P4P = Talent or Achievement?

that's stupid...achievements validates talent and not the other way around. without achievements, talent is nothing but a myth. So would you say Broner's 3 weight class belts validate his talent? I would disagree with that. I don't need Lomachenko to win 10 more fights to know he's going to whoop Salido like he stole something.

Could be hard to say, there are talented guys out there that don't achieve much and there are guys out there that achieve a lot but aren't what you/or themselves call talented. (Look at Marciano, achieved a lot, legendary HW Champion, but P4P worthy 'talent' isn't something you would be in a rush to put next to his name is it?) But anyway back to the point I would say P4P lists should be down to achievement, but the two kind of go hand in hand, so you could say a little bit of both. Difficult because everyone has their own way of thinking when it comes to P4P, in general though achievement is what I would say.

Both, neither, one or the other. P4P = Fantasy It's effect in the sport only can be seen in the person at the top, the rest hardly matters. Divisional rankings are far more important. Let's try to shatter the assumption that P4P means anything important

The key phrase is Recent Achievement How recent? That's highly subjective. Take Martinez for example. His breakout year was 2010. Since then he has remained undefeated, but his title reign has been rather underwhelming. Are his wins over Pavlik and Williams recent enough for you, or is he not on your P4P list any more?

Talent then achievement that's stupid...achievements validates talent and not the other way around. without achievements, talent is nothing but a myth.

Combination of both. Achievement weighs more because you can be multi-talented but not have the mental game to succeed at the top level - Zab Judah and Andre Dirrell come to mind. Yep good points, but let's consider both tangible and intangible skills.

No it's got to be both resume and current ability. If it was all about achievement, guys like Roy and Mosley would be P4P until they retire, and that would be ridiculous. Just because some idiots put Canelo or GGG on their P4P list doesn't mean P4P should be all about resume. The key phrase is Recent Achievement

P4P = Subjectivity

Combination of both. Achievement weighs more because you can be multi-talented but not have the mental game to succeed at the top level - Zab Judah and Andre Dirrell come to mind.

Definitely achievement. Recent achievement is relevent but P4P lists (IMO) are supposed to represent how good a fighter is now, not how good they were 5 or 10 years ago. I voted talent, because that is what is being compared, but realistically how else does one measure talent than by resume? - I suppose you can also take into account how a fight was won (or lost), but ultimately it comes down to who was fought.

Its got to be resume, because otherwise it would just be overating someone. But then its up to the powers that be to give people with potential to prove themselves. GGG wants to prove himself and we'll find out soon, but he isn't top 10 p4p yet. Once he beats Sergio you can put him there. Same as Canelo he wasn't a top 10 p4p fight cos his resume was weak as well. So achievement is what p4p is to me. Anything else is just boasting about saying how good you are and people saying how good you but not having to fight anyone good. Looking great against bums anyone can do. No it's got to be both resume and current ability. If it was all about achievement, guys like Roy and Mosley would be P4P until they retire, and that would be ridiculous. Just because some idiots put Canelo or GGG on their P4P list doesn't mean P4P should be all about resume.

Talent then achievement

who should be rated above? For me anyone who has had more significant wins in RECENT times. The last few years both Ward and Bradley have had more solid wins if we're only talking about undefeated fighters.

That's the big problem, it's hard to get these guys to fight, but yet they continue to get rated at the top by all the writers. A guy like Floyd who's had wins against good prime fighters many years ago, but he's sitting on these achievements. If you're defending that p4p title against non-prime competition then you can expect to stay undefeated forever. But how can writers continue to give them that title? I appreciate with the saying that "to be the man, you've got to beat him" but if you ain't fighting nobody then you deserve to lose that title - it should be that simple. There's guys out there that have lost but have got bigger wins against more credible fighters (not just names) that should be rated above. who should be rated above?

There's a fundamental misunderstanding on these boards that P4P means achievement. It's solely based in the following: weight, reach, height being equal, which of the 2 combatants would win. That's it, period end of story. The problem is when you try and rank a top 5 or 10 you tend to default to achievement to justify the ranking. It's a fictitious list anyway thats at the mercy of the eye of the beholder.

false dichotomy. the only reliable way to measure a boxer's talent is from their achievements. False analogy. Many boxers don't achieve anything of note yet are labelled talented or even world beaters (Eg. Spadafora).

The reason you are seeing more emphasis on talent is because its harder than ever to get the best in the ring with each other, let alone match emerging fighters with real opposition. A healthy mix of talent and resume is good for P4P but everyone has their own recipe thats why you cant take it too seriously. That's the big problem, it's hard to get these guys to fight, but yet they continue to get rated at the top by all the writers. A guy like Floyd who's had wins against good prime fighters many years ago, but he's sitting on these achievements. If you're defending that p4p title against non-prime competition then you can expect to stay undefeated forever. But how can writers continue to give them that title? I appreciate with the saying that "to be the man, you've got to beat him" but if you ain't fighting nobody then you deserve to lose that title - it should be that simple. There's guys out there that have lost but have got bigger wins against more credible fighters (not just names) that should be rated above.

false dichotomy. the only reliable way to measure a boxer's talent is from their achievements.

Definitely achievement.

Its got to be resume, because otherwise it would just be overating someone. But then its up to the powers that be to give people with potential to prove themselves. GGG wants to prove himself and we'll find out soon, but he isn't top 10 p4p yet. Once he beats Sergio you can put him there. Same as Canelo he wasn't a top 10 p4p fight cos his resume was weak as well. So achievement is what p4p is to me. Anything else is just boasting about saying how good you are and people saying how good you but not having to fight anyone good. Looking great against bums anyone can do. I agree, but I do think you need more than just one good win to be top P4P, so GGG would have to do a bit more imo. Canelo has a piss poor resume but he's made it to the top 10 in the Ring. I guess we might as well put Gary Russell up there, as he's a good looking talent.