Do we all agree whoever wins between Kovalev and Ward is #1 pound for pound

Absolutely not.

 

I don't get your vacancy system. Why would the p4p #1 spot be vacant after Leonard retired in 82 until Hagler vs Hearns in 85? Why wouldn't it be filled by Hearns after the Benitez fight later in '82 or the Duran fight in '84? For that matter, Pryor beats Arguello in late 82 as well and goes undefeated until '87. Why wouldn't Pryor be the next #1? What qualifications need to be met for a fighter to move up to the #1 spot in your system. It sounds like they have to be p4p top 10 and get a good win over another top ten fighter. Pryor vs Arguello or Hearns vs Benitez fit that description.

Okay, I was scratching my head why you thought Winky Wright would replace Jones as p4p king; so I looked back and that's right he beat Shane Mosley. He still hadn't done anything else but Ring had him in at 4. Okay. Still makes more sense just to give it to Hopkins though in my opinion. He loses it in '05, then I think it makes sense to give it to Pacquiao until '07 with Barrera at #2 because they are both doing so much better work than Floyd. Floyd was consistent and he didn't lose but he hadn't beaten anyone really good since 2002. Meanwhile, Pacquiao is beating Barrera, Marquez, and Morales. Barrera was beating Morales, Tapia, and Ayala in that time 2002-2005. Pacquiao was doing the clearly more impressive work. It wasn't until Floyd had the De La Hoya fight in '07 that I remember people anointing him. But with Pacquiao beating De La Hoya right after and in more impressive fashion, even if Floyd hadn't retired, it would probably make sense to leave the crown on Pacquiao's head since he has all the same wins and doesn't lose again until 2012. Actually, it makes more sense to leave the number one spot empty from 2007-2011 or so just because there was no consensus between Pacquiao and Mayweather and they refused to fight to prove who deserved it. Around 2012 it was clear that Mayweather had aged better than Pacquiao had but neither were in top form any more. That's when I start giving the spot to Donaire, Ward, Rigondeaux, and Gonzalez.

Wait, no. I forgot something. Weren't some people talking about Calzaghe being the best in circa 2008-2009 because he was undefeated with fresh wins over Bhop and Jones?

 

This is p4p it's not about weight classes....

Let me know which bit u are struggling with...

 

Because the 80's had so much great talent throughout the weight classes, it was hard to gauge who the best of them was. Hearns, Hagler, Curry, Arguello, and Pryor all had great claim throughout those years. Even Sanchez had a claim shortly before his death. It's called the golden age of boxing for a reason, Hagler-Hearns solidified who the p4p number 1 was.

After both Jones and Hopkin's lost, Floyd was clearly next in line as the p4p number 1 for sheer consistency. Floyd had been in the top 10 p4p lists since 1998 and remained undefeated across 3 weight classes. Hopkins lost to Taylor July 2005. Manny Pacquaio had just lost to Erik Morales 4 months prior, and Erik Morales lost to Zahir Raheem 2 months after. Floyd had just won his 3rd title in 3 weight classes and unified the WW division a year later. Floyd had the greatest claim to the p4p throne until his 1st retirement in the end of 2007. From then on until JMM/Pac 3, Manny was the best fighter in the world, with the title becoming vacant after Pacquaio's controversial win. After ktfo6, Floyd reclaimed the p4p throne from the end of 2012 to his retirement in 2015. Currently, Gonzalez is holding the vacant spot until Kovalev-Ward.

Calzaghe-Hopkins happened April 2008. Floyd was retired and Manny just beat up Oscar De La Hoya and would later go on to beat Hatton and Cotto. No way would anyone have Calzaghe at number 1 for scraping by a SD against a old man when Manny had a legendary, ATG run during that time period.

 

Okay, I can live with that. Although, I still think you ought to give the p4p spot to Hearns until Hagler beat him. The rest makes sense to me.

 

Wow...posters still argue over a silly, pointless, fanboy thing like P4P? I guess whatever makes one feel smart...

 

That's one way to look at it. Another is that we are engaged in the study and analysis of our favorite sport's history in order to understand it better.

 

If there were clear and concise criteria that everyone uses, then maybe the mythical P4P crown would matter. But there really isn't. It's mainly about favoritism here.

For example, do you have Ward on your P4P list? If so, is it based on what he did 4 years ago? Or his huge wins over Brand, Barerra, and Smith? Fact of the matter is, he hasn't fought a top contender in his class since the Froch fight.

 

He's still got one of the best resume's in the sport, hasn't lost, and looks as good as ever. For p4p I usually do the eye test plus resume. Ward passes both.

 

So good wins 4-5 years ago is suffice. I think you've inadvertently assisted in making my point.

 

If everyone weighed the same, Andre Ward would be the P4P best right now. In November he will solidify his place as number 1 in the sport.

 

If he was older, or had lost, then there would be reason to suspect that he's lost a step. But since no one has done anything better in the meantime and he's only 32, I say put him back where he was near the top of the pile until we see evidence of decline.

Heck, I don't even agree that it's always the right move to lower guys when they lose. They could have just had an off night, or a bad style match up, and still be the baddest mother****er around. You look at a guy like Henry Armstrong who tumbles from his perch atop the throne when Fritzie Zivic beats him in 1940. That didn't make Zivic the man just because he beat the man, did it? Being the man is more than just about one victory, so shouldn't being the best be about more than just one defeat? Sometimes, one loss is a fluke, even two. In '42 Armstrong makes a comeback and puts together 13 straight Ws including avenging his loss to Zivic, as much as proving that he was still as good as ever. It was probably only definitive that Armstrong's day was done when Robinson beat him in '43.

Sure, there's differing schools of thought about how the p4p line up is constructed or maintained. Some people think that once you establish yourself you need to retire or get beat to lose your spot. Others like yourself think that it's a position that needs to be maintained and you are only as good as your last fight. Some say it's the eye test, others say it's the resume. I see cause to legitimate both opinions.

 

Sparring has nothing to do with a real boxing match! Resume wise both Kov and Ward's are better! I say the winner should be #1 and Chocolito #2 followed by Canelo at #3 the loser #4, 3G #5.

 

You do realize when adding an "s" to a word it makes it plural! Which means when you say decades that means more than 1 decade, which means you're a fool! Because it was less than a decade when Ward whooped up on all those Euro tough guys! Man he was magnificent in the super six!

 

No question. People that are so quick to credit smaller fighters for there skills forget that it is literally harder to move your body around at higher weights. Guys who can put those types of skills on display at lhw and higher deserve a ton of credit because we rarely see it anymore