What is the proper criteria for P4P Rankings?

looks and charisma


j/k


50% resume 50% ability

 

This is a very subjective question because it depends who's making the list. There's no universal criteria on how to rate P4P fighters . . . everybody has their own criteria and agenda.

. . . but in those options in the poll . . . I'll pick 50% resume and 50% skills.

 

15% trashtalk
15% being an attacking fighter that appeals to meatheads
15% marketting
15% looks, charisma
15% the right promoter
15% the right nationality/race/ethnicity
5% ability
5% resume

 

If it's what is the P4P Rankings its 75% Resume - 25% Ability.

If its what it should be its 50% Resume - 50% Ability.

 

the ones who can't make a proper list are the ones who seperate resume and ability. The two go hand in hand. If you don't have a good resume then there's no evidence that you're a good fighter, and if you're not a good fighter then you can't achieve a good resume.

 

Good post, buddy.

 

Makes sense...but then how is a guy like Floyd rated above a guy like Oscar? Oscar's resume is clearly superior IMO. Personally, I don't think Floyd's resume is that great...Certainly not top 40-50 material and that's about where most place him..His ability/talent are looked at seperately in this case..

 

Weight/size, ability, resume.

 

if you really go in depth in the resume, meaning you take into consideration wins, losses, quality of opposition at the time of the fight, and the manner in which the fight was won or lost. And also take into account that the further back a fight occured, the less bearing it has on how good a fighter is today; the same way that how good a fighter is today has less bearing on his resume from further back than it does on his resume today. Then you will see that as of this day Floyd actually has a better resume than Oscar.

If you're comparing their entire careers, its a different story. I've always contended that Floyd despite being a very good fighter is overrated.

 

see my response to Matador.