So Floyd wants the Top 2 p4pounders and the top 2 WW's......Hate on that.

[Leakbeak]

Good thing Calderon isn't a top 2 p4per. Looks like Floyd is scared of Paul Williams. I'll believe Floyd fights Cotto when I see it.

Scared of Williams? Nobody outside the hardocre fans know who he is for a reason, because he is one of the elite! I think if Floyd di fight them four fighters and beat them, then they would have to start calling him a throwback. before you get excited, I'm not one of his ballsniffers who think he is an all time p4p top ten (and some have even said #1!) but I think is he starts beating all them guys and a few more then he will deserve to get credit as someone who at least took on all comers. I would like to see him fight winner of Clottey/Cotto, Sugar Shane, and Pacman as well as Margarito as a bonus. Williams can get a fight too if he proves he is more than just an awkward southpaw, but I wouldn't blame anyone for excluding him or accuse them of ducking!

[WhoreUs]

Well that is an important part of rankings no? Whether they are correct or not?

I am sorry that I think deeper about boxing then you and think about lots of aspects about the sport, and try to form my own opinion instead of being a mindless zombie like most people here~ (not saying you are a mindless zombie, because you are not a one either but there are a lot, you just look at the sport differently then I do).

again. can you understand that we are discussing who was in the top 10 p4p of RING magazine?

we (me and kswizzy) are not discussing the validity of the rankings just what the rankings were at the time.

whether you agree or not is not part of the equation. we're talking about ring magazine's rankings not yours or whether their rankings were right or not.

[WhoreUs]

yeah well I still believe in him... do you? ---> http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=273508

i'll still root for him but his career is done.

[The Gambler1981]

again. can you understand that we are discussing who was in the top 10 p4p of RING magazine?

we (me and kswizzy) are not discussing the validity of the rankings just what the rankings were at the time.

whether you agree or not is not part of the equation. we're talking about ring magazine's rankings not yours or whether their rankings were right or not.

I am sorry that you can not understand my point of view, if you want to blindly follow the ring rankings feel free. They are not perfect with their lists and there are flaws with how they do things, if you can not take that into account how you intrepret a list is really meaningless~

[WhoreUs]

I am sorry that you can not understand my point of view, if you want to blindly follow the ring rankings feel free. They are not perfect with their lists and there are flaws with how they do things, if you can not take that into account how you intrepret a list is really meaningless~

i understand your point of view.

i don't agree with ring's list all the time either. in fact never do i agree with it 100%.

what you need to understand is for this particular topic we are going off ring's rankings.

got it?

yes i get you thought their rankings were wrong. you probably have some good points but the fact of the matter is the ring rankings are the ring rankings.

[Jim Jeffries]

i understand your point of view.

i don't agree with ring's list all the time either. in fact never do i agree with it 100%.

what you need to understand is for this particular topic we are going off ring's rankings.

got it?

yes i get you thought their rankings were wrong. you probably have some good points but the fact of the matter is the ring rankings are the ring rankings.

Plus it's hard for everyone to come to a consensus on what the "proper" rankings should be. So for comparison purposes, most of us use the Ring's (whether we totally agree with them or not.)

[Lucky Doff]

"If you truly want to understand someone, don`t listen to what he says. See what he actually does. Because what a person does is truly what he is, not what he says."

We'll see if Mr boat buyer actually fights SSM and Cotto.

Very well said, but I think that is just a little too elevated of a piece of wisdom for the *****s. What you have done is compared to one who cast their pearls before swine. But I hear you and I agree wholeheartedly.

I might also add *props to Deanrw for keepin it real

[The Gambler1981]

i understand your point of view.

i don't agree with ring's list all the time either. in fact never do i agree with it 100%.

what you need to understand is for this particular topic we are going off ring's rankings.

got it?

yes i get you thought their rankings were wrong. you probably have some good points but the fact of the matter is the ring rankings are the ring rankings.

To me the ring rankings by themself are nothing, you can use them as part of a case but the rankings need to be explained (because when a fighter get on teh P4P list for a long time they end up staying high because of reputation when really they should be dropping down the list because they are not what they once were). To me just saying a fighter was ranked 10th in the ring rankings P4P, a fighter must have done something to get to the pearch but how does that relate to where they are currently (their amazing feat could have beena while ago and they could have a death grip on the P4P rankings like Winky did even though he did not fight forever).

The ring rankings are not the be all and end all of the sport (P4P ones anyways), the division ones are usually pretty good though. If I agree with them cool, if not well cool also because P4P is all opinion anyways.

[The Gambler1981]

Plus it's hard for everyone to come to a consensus on what the "proper" rankings should be. So for comparison purposes, most of us use the Ring's (whether we totally agree with them or not.)

P4P is all about opinion, they are just another opinion on the matter.

[Thread Stealer]

I'm sure he'd fight them.....if he's given the lion's share of the purse.

That'd be a problem, especially with Bob Arum promoting 2 of those fighters.