Boxing Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Post Your Current Top Ten P4P

Jump to Latest
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
#43 ·
Klaus said:
I'm guessing this is based on 'ability'. Robeisy Ramirez is not pro, he'll most likely turn pro in 2016.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's at least my effort to rate ability. Ramirez is a special talent. Unreal instincts and confidence. Of course turning pro means he'll have to leave Cuba, so we can't expect he will.

I have a hard time separating the top four. How Maidana got Floyd rattled and off his game, despite Floyd winning both fights handily, makes me wonder if Rigo or Gonzalez could figure him out. Chocolatito's technical but aggressive style could be what beats Floyd. I don't want to reduce it to chin, but Rigo's been hurt, while Floyd's never been in significant danger and has adjusted against different styles. Has Floyd really slowed the last few fights? I thought his legs were fine.
 
#44 ·
Mugshot said:
Out of order? Ya don't say?

135lbs is complete shit. Crawford has two "quality" wins: Ricky Burns (Top 5) and Yuriorkis Gamboa (Top 10). Burns is maybe the weakest "Top 5" win in the sport and Gamboa fought just once at LW and was only seen as a contender because of how horrible that weight class is.

The Crawford-Beltran winner in November will be the LW King but if Crawford sends Beltran's head flying into the third row in the first 10 secondsâ€"he's MAYBE Top 25. Maybe.

Top 15 or so right now is just nuts.
Click to expand...
135 may be complete shit, but Crawford still deserves a mention. I value his dominance. He also beat Prescott, Klimov, and Sanabria. It's not like Gamboa and Burns are is only 2 wins of note. He has been putting in work for a while now.

Regardless of what you wanna say about Gamboa, that was seen as a real competitive fight on paper. Gamboa was undefeated, these are the facts. You can discredit the win all you want, and say Gamboa was undersized, etc, but it was a real solid win for Crawford.

I got Crawford top 15-20. I factor in his abilities & his skillset, not just what he has accomplished.
 
#47 ·
tommygun711 said:
135 may be complete shit, but Crawford still deserves a mention. I value his dominance. He also beat Prescott, Klimov, and Sanabria. It's not like Gamboa and Burns are is only 2 wins of note. He has been putting in work for a while now.

Regardless of what you wanna say about Gamboa, that was seen as a real competitive fight on paper. Gamboa was undefeated, these are the facts. You can discredit the win all you want, and say Gamboa was undersized, etc, but it was a real solid win for Crawford.

I got Crawford top 15-20. I factor in his abilities & his skillset, not just what he has accomplished.
Click to expand...
Annnnd we're done here.
 
#48 · (Edited)
tommygun711 said:
135 may be complete shit, but Crawford still deserves a mention. I value his dominance. He also beat Prescott, Klimov, and Sanabria. It's not like Gamboa and Burns are is only 2 wins of note. He has been putting in work for a while now.

Regardless of what you wanna say about Gamboa, that was seen as a real competitive fight on paper. Gamboa was undefeated, these are the facts. You can discredit the win all you want, and say Gamboa was undersized, etc, but it was a real solid win for Crawford.

I got Crawford top 15-20. I factor in his abilities & his skillset, not just what he has accomplished.
Click to expand...
You have Crawford at no higher than 15?! That's an insult after he beat Crawford and made every other fighter he beat look like he didn't belong in the ring with him. You're implying he can't outbox Danny Garcia, Mikey Garcia, Miguel Vazquez. You can't have it both ways: either P4P is a list of the relative divisional dominance of all fighters, which is impossible to determine as accomplishments can't be objectively measured as long as matchmaking isn't based on results; or accept that P4P, indeed by the semantic definition of the term, is COMPLETELY about ability. It engenders better discussion anyway: while it's by nature subjective, if someone can show I'm missing something about the skill a fighter's shown and how he'd beat someone I have higher, a P4P list could be refined. Take the illusory 'accomplishments' out of what's claimed as P4P discussion and it can be more than a pissing contest.
 
#49 ·
yaltamaltadavid said:
You have Crawford at no higher than 15?! That's an insult after he beat Crawford and made every other fighter he beat look like he didn't belong in the ring with him. You're implying he can't outbox Danny Garcia, Mikey Garcia, Miguel Vazquez. You can't have it both ways: either P4P is a list of the relative divisional dominance of all fighters, which is impossible to determine as accomplishments can't be objectively measured as long as matchmaking isn't based on results; or accept that P4P, indeed by the semantic definition of the term, is COMPLETELY about ability. It engenders better discussion anyway: while it's by nature subjective, if someone can show I'm missing something about the skill a fighter's shown and how he'd beat someone I have higher, a P4P list could be refined. Take the illusory 'accomplishments' out of what's claimed as P4P discussion and it can be more than a pissing contest.
Click to expand...
I think accomplishments need to play a factor in P4P lists, many felt Broner was P4P level based on just skill untill he stepped up and that isn't the case.

Many fighters look great untill they fight someone world class and are shown not to be as good as previously thought.

I mean in pure skills not factoring in who they fought Kessler, Pascal, Taylor, Groves, Bute and Dirrel etc would be likely rated higher than Froch but when those fights happened Froch got the win.

Many had Bute in their top 10 list before the Froch fight for the same reason you listed, (many disagreed stating he looks great but hasn't proven his skills are still effective at elite level.
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
 
#50 ·
yaltamaltadavid said:
You guys are misunderstanding the concept and purpose of P4P. It is not about earned 'accomplishments'! It's a comparitive evaluation of the 'best' boxers, based purely on ability. It's who potentially beats who, right now, if they were the same size. Level of opposition may have some bearing, to the extent that a fighter has to face decent enough competition to show his ability, but it's not paramount. Despite what Ring mag and every website insists, P4P doesn't and isn't supposed to 'mean' anything, so it it can't be earned. The kneejerk criticism of someone's P4P list that a fighter doesn't 'deserve' a spot is ridiculous. I had Gonzalez number 4 before the best win of his career in Yaegashi, while I only moved Estrada higher after beating Segura because he showed he's improved. These aren't rankings to show who deserves a title shot. If Ward's not retired put him where his ability warrants.

P4P needs to take the ability of fighters who may not have yet got prominent fights into consideration, the extent to which a weaker division makes divisional dominance a mirage, and of course the promotional and media hype of 'stars'. Sift through the shit and try to see how illusory accomplishments might be. The criteria for P4P is the same as picking fights. For me: Defensive skill, offensive technique and timing, boxing IQ or ring generalship, dominance in wins, success vs a variety of styles, chin.

Incidentally, a few spots lower, relative to each other I have Brook, Thurman, Marquez, and Pac. Fact is: Marquez toyed with Pac but was robbed in the third fight, iced him in the fourth, and would beat him if they fought again, so has to be rated higher. But Marquez himself isn't quite the same as he used to be, and I think would lose to a top-level technical boxer in his prime with strength and power, like Brook or Thurman. Bradley and Klitschko are not elite boxers and don't belong on P4P lists. I have Bradley around 40, and Klitschko around 90. Bradley's won the fights he's won on speed, athleticism, and toughness, but he's sloppy and doesn't have great skill and defence, can't think his way through a fight, and while he deservedly shaded a win over Marquez he was to me still the lesser boxer. Klitschko can't fight on the inside or punch in combination, and only the sad state of the heavyweight division has allowed him to hide his glass chin for the last 10 years. There's also no way Danny Garcia belongs close to the top 10. Herrera outboxed him, and from the vulnerability Garcia showed I'd pick Postol to beat him too, and rate both of them higher P4P.

So... based on ability and potential, who are the P4P best boxers in the world?
Click to expand...
You have a misunderstanding of P4P.

It's not about 'who beat who if they were the same size' because there's no way to gauge that.
 
#51 ·
yaltamaltadavid said:
You have Crawford at no higher than 15?! That's an insult after he beat Crawford and made every other fighter he beat look like he didn't belong in the ring with him. You're implying he can't outbox Danny Garcia, Mikey Garcia, Miguel Vazquez. You can't have it both ways: either P4P is a list of the relative divisional dominance of all fighters, which is impossible to determine as accomplishments can't be objectively measured as long as matchmaking isn't based on results; or accept that P4P, indeed by the semantic definition of the term, is COMPLETELY about ability. It engenders better discussion anyway: while it's by nature subjective, if someone can show I'm missing something about the skill a fighter's shown and how he'd beat someone I have higher, a P4P list could be refined. Take the illusory 'accomplishments' out of what's claimed as P4P discussion and it can be more than a pissing contest.
Click to expand...
I already went over this several times over the years, but a smaller fighter ALWAYS looks more skilled than a bigger fighter due to physics.
A 5'6 guy doing the shoulder roll ALWAYS looks more impressive than a 6'5 guy doing the shoulder roll even though it takes the same amount of skills. It's common sense.
But it doesn't mean the Heavyweights isn't just as skilled.
 
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
About this Discussion
50 Replies
27 Participants
Last post:
FelixTrinidad
Boxing Forums
posts
4.1M
members
33K
Since
2012
A forum community dedicated to Boxing fans and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about weigh-ins, matches, rankings, fighting styles, training, live fights, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Boxing Forum