Floyd is P4P #2 ever after SRR?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I think Cotto could be considered in the lower range of p4p top ten should he beat Martinez or even if he should beat Canelo. To me the difference between being something like 7th or 8th p4p and being 15th or 20th p4p is often very little, not always of course, but often. It is the guys right at the top, usually only 1, 2 3 or 4 guys at any given time are the guys who are unequivocably p4p guys. Mosley's position at #3 after the Margarito win probably was too high but I think that 2009 there really were only two proper p4p guys in Pacquiao and Mayweather, the rest had enough reason not to rank them anywhere near those two. I also think the guys you lose to and the manner you lose is important. That you can rebound quicker in the p4p stakes after losing to a really top guy if you then beat a really top guy.

1. floyd
2. ward
3. rigo
4. bradley
5. jmm
6. manny
7. wlad
8. froch
9. m. garcia
10. d. garcia
11. ggg
12. roman gonazales
13. uchiyama
14. crawford
15. lara
16. trout
17. broner
18. vasquez
19. kovolev
20. hopkins
21. donaire

Those guys would be under consideration for p4p

cotto, serg, are guys that there best days are behind them, still good fighters, and compete at the top level, but i dont think they will beat anyone in their prime anymore,, they will just rack up wins vs other shopworn veterans, like each other,,,

[Humean]

1. floyd
2. ward
3. rigo
4. bradley
5. jmm
6. manny
7. wlad
8. froch
9. m. garcia
10. d. garcia
11. ggg
12. roman gonazales
13. uchiyama
14. crawford
15. lara
16. trout
17. broner
18. vasquez
19. kovolev
20. hopkins
21. donaire

Those guys would be under consideration for p4p

cotto, serg, are guys that there best days are behind them, still good fighters, and compete at the top level, but i dont think they will beat anyone in their prime anymore,, they will just rack up wins vs other shopworn veterans, like each other,,,

There is probably a few more besides the guys you named but if we take the example of Cotto beating Martinez then I think there is a strong case for Cotto just moving into the top 10 p4p for the following reasons.

1. Cotto used to be in the p4p lists and was there because he had a number of good to very good wins therefore there is a past track record of really high quality achievement as evidence of his quality.

2. He gave the p4p king a good fight albeit one he certainly lost

3: He fought a big junior middleweight and lost a close-ish fight to him, it is not entirely clear quite how high to rank Trout as a fighter therefore there is room to either be generous or harsh on Cotto for this loss.

4: Martinez might be fading but I personally think this is less clear than everyone is making out. Even if you accept the claim that the main reason that Martinez didn't look at his best against Murray is because his body, primarily his knee(s), are failing him it doesn't mean that this is permanent, he simply might not have fully recovered from his surgery and injuries. When Martinez fights again he will likely be as fully recovered as he could be and it is still concievable to me that he could still be pretty much at his best. Time will tell on that.

5. If Martinez really does seem to be fully recovered and doesn't look old then if Cotto beats that version of Martinez then he'd have beaten a version of Martinez who was genuinely deserving of his p4p rank and therefore very strong reason to place Cotto in the p4p top ten because he beat one of the very best fighters pound for pound.


One of the reasons I am not as convinced that Martinez's performance against Murray was as down to his physical decline is because I think Murray's tactics in the fight were fairly close to perfect. Tactics that Barker had initially tried but didn't perfect as well as Murray.

[IronDanHamza]

This is weak. Both fighters were in the same position in regards to the circumstances, both were preparing for someone very different. Eubank was in shape and he had a lot of experience, you have no leg to stand on with this line of argument. There is no way that this aspect of your argument diminishes the win for Calzaghe.

That's certainly not the sole reason that the fight isn't impressive but it's just something to add.

That fighting that version of Eubank on a weeks notice is not very impressive.

It is misleading because Eubank had been in significant fights that he had indeed lost but lost very narrowly. Steve Collins was a fantastic super middleweight, to run him close in two hard fought fights is hardly evidence of what you are saying. That is more relevant than saying 'when did he last win a meaningful fight'. IF he was losing to poor quality opposition then that claim may have some significance but not when he had been fighting the likes of Steve Collins. Moving up to cruiserweight and fighting well is evidence than Eubank was far from finished is it not? Eubank was so past his best against Benn II that he got a not totally undeserved draw. By your estimation about half of Eubank's 'world level' career he was not only well past his best but was 'awful'. That is not even remotely credible.

It's not misleading, it's a fact. Again, answer me, when was the last time Eubank won a significant fight at that point?

I think Eubank is generally overrated. He looked bad even in his prime against less than stellar opposition. But not as much as he did 93-94 onward, that's when he showed he was clearly well passed it.

Saying "he moved up to Crusierweight and performed well therefore showed he was still good" is misleading. He moved up to Crusierweight and lost twice to a guy who I don't consider very good at all. Two tough battles but losing battles none the less. Also I think Thompson underestimated him quite a bit in the first one.

Don't consider Steve Collins to be that good either. Another overrated fighter IMO and Eubank was far from impressive in those fights.

At the time Calzaghe fought Eubank, he hadn't looked impressive in years, was well well well beyond his best, took the fight on a week notice and was unranked at the weight.

I don't consider that be impressive nor significant.

[Humean]

That's certainly not the sole reason that the fight isn't impressive but it's just something to add.

That fighting that version of Eubank on a weeks notice is not very impressive.




It's not misleading, it's a fact. Again, answer me, when was the last time Eubank won a significant fight at that point?

I think Eubank is generally overrated. He looked bad even in his prime against less than stellar opposition. But not as much as he did 93-94 onward, that's when he showed he was clearly well passed it.

Saying "he moved up to Crusierweight and performed well therefore showed he was still good" is misleading. He moved up to Crusierweight and lost twice to a guy who I don't consider very good at all. Two tough battles but losing battles none the less. Also I think Thompson underestimated him quite a bit in the first one.

Don't consider Steve Collins to be that good either. Another overrated fighter IMO and Eubank was far from impressive in those fights.

At the time Calzaghe fought Eubank, he hadn't looked impressive in years, was well well well beyond his best, took the fight on a week notice and was unranked at the weight.

I don't consider that be impressive nor significant.

I didn't answer your question because I don't think it is nearly as relevant as you are making it out to be but the answer is probably at least 3 years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

If you don't think either Eubank or Collins were particularly good and you don't seem to rate Calzaghe much then I think you must barely rate any super middleweights because those three are in the top 10 best super middleweights in the history of the division. You complain about Calzaghe not fighting enough of the best of his era yet I imagine if he did you'd say that they were not very good anyway because if you don't rate Eubank or Collins as super middleweights then who within the division could you possibly have rated during the Calzaghe era?

[IronDanHamza]

I didn't answer your question because I don't think it is nearly as relevant as you are making it out to be but the answer is probably at least 3 years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

Well there you go.

He hadn't won a significant fight in (atleast) 3 years nor looked impressive. I don't consider that to be an impressive win.

If you don't think either Eubank or Collins were particularly good and you don't seem to rate Calzaghe much then I think you must barely rate any super middleweights because those three are in the top 10 best super middleweights in the history of the division. You complain about Calzaghe not fighting enough of the best of his era yet I imagine if he did you'd say that they were not very good anyway because if you don't rate Eubank or Collins as super middleweights then who within the division could you possibly have rated during the Calzaghe era?

Of course they are good. Both Eubank and Collins were good fighters and Calzaghe is better than both.

But I don't think Eubank and Collins are as good as others tend to think. And I like Eubank a lot. Was a fan back then and still am now.

If Calzaghe fought prime versions of Eubank and Collins (Hypothetically, I know that's not possible) then he'd get the world of credit from me. They'd be far and beyond his 2 best wins of his career.

But he doesn't. He doesn't have Collins and has an unranked Eubank who hadn't won a significant fight nor looked impressive in years at the time he fought him.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

There is probably a few more besides the guys you named but if we take the example of Cotto beating Martinez then I think there is a strong case for Cotto just moving into the top 10 p4p for the following reasons.

Yeah im sure im leaving off some guys,, it was just off the top of my head

1. Cotto used to be in the p4p lists and was there because he had a number of good to very good wins therefore there is a past track record of really high quality achievement as evidence of his quality.

Erik morales use to be on the same lists, but i wouldnt consider him p4p if he somehow had beaten garcia... Boxing is a what have you done for me lately sport,, Cotto's best days behind him,, still a good fighter, probably get some decent wins, but he isnt one of the top 10 fighters in the world ATM

2

. He gave the p4p king a good fight albeit one he certainly lost

Yes he did, but so has augustus burton,, giving a guy a tough fight does not make you p4p top 10 in the world

3:

He fought a big junior middleweight and lost a close-ish fight to him, it is not entirely clear quite how high to rank Trout as a fighter therefore there is room to either be generous or harsh on Cotto for this loss.

Yes the trout lose will only be rationalized as time passes and we realize how good trout is or isnt,,, me personally think trout is a very good fighter and be a tough out for anyone.. Cotto still lost, and lost clearly, top 10 guys dont do that

4: Martinez might be fading but I personally think this is less clear than everyone is making out. Even if you accept the claim that the main reason that Martinez didn't look at his best against Murray is because his body, primarily his knee(s), are failing him it doesn't mean that this is permanent, he simply might not have fully recovered from his surgery and injuries. When Martinez fights again he will likely be as fully recovered as he could be and it is still concievable to me that he could still be pretty much at his best. Time will tell on that.

Martinez is old, and its starting to show, plus i think that chavez fight took alot more out of him than its given credit for.. Even though he clearly dominated, chavez made him work hard especially down the stretch, and getting pounded on by a guy 20lbs heavier than you, will take a toll, even if you dominate.. Just like how i think the margs fight took its toll on manny, even though he clearly dominated. Absorbing shots from a heavier guy will take its toll on you

5.

If Martinez really does seem to be fully recovered and doesn't look old then if Cotto beats that version of Martinez then he'd have beaten a version of Martinez who was genuinely deserving of his p4p rank and therefore very strong reason to place Cotto in the p4p top ten because he beat one of the very best fighters pound for pound

.
but one good win doesnt make you p4p top 10 in the world,, It would show that cotto is still a legit top level fighter, but not 1 of the best 10 guys to lace'em up at the moment.. Duran didnt jump up on p4p lists after the barkley win. Tarver didnt sky rocket on p4p after he ko2 roy jones who was p4p#1 at the time.. Dawson was rated really high p4p when pascal beat him, but pascal didnt shoot up the p4p rankings..

One of the reasons I am not as convinced that Martinez's performance against Murray was as down to his physical decline is because I think Murray's tactics in the fight were fairly close to perfect. Tactics that Barker had initially tried but didn't perfect as well as Murray.[

Yes i agree, murray fought a great gameplan, keeping a high tight guard, not allowing serg to potshot him all night, and slowly backed serg down.. I thought murray clearly won that fight, and even if he had, i wouldnt put him on my p4p lists, so why should i put on cotto. Cotto hasnt had a legit big time top level win since 2007.. loses to margs, manny, floyd, trout since then..

Now if cotto was to beat canelo, serg, and someone like murray or trout rematch or something like that, then he is showing a consistent top level performances, then there is the possibility of putting him on p4p..

Its like hopkins. Hopkins wins some fights, some big fights, but matched vs another top level guy like calzaghe or dawson, and he doesnt look p4p then. that is what you have to consider, not how a guy looks vs good fighters, but how would he do vs top level.. in the case of hopkins- i think he would get embarrassed by ward, and froch would probably outwork him- hence why i dont have hopkins on my current p4p list while others do

[Ben Bolt]

Floyd is P4P #2 ever after SRR?

I’ve never been a fan of P4P rankings. Because I know, they can only be hypothetical, and only very subjective.

I settle with the knowledge that both SRR and Floyd was/is tremendous fighters. Along with so many others.
Boxing is filled with brave warriors, and it’s up to ourselves to pick our favorites.
Whatever name we pick, that name is a tribute to the sport.

[Humean]

Well there you go.

He hadn't won a significant fight in (atleast) 3 years nor looked impressive. I don't consider that to be an impressive win.



Of course they are good. Both Eubank and Collins were good fighters and Calzaghe is better than both.

But I don't think Eubank and Collins are as good as others tend to think. And I like Eubank a lot. Was a fan back then and still am now.

If Calzaghe fought prime versions of Eubank and Collins (Hypothetically, I know that's not possible) then he'd get the world of credit from me. They'd be far and beyond his 2 best wins of his career.

But he doesn't. He doesn't have Collins and has an unranked Eubank who hadn't won a significant fight nor looked impressive in years at the time he fought him.

Eubank did look good against Collins, particularly the first fight which he should have went on to win instead of posing after he had Collins hurt. Surely prime Collins was Collins pretty much when he retired, the Collins who beat Eubank twice (1995) and then Benn twice (1996) after. Eubank pushed Collins very close twice, therefore his standard of quality in those two fights was only marginally short of Collins and yet you say that if Calzaghe had beaten a prime Collins then you'd give high credit. Contrary to your other claims you must by your own arguments say that Eubank showed very high quality in 1995 but you want to maintain that Eubank was not of high quality from perhaps as early as 1993. This is why the whole idea of when Eubanks last meaningful win is unimportant as he showed high quality despite losing against Collins in 1995.

[IronDanHamza]

Eubank did look good against Collins, particularly the first fight which he should have went on to win instead of posing after he had Collins hurt. Surely prime Collins was Collins pretty much when he retired, the Collins who beat Eubank twice (1995) and then Benn twice (1996) after. Eubank pushed Collins very close twice, therefore his standard of quality in those two fights was only marginally short of Collins and yet you say that if Calzaghe had beaten a prime Collins then you'd give high credit. Contrary to your other claims you must by your own arguments say that Eubank showed very high quality in 1995 but you want to maintain that Eubank was not of high quality from perhaps as early as 1993. This is why the whole idea of when Eubanks last meaningful win is unimportant as he showed high quality despite losing against Collins in 1995.

No he didn't look good against Collins. Not in my mind.

I'd have given Calzaghe credit if he beat a prime Collins as it would be his best win. Which in my eyes speaks for itself. Because whilst definitely being a good fighter and a good win I don't think it would be that good of a win. For example, I think McCallum's win over Collins was a good win but it's not that good.

And Eubank lost twice. And it was 2 years prior to when Calzaghe fought him and no significant wins inbetween.

No I didn't say he wasn't of high quality in 1993. I said he was passed his best in 1993. He definitely wasn't of high quality in 1997 that's for sure.

It's not unimportant. Because he hadn't shown high quality in years up to that fight and hadn't looked impressive even longer.

It's really simple. Eubank had not looked impressive in years, years. The last time he "impressive" in your eyes was when he had two losing efforts to Collins which was two whole years prior. The last time he actually won something of note was even longer. He'd been struggling badly with fringe guys for quite a while up to that point. He had a week to prepare and was unranked at the weight.

I don't consider that impressive, nor "high quality", "damn good" or any other nice descriptive terms. It's not impressive.

[Humean]

Yeah im sure im leaving off some guys,, it was just off the top of my head

Erik morales use to be on the same lists, but i wouldnt consider him p4p if he somehow had beaten garcia... Boxing is a what have you done for me lately sport,, Cotto's best days behind him,, still a good fighter, probably get some decent wins, but he isnt one of the top 10 fighters in the world ATM

The difference is that Morales was last in the top 10 in 2005 and Cotto in 2009, at least in the year ended ratings. In the interim Cotto unlike Morales hadn't retired for 3 years and Cotto had won increased rather than decreased points for his losing performance to Mayweather. In short his p4p credentials were never so far off the top 10 even at his worse period of time.

2 Yes he did, but so has augustus burton,, giving a guy a tough fight does not make you p4p top 10 in the world

But Cotto didn't just have this, he has these other significant wins also, it is an accumulation.

3:
Yes the trout lose will only be rationalized as time passes and we realize how good trout is or isnt,,, me personally think trout is a very good fighter and be a tough out for anyone.. Cotto still lost, and lost clearly, top 10 guys dont do that

I think they can, it is not like i'm suggesting Cotto for the top 3 or 5. If Trout is a high quality fighter then losing to him can still keep you within the p4p stakes if you get quality wins after. Beating a Martinez or a Canelo would possibly be of such a calibre.

Martinez is old, and its starting to show, plus i think that chavez fight took alot more out of him than its given credit for.. Even though he clearly dominated, chavez made him work hard especially down the stretch, and getting pounded on by a guy 20lbs heavier than you, will take a toll, even if you dominate.. Just like how i think the margs fight took its toll on manny, even though he clearly dominated. Absorbing shots from a heavier guy will take its toll on you

We'll see, i'm not so convinced. Apart from the 12th round i'm not sure how many quality punches Chavez really landed on Martinez. To me the only damage Martinez took from the fight was his knee, that is significant damage but if the knee recovers properly, which is of course a big 'if', then I think Martinez should be the same Martinez in his next fight.

5..
but one good win doesnt make you p4p top 10 in the world,, It would show that cotto is still a legit top level fighter, but not 1 of the best 10 guys to lace'em up at the moment.. Duran didnt jump up on p4p lists after the barkley win. Tarver didnt sky rocket on p4p after he ko2 roy jones who was p4p#1 at the time.. Dawson was rated really high p4p when pascal beat him, but pascal didnt shoot up the p4p rankings..

Like I said I think Cotto has still been on the peripheral of the top 10 for a while therefore one big win against someone in the top 10 may well be grounds to put him in the top 10 even if just at #10. I don't know if i'd personally have him in my top 10 but I'd certainly think about it.



Yes i agree, murray fought a great gameplan, keeping a high tight guard, not allowing serg to potshot him all night, and slowly backed serg down.. I thought murray clearly won that fight, and even if he had, i wouldnt put him on my p4p lists, so why should i put on cotto. Cotto hasnt had a legit big time top level win since 2007.. loses to margs, manny, floyd, trout since then..

I think this is harsh, Cotto did beat Clottey, Mayorga (who did show he had a lot more left than people thought he would) and he got revenge against Margarito. Plus I think he deserves positive credit for his Mayweather performance. What this and his record before the Margarito defeat show is a very high quality fighter, beating a Martinez or a Canelo would perhaps only go to add more credibility to that, suggesting he has not declined (at least not too much) and is still one of the best p4p.

Now if cotto was to beat canelo, serg, and someone like murray or trout rematch or something like that, then he is showing a consistent top level performances, then there is the possibility of putting him on p4p..

Its like hopkins. Hopkins wins some fights, some big fights, but matched vs another top level guy like calzaghe or dawson, and he doesnt look p4p then. that is what you have to consider, not how a guy looks vs good fighters, but how would he do vs top level.. in the case of hopkins- i think he would get embarrassed by ward, and froch would probably outwork him- hence why i dont have hopkins on my current p4p list while others do

I think an accumulation of wins against good but not p4p worthy opponents can certainly get you into the top 10, indeed I think it often does particularly at the lower end. There are many who will say, with high plausibility, that Wlad's opposition has never been more than merely good and often considerably lower than that.

I actually think Hopkins could beat Froch at 175 or at catchweight.

^^^^ above quotes