So if the P4P number 1 struggle........

P4P rankings will inevitably include controversies, especially when comparing fighters of different weights. How do you compare a flyweight with a heavyweight? For the current issue, it's a bit easier since Pacquiao and Mayweather are in the same weight class, and have fought common opponents. Still it is controversial, as evidenced by the discussion burning the message boards. ESPN now has Floyd as number 1, while Ring Magazine retains Pacquiao as number 1. I guess we have to understand the reasons for their selection, and make our own judgment after that. This is a subjective matter, and thus we can expect a variance in opinion.

 

it pains me to see how many people still don't really get p4p

 

One thing we all can agree on: Money, Dinamita, and Pacman are THE top 3 p4p today.

 

As buncey says. P4P lists are a Fantasy.

 

its far worse, its just against the nature. its like homosexuality. theres only one champion in boxing and thats the heavyweight champion. making excuses about how weak midgets are supposed to be better fighters is just pathetic and pure gayness in that sissified world. Its like if someone would found a special NBA for 5'8 midgets and then would make the argument that they have the better players

 

But they are what you want them to be arent they?

It pains me more that people put so much time into them. Unless there is a stand out #1 then they're an academic excercise that are useful for casual fans and nothing more.

If I was to write out my list both now and all time, I could almost guarantee that it would be differnent to everyone else's. We all use different criteria to some degrees. Plus, it's flawed anyway as a concept - take for example someone like Pavlik. He featured in many lists prior to his defeat to BHop. Some wrote that off as an uncomfortable weight. Some as he didnt belong in the P4P list. Then following Sergio's win (who didnt really live on anyone's before hand) Pav fell out completely and Sergio is now cemented.

 

no


p4p is nothing more than most skilled, regardless of weight, at that time


of course there is subjectivity involved, but it isn't whatever you want

things like, A fought 5 times in 2 years while B fought 2 times in 2 years, so A is better than B, have no place on a skill based list

 

So defined most skilled in a way which acheives a consensus across all fans.

?

And do acheivements, rather than skill, count for anything? I'd argue that they do.

It's what you what mate. An academic excercise which while it can be fun has little or no relevance.

 

no, it's not what you want, that's a popularity contest...it's not a hard concept


put everyone in a machine that makes them the same weight...who is the best...that's it, nothing more, nothing less

 

Okay, let me break it down a little more then.

Give me the exact spec of that machine that ensures that everyone comes out in a list according to specific factors?

So, for example, mine would include skill set and accomplishments. Do we add anything else? Recent wins? Longevity? A factoring system based on acheivement at multiple weights?

Nothing to do with popularity, Enzo Maccaranelli is one of my favourite boxers, he's nowhere near the P4P list that I have bounce around my head from time to time.

 

So if a fighter gets a gift decision, you think they should be awarded for it?

 

i can't keep saying the same thing over and over again...you just don't want to read it

enjoy your day

 

Same here

 

The greatest Boxer of all time was NOT a Heavyweight, even the man who called himself The greatest (Ali) recognized who the greatest was...SRR.

The lower weight fighters have ALWAYS been the most skilled fighters, FACT. :deal

 

Except they don't. At all. And never have. And certainly never will. :deal