The ironic thing is that the entire reason p4p lists were created in the first place was to determine who could beat who if size wasn't a factor. This of course means that a p4p list was originally created in order to determine the most talented fighters out there. Resume and accomplishments can help to differentiate talent levels. However, if the talent is plainly obvious, how much should a fighter's resume and accomplishments factor into his p4p ranking? If it were mostly about resume and accomplishments, it wouldn't even be a p4p list. It would be a power ranking similar to college football.
I might be off base, but I believe The Ring's actual website is a better source than wikipedia. http://ringtv.craveonline.com/ratings
He should be ranked ahead of those fighters. He is clearly more skilled than a crude operator like Froch. You not liking someone is not evidence that they should not be ranked in a fake ass p4p list.
Nice logic there. Should Canelo be ranked above Froch P4P too, because he has much better technique than him?:nut Broner hasn't done **** all to deserve to be ranked above the much more accomplished fighters on the list. His presence there is a joke and throws any credibility outta the window
A proper p4p list is based mostly on accomplishment followed by overall skill/talent level. Otherwise any and all prospects that have immense talent but have proven nothing would compose all p4p lists.
I just don't understand why they dropped Pacquiao to no.7, I think Pacman should be no.5 in my opinion
I think Broner's ranking on the Ring's P4P list has more to do with politics than with Broners's marketability....
Your opinion... but I think he's just fine at number 7... May, Ward, Martinez, JMM, Donaire, and Wladimir should all be ranked ahead of him in my opinion
There's a couple of problems with your post here. First off, you're making things up. Second, you never properly countered my argument. You say that a proper p4p list is based mostly on accomplishment, followed by overall skill/talent level. That is patently false. If that were the case, why do they call it a pound 4 pound list? It was originally called that to determine who could beat who if size wasn't a factor. Given this, by your logic, fighter A having accomplished more than fighter B, proves that fighter A would probably beat fighter B if size weren't a factor. A basic understanding of philosophy will tell us that the premise doesn't support the conclusion, which therefore means that the logic is faulty. Now let's look at the flip side. Fighter A is a better fighter than fighter B, therefore, fighter A would probably beat fighter B if size weren't a factor. The logic here clearly holds as the premise is strong enough to support the conclusion. Now obviously, resume and accomplishments have to come into play. As I already stated, resume and accomplishments help to differentiate talent. This addresses your point about prospects being on a p4p list. To put it simply, the way p4p lists were originally contructed, talent, as well as resume and accomplishments were factors, but talent was the more heavily weighted factor. Think about this, fighter A is thought of as more talented than fighter B. Fighter A has beaten two world class fighters decisively. Fighter B has beaten 5 world class fighters, one decisively and the other 4 were close. Fighter B in this scenario would have the better resume, and would be more accomplished. However, if they were the same size, who would you pick to win a fight between the two? The obvious answer is fighter A. If you get this example, then you get my intreptation of p4p lists were orginally contructed.
Surely this must be a ****ing typo. The mention of Broner anywhere in the top ten is completely absurd!:nut And he's ranked above Donaire?? And no mention of Mares?? What in the holy ****
In Pacquiao's last 3 fights, he was a significant favorite, and in all 3 fights he fought someone coming up in weight. He officially lost 2 of those fights, and you could argue that he lost all 3. In his most recent fight, he hit the deck twice, the second time he was out cold and was motionless for several minutes. If this happened to any other fighter, they wouldn't even be in the top 10 p4p. The fact that he's 7th surprising only in the way that it's arguably too high.
atsch atschatsch Okay.. but if that is your point then how come guillermo rigondeaux sin't on the list? Or Gamboa.. don't they look more talented or have more skill than Guerrero?? :huh:huh:huh The fact is, either this is what Giampa really thinks (even if it is moronic) .. or GBP made sure the list looked like this......... I'd go with the latter idea.....:rasta