The True P4P List?

[abadger]

Yeah I just think it is too hard to think about p4p matchups so to speak between fighters in ridiculously different weight classes.

Notice though, that you can make very legitimate arguments for each of the guys you mentioned being on the conventional p4p list.

Definitely, at the end of the day you do need to have some sort of record in boxing to get considered, I mean we have British prospect Kell Brook who looks very skilled, but it would be lunacy to include someone like him!

EDIT: It's also a product of me being a relative boxing noob, I am only familiar really with the guys already regarded as the best in each division, not including all divisions.

[Clegg]

I prefer the method you describe.

I understand that probably puts me in a minority, which is fine, I can agree to disagree with the 'resume' people. However what I dislike is the argument from some that the 'resume' approach is somehow scientific or purely factual. It still involves a lot of opinion, hence why P4P lists differ from person to person.

If I have Guzman in my top 10, and no one else does, and then Guzman beats Campbell and Marquez and everyone puts him in the top 10, then I was right and they were wrong.

As I see it, P4P lists should be about who you think would beat who, and this should be based upon the talent/ability shown and the level of opposition that it was shown against.

But no matter how it's done, it's always opinion, and I find it quite silly how some people put so much emphasis on what the Ring Rankings are, because they are regularly shown to be an incorrect way of judging ability.

[abadger]

I prefer the method you describe.

I understand that probably puts me in a minority, which is fine, I can agree to disagree with the 'resume' people. However what I dislike is the argument from some that the 'resume' approach is somehow scientific or purely factual. It still involves a lot of opinion, hence why P4P lists differ from person to person.

If I have Guzman in my top 10, and no one else does, and then Guzman beats Campbell and Marquez and everyone puts him in the top 10, then I was right and they were wrong.

As I see it, P4P lists should be about who you think would beat who, and this should be based upon the talent/ability shown and the level of opposition that it was shown against.

But now matter how it's done, it's always opinion, and I find it quite silly how some people put so much emphasis on what the Ring Rankings are, because they are regularly shown to be an incorrect way of judging ability.

To my complete surprise Clegg, you share my views, although not on Guzman who i have only seen once and he not thrill me. My latest obsession is Nonito Donaire who I think would beat nearly anyone in a P4P matchup, though obviously not JC.

Do you have a ten?

[Clegg]

I must confess that I've never thought up a top ten. Part of the reason for that is trying to imagine the 'who would beat who'. How tall would a 175 version of Williams be? 6'7? How fast would a LHW Calderon be?

Also, I think Margarito is an example of how it can be hard to rate boxers sometimes. Put him in there with a come-forward fighter and he has a great chance, even if that fighter is HOF quality. But him in there with guy with good defense, movement and a good jab, and it's not going to be his night. I think he loses against Clottey and Williams, but beats Cotto in a rematch. I think Cotto beats Clottey. So how do I rank them? And that's before you consider the other divisions

I also don't watch much that goes on below SBW (which I think is one of the most talented divisions right now), so I would unsure how highly to rate someone like Mijares, who looks very good, because I haven't seen enough of him to really be sure.

I feel quite confident when it comes to making fight predictions, but rating P4P raises too many doubts for me to have a top 10.

[JOM'S]

I think that 'Pound for Pound' ratings have changed their meaning. It used to be understood as 'If all boxers were the same size, who would be the best?', or 'who would beat who?'. These days most lists seem like unofficial all-weights ranking systems, based primarily on results, with great boxers falling off after losses and even quite average ones getting ranked after single big wins. I can see the merits of both systems, but would like to know who you all think are the most talented boxers out there. Of course, 'talent' doesn't have to mean 'technical skill' it can be simply being good at what you do.

So, wins, losses and resume aside, who are the top ten truly Pound for Pound boxers in the world today, the ones who if all sizes were equal, would be the hardest to beat?

i think true p4p ranking should include all the the question you mentioned ... 'If all boxers were the same size, who would be the best?', or 'who would beat who?'. plus resume to have actual reference of what the fighter can do...

pbf would be hard to beat p4p, and imho PAC could KO any Heavyweight if they were the same size...

[JOM'S]

I must confess that I've never thought up a top ten. Part of the reason for that is trying to imagine the 'who would beat who'. How tall would a 175 version of Williams be? 6'7? How fast would a LHW Calderon be?

HE HE these are pretty good questions...

myself when thinking of p4p, i usually don't think much about size, p4p ranking dematerialize size...

[hignoranteh]

just another way to discredit margarito
u know it aint all about boxing skills, being tough plays a whole lot and thats why marg should be in any p4p list
btw in ability alone hopkins shouldt even crack the top 10 he throws 9 punches per round jesus

[abadger]

just another way to discredit margarito
u know it aint all about boxing skills, being tough plays a whole lot and thats why marg should be in any p4p list
btw in ability alone hopkins shouldt even crack the top 10 he throws 9 punches per round jesus

I have no interest in discediting Margarito, since he is in my top 5 of favourite boxers. I was very glad when he defeated Cotto!

However, I do sometimes like to talk about boxing in a non-partisan way since I am quite bored of the endless 'my favourite is better than your favourite' we see here.

Trouble is, most posters only want to do exactly that, and assume that you are always doing it too. Oh well.

[Kris Silver]

I think a lot of people tend to over emphasise resume and such. Whilst it is a big factor, I tend to factor in performances and skill level more. Reason being is, you can only beat whose put in front of you.

The idea of rating a boxer heavily on whom they've faced, when they can't control the generation of boxers around them, the strength of their weight class, opponents and such, means for me your rating the boxer more on stuff outside the ring, than in it.

So then what's the point if your not judging the boxer himself on what he actually does as a boxer? Becomes meaningless for me, performance in the ring has to be the biggest factor.

The ways resumes could be factored in more are the results of opponents. For instance, Calzaghe beat Lacy in one of the most convincing wins we've seen for a generation, that's widely agreed for the most part. A TKO or KO win (which was close) would help Calzaghes resume and p4p ranking, despite the fact a wide UD showed better skills, patience, stamina, tactics and style.

If Pavlik knocked out Lacy next week, it wouldn't be surprising but a lot of people would probably start to put Pavlik very close, or even above Calzaghe. Same goes for Hopkins, Joes not gona knock him out but Pavlik would well do, so the context is easily lost with such a simple approaches.

It's not surprising the better boxer gets impressive wide decisions or manages to not be totally spoilt by their style nitemare, and Mr knockout man got a knock out. Horses for courses. Which is really better is often simplistically assessed effecting peoples p4p rankings in an unfair manner.

[abadger]

I think a lot of people tend to over emphasise resume and such. Whilst it is a big factor, I tend to factor in performances and skill level more. Reason being is, you can only beat whose put in front of you.

The idea of rating a boxer heavily on whom they've faced, when they can't control the generation of boxers around them, the strength of their weight class, opponents and such, means for me your rating the boxer more on stuff outside the ring, than in it.

So then what's the point if your not judging the boxer himself on what he actually does as a boxer? Becomes meaningless for me, performance in the ring has to be the biggest factor.

The ways resumes could be factored in more are the results of opponents. For instance, Calzaghe beat Lacy in one of the most convincing wins we've seen for a generation, that's widely agreed for the most part. A TKO or KO win (which was close) would help Calzaghes resume and p4p ranking, despite the fact a wide UD showed better skills, patience, stamina, tactics and style.

If Pavlik knocked out Lacy next week, it wouldn't be surprising but a lot of people would probably start to put Pavlik very close, or even above Calzaghe. Same goes for Hopkins, Joes not gona knock him out but Pavlik would well do, so the context is easily lost with such a simple approaches.

It's not surprising the better boxer gets impressive wide decisions or manages to not be totally spoilt by their style nitemare, and Mr knockout man got a knock out. Horses for courses. Which is really better is often simplistically assessed effecting peoples p4p rankings in an unfair manner.

I like this post, you make some good points. When we rank P4P, what are we ranking? If its titles and wins, don't the erm...titles and wins already do that? Or is it relative quality of victories? That does tend to be favourable to those in stronger divisions and fighters are penalised for being the best in a weak one, which might or might not be fair. For me boxing isn't like football where the competition is arranged in such a way that it really exposes who the best is, if anything boxing is the opposite, what with so many titles/ rarity of really meaningful matchups. There is already so much opinion in any P4P list that I, like you, much prefer to use my own judgement when I rank fighters.

I agree with everything you say about horses for courses, and I love the idea of 'Mr. Knockout Man'. I might make a sig of him!