How highly do you factor skill when making p4p rankings?

You nailed it. :good The whole concept is hypothetical. In order to prove it in the ring they would have to fight each other, but they don't. People who suport the concept end up contradicting themselves.

They need to use the phrase (media, promoters etc) " pound for pound " to make it sound/look better and to cash in.... the sad part is that some fans actually believe it.

They should say.... this is the list of the top ten boxers who are considered the best based on accomplishments in their respective divisions. Even then the list is very subjective.

edit

 

resume comes first before skills, skills come along with resume, you can't beat top fighters without having skills. Margarito beat cotto but we all know who is the more skillful guy, so its the resume that is more important

 

You're putting words in my mouth, I said CAN, I would never be dumb enough to try and make that an across the board statement. I used it in reference to guys that appear highly skilled due to weak resumes as opposed to what they actually do in the ring. Which is what I'm arguing for, resumes having the most say in p4p discussion as opposed to just perceived skill.

 

Doing the "modern" way as you put doesn't make it any less of a hypothetical considering the boxers in question will still likely never meet in the ring. The difference is that instead of making it entirely hypothetical you're using actual accomplishments in the ring as well.

It's like comparing Whitaker to Mayweather p4p. The two will never meet in the ring so it's entirely hypothetical, but the conclusions one comes to are made with regard to who they each fought and how they fared against them in addition to hypothetical head to head match up.

 

If skills would be considered the top factor . . . then there's a very good chance Zab Judah will land on the top 3 of the P4P list.

Resume first . . . before anything else . . . because if you don't have a good set of skills you won't have a good resume.

Not unless you are a fighter who "buys" judges . . . to get the "W". :deal

 

To me, being seen as P4P the best, is about the results and who you beat first and foremost. Whether you do it will technical savvy or bludgeon the guy, you still won the fight. Amstersnob and his minions placed a great deal on skill, and very little on accomplishment.

 

1- I just gave you one example. There are many cases like that.

2- You are still talking about resume, but at the same time you are only talking about one boxer in Mayorga's resume (Forrest). I don't think that a resume is about one boxer only. I think a resume is your boxing career. If what you mean is that we should take into consideration only the last two or three fights then you have a case.

 

P4P rankings should only be all about accomplishments ! You need to constantly beat the best available competition out there and it don't matter if you're as talented as PBF or not....

If for example a guy like Margarito which has ordinary talent would successfully beat Williams, Clottey and Berto to unite the titles after the Cotto fight, then move up 2 weight classes to outwork a guy like Kelly Pavlik and then unite still at 160 against Arthur Abraham...well that would most likely make him P4P best out there..

 

Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

I have the distinct feeling we are arguing about things neither one of us is actually talking about.

 

personally, my p4p rankings are based entirely on ability.

Alot of things go into factoring ability. Of course a fighter with a good resume gets points for proving his ability against tough challenges as opposed to a fighter who seems to be top quality but you can't be sure because he hasn't been tested at the right level.

 

Lance, I said before that I don't believe in a P4P ranking, but what you are saying makes sense too. My problem is with the wording and what they try to imply with that.

You will find a bunch of huggers on this board who actually believe that being first or second means that actually they are better than the rest.

When people discuss about H2H matches huggers usually will bring this up to hype their favs and they will tell you that there is no way that their fav would lose against boxer X because he is # 3, 4 or whatever in the P$P list.

 

Ok, now I KNOW we aren't reading each other's posts correctly, because Lance is saying the exact same thing I'm saying.

 

I know what I am talking about. You mentioned the word RESUME, I am talking about the same. I told you what resume means.

To make it easy for you, what I am trying to tell you is that there isn't a specific criteria that will make the P4P list credible. Basically this is my whole point, and that's why I don't belive in such ranking.

Your point was about resume, and I respect that, but resume means more than the last two or three fights. Mayorga didn't have a spectacular resume when he was included in the P4P ranking but the fight with Forrest was the key.

 

I know what a resume is genius. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I some how ever thought a resume only includes a fighter's last few fights. I also don't see where you're getting the idea that I thought it was justified that by Majorga beating Forrest he was vaulted to #8 pound for pound. You're arguing with me over something I never said, which is why I was getting confused in regards to your replies to me.

 

All what I have been doing is giving you examples about the P4P system and why I disagree with it. I had to bring the Mayorga example just as a reference to show you or remind you (since you already know this) that P4P ranking is flawed and inconsistent, and very subjective regardless of the criteria you use.

If you like more resume, that's fine with me.... if somebody else likes more skills, it is fine with me too, after all I dont believe in such ranking.

I hope you understand my point now.