Ok, what is P4P based on? Like seriously.

SMH. That's racist I'm Mexican I can't be racist.

KEY FACTORS: -The phase of the moon -The position of venus relative to the sun -Precession of the equinoxes -Observing gravity (molecular make up) -The composition of dark matter -The position of Uranus relative to the earth Once the above is known, we can clearly identify the p4p #1.

P4P is based on many things. Does the fighter have white or dark skin? Is he promoted by Bob arum, golden boy, or haymon? Is he a potential ppv star? How many ppv sales does he have? Does he sell out arenas? Who is he signed to? Showtime? Espn? Hbo? Is he boring in the ring or does he have mexican style. Those all come into play when we're trying to figure out p4p fighters.

What P4P *should* be based on is: There are 17 divisions. Who is dominating their division the most? Who is accomplishing the most, *at their weight*. By that definition, the P4P list should heavily favor unified champions. Anthony Joshua, GGG, Crawford, etc.

I base it on who I think are the best fighters. **** resume and other opinions.

quality and quantity of wins It's that simple

I go by good wins, simple as that and then the manner of the wins. You can have all the talent in the world but if you're not using it and proving it against the other top fighters and racking up good wins then it counts for nothing.

Everybody uses different criteria, some people (specially here on NSB) rate race and ethnicity above everything else.

It's a cool rating system where fighters don't have to face each other. You can just make a list and put Thurman above (or below) Spence or Crawford. They don't have to fight. Wilder and Joshua don't have to fight. Jacobs and Canelo. This is easier than having like, real championships.

Basically it comes down to who is your favorite, making them #1. Then #2 and below we have to make stuff up to explain why they cannot be #1 Get with the damn program people!!

cuz crawford is the guy Currently giving the so called "boxing purists" the biggest boner right now, they love the "slick n smoov" black guys :dunno: SMH. That's racist

cuz crawford is the guy Currently giving the so called "boxing purists" the biggest boner right now, they love the "slick n smoov" black guys :dunno: I'm only kidding :lol1: I hate to admit it but I've never even watched crawford fight, for all I know he can be a phone both brawler :dunno: gahh I'm such a casual these days :(

cuz crawford is the guy Currently giving the so called "boxing purists" the biggest boner right now, they love the "slick n smoov" black guys :dunno:

Its a list of peoples favourite fighters

For me it's based on a combination if all were equal size who's the best based on their skills and talent level and quality of wins and performances. For posters like Kigali/Regulus, Raggamuffin, j.razor etc; it's based more on ethnicity and the country they come from/color of skin.

a combination of accomplishments and ability. really, it's just down to ability, your accomplishments are a means toward deciphering that end. you can't just count wins on a resume. those go way too far back and fighters change too much. sure, if a guy is still in his prime and performing you essentially base p4p on lineage. but you need to consider a fighter's ability in his last fight regardless of size. do you really need me to tell you what a pound for pound list is? just think about the history of what the list is and what it's designed to do. it was probably already a concept but the phrase was coined and popularized, as far as i know because i was not alive at the time and i'm just reading reports, during the tenure of ray robinson. traditionally the "best", greatest, most popular fighters and what have you were heavyweights. robinson was the best fighter in the world and he wasn't a HW. if he was HW sized people would favor him over joe louis. if floyd was HW sized people would have favored him over wladimir klitschko. it's really not that hard. pretend every fighter is the same size, and tell me who is the best. it's your opinion. some opinions suck, but that doesn't mean a pound for pound list isn't an opinion. if you want me, the realest dude on this forum and a scholar, to take you seriously, you should tell me who you think are the top 5 pound for pound boxers, and then tell me why. i usually odn't get into the p4p much further than the top few guys. it gets awfully abstract if you're trying to force yourself to name the top 10 boxers in the world. use your gut and your eyes and tell me who you think the best fighters on the planet are based on how good they are and what they've accomplished. class f#cking dismissed.

You have guys ranking Crawford number one based off the eye test but he has a weaker resume compared to guys like Loma, Rigo, Thurman, Sadam, Spence, GGG, Mikey, and Canelo. Canelo and GGG both have good resumes and it can be argued that Loma has the better skills and resume than everyone since he just beat another top 04p fighter, yet you have a significant amount of people ranking him below Crawford, GGG, canelo. What about Spence and Thurman? They both have bodies on their resume yet I don't see them ranked as highly as Crawford. Joshua has a name, Loma has a name, Canelo has a name, GGG has a name, but Crawford doesn't have a name. So why is he ranked so highly? So, I am confused, what is P4P based on exactly. And please don't use the ,"everything equal" because I don't know how you quantify that. For me, to be as objective as possible. it's based on two factors / criteria: 1) Resume / quality of opposition 2) Boxing skills - combination of defensive skills (get hit / punched fewer times than others) and offensive skills (land more punches on opponent than others and land more effective punches on opponent than others which result in most knockouts and damage inflicted upon opponent's body). Resume / quality of opposition is beating 'THE BEST POSSIBLE OPPONENTS' one can compete against in their weight division. So the number one criteria for a boxer to be ranked in the pound for pound ranking for me is, they must be boxing against the best possible opposition in their weight division. That is, the highest ranked opponents or opponents who have proven themselves by beating other top boxers in the same weight division. So for a champion, he would have to be facing contenders who have earned their shot at the title by beating other opponents who are also contending to become the mandatory to the title. If a boxer is not facing such level of opposition, then immediately, I would exclude them from my ranking. Irrespective of how 'skillful' they look against the lower tier opposition. Now for boxing skills. This is quantifiable by looking at the stats of how often a boxer gets hit, relative to others (defensive skills). How often a boxer lands punches on his opponents, relative to others (offensive skills) and how often a boxer knocks his opponents out / stops his opponents (offensive skills). The comparison must be done in a way that the level of opposition of two or more boxers who are being compared, be equal. So suppose we are comparing Vasyl Lomachenko to Terence Crawford. We compare Lomachenko's performances against unbeaten opponents to Terence Crawford's performances against unbeaten opponents and determine who showed the better combination of defensive and offensive skills against such opponents. I've discovered this to be the most objective way to determine / establish who the most 'skilled' boxer is or who should rank higher between two or more boxers. As of now, I would rank Vasyl Lomachenko number 1 pound for pound. I personally wouldn't rank heavyweights in the pound for pound ranking. Simply because, it is an unlimited weight division where size can overcome skills due to a boxer having the possibility to besignificantly heavier than their opponents. On the other hand, boxing bouts are more often decided by skills, rather than size in the lower weight divisions. Also, all heavyweights can fight each other due to there not being an upper weight limit. Thus, there aren't any needs for pound for pound rankings for heavyweights. On the other hand, there are always upper limits in the lower weight divisions.

For me, to be as objective as possible. it's based on two factors / criteria: 1) Resume / quality of opposition 2) Boxing skills - combination of defensive skills (get hit / punched fewer times than others) and offensive skills (land more punches on opponent than others and land more effective punches on opponent than others which result in most knockouts and damage inflicted upon opponent's body). Resume / quality of opposition is beating 'THE BEST POSSIBLE OPPONENTS' one can compete against in their weight division. So the number one criteria for a boxer to be ranked in the pound for pound ranking for me is, they must be boxing against the best possible opposition in their weight division. That is, the highest ranked opponents or opponents who have proven themselves by beating other top boxers in the same weight division. So for a champion, he would have to be facing contenders who have earned their shot at the title by beating other opponents who are also contending to become the mandatory to the title. If a boxer is not facing such level of opposition, then immediately, I would exclude them from my ranking. Irrespective of how 'skillful' they look against the lower tier opposition. Now for boxing skills. This is quantifiable by looking at the stats of how often a boxer gets hit, relative to others (defensive skills). How often a boxer lands punches on his opponents, relative to others (offensive skills) and how often a boxer knocks his opponents out / stops his opponents (offensive skills). The comparison must be done in a way that the level of opposition of two or more boxers who are being compared, be equal. So suppose we are comparing Vasyl Lomachenko to Terence Crawford. We compare Lomachenko's performances against unbeaten opponents to Terence Crawford's performances against unbeaten opponents and determine who showed the better combination of defensive and offensive skills against such opponents. I've discovered this to be the most objective way to determine / establish who the most 'skilled' boxer is or who should rank higher between two or more boxers. As of now, I would rank Vasyl Lomachenko number 1 pound for pound.

I look at the relative quality of opposition and quality of performances against them. I don't try to imagine what would happen in fantasy fights of small guys vs big guys if the small guys were the same size because that seems silly to me. The point to me is just to consider the fighter's skills and accomplishments in the context of their size. Like yes, AJ is more than likely the best boxer on the planet right now. But fighters like Lomachenko are doing great things against skilled boxers who are roughly his size.

Crawford is the midget slayer. http://boxingvideo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Terence-Crawford-vs-Viktor-Postol-Fight-Replay.jpg