Then why do they have Celestino Caballero at number 10 for featherweight, but also number 10 p4p? atsch
did you ever figure that other then a 1 fight at that weight he really hasn't proved himself at 126? he's a great fighter with a good skill set and seems very adaptable. he's ranked # 10 p4p becuase of his over all body of work and the streak he's been on. so it's about right. he doesn't seem like the type of fighter that will stay at the lower rungs of the division so expect to see him rise by the end of this year
If Pacquiao stepped up to 154 lbs and beat Foreman or beat Cotto again then you wouldn't expect him to be number 1 at 154lbs but you wouldn't lower his P4P ranking just because he moved up either. They're not perfect but they're pretty damn good in my book!
Hopkins is rated in 4th place at 175lbs. Dawson is rated as no.1 in the same weight class. But in the pound 4 pound ranking Hopkins is 6th and Dawson is 8th. nut:nut
Well the Bernard Hopkins ranking is clearly ridiculous. I do remember getting criticised last year for not having Hopkins in my lb for lb top 10 though.
boxrec is the only objective rating system, no huggin, no emotions, plain numbers p4p in general is the whole subjective ranking, since most of the p4p fighters never fight eachother to confront their spot ... except (like now at WW) they condense their weight into the single division
Ring rankings are bias and they apply they have fighters ranked who have been inactive for 18 months or retired. ESB Rankings are the best. you can give your input in this thread [url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=216577[/url] Please note the P4P is out of date, a new P4P is being done after May 1st.
I can find a lot wrong with the Ring ratings, but what is wrong with that? Caballero just stepped up the Featherweight division after being highly ranked, if not #1 ranked, in the Super Bantamweight. He cant go straight in to the top of Featherweight without beating some top guys, but he hasnt done anything to bring down his P4P ranking.
