P4P Rankings

[Ben Bolt]

I never been a vivid fan of P4P-rankings. How fair can they be?

Let’s say there is a welter champ who is more than willing to take on all challengers – it’s just that his division happens to be a bit weak at the time.
Or the light heavy champ, who fights a few and rejects others, in a division which at the time contains more depth than the welter division.
How do you compare their efforts, and willingness, to be a true champ against each other?

Not long ago, P4P-rankings were not heard of. Today, it seems they create more interest than the divisional rankings themselves.

Pic: undefeated flyweight Roman "El Chocolatito" Gonzalez, currently The Ring no. 9 pound-for-pound pugilist.

[Humean]

I never been a vivid fan of P4P-rankings. How fair can they be?

Let’s say there is a welter champ who is more than willing to take on all challengers – it’s just that his division happens to be a bit weak at the time.
Or the light heavy champ, who fights a few and rejects others, in a division which at the time contains more depth than the welter division.
How do you compare their efforts, and willingness, to be a true champ against each other?

Not long ago, P4P-rankings were not heard of. Today, it seems they create more interest than the divisional rankings themselves.

Pic: undefeated flyweight Roman "El Chocolatito" Gonzalez, currently The Ring no. 9 pound-for-pound pugilist.

I love doing them, and they make sense insofar as they are an attempt to discern who the very best fighters in the sport actually are but ultimately they can never be anywhere near definitive and arguing about who is number 2 or 5 gets pretty silly very fast.

In regards to your questions I think the eye test is largely the answer. The idea is who, regardless of weight, are the very best in the sport, not who has defeated or faced the best opposition. Although facing stiffer opposition makes it far easier to judge one way or another. For example is Golovkin really one of the very best or has his relatively weak opposition made him look better than he is? By contrast it is certainly easier to judge Carl Froch.

I'm not sure if p4p lists are really all that much less fair than 'greatest' lists (even when based on one particular weight). Besides it is mostly mental masturbation anyway or in the case of p4p today - a marketing angle: "roll up roll up come see the p4p king himself, Floyd 'Money' Mayweather".

[IronDanHamza]

Subjective aren't they.

Always fun to do for me.

I base mine off a combination of skills and their recent performances.

Like for example I think Roman Gonzalez is a good fighter and possibly P4P worthy but for me I wouldn't say he's done enough to be on the P4P list.

I have Froch in my Top 10 P4P, and that for me is largely based off who he's beaten because skill wise I wouldn't put him above Mikey Garcia for example.

Basically it's a difficult task

[ShoulderRoll]

I love them because they are an attempt to single out the best boxing practitioners in the world. Before P4P lists became popular most people just assumed the heavyweight champ was the pinnacle of the sport, but that led to them missing out on a bunch of virtuoso performers at other weights who were many times far better at the craft.

When coming up with a list I like to judge fighters approximately 60% on skills and 40% on quality of opposition. Seems to give an accurate representation of who the top guys really are at any given time.

Someday the stats weenies that have invaded other sports will turn their eye towards boxing and it will be interesting to see what convoluted metrics they come up with.

[Scott9945]

P4P lists are okay as long as you don't take them too seriously. I read them occasionally, but I would never bother to make one.

[jas]

mine is in my sig

My P4P List:

1. Rigondeaux
2. Pacquaio
3. Hopkins
4. GGG
5. Mayweather
6. Bradley
7. Kovalev
8. Klitschko
9. Thurman
10. Lomachenko


i believe the p4p lists first came about to compare ray robinson and joe louis ....something along those lines, someone please correct me

[Ben Bolt]

Not long ago, P4P-rankings were not heard of.

mine is in my sig

My P4P List:

1. Rigondeaux
2. Pacquaio
3. Hopkins
4. GGG
5. Mayweather
6. Bradley
7. Kovalev
8. Klitschko
9. Thurman
10. Lomachenko


i believe the p4p lists first came about to compare ray robinson and joe louis ....something along those lines, someone please correct me

Of course you're right, and I presume P4P comparisons always have been made. What I meant was, P4P rankings have got more attention and (to my disliking) more importance the last decade or two.

Though, found your list interesting as, at the moment, you rarely see Floyd in another spot than at No. 1. Let's wait and see if it will be argued here.

[soul_survivor]

Of course you're right, and I presume P4P comparisons always have been made. What I meant was, P4P rankings have got more attention and (to my disliking) more importance the last decade or two.

Though, found your list interesting as, at the moment, you rarely see Floyd in another spot than at No. 1. Let's wait and see if it will be argued here.

I agree with you when you say the rankings have gone too far and more people talk about them than they do actual divisional rankings, which genuinely pisses me off.

I'd rather a fighter be the true champion in his division than some mythical P4P wanabe. It's a bit of fun to do and can spark some interesting discussions, especially regarding the likes of Floyd and Ward. How good are they? How often do they take on the best? Can either be the best in their division and P4P top guys? What about their divisional contemporaries?

Personally, I make a P4P list based off of accomplishments (normally over a 3 year period), skill set, opponents faced and H2H against other top fighters in the sport. Of course that final part is highly subjective.

I've held Floyd as no. 1 since Pac KO loss to JMM but recently I've been re-thinking that. But I doubt I'd ever have Rigo as number one.

[New England]

i rank accomplishments and ability when ranking fighters historically. i place the emphasis on accomplishments. the context is the rest of the gloved history of the sport, from john L sullivan to today.


when i rank fighters p4p in a contemporary context, i rate their ability and accomplishments. a stronger emphasis is placed on ability.


i'm not asking, "which active fighter has the best resume?"

i am asking, "which active fighter is best?"


right now, i think it's pretty obvious that guillermo rigondeaux is the planet's best fighter. his resume isn't all that deep, but his relatively recent victory over donaire [a top p4p fighter himself at the time,] and the freaking hellish skills he's displayed lately, have him at the top for me.

next, i have andre ward. ward's the guy i'd favor against everybody not named guillermo, if all fighters were the same size. his recent resume isn't tremendous, but he's a very accomplished fighter if you go to 2012 and backwards. when he gets in the ring, and actually get to see him fight, you feel like you're watching a great boxer at his peak. injuries and promotional issues have unfortunately kept him sidelined for good portions of a three year stretch. he fought once in '12, once in '13, and will be hard pressed to even get a fight in '14.

ward has evidently been in arbitration with goossen for several months. to put it simply, that means that an impartial middleman was brought in to help settle the dispute.

as of very recently, perhaps even today, ward is reported to actually be suing his promotor, and alleging that goossen has been violating the ali act.

i can't speak on it much further than that, but i will say that ward is to blame in part for his being sidelined. he signed a very long contract with joe goossen.

[rightsideup]

When I was a more avid watcher of the sport I paid special attention to KO magazine's p4p rating's and while watching those fellows in action I did not disagree by much.