how do you rate p4p - is it important?

[tehmvp]

You mean Terence Crawford? He's not the +/- leader or a Top 3 defender. He has some of the other categories on lock though. Terence did win CompuBox's FOTY award last year with Lomachenko as the Runner-Up. Crawford had 3 fights, Loma had 2. Both led in 4 categories each. However, I'm not going by just what they did last year but what they've done over their respective careers, particularly within the last 3-4 years since P4P is what a fighter has done recently. At least it's supposed to be.

I was just throwing my own personal bias in the mix. I only care about the eye test. Pound for pound ratings are meaningless for me.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

era has to play into it, chavez was number one or two for years and years and i don't think anyone thinks of him like they do robinson, Ali or even mayweather. as for me, i could never see what the fuss was about, now, looking back at his fights, i see a lot more to appreciate, still it's hard to be impressed when a guy is taking bombs from clubfighters who you would think wouldn't even be able to land those kinds of shots. gotta give it to him, he managed to have a long unbeaten streak.

I'm not talking about all-time. I'm talking about the current P4P Top 10 rated fighters of this era. But yeah, era is important, particularly if you're comparing it to others.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

I was just throwing my own personal bias in the mix. I only care about the eye test. Pound for pound ratings are meaningless for me.

Just based solely on the eye test I see Crawford and Lomachenko as being the two that stand out the most in the current P4P rankings. The stats reflect how dominant they've been, which is always a plus. There's a whole lot that would need to be factored in when there isn't a clear P4P #1 that's truly separated themselves from the rest of the pack in terms of accomplishments and skill they've displayed in the ring against top competition.

 

[Seano]

If we base it on stats then Lomachenko is the P4P #1 fighter in the world. Hasn't lost a clear round in how many years? Holds the current CompuBox +/- List record, is the second best defender in the sport next to Rigo (who isn't fighting top 10 ranked competition) and Top 3 on offense as well.

I wasn't ready to say he's #1 yet but you're the boss here.

Sure, if you don't care about quality of opposition.

 

[mozfonky]

p4p is a lot like comparing greats from different eras, decided by 'experts' and subjective and truly unanswerable in most cases. i haven't always agreed with the lists, some guys get to number one who no one really talks about anymore, anyone remember when a good quarter of boxing people thought Don Curry was the best p4p over the likes of hagler, hearns, holmes? no one even remembers the guy today. that is all to say, i don't put a ton of faith in what the experts have to say, they are wrong all the time.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Sure, if you don't care about quality of opposition.

In less than a year Lomachenko recently beat 3 current or former "world champions" and finished them without even giving up a clear round. He also moved up in weight to do it. Martinez, Walters and Sosa (WBA "Regular" World Champion - a secondary titlist). BoxRec, for example, counts the latter despite Corrales actually holding the full "Super" WBA title. He's fought 5 "world champions" across two divisions and defeated 4 of them, only losing a split decision to Salido inside 10 professional fights. He's already had 9 world title fights, 90% of his career. Add in the stats, the eye test, and he's a P4P fighter.

He isn't calling himself #1. In fact, he said a few days ago that he would have to beat Mikey and Linares maybe along with Berchelt (current WBC titlist in his division) to get there. That's 3 more "world champions", if he can accomplish that on top of defeating Rigondeaux. So make that 4 more with Rigo being a legitimate Lineal world champion and P4P Top 10 fighter, despite being two divisions smaller. Defeating Mikey would be a P4P fighter that's larger.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

p4p is a lot like comparing greats from different eras, decided by 'experts' and subjective and truly unanswerable in most cases. i haven't always agreed with the lists, some guys get to number one who no one really talks about anymore, anyone remember when a good quarter of boxing people thought Don Curry was the best p4p over the likes of hagler, hearns, holmes? no one even remembers the guy today. that is all to say, i don't put a ton of faith in what the experts have to say, they are wrong all the time.

It's always been subjective because it's an opinion, a consensus opinion held by the majority of these so-called experts. If you're rated as the P4P #10 boxer in the world and the 9 guys in front of you either lose (not by what's deemed a robbery by the masses) or retire while you've maintained your spot then you can become the #1 P4P fighter in the world by default. When Ward retired Golovkin was #2 and he was bumped up to #1 by The RING. Chocolatito lost and the rest of the pack benefited from that as well as Kovalev losing (yet somehow he's still ranked by The RING). Losing those 3 guys from the P4P conversation has benefited the rest in the discussion. We're focused on today, what fighters have done recently, not fighters that are no longer active. It's not just about attaining a mythical #1 P4P ranking it's even more about how long you can maintain it, longevity is what's remembered.

 

[mozfonky]

It's always been subjective because it's an opinion, a consensus opinion held by the majority of these so-called experts. If you're rated as the P4P #10 boxer in the world and the 9 guys in front of you either lose (not by what's deemed a robbery by the masses) or retire while you've maintained your spot then you can become the #1 P4P fighter in the world by default. When Ward retired Golovkin was #2 and he was bumped up to #1 by The RING. Chocolatito lost and the rest of the pack benefited from that as well as Kovalev losing (yet somehow he's still ranked by The RING). Losing those 3 guys from the P4P conversation has benefited the rest in the discussion. We're focused on today, what fighters have done recently, not fighters that are no longer active. It's not just about attaining a mythical #1 P4P ranking it's even more about how long you can maintain it, longevity is what's remembered.

i should have been clearer, i meant such things as, how can we realistically compare across weights when the gifts for divisions are different? a willie pep might not make a great heavyweight and a joe louis might not make a great featherweight. if sugar ray robinson could be made into a heavyweight, how much speed would he keep? would he be able to take the tons of punches he took as a middleweight? as far as modern fighters, i don't know who's what today, i don't watch enough of them to say, one thing though, is, just like any other era, they have to prove what they are, Ward proved himself in his last fight, ggg and canelo didn't look like they wanted to prove much of anything to me, those are the kinds of guys i won't break my neck to watch and those are the most common today.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

i should have been clearer, i meant such things as, how can we realistically compare across weights when the gifts for divisions are different? a willie pep might not make a great heavyweight and a joe louis might not make a great featherweight. if sugar ray robinson could be made into a heavyweight, how much speed would he keep? would he be able to take the tons of punches he took as a middleweight? as far as modern fighters, i don't know who's what today, i don't watch enough of them to say, one thing though, is, just like any other era, they have to prove what they are, Ward proved himself in his last fight, ggg and canelo didn't look like they wanted to prove much of anything to me, those are the kinds of guys i won't break my neck to watch and those are the most common today.

Yeah, it goes back to what I said earlier. Someone really needs to step up and take the mantle. They'll have to take more risks, not that many are willing to nowadays. In December, Rigondeaux is doing this by moving up 2 weight classes to fight Lomachenko. If he beats him (without it being seen as a clear robbery) then I don't think anyone would have an issue with him being the consensus P4P #1 fighter in the world with Ward recently retiring & Chocolatito having lost.

You still see certain fighters "daring to be great", particularly Khan moving up to fight Canelo & Brook moving up to GGG, but jumping up that high ended badly for both. The best fighting the best isn't as common as it was 10 years ago and prior because fighters are content to hold onto their titles and not take the risks they should be willing to take to prove themselves. Generally they want to protect their 0's in the "L" column, if they still have them intact, and do just enough to maintain or slightly move up in the rankings. Throw in the political barriers with networks and promoters not wanting to work together and we're not going to be seeing the P4P best fighters fighting each other as often. This year has been a great one though for boxing.

 

[DaveDave]

In the original usage, "P4P" was a neologism coined to honour the finest fighter that people had ever seen, by declaring that he was superior to all others no matter their size (which, in case people haven't noticed, is the discriminatory factor in boxing—fighters are separated by weight divisions, for the hard of thinking).

Now, however—especially the idea of making a fucking list out of it, as if some objective criteria could possibly apply by which to rank fighters of vastly differing size—it's the boxing equivalent of Dungeons & Dragons or those fuckin' interminable "Godzilla could beat up Voltron one-on-one" arguments.

Fantasy bullshit for man-children on the Internet, in other words.

 

[MacDuffle]

First you gotta get those fat bastards on a scale

 

[Kryognix]

The P4P rankings are a lot of shite.

The best fighter is in the world is the HW champ you rate highest, because there isn't a single man in any other division that could beat him.

I have Tyson Fury in that spot, with Joshua 2nd, Wilder 3rd, and Parker 4th. Until someone beats Fury, he was the first man to take out the man that ruled the division with an iron fist for years.

 

[RR]

I don't pay any attention to it personally. It's an opinion and everyone is going to favor fighters they like. I did agree with Ward at 1 though before he retired. GGG's spot is legit as well. Even though I thought he lost to Danny it was close and I had him beating Canelo. Those are two really good fights. He gets a lot of props from our end.

 

[quincy k]

Sure it matters,when people do it right. Most people's P4P lists are just a favorite fighters list. When its based on stats its a little more meaningful.

some people base it on the color of a boxers skin

not so much here on sherdog, but on other boxing sites, just horrible

 

[Breakfast Bar]

It's a useful tool. There are 17 weight classes and 4 "champions" per weight class. Being one of the top 68 guys doesn't sound that impressive. Most people want to classify athletes in a more selective pool than that. The all-star selections for major team sports don't have that many players and, AFAIK, there are not that many entrants in any Olympic event. Breaking it down to 10 or even 1 guy in some type of ranking system gives more prestige to the guy(s) who have fought tougher competition and fight at more competitive weight classes. So, yes, it's a useful tool.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

It's a useful tool. There are 17 weight classes and 4 "champions" per weight class. Being one of the top 68 guys doesn't sound that impressive. Most people want to classify athletes in a more selective pool than that. The all-star selections for major team sports don't have that many players and, AFAIK, there are not that many entrants in any Olympic event. Breaking it down to 10 or even 1 guy in some type of ranking system gives more prestige to the guy(s) who have fought tougher competition and fight at more competitive weight classes. So, yes, it's a useful tool.

And that's just counting the 4 major alphabet organizations' full titles (WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO) that the International Boxing Hall of Fame recognizes as "world championship" belts. Throw in the Lineal champions and we now theoretically have upwards of 85 possible champions & titleholders in the sport. What about the legitimate Lineal champions fully recognized by the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board & not just the Lineal champions that The RING chooses to recognize with their version of the Lineal championship? Are we counting secondary world titlists such as the WBA's "Regular" World Champions & the WBC's "Silver" World Champions? Are we counting Interim world titleholders? What about IBO titleholders? They are minor "world champions" after all (GGG & Wlad sure repped the IBO), just not recognized by the IBHOF as a major world title. What about the rare breed WBC "Interim Silver" World Champions? It's even possible to have an "Emeritus Champion" or a "Champion in Recess" along with an active "champion", as well. We won't count the honorary "champions" and there's a slew of those too (Diamond, Supreme, Eternal, et al).

 

[cuban23]

It's subjective, but it does have some credibility.

It's a combination of things for me (Not necessarily in this order)

- Consistency: How long has this fighter maintained their status? Are they a new kid on the block, or have they maintained a level of dominance for several years?
- Eye Test : This matters. People can act like it doesn't, but it does. How good do they look in their victories? (Or even defeats). Are they barely scraping by? Are they shutting out their opponent regardless? Regardless of competition.
- Resume: This is obvious, your level of competition matters.

For me, I'll rate a fighter with a weaker resume but who has clearly passed the eye test (Lara) over a fighter who has a better resume but fails the eye test (Danny Garcia) any day. If you're fighting top guys, but you're barely beating them and getting gift decisions, then that's not impressive to me. Now before everyone jumps at me. Obviously when I say weaker resume, I'm not talking about just fighting bums. The other guy might be avoided or hasn't faced AS MANY top level guys as the other. It doesn't mean he hasn't faced any top level guys. But he's obviously looked way better in his fights.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

You can't even have a constructive debate on the subject unless the criteria is agreed upon in advance and any parameters associated with them are firmly established. If these factors can be agreed upon by the clear majority then a productive conversation can take place toward ranking a list of fighters that are mythically "Pound-for-Pound" Top N.

The kicker here is in defining "recent" in years/number of fights against top-flight competition as a sample size. Usually that's within the last 3-4'ish years. What have the fighters recently accomplished is what should be analyzed. What a fighter did 5+ years ago isn't that recent considering it's a half-decade plus. BoxRec only goes back 6 fights at a time for fighters' records to give you a glimpse of their recent record. If you look at the top active fighters today, they'll be fighting 2 or 3 times a year on average, maybe 4 times per year if they're on the busier side and can actually get the fights they need to climb the rankings. Exceptions can be made for fighters that have been heavily avoided and they should be imo.

Does being a highly ranked P4P fighter matter? Yes, especially to the fighters themselves (pride & a higher earning potential), their promoters, managers, networks and to their respective fanbases. It certainly doesn't hurt on the promotional side in the business of professional boxing. I mean, who wouldn't want to be called the best fighter in the world or among the consensus elite fighters in the sport? Even if a fighter never makes it to the top spot then their "peak ranking" is still recorded, ie., Donaire @ the #3 spot per The RING after he beat Montiel.

Fighters among the Top 5 are also announced as such, typically. If you're The RING's #1, or the consensus #1 P4P fighter in the world, then premium networks like HBO & Showtime will have their announcers announce this before their fights and their commentary teams will often talk about it during the broadcast as well. It depends on the network as to which list they'll use. For fights airing on ESPN, they should be using their own P4P list but have opted to use Atlas' personal list lately instead. This is very likely due to their deal with Top Rank since it benefits one of their premier fighters, Lomachenko, and they're contracted business partners now (with a long-term deal in place).