How should P4P be determined?

Which is highly hypothetical and really a useless way of comparing fighters. p4p is not of any great use. I agree. But don't make it out as if it's a tool for putting the Klitschkos down. SRR really started to promote the term. "The greatest P4P fighter in the world" Sugar Ray Robinson.

I had Cotto-Mayweather 117-111. Cotto Trout was even after 8 for me, then Cotto tired as always down the stretch. Generally though, I thought it was a much closer fight. I had it even after 8 too. I had it like this (Trout/Cotto): 1. Trout 2. Trout 3. Cotto 4. Cotto 5. Cotto 6. Cotto 7. Trout 8. Trout 9. Trout 10. Trout 11. Trout 12. Trout Cotto tired during the Floyd fight too. I think Trout beat him just as convincingly. A lot of people scored it 116-112 for Trout, many had it 117-111 Trout too. Just as many people scored it 116-112 for Mayweather, and 117-111 Mayweather. In all, I believe the fights were scored mostly the same way from what I saw in the scoring patterns for those fights

lol. because p4p wasn't used before the klitschkos. P4P should be determined on a simple basis: If everyone was the same size, who is the best. That's it. Which is highly hypothetical and really a useless way of comparing fighters. p4p is not of any great use.

I don't agree there. I scored them both the same, 116-112 I had Cotto-Mayweather 117-111. Cotto Trout was even after 8 for me, then Cotto tired as always down the stretch. Generally though, I thought it was a much closer fight.

Not even close. Cotto-Trout was a close fight heading into the final rounds, Cotto-Mayweather was never close. I don't agree there. I scored them both the same, 116-112

It should be what have you done for me lately, so boxers dont coast and take it easy and live off of past glories. Otherwise Pac would still be no1 if resume made you no1. Cos Pac lost recently im guessing he isnt no1. So if you dont fight much and only beat the likes of SSM and Miguel Cotto (god bless Miguel, i love him) then you dont deserve no1, especially when Trout beat Cotto more convincingly than Floyd. So to make Floyd no1 is beyond comprehension. Not even close. Cotto-Trout was a close fight heading into the final rounds, Cotto-Mayweather was never close.

P4P is today mostly used due to the Klitschko's superiority - to make them look lesser, saying that there are really much better fighters out there. lol. because p4p wasn't used before the klitschkos. P4P should be determined on a simple basis: If everyone was the same size, who is the best. That's it.

It should be what have you done for me lately, so boxers dont coast and take it easy and live off of past glories. Otherwise Pac would still be no1 if resume made you no1. Cos Pac lost recently im guessing he isnt no1. So if you dont fight much and only beat the likes of SSM and Miguel Cotto (god bless Miguel, i love him) then you dont deserve no1, especially when Trout beat Cotto more convincingly than Floyd. So to make Floyd no1 is beyond comprehension.

Ain't is supposed to be of weight didn't matter in a fight, who would win the fight based on skill alone. Accomplishments and what you have done as a pro should matter in my opinion. Bit it's not anything really important to me. Thy just use it to hype the fighters eg Broner and all those other people

To me, the main thing is easily 'how good is the fighter?' Resume, activity and all this other stuff is cool, but how good the fighter is tops them all. Obviously top P4P guys need good wins to show that they are still great at the highest level, but once they are at that level, it's all about how good the fighter is IMO.

The options in this poll............ LMAO. It's wins obviously. The more wins, the higher you should be ranked p4p.

They don't need p4p because they are the best in reality. They beat anyone you put in the ring with them, from the lightest to the heaviest division. I determine p4p by thinking if I took 10 fighters at the weights at which they at their best and used a special upscale/downscale machine to make all the fighters the same weight, who would do the best. THIS!!:boxing::boxing::boxing:

It's hard to vote for one thing imo,I think it's a lil of everything..I believe the strongest things to look at when determining a list,is resume and wins and loses..Accomplishments comes next..Everyone has their way tho,and seeing how any list would be nothing more then opinion..There's really no rhyme or reason,it's how ever the person fills who is making the list..

It is basically, if all fighters were the same weight which fighter out of all fighters would come out on top. Therefore, it should be based on on whose latest performance was the most impressive and dominant against the highest level of opposition. If I'd have my way, it would be between Ward and Rigondeaux for number 1 right now. Past resumes should not weigh in at all if there have been impressive displays by other boxers after.

'How good the fighters are' with a splash of common sense. Primarily, it isn't fair to base everything in boxing on resume and/or opposition because the best are generally avoided. For the guys who are dangerous that don't come from nationalist boxing nations or who don't have the kinds of qualities the Arum's and the HBO's of the world are interested in there should be greater consideration.

P4P is today mostly used due to the Klitschko's superiority - to make them look lesser, saying that there are really much better fighters out there.

I bet people from other places have the Klitschko brothers 1, and 2 and they definitely would have a good arguement too. They don't need p4p because they are the best in reality. They beat anyone you put in the ring with them, from the lightest to the heaviest division. I determine p4p by thinking if I took 10 fighters at the weights at which they at their best and used a special upscale/downscale machine to make all the fighters the same weight, who would do the best.

P4P=BCS=Unnecessary

Maybe it should be judged on a year to year basis. The most impressive fighter of the year would be crowned as a p4p top. Very good point. In that case, Floyd should never be top p4p.

Whoever you think the best fighters are using what you know and believe. It is not that meaningful, there is no set way to do it and it certainly is not a black or white debate. Don't like somebody's P4P list disagree and make your own it holds about as much water.