p4p rankings(plz read)

[a-raines21]

exactly. glad to see that someone knows boxing

ur reputation says that u dont know much about boxing either......

[Testdead]

Thread starter is so thick he is one person that i would not like to meet.

The dude is scarily ******, you know Norman Bates.

[a-raines21]

Thread starter is so thick he is one person that i would not like to meet.

The dude is scarily ******, you know Norman Bates.

again with the insults! dont pollute my thread with that bull**** fag

[sunny31]

again with the insults! dont pollute my thread with that bull**** fag

stop polluting your own thread, with all the **** you have come out with

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=a-raines21;4848987]great post.... this is the kind of response i was hoping for when i started this thread

so u think performance is ultimate factor in determining p4p?[/QUOTE]

Performance has to be a major factor, of course. But cherry picking an opponent once a year doesn't cut it for me no matter what you did 3 or 4 years ago. Consistence and longevity against top opposistion is MY ultimate factor. Combine those with performance and talent and I think a logical assumption can be made.

[a-raines21]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;4849035]

great post.... this is the kind of response i was hoping for when i started this thread

so u think performance is ultimate factor in determining p4p?[/QUOTE]

Performance has to be a major factor, of course. But cherry picking an opponent once a year doesn't cut it for me no matter what you did 3 or 4 years ago. Consistence and longevity against top opposistion is MY ultimate factor. Combine those with performance and talent and I think a logical assumption can be made.

nice.....

you dont think that moving up in weight proves that you have enough skills to overcome physical advantages? i think thats what p4p is all about..... having such superior skills that physical advantages are obsolete

[a-raines21]

stop polluting your own thread, with all the **** you have come out with

you dont have to come here..... so stfu

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=a-raines21;4849049]

nice.....

you dont think that moving up in weight proves that you have enough skills to overcome physical advantages? i think thats what p4p is all about..... having such superior skills that physical advantages are obsolete

Depends on who you fight. There are different levels of world class fighters. An elite world class guy moving up in weight and beating 2nd and 3rd tier world class fighters isn't as impressive to me as an elite fighter staying in his own division and beating ALL the best that come his way. Pacquiao, like Floyd, impressed me most when he was beating the best fighters at126 and 130. It didn't hurt that some of them were also top p4p fighters either. The Diaz fight, while I was happy for him, cemented nothing that hadn't already been cemented. Same thing with Oscar.
Same thing with Mayweather. After moving up from 135 he never fought anybody that in my opinion could raise his stock.
Take somebody like Paul Williams now. He's got an ok resume. Fairly impressive skills and great physical attributes. But if he can beat Winky I will be very impressed and his stock will soar with me. Not only will he have moved up, but he would have beaten another elite fighter. That said, I still prefer guys to establish dominance and logevity before bouncing to a different weight. There are always exceptions though.

[a-raines21]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;4849092]

Depends on who you fight. There are different levels of world class fighters. An elite world class guy moving up in weight and beating 2nd and 3rd tier world class fighters isn't as impressive to me as an elite fighter staying in his own division and beating ALL the best that come his way. Pacquiao, like Floyd, impressed me most when he was beating the best fighters at126 and 130. It didn't hurt that some of them were also top p4p fighters either. The Diaz fight, while I was happy for him, cemented nothing that hadn't already been cemented. Same thing with Oscar.
Same thing with Mayweather. After moving up from 135 he never fought anybody that in my opinion could raise his stock.
Take somebody like Paul Williams now. He's got an ok resume. Fairly impressive skills and great physical attributes. But if he can beat Winky I will be very impressed and his stock will soar with me. Not only will he have moved up, but he would have beaten another elite fighter. That said, I still prefer guys to establish dominance and logevity before bouncing to a different weight. There are always exceptions though.

i see what you are saying about paul williams........ you have to admit that the fact that he beat marg at welter and is now fight winky at 160 is impressive...... i dont like paul, but, but that is p4p material.

i dont see how you can deny pac and floyd of those #1 p4p spots tho.. pac

[Jose Rizal]

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

I think it's the ability to defeat another with what a boxer has at his disposal with skill being only one of the important attributes, but above all is the PROOF of worth via wins over notable names. The higher the quality of scalps in their records, the higher they should be rated.

There are other attributes besides skill anyway. There's also heart, speed, power, stamina, ring smarts, etc. Simply put, it's the sum of all parts that makes him better pound-for-pound evidenced by the quality of victims. You may be the most complete boxer in the world on paper, but you won't get anywhere p-4-p beating on tomato cans your entire career.