How highly do you factor skill when making p4p rankings?

It simply has to be balanced with resume/achievement.

I've seen the more skillful fighter lose to the less skillful fighter a whole heap of times... So before hand, all these "skills is all thats important" people would have rated the more skillful fighter as higher on a p4p list - but would have to check themselves and their criteria following the fight.

See Cotto-Margarito as an example. Skills are not the be all and end all. Skills shows you have the potential; resume shows you've FULFILLED the potential.

 

I think if he beats Peter a second time that should at least put him at 10, and while we're on the skills argument, while his resume is starting to look decent, his chin will always be questioned. The first fight with Peter, although he won, didn't speak too highly of Wlad's skills because his clinching made it a Ruiz-esque fight, and not a showcase that would've really helped his rep.

 

This is another problem with p4p rankings. The little guys never get the respect that they deserve. Margarito's resume is impressive because there is highly recognized names on it. These names are highly recognized because they are from weights that get a lot of hype and attention. Calderon has beaten fighters comparble to the ones that Maro beat just that they are not as well known because no one gives a **** about the little guys. THis completly defeats the purpose of having p4p rankings at all.

Calderon is undefeated. Was recognized champ at 2 weight classes but since no one cares about the little guys no one has heard of his opponents so people assume Margo has faced better opposition since his opponents have gotten more press.

In a head to head matchup p4p, I think Calderon boxes Margo's ears off for a clear unanimous decision.

 

Since big results have to come along with good skills, I guess I rate skills as well - but my P4P ranking is based solely on resume. It wouldn't be fair to rank boxing genious Guzman over Antonio Margarito - Tony's resume is good for a Top10 spot while Joan's not (yet).

 

And how do you determine who is best in a P4P sense if they never fight eachother? What makes you think (for example) that someone's victory over a contender at 147 is more important than somebody elses victory over a contender at 160? Isn't true that you have to speculate on that?

 

In a head to head matchup. Pretend that you have a 147 pound fighter. At 147 his height is comparable to the height that Guzman has at 130, all of his skills and power and tangibles, speed, chin, stamina, workrate etc are comparable to what Guzman has a 130. Would you favor him over Margarito? That is my definition of p4p. all other things being equal if both fighters were the same size who would be the better man.

 

Wrong, Mayorga (almost no skill according to many) beat Forrest a great boxer, with great skills and on top of that, winner of the boxer of the year award, and from that Mayorga became part of the P4P list, I think he was #7 or #8.

 

Eventhough I don't believe in a p4p ranking, I would say that probably, that's the best way to measure it.

 

Very highly.

 

I think that was the original definition of p4p when they coined the phrase for SSR.

However over the years it's been changed by boxing writer's and fans so that resume has a much greater impact on it.

In the original and your sense of p4p then Guzman would be rated higher. In the more modern meaning of p4p then Margo is rated higher.

 

No, it doesn't. You said that "a B fighter can look very skilled against tomato cans but would look horrible against the elite". I just showed you that that's not 100% true.

There is something called Styles make fights and that's what many times makes the difference. It has nothing to do with being better and has nothing to do with resumes. Mayorga was to many a one hit wonder, but he was part of the so-called P4P ranking.

 

I factor the wins and how well they did in their divisions ie. beating accomplished fighters, cleaning out divisions, etc.. Also because of this it is why it's rare to see a HW at very high on the p4p list.

 

By this new "modern" definition why even use the phrase pound for pound. Why not just say, who is the most accomplished boxer or who is the best. The definition of the term has not changed people just seem to have forgotten what the real meaning of it is.

People in this thread are saying tha tp4p has to be proven in the ring when in reality the entire idea of p4p is hyothetical and can never be proven or disproven.