Where does Eleider Alvarez rank p4p

Top 20 or 25 he will have to do more than beat Kovalev to get into the top 10 P4P.

 

1/2 Crawford and Loma
3. GGG
4. Sor
5. Usyk
6. Canelo
7. Mikey Garcia
8. Spence

Probably 9 or 10, although Inoue appears to be a better fighter than most of the list.

 

He has done more. That’s why I think botttom of the top ten is okay.

 

He didn't "beat" kovalev, he was getting his ass kicked and was down on all cards until he landed lucky right hand that kovalev could not recover from.

 

Its still a legit win though, Kova lost focus and got TKO's, this is his fault.

 

I’m thinking that if you deliver a still jab to the beltline, he drops his hands, and you then deliver an overhand right, it isn’t luck.

 

Let's not forget Chilemba was robbed in his fight with Alvarez.

Gvozdyk beat him easily, while Bivol and (then somewhat younger) Kovalev beat him clearly.

Pascal was more faded when he fought Alvarez than when he first fought Kovalev. Bute was completely shot by the time he fought Alvarez.

Kovalev is older and somewhat faded now too at 35, and was winning until he was caught by Alvarez.

Alvarez needs to beat a TOP PRIME light heavyweight like Bivol or Gvozdyk before he should be considered for the top 10 P4P. Right now he's about P4P number 20 to 22.

 

And that's exactly why you and I often have quite different views on fighters, I have great belief in my own eye test and the eye tests of several others. In the end it's a matter of opinion, it's a difficult problem because unlike other sports, we don't have much data in terms of results and therefore have to extrapolate. Let's imagine another sport, say tennis, was run like boxing - one, two or three matches a year and that's it! It would be very hard to tell that Federer, Nadal & Djokovic were certainly the best simply by watching them, and practically impossible to compare them via resume as well, because results can be very random; in tennis the best get upset 10+ times a year on average, other sports likewise. If fighters were able to fight 50 times a year at close to their peak no doubt we'd see numerous upsets too. So which method is better? I won't claim to be correct because that's simply not how it works, however I will explain my reasoning.

We know casuals will always overrate power, muscles, and speed; and underrate more subtle things such as timing and technique, and we also know that it can be hard to judge the eye test objectively for a fighter one feels strongly about. However, let's consider the eye test of someone who is more or less unbiased and knows boxing really well. Given those conditions, I believe a good eye-test is more accurate on average. Most trainers and matchmakers in the industry rely more on the eye test than resume for picking future fights and matching their guy. Of course it goes badly wrong every now and then, but they use it because it works most of the time. Those at the top of Kirk's Championship on this site spend quite a bit of time watching tape because the results don't tell the full story.

So for me Alvarez is something like top 25. He has a great resume now, one of the very best at LHW, but on eye test I don't think he beats Bivol for example. So I can't rank Alvarez higher, whereas on resume you could have him quite a bit higher than I do.

 

LMFAO!!! What's funny about this is that you're serious.

 

Kovalev was unfairly in the top 10. I do agree that a 9th ranked p4p kovalev was absurd and Alvarez was better, but ring mag always puts HBO based fighters. Alvarez is legit top 25 fighter in the world. he has the best resume at 175 too.

 

A "lucky punch" perhaps????

I'm down with that, it works for Lennox Lewis fans.

 

There aren’t 25 guys ahead of him.