The Paler won't be P4P No.1 even if he beats Floyd...

[Guest]

... even taking into account that "P4P" is a hypothetical postulation that is taken WAY too seriously these days, you don't be the man by beating the man.

Also, historically the "P4P" rankings used to relate to a skill set. While I love Kelly Pavlik, he can't become No.1 just because he knocks people out with a right hand, and Pac shouldn't be in there too.

If Ricky Hatton was the same size as everyone else, would he be able to beat them all? I doubt it. Could he beat Floyd? Maybe.


Oh, another thing about this "it's obvious to any1 that knows any ****en thing about boxen dat Floyd has more skill'z dan Hatten" mentality.... Hatton isn't going to stand in the centre of the ring saying "hello Floyd, old boy, let's compare jabs and see who can roll with a punch the best, then have a cup of tea" - Floyd's gonna get it in the goolies.

[KoolWillie]

I thought about that, hatton might have too resort to dirty tactics to win

[Fox McCloud]

... even taking into account that "P4P" is a hypothetical postulation that is taken WAY too seriously these days, you don't be the man by beating the man.

Also, historically the "P4P" rankings used to relate to a skill set. While I love Kelly Pavlik, he can't become No.1 just because he knocks people out with a right hand, and Pac shouldn't be in there too.

If Ricky Hatton was the same size as everyone else, would he be able to beat them all? I doubt it. Could he beat Floyd? Maybe.


Oh, another thing about this "it's obvious to any1 that knows any ****en thing about boxen dat Floyd has more skill'z dan Hatten" mentality.... Hatton isn't going to stand in the centre of the ring saying "hello Floyd, old boy, let's compare jabs and see who can roll with a punch the best, then have a cup of tea" - Floyd's gonna get it in the goolies.

Vernon Forrest - Not in the top 10 of the P4P list in 2001.
Shane Mosley - #1 on the P4P list in 2001.

Vernon Forrest - #4 after beating Shane Mosley twice in 2002.

It is true that beating the man doesn't make you the man.

[moofo]

Its not a tickling match.

[*2TOUGH*]

Vernon Forrest - Not in the top 10 of the P4P list in 2001.
Shane Mosley - #1 on the P4P list in 2001.

Vernon Forrest - #4 after beating Shane Mosley twice in 2002.

It is true that beating the man doesn't make you the man.

thats where the ring FAILS. as Forest SHOULD be universally recognised as the MAN.

[Fox McCloud]

thats where the ring FAILS. as Forest SHOULD be universally recognised as the MAN.

Well, P4P isn't a championship, it is a ranking system, just like college football. Stanford wasn't #1 after beating USC (thank god).

Think about this... if what you are saying had come to pass (Forrest being #1), you know who would have been P4P #1 immediately after?

Ricardo Mayorga.

What a travesty for boxing that would have been. Ricardo Mayorga being considered the best fighter in the world.

Now, I'm not saying that Forrest didn't have a case to be #1, but a uniform system where P4P #1 is replaced by whoever beats him wouldn't be good for boxing IMO.

Certain weight classes would never be able to have a P4P #1, because Pacquiao, Klitschko, Calderon or Audley Harrison for that matter would have never fought Mosley, Forrest or Mayorga, too big of a distance.

[*2TOUGH*]

Well, P4P isn't a championship, it is a ranking system, just like college football. Stanford wasn't #1 after beating USC (thank god).

Think about this... if what you are saying had come to pass (Forrest being #1), you know who would have been P4P #1 immediately after?

Ricardo Mayorga.

What a travesty for boxing that would have been. Ricardo Mayorga being considered the best fighter in the world.

Now, I'm not saying that Forrest didn't have a case to be #1, but a uniform system where P4P #1 is replaced by whoever beats him wouldn't be good for boxing IMO.

Certain weight classes would never be able to have a P4P #1, because Pacquiao, Klitschko, Calderon or Audley Harrison for that matter would have never fought Mosley, Forrest or Mayorga, too big of a distance.

Big Aud is P4P in my eyes...

[Azteca]

Why does the style in which you fight matter to the p4p?? Why? P4P means the best fighter at any weight.

If Hatton fought at HW, hypothetically, he would use his size and strength to his advantage. If he beats Mayweather, he beat the best pure boxer on the planet (Mayweather). He beat one of the best boxer sluggers in the game (Castillo), and he beat one of the best boxer punchers in the game (Tszyu).

What does this mean??

It means he would be able adapt to any style. No matter the weight.

P4P....#1.

[The Troll]

... even taking into account that "P4P" is a hypothetical postulation that is taken WAY too seriously these days, you don't be the man by beating the man.

Also, historically the "P4P" rankings used to relate to a skill set. While I love Kelly Pavlik, he can't become No.1 just because he knocks people out with a right hand, and Pac shouldn't be in there too.

If Ricky Hatton was the same size as everyone else, would he be able to beat them all? I doubt it. Could he beat Floyd? Maybe.


Oh, another thing about this "it's obvious to any1 that knows any ****en thing about boxen dat Floyd has more skill'z dan Hatten" mentality.... Hatton isn't going to stand in the centre of the ring saying "hello Floyd, old boy, let's compare jabs and see who can roll with a punch the best, then have a cup of tea" - Floyd's gonna get it in the goolies.

I agree with you. The silly P4P ranking actually penalize you for winning in the most descisive way possible. You knock ten top contenders out in descicive one sided fashion, devastating knockouts. Then on the other end you got Pernell Whitaker or Winky Wright winning 10 straight descisions each, 3 or 4 of them close maybe controversial and you can bet it'll either be Winky or Whitaker sitting atop those silly ratings in that scenario.