How did Rigondeaux get on the Ring P4P List?

[fan johnny]

Typically I don't pay much attention to p4p list but I happen to seen the latest Ring P4P list and can't understand how a boxer with 14 fights can be on a P4P list and a fighter like GGG is not? 30-0

[Beanflicker]

By completely whipping a guy who near the top of the list.

Pound for pound is not all about achievement and experience. You also have to factor in perceived skill, and you don't have to be a boxing expert to realize Rigo is on a different level than most guys who lace up gloves today.

[zhubin]

The fact that almost everyone is afraid to fight him should tell you all you need to know. Outside of Floyd...he is the most skilled and fluid fighter in the business right now . When he fought Donaire....Donaire was considered to be p4p one of the very best...and Rigo schooled him.

[Spicoli]

I think his skills and ability are pretty obvious. p4p is boiled down to a tag line now and has 101 interpretations and the same amount of definitions. When ya start ranking guys on numbers and 'upset' wins you end up with guys like Margarito riding p4p. Top in a division maybe...yeh. One of the best fighters going in sport...Hell no. What's more ass backwards is how, at least last time I checked, Hopkins is not even top ten "p4p" That alone sort of discredits the whole thing for me.

[fan johnny]

By completely whipping a guy who near the top of the list.

Pound for pound is not all about achievement and experience. You also have to factor in perceived skill, and you don't have to be a boxing expert to realize Rigo is on a different level than most guys who lace up gloves today.

I get the whole criteria is made up subjective and thingy which is why I don't really pay that much attention to it. And I might even agree with the whole preceived skills bit but if they aren't going to put some realistic criteria into the mix, they might as well just use the wife's critiera for picking the winner and that's by what colors they are wearing.

[Primo Carnera]

I've said all along that a P4P list is a complete waste of fucking time. It's ok for the no.1 to be judged, even No. 2 or 3, just to say who the current best fighter on the planet is, but what does it mean to be no. 7 or 8 on the list when there's about 17 fucking divisions. it's way too subjective and to be pound for pound , you have to pretty dominant.
For example , Froch is on the list , and although he's currently top of his pile ,
a.) Ward schooled him and would do so again and is on the list,
b.) Without Ward , that division is dog shit.
c.) for all his attributes, he's not a particularly good/skilled boxer.
so why would he be above GGG , who
a.) dominates his division to the extent that nobody will go fucking near him , and he has to get stupidly mentioned in match ups in divisions above and below his natural weight just to get an even contest
b.) the division is stronger
c.) He's not just a KO merchant, he's very skilled .

[Beanflicker]

I get the whole criteria is made up subjective and thingy which is why I don't really pay that much attention to it. And I might even agree with the whole preceived skills bit but if they aren't going to put some realistic criteria into the mix, they might as well just use the wife's critiera for picking the winner and that's by what colors they are wearing.

I don't think it's arbitrary, and I don't think it's all subjective either. It's made up of the subjective consensus among those who know boxing and also objective actual achievement.

To each their own, I know a lot of boxing fans don't like getting into p4p discussions, but I never understood why, because p4p rankings are the titles that are given by the fans and boxing media, not by some bullshit sanctioning body. In our era where there seem to be hundreds of "world champions" per weight division, the consensus of boxing's core audience means much more than any belt or trinket ever could.

So when the entire boxing community is mentioning a guy's name in the top 10, top 5, or even top position p4p, I think that carries a lot of weight.

[fan johnny]

I get the whole criteria is made up subjective and thingy which is why I don't really pay that much attention to it. And I might even agree with the whole preceived skills bit but if they aren't going to put some realistic criteria into the mix, they might as well just use the wife's critiera for picking the winner and that's by what colors they are wearing.

I don't think it's arbitrary, and I don't think it's all subjective either. It's made up of the subjective consensus among those who know boxing and also objective actual achievement.

To each their own, I know a lot of boxing fans don't like getting into p4p discussions, but I never understood why, because p4p rankings are the titles that are given by the fans and boxing media, not by some bullshit sanctioning body. In our era where there seem to be hundreds of "world champions" per weight division, the consensus of boxing's core audience means much more than any belt or trinket ever could.

So when the entire boxing community is mentioning a guy's name in the top 10, top 5, or even top position p4p, I think that carries a lot of weight.

Wow, I really don't get that! P4P lists are a total mind fuck! And trying to rationalize a current p4p ranking just completes the subjective insanity. Now your saying it's a fucking Title that matters?

What is Subjective? It's based on or influence by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. P4P lists are not based on Tangable criteria (fighters don't face each other) which makes them absolutely subjective.

[Rantcatrat]

I get the whole criteria is made up subjective and thingy which is why I don't really pay that much attention to it. And I might even agree with the whole preceived skills bit but if they aren't going to put some realistic criteria into the mix, they might as well just use the wife's critiera for picking the winner and that's by what colors they are wearing.

I don't think it's arbitrary, and I don't think it's all subjective either. It's made up of the subjective consensus among those who know boxing and also objective actual achievement.

To each their own, I know a lot of boxing fans don't like getting into p4p discussions, but I never understood why, because p4p rankings are the titles that are given by the fans and boxing media, not by some bullshit sanctioning body. In our era where there seem to be hundreds of "world champions" per weight division, the consensus of boxing's core audience means much more than any belt or trinket ever could.

So when the entire boxing community is mentioning a guy's name in the top 10, top 5, or even top position p4p, I think that carries a lot of weight.

I think @Beanflicker is on to something although I would emphasize that the boxing community is not perfect. Remember when Adrian Broner was ranked in the top 5 p4p by Ring Magazine? How ridiculous was that? On the other hand, at least to an extent, it is most often correct. It usually gets right the top 20 fighters in the sport. Where they rank individually is subjective. Whether you have Rigo at number 5 or number 3 depends on taste. Wlad at 3 or 5 depends on taste too etc. But, that they're both in the top 10 is definite.

[VG_Addict]

Off topic, but I predict Lomachenko and Crawford will be in the P4P list in the next couple of years.

[Beanflicker]

I think @Beanflicker is on to something although I would emphasize that the boxing community is not perfect. Remember when Adrian Broner was ranked in the top 5 p4p by Ring Magazine? How ridiculous was that? On the other hand, at least to an extent, it is most often correct. It usually gets right the top 20 fighters in the sport. Where they rank individually is subjective. Whether you have Rigo at number 5 or number 3 depends on taste. Wlad at 3 or 5 depends on taste too etc. But, that they're both in the top 10 is definite.

Yeah it's pretty far from an exact science. Even hardened boxing fans will get fooled into thinking a guy is better than he is, and I think there definitely is a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" aspect where guys like Adrian Broner who talk and command a lot of attention will get overrated. And I do agree that when you get up to like top 5-10 p4p it gets kind of "pick em choose em".

I do think being a top 5 p4p in general carries a lot of weight. If we go back and look at the guys over the last 30 years or so who were consistently considered top 5 p4p over years and even decades - Whitaker, JCC, Roy Jones, De La Hoya, Mosley, Pacquiao, Floyd, ect, it really doesn't get better than those guys and I think that's more telling of the impact and legacy they had than any WBC/WBA/ABC/whatever belt they won along the way.

[ruthless rocco]

I think @Beanflicker is on to something although I would emphasize that the boxing community is not perfect. Remember when Adrian Broner was ranked in the top 5 p4p by Ring Magazine? How ridiculous was that? On the other hand, at least to an extent, it is most often correct. It usually gets right the top 20 fighters in the sport. Where they rank individually is subjective. Whether you have Rigo at number 5 or number 3 depends on taste. Wlad at 3 or 5 depends on taste too etc. But, that they're both in the top 10 is definite.

Yeah it's pretty far from an exact science. Even hardened boxing fans will get fooled into thinking a guy is better than he is, and I think there definitely is a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" aspect where guys like Adrian Broner who talk and command a lot of attention will get overrated. And I do agree that when you get up to like top 5-10 p4p it gets kind of "pick em choose em".

I do think being a top 5 p4p in general carries a lot of weight. If we go back and look at the guys over the last 30 years or so who were consistently considered top 5 p4p over years and even decades - Whitaker, JCC, Roy Jones, De La Hoya, Mosley, Pacquiao, Floyd, ect, it really doesn't get better than those guys and I think that's more telling of the impact and legacy they had than any WBC/WBA/ABC/whatever belt they won along the way.

Last night's Taylor Soliman fight is a perfect example!