The True P4P List?
Collapse
-
Comment
-
With several belts and less worth of them it certainly makes p4p ranking all the more difficult. The two go hand in hand there. A couple of less belts, more mandatories, unification bouts and p4p ranking would have a lot less different interpretations already, and be clearer defined.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!
Boxers p4p ranking and reputation should not hang so much on others around them, such as those in their division. If it's a weak division and they beat them all never really looking like losing - boxers are penalised rather then rewarded often. There's guys that have come very close to losing, taken close highly debatable UD's, and gained more rep and p4p points then guys whom have taken clear UD's and never looked like losing. Another area where p4p ranking easily comes un done.
Some material for a Pavlik sig;
Kelly Pavlik - Young, enthusiastic, and bald. Knock-out man.
Comment
Comment