I can rank Guzman as high as I want to P4P, he doesn't need a 'resume'.

:rofl

WRIGHT?!?!?

 

I think CHJ means to say this is a career peak p4p list...not a current p4p list.:deal

 

On ability, you could be right......but not on achievements, and that is a big part of the P4P nowdys, whether you like it or not.

 

Unless it's a resume p4p list or a career peak p4p list or a best of the decade 1980 p4p list, or whatever...we must assume that any list entitled simply "p4p rankings' list" refers to current (projected) ability only...nothing else...anyone who brings resume into the discussion, unless it's a "resume p4p rankings' list" doesn't know his apples from his pears.

 

True, if thats what chinas on about.

 

You need a resume for a big part of being ranked in the all time scenerio, but the 'resume' itself is not just big names, it should be analysed as deep as conflicting styles and the ability of all opponents, this is not the case most of the time however, they just run off of names.

Hopkins best work was pre-Trinidad, Trinidad is considered one of the best wins but Trinidad was just a name at MW and not an effective MW. I also rate Hopkins close loss to Jones as a good resume mark.

So 'resume' is rightly important, but it just needs deep analysis. Shutting out all of those solid MW's like Hopkins did, rarely dropping a round, is better than shutting out a WW in Trinidad.

And Guzman should rightfully be considered one of the best fighters in the world, if you need big names on their resume just to analyse how 'good' someone is, then you can only interpret statistics.

 

Precisely, people act as if Mayweather is unbeatable, a really good pressure fighter who is technical and accurate will defeat him handily, such as Cotto. Cotto will crush him.

 

I also partially get CHJ's point of view since all the fighters he has mentioned are most skillful boxers, even though Roy n Joe are many times labeled as athletical but awkward ( Max Kellerman, for instance, in the opening round comment for Calzaghe-Kessler). Mayweather is definitely underrated compared to Guzman ( by CHJ) and Tszyu is not to be understood in paralell to the other four in my manner, and many other equally skillful boxers are clearly thrown into the waste basket (by CHJ plz understand). I agree that it's logically incorrect to consider one's quality according to the "Fame" of opponents by itself. I fully accept and respect CHJ's quality standards ( and apologise for any unpleasant comment I have made to him personally before) but I wouldn't fully understand them as long as he doesn't bend a bit to understand others either.

 

What is wrong with you?:huh

"Despite the fact

This content is protected

is a multiweight world champion,

This content is protected

is undeafeated"

"How much you

This content is protected

"

-( Joe would not be pleased!:-( )

 

Resumes, rightly interpreted (see Amsterdam), are only good for determining how good someone's career has been, and how good a fighter was at a certain time, but not to determing how good someone is, unless you refer only to the most recent fights on the resume (last year at the outside, unless the fighter fights very rarely) and have no indication that the fighter's in question present form is not as good as that shown in those relevant fights.:deal

 

:rofl I stoped after you said KT was on the list as a HIGHLY SKILL Fighter. he's skilled but not on the level of DLH, Shane, Floyd, Joe C or Bhop! He just had great power and sense of distance to unload some of that unreal power and most of the time would get a KO, but he's not skilled like the ones I've mentioned.