Are Oscar's Ring Magazine P4P Rankings Biased?

**ИATAS** · 05-09-2009, 01:38 AM

No they all deserve it. Shane is the only one you can argue is a bit too high

**Mike_Dee** · 05-09-2009, 01:40 AM

yes, the ring's p4p list is biased towards golden boy fighters. before the Pacquiao- hatton fight, Hatton was at number 8. No other respectable P4P list had Hatton in the top 10 before the fight.

Hatton at number 8? wtf

but jmm deserves his 2 spot of course

**Kevin Jesus** · 05-09-2009, 01:44 AM

Well the easiest way to do it is, figure out who deserves to be there instead of them.

You got a strong case for Paul Williams but after that, I'm at a lost for other fighters who deserve those spots, maybe Klitschkos.

**FreshPrince** · 05-09-2009, 01:47 AM

Those guys deserve those spots.

**Pullcounter** · 05-09-2009, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Perro

Manny's #1 of course, there is no getting around that.

But then at the # 2, 3 and 4 spots, you got none other than JMM, B-Hop and Shane respectively. The Golden Boy fighters sure are sitting pretty.

Discuss.

can't really argue against that line up

**Dubious-Dutch** · 05-09-2009, 01:49 AM

Why didn't you complain when Margarito was on the list? His skills were more limited than Hattons.

**Heru** · 05-09-2009, 01:51 AM

I agree on the Hatton part, but for the most part, no. Hopkins shutout the #5 while he was like #10 and Mosley absolutely destroyed the #6. JMM is JMM.

2 Top Rank fighters just entered the top 10 in Cotto and Donaire, and a Shaw fighter in Darchinyan. Caballero shouldn't be in the top 10 and is promoted by Margules. People love calling conspiracy wherever doubt can be raised.

Are Oscar's Ring Magazine P4P Rankings Biased?