How should P4P be determined?
How should P4P be determined?
Collapse
-
How should P4P be determined?
17There shouldn't be a P4P list11.76%2Wins0.00%0How good the fighters are35.29%6The quality of opponents41.18%7Their record11.76%2Pro Boxing career accomplishments0.00%0The poll is expired.
Tags: None -
-
Format needs to be changed.
It needed to be changed since the 90's..
The original concept of p4p is to glorify the lower weights Sub 160... because the heavyweights took up the vast majority of the star power...
That concept has become obsolete ever since the drawing power of the Fab Four came into play.
Lower weight superstars since the 80's are a common occurance now.. So p4p should have been and should be
QUALITY OF RESUME
and current p4p should be
RECENT QUALITY OF RESUME
And that's the bottom line.Comment
-
Exactly it should be judged on a yearly basis.
There is no possible way you can justify Floyd at #1 for beating Cotto and that's it for the entire year.
When Trout beat Cotto even worst ......and Rigo beat Donarie.
It should be on a year to year basis.Comment
-
Surely that's what fighter of the year is for.
The major flaw with this, is that, even if Floyd or Ward fought only once in a year, against an opponent not great, and say Rigo beats Donaire, it doesn't prove that Rigo is better than Floyd or Ward P4P. You need to base it on more than one fight to say look, Rigo is pound for pound better than Floyd/Ward. If they ever met at a hypothetical same weight, Rigo would win, and here's the list of fights to prove he can adapt and best their styles: ... you can't do that with just 1 fight.Comment
-
I bet people from other places have the Klitschko brothers 1, and 2 and they definitely would have a good arguement too.Comment
-
After the rankings Ring Magazine put out. I say no more P4P. It is just as pointless as the BCS rankings.Comment
Comment