That entire top 10 P4P list is meaningless if you really think about it. Pac is #1, yet everyone who knows boxing knows he lost to JMM. Hopkins is #4, yet he hasn't had a very impressive victory in many years and is way past-it. Vazquez's performance was amazing against Marquez and the trilogy was one of the best ever, but he's not even an elite fighter (especially after those wars), Mijares' wins have been a lot more impressive than Pavlik's (yet he's under him), Rafa, who's clearly past-it and has lost his last two fights to the #5 P4P fighter is at #9, yet Kessler who was competitive with the #2 P4P fighter and rarely lost any rounds to B levels in all of his career isn't top 10, Calderon is #10 after barely beating Cazares but Guzman isn't top 10 after dominating Soto... Anyways, I understand that people will never make their lists purely based on P4P H2H ability, but even by accomplishments/resume/recent performances (what the Ring magazine judges fighters by), this list isn't accurate. There is no way that Calderon deserves to be ranked in the top 10, but Guzman doesn't. It's insane.
Exactly. On the standard P4P rankings, Guzman doesn't get in, but the point is that neither should Caleron. Guzman's tooled better fighters than he even HAS to face and is about to fight another one in Campbell, if Guzman wins, I don't want to hear anything about Calderon being ranked over him, then you are just gaining into the realm of absurdity. Wins are never put into context. People are impressed with Caldy's skill and rightfully so, but don't look at the horrible level of opposition he has in comparison to what other guys have defeated. An undefeated record, then of course people regurgitating what others say(nobody cared about Calderon years ago, but slowly the word on him has picked up that he's an amazing talent and everyone follows). And then on H2H, Guzman's skills are 2x that of Calderon. Calderon is 1 dimensional, very skilled at what he does and very precise rangy pure boxer, but Guzman will make you look stupid from any range and make you miss all the same while throwing at a good workrate, where as guys like Spinks, Mayweather and Calderon use defensive skill in keeping the workrate to a minimum and using range for precise potshotting, it's just not all 1 and the same. I think it takes more skill to do the latter, personally. If Guzman fought totally safety first, he'd shut everybody out, but he doesn't.
Too childish there, especially with the GB owns it part. atsch This is rated based on overrall and recent accomplishments, not based on who lost to who and who beat who. I like their list, fair and good.
If they want to go on 'who beat who', wait till they see the difference between how Pavlik performs against Calzaghe in comparison to Bernard, then maybe the overall moronic Pavlik fanbase will start to under styles and how they mix, realising that a limited come forward fighter gets eaten alive by a quick handed, durable boxer-swarmer.:yep And that a tricky counter puncher is more difficult for that boxer-swarmer than the 1 dimensional come forward fighter. You come right at Calzaghe, you will lose, that's been the case always. Hopkins was retreating more than ever and he can he came forward himself, he had zero success and ate a few shots, then retreated and played counter puncher, because Calzaghe is much worse on the chase than having someone come to him so he can shower them mid-range and inside with quick, controlled combinations off the jab. They don't get it mate!
the danger of rating on head to head ability without taking into considerations the quality of opposition is that you end up with guys like Forrest in your top15 p4p and then are surprised when they lose to a reality TV boxer. personally I judge p4p lists on h2h ability and take into consideration quality of opposition as well as a number of other factors if they are available to me
1.pac 2.calz 3.jmm 4.cotto 5.pavlik 6.hopkins 7.vasquez 8.mijares 9.rafa 10.calderon 11.guzman 12.mosley 13.campbell 14.hatton 15.montiel