How is Canelo not on any P4P list?

He under performed vs Mayweather pretty badly and he only squeezed by Trout and Lara. Tonight was a definitive win but against an opponent while good not elite. He'll be back if he defeats Cotto.

 

Floyd is underrated. Canelo looked bad because it was Floyd. It was still a decent fight. Mayweather won clearly but he didn't land that much offence on Canelo. Actually, May can't let them go any more... just doesn't have it now.

 

He is a good combination puncher and is able to perform very well against static opponents with pure defense, such as Angulo and Kirkland. However, should he face anyone with a good foot work and timing, like Mayweather or Lara (who I trully believe won that fight), he looks very limited. He's not good at cutting off the ring, and his defense is vulnerable to anyone with decent jab. Kirkland himself won the second round, as far as I could see, which means that Canelo lacks defensive responsibility.

With that being said, he doesn't belong to p4p.

 

Kovalev was getting hit by flush shots against Pascal, but he's on the p4p list. Canelo has fought much better opposition as well. A 50 year old senior citizen b hop isn't exactly that impressive. GGG also not to his fault has fought way lower opposition than Canelo has. Canelo definitely derserves a spot.

 

Yeah Bradley and JMM out, Canelo in.

 

I wouldn't say a hell of a lot better. I rate Kirkland and Pascal around the same, I might slightly edge Pascal because of his win against Dawson, but besides that he hasn't really done anything and I'm a big pascal fan. Beating a shot to pieces scared Bute in that fashion wasn't exactly impressive.

But I agree with you on the fact that JMM and Bradley should be off the list.
My list would be
1. Floyd
2. Pac
3. Roman G
4. Wlad
5. Rigo
6. Crawford
7. Canelo
8. GGG
9. Kovalev/Stevenson
10. Uchiyama

reason I don't haev ward or Froch is because of their inactivity.

 

The thing is Lara and Trout are both pretty good. People seem to former get that. Trout schooled diva Cotto but seems to get nothing but heat.

 

kirkland only slightly better than pascal? :rofl

funny the stuff come out with. :good

kirkland is ****poor and thurman would ko1 him

 

I don't rate Kirkland either. Your username doesn't suggest bias towards Thurman at all...

 

An ATG way past his prime in his mid 40's though. If he lost to Bhop in his 30's then yes I'd give him a hell of a lot more credit. I wouldn't necessarily say he looked good against Bute, he won, but he didn't impress at all. He looked terrible in the last round too.

Sorry, but you're way overrating Pascal, and this is coming from a huge Pascal fan. He's a slightly better win than Kirkland at most, definitely not a hell of a lot better. Counting losses to credit him is pretty dumb, if he actually won against Froch then I'd agree. Even a win against an ancient Bhop wouldn't make him a hell of a lot better.

 

Nah, they definitely don't completely trump those wins. Gamboa was undefeated, and very highly regarded. Hopkins is ancient the fact that peopel actually give him credit for this baffles me till this day, while Pascal, Cleverly, Campillo and Silakh are all solid wins, they're not exactly wins that put you on the p4p list.
I'd take wins over Dulorme who beat Lundy, and the undefeated Mayfield over Cleverly, Campillo and Silakh easy, and Gamboa over any of his wins. Now Kovalev might have more consistent total wins, but in overall quality I easily give Crawford the edge.