Is P4P Rated By Legacy Or Quality Of Opposition?

Manny could probably still makes 135 and IMO beats everyone from there to 147(excluding Floyd here) or 150 if you like. So for that reason i would still have him as number 1. Sergio is a very close number 2 though.

by considering a fighters past victories then you bring b-hop into the frame, mosley becomes p4p again if a good enough argument was presented even jones jr could be p4p again. atg rating is a different argument than p4p. pacs last credable opponet was cotto. hes fighting mosley next that even most pactards criticize theirs talk off marquez at welter weight next. pacs stock goes down with worn and torn former greats and martinez goes up facing better opposition. stfu, you're the dumbest flomo ever on this site. :spank: Do yourself a favor, go turn off your computer.

I have no problem on sergio being #1 p4p. Hope it will do him good. :D

so by that logic ivan calderon & Pongsaklek Wonjongkam should have been p4p 1#s for a long time by now. not really, because Calderon didnt even come close to cleaning out his division. he just had a bunch of meaningless title defenses, he did not beat the best in the division whatsoever and didnt unify even once.

so when pacquiao beat barrera when barrera was a top 10 p4p fighter and #1 at 126 it doesn't count because he was past prime? neither does when he beat morales when morales was #2 at 130? okay. the difference being that Barrera, while past prime, was still a top fighter. Margarito wasnt a top fighter in any division when Pacquiao beat him, and Mosley is looking like crap ever since his performance against Mora(and then Mora's following embarressing loss). Morales as well was just coming off a domination loss to someone not highly regarded at all. Both Barrera wins are excellent. Margarito and Morales type ones not so much.

Their are several articles out today from various boxing and sports sites that are supporting Sergio Martinez claim to the P4P King status. I support this opinion and have no problem debating it with anybody but the same argument being thrown back at me why Pac should maintain his #1 status is his legacy not the quality of his recent opposition. I dont agree with this logic as it is more of a ATG ranking argument than a P4P ranking argument. I feel P4P should be based on qaulity of opposition not only by name but by where the competition is at in their career when the p4per fights them. If you support the over all resume argument please explain better than the retards that have been using it. I agree with you whole heartedly and I cant wait to see all of the rebuttles. I think its time that PAC either facd quality competition or face the same harsh criticism that Mayweather faced. Sergio and I hate wrote on this about four times today deserves to be P4P #1 not because of his past but for what hes done lately. He won fighter of the year last year and he keeps fighting all the people HBO wants to force him to fight. 1. Why cant Pac come up to 154 to fight Martinez. Is it because the whole Margarito fight was a farce deception to help pad PAC's legacy. I think so because if your the giant killer, it wouldnt matter whom you fought at the weight. Look at the creative ducking from PAC. 1. Yuri Foreman because of height, movement and a good jab. Please Garbage 2. Mosley begged for a fight and had just beaten Margarito. What did Pac and Arum do fought Cotto, Clottey and Margarito. If this isnt a duck then we better all start quacking. 3. Martinez if you can come down to 149 roach says. Drainage is the name of the game with PAC and roach everone sees it but denies it happens. 4. Berto good quality opponent and has a decent resume with little proven ability and no one would be crying BS flag like they are for this Mosley fight. Pac would get praised and get that slick African American tag off of his back. Easy money if you ask me. 5. Bradley, Alexander, Khan, Holt, Campbell, Juan Diaz all credible fighters whom Pac never fought at 140. Why because Hatton whom to his credit was the lineal champion but had been embarrased by Mayweather. Not the same fighter and wouldnt listen to his corner. D david Diaz decent fighter but way over-rated in my book. Sorry Sergio is P4P#1

by considering a fighters past victories then you bring b-hop into the frame, mosley becomes p4p again if a good enough argument was presented even jones jr could be p4p again. atg rating is a different argument than p4p. pacs last credable opponet was cotto. hes fighting mosley next that even most pactards criticize theirs talk off marquez at welter weight next. pacs stock goes down with worn and torn former greats and martinez goes up facing better opposition.

I think it should simple be who is the most dominant in their division. I hate the mythological bull **** p4p rankings where they literally try to figure out how X 140 lbs fighter would do if he was 200 lbs. I also dont believe in the subjective "oh but the number 2 fighter at LHW is much better than the number 2 fighter at WW, even though they both are undefeated (hypothetical comment obviously)." I think it should be simply a ranking about ones dominance in their current "era". An era is usually defined as a streak, but it could also be just a period where the fighter is in similar condition. If, for example a fighter breaks his hands after beating another great in his era, and the next fight he has no power and looks like **** against a journeyman, he should drop far...like out of the top 10 p4p. Or if a fighter like Wlad, switches trainers, and comes out with a completely new style, thats the beginning of a new era.

floyd did'nt fight for almost 2 years and when he beat a lw at ww, they put him at p4p # 2....lol....that right there clearly shows that past wins still a big factor of getting in the p4p list......

so when pacquiao beat barrera when barrera was a top 10 p4p fighter and #1 at 126 it doesn't count because he was past prime? neither does when he beat morales when morales was #2 at 130? okay. How do you rank these wins? Toney's win over Michael Nunn or Toney's win over McCallum? How about Jirov against Holyifield? How about Trinidad's win over Sweet Pea against his win over Vargas? Calzaghe - Kessler or RJ Jr.? I'm sure all of the past prime HOF fighters mentioned (except for maybe Holyfield) were ranked, but you can't just automatically rank the past prime HOFer over the prime, rated fighter.

okay. i'm done. i leave with this for the guys that think martinez's recent resume deserves #1 p4p. in 2001-2002 , floyd mayweather went 5-0 against corrales , hernandez , chavez and castillo. he was not bumped up to #1 because of the greater past achievements of those ahead of him. in 2003-2005 , manny pacquiao went 3-1-1 against barrera , morales and marquez. that also wasn't enough to get him to #1 p4p. and now you think going 2-1-1 against williams , cintron , pavlik should get him #1 because he just beat sergei dzindzurik? think about that.

I agree with Left Hook Tua. Past fights can totally count towards P4P ranking, but should always take a back seat to recent wins to account for any potential deterioration that has occurred in the mean time (and to punish boxers for coasting against substandard opposition, regardless of what they may have achieved once upon a time). Re: Pacquiao, I think his old wins do indeed contribute to his current P4P status seeing as it's markedly clear that he has not only not declined since then, but probably actually improved; it gives us a solid foundation to judge him by as we all know just how good you have to be to beat Morales and Barrera.

there is no objective criteria for p4p, which is why it's kind of hard to talk about. everyone thinks they are right. i don't think we should worry about p4p so much with the current crop of fighters, they need to restore integrity to the old weight divisions. calling a guy the best in the world at his weight isn't enough now for some people, and that's a problem. as for max's fab 4, don't even get me started

The thread title doesn't even make sense... the quality of opposition a boxer faces determines his legacy. You can't build a strong legacy without facing top opponents.

ummm.....and why doesn't barrera and morales count? p4p takes into account past wins as well. maybe not as important as recent wins but past wins still matter. They matter, but they should be as a tie breaker, not part of the main reason for ranking A over B.

I disagree, I rate wins over HOFers above others, but past prime HOF fighters and past prime borderline HOF fighters are another story. When you're talking about highly rated, prime fighters, it's pretty much the equivalent, if not, above past prime and borderline HOF fighters. How do you rank these? Toney's win over Michael Nunn or Toney's win over McCallum? How about Jirov against Holyifield? How about Trinidad's win over Sweet Pea against his win over Vargas? so when pacquiao beat barrera when barrera was a top 10 p4p fighter and #1 at 126 it doesn't count because he was past prime? neither does when he beat morales when morales was #2 at 130? okay.

this sorry flomosexual bastard tried to make a whole new thread & tried to masquerade his OP with "several websites made sergio p4p 1#" when in reality we were just arguing what are some elements that make up a subjective & ambiguous rating as p4p. he never responded to my last post & had to create a whole new thread just to check himself, yet claimed in another thread that he was "whipping" some pactards. yea cuz whipping = running to another thread. Legacy/resume counts in the p4p ratings if the guy being scrutinized is still active, prominent in the sport, & IN THE TOP 10. That all comes into play. Pac has been fighting Hall of Famers since he got to america, martinez was fighting Archak TerMeliksetian (16-8) & david torovio 18-10 as recently as 2008. But we all know why flomos are dikriding sergio & a couple of weeks ago nonito donaire........ Anbody that challenges Pac's position as p4p they will start the propaganda. past fights definitely count. p4p takes into account past fights , recent fights , technical ability and even potential. that's why p4p is always riddled with old fighters who have big resumes or young guys/new champions who writers feel can beat the top fighters in their division.

i honestly don't get the sergio is #1 over floyd/pac talk. williams , dizzy and pavlik are good wins but let's not act like he just beat a bunch of HOFers or something. people dismiss floyd's and pac's wins over cotto and mosley but...... both of those wins are better than any of serge's wins in his entire career. people get too hyped up over recent fights and lose perspective. I disagree, I rate wins over HOFers above others, but past prime HOF fighters and past prime borderline HOF fighters are another story. When you're talking about highly rated, prime fighters, it's pretty much the equivalent, if not, above past prime and borderline HOF fighters. How do you rank these? Toney's win over Michael Nunn or Toney's win over McCallum? How about Jirov against Holyifield? How about Trinidad's win over Sweet Pea against his win over Vargas?

beating up on eurobums, keeping ur hands low like a retard, not lookin where ur punching = P4P #1. calling out fighters you're 3-5 inches taller than, who are 1-2 weight divisions lower than u, also helps. are you saying the current P4P king quality of opposition is better then the eurobumbs? also are you really trying to argue Martinez's level of skill is and he shouldn't replace the current and more technical P4P king

I have Sergio at #2 currently, after Pacquiao. Nobody should be mentioning wins over Barrera or Morales in their argument against Sergio, save that for Pacquiao's HOF and ATG ranking discussions. Would a win over Maidana get Morales back into top 10 P4P? He has one of the best resumes in boxing, but no. ummm.....and why doesn't barrera and morales count? p4p takes into account past wins as well. maybe not as important as recent wins but past wins still matter.