p4p rankings(plz read)

**Marvelous Floyd** · 03-01-2009, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by a-raines21

first of i would like to say that this in no way is an attempt to bash fighters.

p4p rankings is a measurement of skill and proof. what i mean by that is the best p4p fighters are the ones who move up in weight and take over divisions... plz, correct me if im wrong

some examples are roy jones, floyd mayweather, manny pacquiao and jmm.

now the question here is:
how the hell are fighters like ricky hatton, joe calzaghe, and chad dawson on the p4p list?

all of them are great fighters no doubt, but doesnt it defeat the purpose of p4p if they dont fight in multiple weight classes?

plz comment/explain

You don't have to fight in multiple weight classes when there is talent in your Division

Hatton - ring title at 140. Title at 147 as well
Calzaghe - unfied SMW Champ and ring title holder at 175

Dawson is NOT ON THE LIST

**billionaire** · 03-01-2009, 06:09 PM

dawson and calzaghe both started at 168.....i agree about hatton and pavlik because they suck without their physical advantages....also its unfair to ask guys who start at their true weight to move up, half those guys with multiple titles won their first titles at drained weights...

also lower weights its easier to move up cuz theres classes every 4,5 pounds...

**a-raines21** · 03-01-2009, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Marvelous Floyd

You don't have to fight in multiple weight classes when there is talent in your Division

Hatton - ring title at 140. Title at 147 as well
Calzaghe - unfied SMW Champ and ring title holder at 175

Dawson is NOT ON THE LIST

thats bull****......

if its talent in yyour division, you could still have phisical advantages that wont be affective in higher weights........ that is what measures your skills

**Marvelous Floyd** · 03-01-2009, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by a-raines21

thats bull****......

if its talent in yyour division, you could still have phisical advantages that wont be affective in higher weights........ that is what measures your skills

What physical disadvantages did Pacman have moving up??? He outweighed Morales,Barrera,JMM, and even Oscar.

Margarito was on the list as well once. He decent at 147 but fails at 154

**THe TRiNiTY** · 03-01-2009, 06:14 PM

p4p doesn't mean you move up or down.

It means that if weight didn't exist and you all fought the same height and weight, your skills would be superior. You could fight your WHOLE career at the EXACT same weight and still be considered a p4p fighter.

Robinson, the reason the p4p list was started, fought up in weight, to get fights, not to test his skills, though both things eventually happened. But, when he fought at 175, he wasn't really 175. His skills just happened to be ruling the night, before fatigue set in.

Nonetheless, it's about your skills, if height and mostly weight were on an even playing field.

**a-raines21** · 03-01-2009, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Marvelous Floyd

What phisical advantages did Pacman have moving up??? He outweighed Morales,Barrera,JMM, and even Oscar.

Margarito was on the list as well once. He decent at 147 but fails at 154

none really.... thats what makes him #1 p4p

Originally posted by ..Calderon...

p4p doesn't mean you move up or down.

It means that if weight didn't exist and you all fought the same height and weight, your skills would be superior. You could fight your WHOLE career at the EXACT same weight and still be considered a p4p fighter.

Robinson, the reason the p4p list was started, fought up in weight, to get fights, not to test his skills, though both things eventually happened. But, when he fought at 175, he wasn't really 175. His skills just happened to be ruling the night, before fatigue set in.

Nonetheless, it's about your skills, if height and mostly weight were on an even playing field.

if this were the case, then wouldnt there be more heavyweights on the list?
p4p is based on u actually moving up and proving your skill...... not on fictional **** based on your fights at a set weight.

really think about this, that does the previous 3 top p4p fighter have in common?????

**DiegoFuego** · 03-01-2009, 06:22 PM

I agree that Hatton doesn't belong in any p4p list when he's looked like **** at 147 pounds. Calzaghe at least won two fights at 175 even though they were against geriatrics.

The problem with NOT ranking these guys of course is what do you do with a guy like Hagler? Most people feel Hagler could have dominated more divisions, but he never did.

**Pullcounter** · 03-01-2009, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by a-raines21

first of i would like to say that this in no way is an attempt to bash fighters.

p4p rankings is a measurement of skill and proof. what i mean by that is the best p4p fighters are the ones who move up in weight and take over divisions... plz, correct me if im wrong

some examples are roy jones, floyd mayweather, manny pacquiao and jmm.

now the question here is:
how the hell are fighters like ricky hatton, joe calzaghe, and chad dawson on the p4p list?

all of them are great fighters no doubt, but doesnt it defeat the purpose of p4p if they dont fight in multiple weight classes?

plz comment/explain

it doesnt matter if you move up or stay put, what matters is a combiination of how you win and who you win against.

**a-raines21** · 03-01-2009, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by DiegoFuego

I agree that Hatton doesn't belong in any p4p list when he's looked like **** at 147 pounds. Calzaghe at least won two fights at 175 even though they were against geriatrics.

The problem with NOT ranking these guys of course is what do you do with a guy like Hagler? Most people feel Hagler could have dominated more divisions, but he never did.

imo hagler couldnt have went up to heavy and been a champ.... not with that style

p4p rankings(plz read)