1) Pacquiao Vargas (domination of a Top 10 welter) Bradley III (domination of a Top 10 welter and elite fighter) 2) Kovalev 3) Golovkin 4) Lomachenko 5) Gonzalez 6) Inoue 7) Yamanaka 8) Crawford 9) Thurman 10) Nietes Ward lost to Kovalev and was fighting bums leading up to the fight. Canelo lost to Lara, Trout, and Mayweather before going on a bum run of shot, undersized, B-level guys. Rigo hasn't done squat in 4 years except almost getting tooken out by a no name dude from Japan.
worse than pimp's list. that being said mayweather shouldn't even be on it at all. for one he hasn't fought yet. for two it's against a 0-0 fighter
P4P lists are based on resume. Bradley's an elite fighter. Vargas was on a rampage. Pac dominated both guys. Name me one guy who had a better last 2 fights while winning dominantly.
Golovkin far too high. No Mikey Garcia. I agree on no Canelo. I also don't mind Thurman's inclusion. I've honestly never seen Nietes so can't comment.
This train wreck makes pimps pathetic list look like he almost took talent into account, you look like you picked from a hat of hundreds of random fighters geo's. This can't be what our fans had dwindle too. You should put your own list next to your nieces, which this has to be
Who you beat has little to do with P4P. P4P has to do with skills. A lot of boxing fans have a large misconception about what P4P actually means. The reason why Floyd shouldn't be on the P4P list now is simply because he hasn't fought in 2 years and we have no idea what kind of shape he is in. P4P literally has to do with how skilled a boxer is, the ease at which he wins, his boxing IQ, how impressive his knockouts are, etc. Stuff like that. It amazes me how many people who call themselves boxing fans have no clue what P4P actually means.
I find we're building a friendly rivalry lately but this isn't so bad But...you're way bias to PAC tho