Is P4P Rated By Legacy Or Quality Of Opposition?

[MonsieurGeorges]

there is no objective criteria for p4p, which is why it's kind of hard to talk about. everyone thinks they are right.

i don't think we should worry about p4p so much with the current crop of fighters, they need to restore integrity to the old weight divisions. calling a guy the best in the world at his weight isn't enough now for some people, and that's a problem.

as for max's fab 4, don't even get me started

[S.G.]

I agree with Left Hook Tua. Past fights can totally count towards P4P ranking, but should always take a back seat to recent wins to account for any potential deterioration that has occurred in the mean time (and to punish boxers for coasting against substandard opposition, regardless of what they may have achieved once upon a time). Re: Pacquiao, I think his old wins do indeed contribute to his current P4P status seeing as it's markedly clear that he has not only not declined since then, but probably actually improved; it gives us a solid foundation to judge him by as we all know just how good you have to be to beat Morales and Barrera.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

this sorry *****sexual bastard tried to make a whole new thread & tried to masquerade his OP with "several websites made sergio p4p 1#" when in reality we were just arguing what are some elements that make up a subjective & ambiguous rating as p4p. he never responded to my last post & had to create a whole new thread just to check himself, yet claimed in another thread that he was "whipping" some *******s.

yea cuz whipping = running to another thread.


Legacy/resume counts in the p4p ratings if the guy being scrutinized is still active, prominent in the sport, & IN THE TOP 10.

That all comes into play.

Pac has been fighting Hall of Famers since he got to america, martinez was fighting Archak TerMeliksetian (16-8) & david torovio 18-10 as recently as 2008.


But we all know why *****s are ***riding sergio & a couple of weeks ago nonito donaire........


Anbody that challenges Pac's position as p4p they will start the propaganda.

of course it counts. these morons are trying to treat p4p 1# title as some sort of lineal belt.

There's a reason why nonito donaire's win didnt supplant pac in the 1# p4p ratings. Montiel was p4p 10 & is a better win than any of sergio or pac's most recent win.

Yet there's a reason why he's not 1#. His RESUME WAS LACKING.

notice how the TS never responded back to none of the threads he was "whipping"?

.......................................

[Left Hook Tua]

okay. i'm done.

i leave with this for the guys that think martinez's recent resume deserves #1 p4p.

in 2001-2002 , floyd mayweather went 5-0 against corrales , hernandez , chavez and castillo.

he was not bumped up to #1 because of the greater past achievements of those ahead of him.

in 2003-2005 , manny pacquiao went 3-1-1 against barrera , morales and marquez.

that also wasn't enough to get him to #1 p4p.


and now you think going 2-1-1 against williams , cintron , pavlik should get him #1 because he just beat sergei dzindzurik?

think about that.

[Heru]

so when pacquiao beat barrera when barrera was a top 10 p4p fighter and #1 at 126 it doesn't count because he was past prime?

neither does when he beat morales when morales was #2 at 130?

okay.

How do you rank these wins?

Toney's win over Michael Nunn or Toney's win over McCallum?

How about Jirov against Holyifield?

How about Trinidad's win over Sweet Pea against his win over Vargas?

Calzaghe - Kessler or RJ Jr.?

I'm sure all of the past prime HOF fighters mentioned (except for maybe Holyfield) were ranked, but you can't just automatically rank the past prime HOFer over the prime, rated fighter.

[puga]

floyd did'nt fight for almost 2 years and when he beat a lw at ww, they put him at p4p # 2....lol....that right there clearly shows that past wins still a big factor of getting in the p4p list......

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

okay. i'm done.

i leave with this for the guys that think martinez's recent resume deserves #1 p4p.

in 2001-2002 , floyd mayweather went 5-0 against corrales , hernandez , chavez and castillo.

he was not bumped up to #1 because of the greater past achievements of those ahead of him.

in 2003-2005 , manny pacquiao went 3-1-1 against barrera , morales and marquez.

that also wasn't enough to get him to #1 p4p.


and now you think going 2-1-1 against williams , cintron , pavlik should get him #1 because he just beat sergei dzindzurik?

think about that.

cmon, its not even that complicated tua. We all know why these scumbags want sergio martinez to be 1#........


all roads lead to the ******* ***** wars....

[Die Antwoord]

I think it should simple be who is the most dominant in their division. I hate the mythological bull **** p4p rankings where they literally try to figure out how X 140 lbs fighter would do if he was 200 lbs. I also dont believe in the subjective "oh but the number 2 fighter at LHW is much better than the number 2 fighter at WW, even though they both are undefeated (hypothetical comment obviously)." I think it should be simply a ranking about ones dominance in their current "era". An era is usually defined as a streak, but it could also be just a period where the fighter is in similar condition. If, for example a fighter breaks his hands after beating another great in his era, and the next fight he has no power and looks like **** against a journeyman, he should drop far...like out of the top 10 p4p. Or if a fighter like Wlad, switches trainers, and comes out with a completely new style, thats the beginning of a new era.

[Canelo Phresh]

by considering a fighters past victories then you bring b-hop into the frame, mosley becomes p4p again if a good enough argument was presented even jones jr could be p4p again. atg rating is a different argument than p4p. pacs last credable opponet was cotto. hes fighting mosley next that even most *******s criticize theirs talk off marquez at welter weight next. pacs stock goes down with worn and torn former greats and martinez goes up facing better opposition.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

I think it should simple be who is the most dominant in their division. I hate the mythological bull **** p4p rankings where they literally try to figure out how X 140 lbs fighter would do if he was 200 lbs. I also dont believe in the subjective "oh but the number 2 fighter at LHW is much better than the number 2 fighter at WW, even though they both are undefeated (hypothetical comment obviously)." I think it should be simply a ranking about ones dominance in their current "era". An era is usually defined as a streak, but it could also be just a period where the fighter is in similar condition. If, for example a fighter breaks his hands after beating another great in his era, and the next fight he has no power and looks like **** against a journeyman, he should drop far...like out of the top 10 p4p. Or if a fighter like Wlad, switches trainers, and comes out with a completely new style, thats the beginning of a new era.

so by that logic ivan calderon & Pongsaklek Wonjongkam should have been p4p 1#s for a long time by now.