Why is Spence ranked above Pacquiao in P4P?

No, "in their prime" has no barring in p4p, p4p is based on CURRENT form. As in, RIGHT NOW. What's so hard to understand about this? What you are talking about is not p4p ranking, it is ALL TIME ranking or ATG ranking. Or let me put it like this, if you say it's p4p, then it is all time p4p ranking, in which case said list would also include retired fighters like Duran, Mayweather, Leonard, Robinson, Ali, Foreman, etc. But the list that everyone here is talking about and the analists are talking about is not the same one you're talking about. That list is about who is the best now. Whether you're in your prime or not has no bearing on the issue. It is if you can beat everyone NOW, at your CURRENT form. To each their own but your argument is flawed

What has manny done lately? He beat an unmotivated broner, a sliding thurman who doesn't want any smoke with crawford/spence just like manny, and lost to horn who crawford destroyed. Spence has had more impressive wins against brook, lamont peterson and mikey. Spence looked more dominant than manny did in the last 2 years. Manny will never fight spence or crawford. Both of those guys would destroy manny.

But I purely look at their resumes - So I look at Pacquiao's last 6 fights (only past 3 years, not further). Bradley, Vargas, Horn, Matthysse, Broner and Thurman - In my book he won all of these and looked good doing it, but even if you don't give him the Horn fight that's OK with me too. People are quick to forget Manny won the WBO belt from Jesse Vargas who won that belt by stopping the undefeated Sadam Ali. The latter beat Crawford in the amateurs.

Yeah I dont get it tbh

I do know that. They don’t have to fight for me to know that. Pacquiao lost to Jeff Horn, fought a shot Lucas Matthysse for a pretend title, fought an Arden Broner who hasn’t had a convincing win in almost four years and beat a version of Keith Thurman who almost got ktfo by Jesisito López. He’s also 40-something years old. Spence is a top P4P talent in his prime. He’s bigger and has had better wins than Pacquiao recently. He would murder Pacquiao and I doubt that fight ever happens. He didn't really lose to Horn and everyone knows that. His latest wins, especially Thurman, trump all of Spence's latest wins seeing as Peterson, Ocampo and Garcia were all farces.

What you forgot at the end of that sentence is, AND IN THEIR PRIME. And I wholeheartedly believe Pac in his prime beats Spence. I havent seen anything from Spence to change my mind. Him fighting Porter and depending on if and how he wins will tell me even more. Spence hasnt proven to be, at least imo, regarded as a p4p entrant. His resume lacks and thats a big factor when considering who is a p4p great. Those who are considered a p4p candidate have a resume to back it up. Thats what my point is....But to each their own. No, "in their prime" has no barring in p4p, p4p is based on CURRENT form. As in, RIGHT NOW. What's so hard to understand about this? What you are talking about is not p4p ranking, it is ALL TIME ranking or ATG ranking. Or let me put it like this, if you say it's p4p, then it is all time p4p ranking, in which case said list would also include retired fighters like Duran, Mayweather, Leonard, Robinson, Ali, Foreman, etc. But the list that everyone here is talking about and the analists are talking about is not the same one you're talking about. That list is about who is the best now. Whether you're in your prime or not has no bearing on the issue. It is if you can beat everyone NOW, at your CURRENT form.

What has he done to deserve to be above Pacquiao? Interested to hear everyone's opinion. - -He beat Mikey who quit Arum so he wouldn't have to fight Manny. That's how boxing works.

Let me see how my pfp might look like: Saul Alvarez Lomachenko Terence Crawford Oleksander Usyk Gennady Golovkin Juan Francisco Estrada Manny Pacquiao Jose Ramirez Errol Spence Sergei Kovalev I’m surprised that I put Alvarez as first, but close fight’s should be respected, he’s got a W over Golovkin and Jacobs recently. Lomachenko and Crawford are somewhat interchangeable IMO. Usyk killed a prime youngin in Gassiev Golovkin drops a few due to having a loss, he can climb up by beating some guys. Derevynchenko is a good start. Estrada just beat Gonzalez two time slayer Rungvisai. Pacquiao beat an excellent albeit slightly unprepared one-time Thurman. Ramirez has been beating some pretty good fighters. I like what I saw from that Zepeda guy, crushed hypeman Imam and recently beat Hooker. Spence beat a damaged Brook. I give him credit, but no so much credit that he somehow goes into top 5. Outside of that his resume really sucks, Peterson is “decent” and I give him next to no credit for fat Garcia. Nice payday and exposure for him though I’m sure. Kovalev has been on shaky ground but still getting W’s over these young contenders. That’s using the “what have you done lately” approach. If I use the approach most people seem to use which is purely their opinion, then it really is just a free for all, you can have whoever where ever. It’s ridiculous. So I don’t do it like that. A PFP list should be updated either regularly or done at the end of the year. Regularly means it would be changing often. If Spence beats Porter and depending on the win I can maybe put him over Pacquiao, who recently beat Thurman.

P4p means, if everyone was the same weight class, who would beat everyone. Hypothetically of course. That is the literal meaning of it. Do you believe that Pac beats Spence right now? If you don't, or the majority of people don't, then he can't be ranked above Spence in p4p rankings. Now if you want to talk ATG rankings or hall of fame rankings, then you can say that Pac is ranked higher than Spence. I'll give you another example of how resume doesn't automatically = higher p4p ranking. Who has better resume between Loma and Canelo? Who has better resume between Crawford and Canelo? Canelo has a better resume than both of them. However, the consensus is that Crawford and Loma are p4p 1A and 1B. You'll find very few people if any outside Canelo fanboys who will tell you that Canelo should be ranked higher. The reason for this is because analysts, pro boxers, and trainers know what p4p actually means. It literally means pound for pound, as in, all things held equal, or if all fighters were same weight class.....who would win. Nobody ( of course there are some but majority) believes Canelo beats those guys under those circumstances, therefore they are ranked higher in p4p (ATG ranks) than Canelo. Same with Spence and Pac. Nobody believes 40 year old Pac beats Spence right now, and everyone knows that there is a reason everyone, including Pac himself, is avoiding him. There is also a reason one of Pac's best scalps at welterweight, Bradley, chose to retire instead of fighting Spence when ordered to fight him, and that's back when Spence was still 15-0 or something. This is what I meant when I said you can't change the meaning of p4p to suit your argument. It means what it means, who wins in a head to head if yawl were the same size. What you forgot at the end of that sentence is, AND IN THEIR PRIME. And I wholeheartedly believe Pac in his prime beats Spence. I havent seen anything from Spence to change my mind. Him fighting Porter and depending on if and how he wins will tell me even more. Spence hasnt proven to be, at least imo, regarded as a p4p entrant. His resume lacks and thats a big factor when considering who is a p4p great. Those who are considered a p4p candidate have a resume to back it up. Thats what my point is....But to each their own.

Opinons are like as.sholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Assumptions are pretty much the same thing... Spence's list of opps since Algieri: Bundu - old gatekeeper Brook - got stopped and orbital bone broke by Golo Peterson - got ktfo by shopworn Lucas Ocampo - who? but his mando Mikey - glorified sparring session vs a SMALLER man with an outcome everyone knew before the fight happened. Porter - his best opponent, PERIOD. Pac's list of opps since Algieri: FMJ - best of this era Bradley - Trilogy only cause of the robbery of their 1st fight Vargas - on par with Peterson, imo Horn - robbery Matthyse - Champ at the time Broner - Name recog only Thurman - better than any opp Spence faced, period. P4p means, if everyone was the same weight class, who would beat everyone. Hypothetically of course. That is the literal meaning of it. Do you believe that Pac beats Spence right now? If you don't, or the majority of people don't, then he can't be ranked above Spence in p4p rankings. Now if you want to talk ATG rankings or hall of fame rankings, then you can say that Pac is ranked higher than Spence. I'll give you another example of how resume doesn't automatically = higher p4p ranking. Who has better resume between Loma and Canelo? Who has better resume between Crawford and Canelo? Canelo has a better resume than both of them. However, the consensus is that Crawford and Loma are p4p 1A and 1B. You'll find very few people if any outside Canelo fanboys who will tell you that Canelo should be ranked higher. The reason for this is because analysts, pro boxers, and trainers know what p4p actually means. It literally means pound for pound, as in, all things held equal, or if all fighters were same weight class.....who would win. Nobody ( of course there are some but majority) believes Canelo beats those guys under those circumstances, therefore they are ranked higher in p4p (not ATG ranks) than Canelo. Same with Spence and Pac. Nobody believes 40 year old Pac beats Spence right now, and everyone knows that there is a reason everyone, including Pac himself, is avoiding him. There is also a reason one of Pac's best scalps at welterweight, Bradley, chose to retire instead of fighting Spence when ordered to fight him, and that's back when Spence was still 15-0 or something. This is what I meant when I said you can't change the meaning of p4p to suit your argument. It means what it means, who wins in a head to head if yawl were the same size.

a pound for pound list is not just you stacking "opposition" over a course of a very long period of time! most of pacquiao's best opponents have retired, his best wins and his prime were years ago. that f#cking matters. i'll give you an example. i don't think manny got a fair decision against jeff horn, but it's very fair to say he had trouble and lost rounds. terence crawford fought jeff horn, too. beat him up and knocked him out. crawford was a 135 lber in november of 2014. a 140 lber up until the horn fight, actually. so you have a guy fighter at lower or the same weights, against a common opponent, and performing better. so why are you rating the welterweight who performed poorly against horn over the welterweight who completely dominated him? i'll tell you why, history. you're giving him credit for "being manny pacquiao" to the point that you're rating him above clearly superior pound for pound fighters, and that's wrong. yeah, you do factor in him "being manny pacquiao" into a pound for pound list. but not that much in the face of such glaring evidence toward the contrary! pacquiao's best win in a long time is a close fight against keith thurman, an inactive keith thurman. thurman had one fight in 2016, one fight in early 2017, and didn't fight at all in 2018. he did not look terrific in his tune up against josesito lopez. again, don't rate the name, rate the fighter and look at what he actually did. prior to that pacquiao had gone through some typical pacquiao matchmaking for the later period of his career: guys who were there to make him look good and get him paid. jesse vargas, adrien broner, jeff horn, lucas matthysse's dead body. oher than matthysse who was totally shot and a shell of himself, pacquiao is not beating these guys up or even really distancing himself all that much. even 3-4 years ago he was taking the guys of this level off of their feet, and in his prime he was stopping them . the point is that you're really missing what a pound for pound list does and why guys are rated that way. you get to compare a heavyweight to a featherweight. in this case, you get to compare a strong, natural welterweight to a guy who would probably fight at 140 lbs if it weren't for the money, but who has actually been at welterweight longer than spence has fought as a pro. on paper you are comparing two welterweights. who do you think would win? you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you think manny pacquiao could beat errol spence? terrence crawford? he'd be a 2-3 to 1 underdog and you know it. they'd beat the hell out of him and he'd retire. and you would learn something! Crawford is #2 P4P in my book, could even be #1 - I've seen this guys entire career, and moving UP in weights to me should add extra power to your P4P ranking. I don't think fighting people below your weight should i.e Spence vs Garcia. I'm not really factoring in that he's Pacquiao, although I could understand why you'd think so. So I'm not blaming you. But I purely look at their resumes - So I look at Pacquiao's last 6 fights (only past 3 years, not further). Bradley, Vargas, Horn, Matthysse, Broner and Thurman - In my book he won all of these and looked good doing it, but even if you don't give him the Horn fight that's OK with me too. And compare it to Spence's last six: Algieri, Bundu, Brook, Peterson, Ocampo and Garcia. Is this P4P top 5 worthy? No. I don't think so. And this is Spence's best work. Is there an element of Spence being ducked? Of course. Would I consider him a favourite in the Pacquiao fight? Of course. Partly because he's really good and partly because Pacquiao is getting older and who knows how long this guy can perform . But in order for me to compare two people and rank someone higher, especially in the same weight class - I'm going with the guy whose level is proven to be world class consistently, not the guy who has only had one challenging fight in his career so far. I don't misunderstand what P4P is at all. Quick question, who do you think would win between Spence and Crawford?

As long as someone continues to fight better opposition, that's what he should be judged on, not on some fantasy crap. a pound for pound list is not just you stacking "opposition" over a course of a very long period of time! most of pacquiao's best opponents have retired, his best wins and his prime were years ago. that f#cking matters. i'll give you an example. i don't think manny got a fair decision against jeff horn, but it's very fair to say he had trouble and lost rounds. terence crawford fought jeff horn, too. beat him up and knocked him out. crawford was a 135 lber in november of 2014. a 140 lber up until the horn fight, actually. so you have a guy fighter at lower or the same weights, against a common opponent, and performing better. so why are you rating the welterweight who performed poorly against horn over the welterweight who completely dominated him? i'll tell you why, history. you're giving him credit for "being manny pacquiao" to the point that you're rating him above clearly superior pound for pound fighters, and that's wrong. yeah, you do factor in him "being manny pacquiao" into a pound for pound list. but not that much in the face of such glaring evidence toward the contrary! pacquiao's best win in a long time is a close fight against keith thurman, an inactive keith thurman. thurman had one fight in 2016, one fight in early 2017, and didn't fight at all in 2018. he did not look terrific in his tune up against josesito lopez. again, don't rate the name, rate the fighter and look at what he actually did. prior to that pacquiao had gone through some typical pacquiao matchmaking for the later period of his career: guys who were there to make him look good and get him paid. jesse vargas, adrien broner, jeff horn, lucas matthysse's dead body. oher than matthysse who was totally shot and a shell of himself, pacquiao is not beating these guys up or even really distancing himself all that much. even 3-4 years ago he was taking the guys of this level off of their feet, and in his prime he was stopping them . the point is that you're really missing what a pound for pound list does and why guys are rated that way. you get to compare a heavyweight to a featherweight. in this case, you get to compare a strong, natural welterweight to a guy who would probably fight at 140 lbs if it weren't for the money, but who has actually been at welterweight longer than spence has fought as a pro. on paper you are comparing two welterweights. who do you think would win? you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you think manny pacquiao could beat errol spence? terrence crawford? he'd be a 2-3 to 1 underdog and you know it. they'd beat the hell out of him and he'd retire. and you would learn something!

If Pacman was in his prime he would still have a tough out against current Spence due to the sheer size and other intangibles to match! I see it like this at 147... 1. Spence 2. Crawford 3. Pacquiao 4. Porter 5. Thurman 5A. D.Garcia But I’m tempted to give Pacman number 1 cuz a prime Thurman undefeated win is absolutely over a Brook or Crawford’s best win especially when your past your own prime! :biggthump:biggthump:biggthump

u can clearly separate boxingfans from boxing idiots. people saying PAC loss to Horn and Bradley 1 are clearly boxing idiots.. FACTS!! :D

if you can't see that one guy is a dominant fighter in his prime and that the other is faded and getting hit more that is on you! this is probably a manifestation if your dumb, anti-american agenda, but i really don't care where it's started from. the pound for pound list requires you to be able to take a look at fighters and know what you're looking at. the fact that i had to explain to you that pacquiao having a better resume doesn't make him a better pound for pound fighter in 2019 speaks. you may just be out of your element if youcan't look at errol spence, terrence crawford, and lomachenko, their body of work and their tools, and know they are better pund for pound fighters than pacquiao. hell, vegas would tell you all you need to know. pacquiao has eben a welterweight for 10 years and he'd be the dog against spence and crawford. only real advantage pacquiao has is activity, he's had an extra fight in 2019 but spence has one on the books. As long as someone continues to fight better opposition, that's what he should be judged on, not on some fantasy crap.

And his recent resume is still as good as Spence's. if you can't see that one guy is a dominant fighter in his prime and that the other is faded and getting hit more that is on you! this is probably a manifestation if your dumb, anti-american agenda, but i really don't care where it's started from. the pound for pound list requires you to be able to take a look at fighters and know what you're looking at. the fact that i had to explain to you that pacquiao having a better resume doesn't make him a better pound for pound fighter in 2019 speaks. you may just be out of your element if youcan't look at errol spence, terrence crawford, and lomachenko, their body of work and their tools, and know they are better pund for pound fighters than pacquiao. hell, vegas would tell you all you need to know. pacquiao has eben a welterweight for 10 years and he'd be the dog against spence and crawford. only real advantage pacquiao has is activity, he's had an extra fight in 2019 but spence has one on the books.

Pacquiao is an all time who has sat at 1 or 2 P4P for years with Floyd. But his career is near the end, he isnt what he was so his P4P ranking has to slip. But if im honest im still not sure if i put Spence above him. Spence is a very good fighter but im not sure he belongs as high on the P4P list as some people want to put him.

If Pacman was in his prime he would still have a tough out against current Spence due to the sheer size and other intangibles to match! I see it like this at 147... 1. Spence 2. Crawford 3. Pacquiao 4. Porter 5. Thurman 5A. D.Garcia But I’m tempted to give Pacman number 1 cuz a prime Thurman undefeated win is absolutely over a Brook or Crawford’s best win especially when your past your own prime!

Based on what exactly? What has he done that's P4P worthy? Bruh...I aint make the p4p list lol. Ask Ring Magazine

He’s officially being entered into the HOF after he retires. Spence has not earned that yet. Manny is better. Sorry bud. Manny is older not necessarily better, thats yet to be determined .