new p4p ring magazine number 1 - naoya inoue

[BodyBagz]

Except that hypothetical has never made any sense. A boxer's physical attributes, including mass, informs their style.

Otherwise, the best P4P would always be some Asian midget like Inoue who is super fast and powerful for his size.

Crawford is above Canelo purely due to being a three weight undefeated champion who has never been humiliated in the ring.

The latter was never the very best at 154, 160 or 175 and needs to defeat Benavidez to lock up 168.

P4P should be strictly about strength of resume.
Not emotional (love/hate) attachment to a fighter.

If a so called bad ass is going around beating up bums, why should that be rewarded ?

[Good ol' Douglas]

P4P should be strictly about strength of resume.
Not emotional (love/hate) attachment to a fighter.

If a so called bad ass is going around beating up bums, why should that be rewarded ?

No, it should not. E.g. Shyte has never been that good and I do not care that he has a top 5 HW resume.

The eye test is always the most important factor. However, most do not understand boxing on a technical level and cannot make accurate appraisals.

Canelo has never been dominant in his career-defining wins like the other P4P ranked boxers have. "The face of boxing" winning is best for business. Hence all the corrupt scorecards.

He has had a carefully managed career much like AJ (ODLH even admitted it ). That is not to say they are no good, just that the casuals were sold something far greater than what they got.

[BodyBagz]

No, it should not. E.g. Shyte has never been that good and I do not care that he has a top 5 HW resume.

The eye test is always the most important factor. However, most do not understand boxing on a technical level and cannot make accurate appraisals.

Canelo has never been dominant in his career-defining wins like the other P4P ranked boxers have. "The face of boxing" winning is best for business. Hence all the corrupt scorecards.

He has had a carefully managed career much like AJ (ODLH even admitted it ). That is not to say they are no good, just that the casuals were sold something far greater than what they got.

OK
I wasn't sure at first

[Cypocryphy]

Yes I don't think P4P has ever been achievement or belt collecting its always been more a fantasy fight with all things equal that's why its called pound for pound, which is weight, equal weight.

Since when has fairness ever come into boxing fans' opinions, that's a rare comodity.

Except that hypothetical has never made any sense. A boxer's physical attributes, including mass, informs their style.

Otherwise, the best P4P would always be some Asian midget like Inoue who is super fast and powerful for his size.

Crawford is above Canelo purely due to being a three weight undefeated champion who has never been humiliated in the ring.

The latter was never the very best at 154, 160 or 175 and needs to defeat Benavidez to lock up 168.

Of course it has been about achievement and not just a boxers physical attributes, which doesn't always dictate his stye. There are plenty of pound for pounds lists that are primarily based on quantitative evidence and empirical criteria. For example, you have a boxers record in championship fights; how many champions a boxer has fought and defeated, both current and post, how many stoppages said fighter has on his record. You can have how many divisions a fighter has moved up in to become champion (something which I don't give too much weight because the reason one moves up is only to fighter more champions when he has exhausted the available champions at his current weight class).

Then you can get into asking how good where the boxers that he defeated and whether one win is qualitatively better than another. How many champions had that opponent faced and defeated, championship fights, etc. And for the most part, this is still a quantitative analysis.

And then you can further justify or amplify the ranking of a boxer through qualitative analysis, as it how easily is he defeating his opponents. How skilled is he compared to other. Does he have outstanding qualities, such as exceptional knockout power or ring IQ. Speed? All of these factors can be weighted and merged with the quantitative findings, and from that you can deduce the rankings of these boxers in a P4P list.

This is really the best way. This is how I do it.

[Good ol' Douglas]

Of course it has been about achievement and not just a boxers physical attributes, which doesn't always dictate his stye. There are plenty of pound for pounds lists that are primarily based on quantitative evidence and empirical criteria. For example, you have a boxers record in championship fights; how many champions a boxer has fought and defeated, both current and post, how many stoppages said fighter has on his record. You can have how many divisions a fighter has moved up in to become champion (something which I don't give too much weight because the reason one moves up is only to fighter more champions when he has exhausted the available champions at his current weight class).

Then you can get into asking how good where the boxers that he defeated and whether one win is qualitatively better than another. How many champions had that opponent faced and defeated, championship fights, etc. And for the most part, this is still a quantitative analysis.

And then you can further justify or amplify the ranking of a boxer through qualitative analysis, as it how easily is he defeating his opponents. How skilled is he compared to other. Does he have outstanding qualities, such as exceptional knockout power or ring IQ. Speed? All of these factors can be weighted and merged with the quantitative findings, and from that you can deduce the rankings of these boxers in a P4P list.

This is really the best way. This is how I do it.

A boxer's physical attributes will always influence their style.

I am referring to the morons who think P4P means shrinking Fury down to Crawford size or scaling Inoue up to HW as if technical and athletic qualities are immutable and wholly separate from one's physical dimensions.

But fighters like Loma and Bivol deserve extra credit for routinely defeating bigger men using superior skill and agility.

[hhh1200]

So if Canelo stops 40 yr old GGG that moves him back to #1?

[Cypocryphy]

A boxer's physical attributes will always influence their style.

Sebastian Fundora kind of breaks that mold. He does fight like a tall boxer at all. He gives up a lot of his size advantages. But I get what you are saying.

I am referring to the morons who think P4P means shrinking Fury down to Crawford size or scaling Inoue up to HW as if technical and athletic qualities are immutable and wholly separate from one's physical dimensions.

But fighters like Loma and Bivol deserve extra credit for routinely defeating bigger men using superior skill and agility.

Oh okay. I get what you're saying.

[Inoue Body Shot]

I love Inoue but the P4P King for me will be the winner of Spence vs Crawford.

[BodyBagz]

A boxer's physical attributes will always influence their style.

I am referring to the morons who think P4P means shrinking Fury down to Crawford size or scaling Inoue up to HW as if technical and athletic qualities are immutable and wholly separate from one's physical dimensions.

But fighters like Loma and Bivol deserve extra credit for routinely defeating bigger men using superior skill and agility.

The chase for greatness is enviable.
It should be the hardest road to take.

Dominating one division would be nice if it we are talking about a deep div.
Cleaning out a dead div is not an example of what it takes to be P4P King

Has the sport actually defined ''p4p''

[Madison Boxing]

Let me guess, it should have been Conor Benn?

LOL benn has you completely triggered