Is there anyone out there who still doubts Pacquiao is the best fighter in the world?

OK, thanks feller. This is an aspect that is often overlooked by many when comparing divisions in order to make p4p.

In general the best curling players or the best badminton players look more dominant than the best football players. The best squash players for instance has gone from one person who was suppreme for many years onto another who was suppreme for many years. The world's best pole vaulter - bubka was sovereign for a decade or more etc. etc. The best footballer - well, hardly anyone has been voted best footballer three years in a row. As such, it is far harder to be dominant (and to seem dominant) when there are more people in the competition.

If we distribute all the participants in a sport on a normal distribution curve - we will see that with for example 5 players in the sport the space between the best and the next best is huge. As we continue to plot dots (participators) on the curve the distance between them all will be smaller and smaller. And so will of course the distance between the best and the next best. It is logic that the football (or soccer to Americans) will be packed with dots that will be standing absolutely packed next to each other. In sports such as curling the space will be much wider - and statistically the best curling player should appear more dominant that the best football player.

If we didnt know the huge difference in the popularity of these two sports, and we saw the two sports - most people would logically assume that the best curling player was a better athlete than the best football player - simply because he won more convincingly in his sport.

However, we of course know that it is critical that we take this very important information into consideration when judging the sportsmen. Because someone seems dominant in their sport (or in their division) we should not assume that they are better. It is always easier too look good when not pushed to the limit. Now, just one more thing... remember that the distance between no. 2 and no. 3 will also be wider in curling than boxing. As such, no. 2 in curling will also look more dominant than no. 2 in football. This further reinforces the idea that no. 1 is really good. 'He is so much better than no. 2 - and no. 2 is an absolute star! Look how much better he is than no.3 who again is a star because ' and so on.

Given the above discussion it should be much easier for a fighter in the really small weight divisions to appear dominant than it is for a fighter in a more mainstrem division.

 

Since some people cannot read or just like to pick out singular sentences from paragraphs, let's review what I have said before I exit this thread.

- Pac IS the P4P #1 on the standard way to rank P4P fighters.

- This doesn't mean that he is necessarily 'the best fighter in the world', such is very hard to name because the actual best has nothing to do with resume and accomplishment, greatness has plenty to do with resume and accomplishment, but not being 'the best, most incredible fighter in the world', which has all to do with their overall ability.

- Beating fighters like David Diaz does not have any effect on P4P ranking in the standard system, neither does beating fighters like Antonio Margarito or his SMW similiar, Librado Andrade. All can be fair wins on performance, but none of are of P4P quality.

- Knee jerk reactions are getting old and seem to only favour certain popular fighters while other guys go very underrated, this is a general statement, it's not just on Pac so please don't reply with anything relating to my bashing Pac or anything of the sort.

:good

 

For beating Diaz? No. Beating Diaz has the significance of a tune-up fight, prelude to bigger things to come.

In terms of P4P ranking, Mayweather's retirement has more relevance than yesterday's fight and, in view of this, a case can be made that Manny is currently #1.

Now who is "the best fighter in the world" is undertaking a bit of a different task if we agree that P4P rankings don't always tell the whole story. Other elements of comprehension can be factored in including but not limited to the subjective notions of "potential", "ring generalship", etc... A young prospect or semi-proven talent can reasonably be considered "the best" without yet having the resume to show it. Future results may or may not confirm such assessment.

 

I have doubts.

 

Because such is flawed and those are reasonable grades that anybody would give, had they watched the fights and know a bit about boxing.

No, it never did, I was testing your A-F scale and showing you that using that as a measure for the main way to rate P4P fighters is completely wrong, as sometimes you have hot and cold guys, like Pac, who can be inconsistent in performance level, or like Cotto, who's extremely consistent and will produce A level performances over B level guys and A level performances over A levels, where as Pac has been lazy in many fights that werent large.

I'll say that Calzaghe and JMM have performed at the same level, how about that?

But nobody higher recently, so then we have to rate on performance level, I guess JMM is the P4P #1.:nut

No, it doesn't work that way. But how many times do I have to repeat that Pac is the P4P #1 on the standard system because of accomplishments and resume, IE, performing at a high level and that this has no bearing on who really is the 'best', we don't know who the best is yet, but it's not a 1 dimensional fighter who's biggest win recently was nothing other than a paper win, where he scored a KD and made it competitive.

 

I hav answered you, several times over, but I answered again in the post above.

 

Thankyou!:happy

 

I agree with almost everything you say except the part I kept above..

David Diaz may not be in the same class as top guys in boxing but yes it's an accomplishment to win a belt at 135 when you started at 106, even if it's not against the best at 135.
Going up in weight and winning a belt does favor you pound for pound status among others..so therefore it does have an effect on the P4P ranking system.

After 135, PBF never fought the best at any weight class, but him simply moving up and winning did effect the P4P ranking. When he beat ordinary Gatti is when he became P4P #1..

 

U welcome. BTW, I understand your points.

 

OMG, its a very simple question that deserves a simple answer..

In my opinion, no one has consistently performed at a higher level than pacman lately..

I think pride's getting in the way of amsterdam that's why he beats around it and not answer you directly. i hope im wrong with my assessment on this though..

 

Yeah, I know what you are saying. But Floyd became P4P #1 by default, because Hopkins lost, Gatti had zero to do with it. Then he did fight some good fighters above 135, just never a real elite fighter.

And seriously my friend, David Diaz is lesser than Carlos Baldomir, which was a 'tune up' style win for Floyd.

 

What is even sweeter than being able to say that YES he is the best fighter in the world (even if it is only due to Mayweather retiring) is that I called this years ago. Before Barrera. It was on the Tyson Lewis under card I think.