Where will Badou Jack place p4p if he beats Stevenson?

I think the way Jack wins will indicate how he will be ranked, if he wins a safe boring dec he won’t be ranked higher than he is, but if he blast Stevenson out like he did with Cleverly he’s the man!

This is a fight Jack should win.

 

He should replace Rigo at #10 if he wins

 

Jacks a good fighter .I hope he batters Stevenson blokes a Tosser!

 

At some point Stevenson will land his monstrous left hand.

 

Jack would be P4P top ten easily

 

Are you saying that if Jack beats stevenson he becomes a better fighter ?
Who would you expect to win this match up?

 

#19

 

It'll be a conversation point worthy of a heavy debate.

I am picking Jack to beat Adonis.

 

Is this Global P4P top 10....Or just that US biased one?


Froch destroyed Prime Bute....who Jack beat by DQ (It was MD really tho).
Froch KO'd Prime Groves x2....who jack beat by MD.

Froch also beat Kessler/Dirrell/Abraham/Pascal....and was ducked by Degale his entire career.


So no, he can't be P4P top 10 if Froch wasn't, there's plenty of top guys out there with better wins over 2 divisions than Jack.

 

That is my fear. I want Jack to win and body smash Super Pimp

 

The P4P top 10, and overall top tier of the sport in general, is much worse off and shallow than it was when Froch was doing his thing. And if I remember correctly almost everybody ranked Froch P4P top 10 at some point between entering the Ward fight and after the Bute bout.

 

It's just nonsense though.....an award for the 'smaller guys'.

Can you name me two fighters on Jack's record that stack up to Klitschko/Parker?

No.....So Jack cannot be higher than P4P better than Joshua, just because he has World titles in 2 divisions.
Especially when one of those came against Cleverly.

 

You could view it as an award for the "smaller guys" or you could say it is a way of not overrating the "fat guys."

It's a conversation point. For debate. And it does make sense, even if it's ultimately pointless.

 

It's biased towards smaller guys, that cannot be debateable.

It assumes that smaller fighters would keep their strengths, but improve their strength/power at a bigger weight.

E.g. Lomachenko v Joshua.

If you're arguing Lomachenko is better P4P, you would assume that Loma would carry his footwork up to heavyweight, but also hits harder than he does now due to his increase in size.

That's why it's complete fantasy.

 

I agree with you. But have you not thought about it the other way? You must be assuming larger fighters would keep their strengths but improve footwork/speed at the smaller weight. It goes both ways.

It's an assessment of ranking their resume despite entirely different opposition possibilities (for me and at least some others).

Resume is far more important than one person's personal opinion of skills. Everyone has differing opinions on any given resume but at least their is some tangible metric there and one that can be easily debated as opposed to simply "I think so-and-so has more skills (despite not proving it against similarly skilled opposition)!"