Here's my go at a p4p list...

Not at all! If Hopkins beats a Calzaghe that performs as well as he did against Kessler by fighting ugly (gamesmanship), I have Hopkins ranked ahead of Calzaghe. What could be more reasonable than that? Calzaghe should be giving back as good a gamesmanship as he receives, if Hopkins makes things frisky. If he doesn't, he lacks the cunning and will to win necessary to be a top fighter - look at the way PBF used his elbow so effectively against Hatton! It was gamesmanship, but not cheating! He gets credit for that, rather than points taken off.

If Hopkins beats Calzaghe by fighting the way Bika fought against Calzaghe, but better still, I'll have Calzaghe somewhere around p4p no. 8-9 spot and Hopkins somewhere around 7-8 spot. But if Hopkins gets away with outrageous cheating and gets the nod, why the hell should I consider him a better fighter than Calzaghe? Quite a few fighters, Bika included would beat Calzaghe if they were to get away with outrageous cheating. Does that mean they're all better? Of course not. So, it's not just the L or W as handed down by the judges that is important, but also the performance itself.

However, if Kessler had stopped Calzaghe in the last ten seconds of their fight, everything having gone the same until then, although Calzaghe dominated him and outsmarted him, I'd have Kessler above him in the rankings, even though the moral victory would have been with Calzaghe. But I wouldn't have Calzaghe as high as I have him now, because he couldn't survive that winning punch at the end.

I cannot see how I can be accused of skewing things "my way" at all!

 

McGrain, the problem with not looking at performance at all and going by Ls or Ws alone is this: - take the Ring ratings:

Mayweather
Pacquiao
JMM
Hopkins
Calzaghe
Vazquez
Cotto
Hatton
Wright
Marquez

... if JMM beats Pacquiao by very close but clear decision in a fight where Pacman underperformed, he should be considered the best figther in the world, even if Mayweather beats a best-ever Cotto by shutout (very wide UD) and even if Calzaghe lacies a rejuvenated better than ever Hopkins and stops him in the 10th.

..since a win is a win is a win, irrespective of performance or what kind of win that was. So, in this scenario, the p4p ratings would change to:

1. JMM
2. Calzaghe
3. Mayweather
etc,

Does this seem fair to you?

So performance DOES matter, not just the W or L.

And how will the Ring justify their ratings after Calzaghe beats Hopkins and say, JMM beats Pacquiao, but Floyd doesn't fight Cotto, when they will have:

1. Mayweather
2. JMM
3. Calzaghe

etc.?

Because even to them it's not just about W or L, even though they don't apply their own criteria religiously, but pick and choose and have favourites and make it up as they go along...

 

List re-edited; please comment on this list now:

Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao
Joe Calzaghe
Juan Manuel Marquez
--------------------
Joan Guzman
Ivan Calderon
Miguel Cotto
Cristian Mijares
--------------------
Israel Vazquez
Rafael Marquez
Mikkel Kessler
Juan Diaz
--------------------
Chris John
Ricky Hatton
Kelly Pavlik
Chad Dawson
Wladimir Klitschko
Arthur Abraham
Cory Spinks
Vernon Forrest
Jermain Taylor
Winky Wright - MW
Shane Mosley
David Haye
Bernard Hopkins - LHW
Fernando Montiel
Ruslan Chagaev
Lucian Bute
Anthony Mundine
Edwin Valero
Enzo Maccarinelli

Any glaring faults with this list?:think

Compare with:

Joe Calzaghe
Cristian Mijares
Floyd Mayweather
Joan Guzman
Juan Manuel Marquez
Mikkel Kessler
Miguel Cotto
Juan Diaz
Chad Dawson
Manny Pacquaio
Rafael Marquez
Israel Vasquez
Shane Mosely
David Haye
Vernon Forrest

...which list is better given my p4p criteria?

 

Well, I think my system IS watertight! p4p to me means who the best in the world is now...not who the best in the world has been on average for the past so many years, like for the Ring.

This content is protected

I agree with you and that is included in my system as I have explained. I am not sure why you aren't satisfied...:think

This content is protected

I don't dismiss wins or loses out of hand at all! But since wins or loses are sometimes controversial and some wins closer than others, not all wins count for the same! I cannot see why you would want to argue with that...:think

You DO need multiple criteria for your system not to be overly simplistic. p4p rating is an art, not just a statistical numbers' game of Ws and Ls. I can see why someone who knows more about boxing than I do and knows the boxers involved better would have a different and better p4p ranking that this one here, but I cannot see how they could argue with the system itself, as long as they agree a p4p list is a list of the best fighters in the world NOW.

No?:think

Give me an argument for why a fighter should be considerably higher than another, in my list, please, according to my definition of p4p.

 

I thought it was a good list and by far the best I've seen so far, save mine

...but I have an issue with the order of the names in blue:
You have Wright, a MW much lower than Hopkins, a LHW...why? Because Hopkins beat Wright at 170 in a close fight? Isn't Wright a better MW than Hopkins is a LHW? I think so! You also think that Hopkins is a better LHW than Taylor is a MW...why? When Taylor beat Hopkins twice, are you saying Hopkins was too big for MW and he was fighting in the wrong division? Or, in other words, are you still really classifying Hopkins as a MW, who beat another MW in Winky at 170? In that case, why was he beat by Taylor, whom you rank below him twice? But if Hopkins is in fact a LHW now, not a MW, why do you give him so much props for beating Winky, a MW at 170? Because of his victory over Tarver? You don't even have Tarver on your list! It doesn't quite make sense...does it?:think