.

He must be HIGH on your P4P list, right? Just behind Pac?

So much for John's so-called win over Marquez

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

It wouldn't be fair for me to just list 5 so I'll put it in better perspective by showing the whole 10.

Because this isn't a league table I went as follows:

1. Pacquiao - Blitzed all the weightclasses. Level of competetion has been outstanding.
2. Hopkins - Skills that redefine longevity. Has shown time & again, how the real pro's get it done.
3. Marquez - Weightclass friendly, fight fan friendly. Longevity. Mixed with the best and held his own.
4. W. Klitschko - Long time domination, consistent level of outstanding skill for a man his size.
5. Martinez - Becoming weight friendly, on a run. Good skills. Good resume.
6. Froch - Excellent level of competition.
9. Ward - Skills that last. Good athlete. Son of God.
8. Dawson - Amazing skills, mixed with good company.
9. Donaire - Sublime skills. Resume took a turn for the better, needs bigger opponents.
10. Amir Khan - Great athlete. Resume becoming deep. Almost there.

[erics44]

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.

what does CHF stand for?

[Kev]

What?

If you mean CFH , it's Canada's Finest Homosexual.

[erics44]

What?

If you mean CFH , it's Canada's Finest Homosexual.

yes thats what I meant

a homosexual and a virgin eh?