How should P4P be determined?

[The Gambler1981]

Whoever you think the best fighters are using what you know and believe.

It is not that meaningful, there is no set way to do it and it certainly is not a black or white debate.


Don't like somebody's P4P list disagree and make your own it holds about as much water.

[Tim2daresq]

Maybe it should be judged on a year to year basis. The most impressive fighter of the year would be crowned as a p4p top.

Very good point. In that case, Floyd should never be top p4p.

[Build That Wall]

P4P=BCS=Unnecessary

[White_Knight]

I bet people from other places have the Klitschko brothers 1, and 2 and they definitely would have a good arguement too.

They don't need p4p because they are the best in reality. They beat anyone you put in the ring with them, from the lightest to the heaviest division.

I determine p4p by thinking if I took 10 fighters at the weights at which they at their best and used a special upscale/downscale machine to make all the fighters the same weight, who would do the best.

[Weltschmerz]

P4P is today mostly used due to the Klitschko's superiority - to make them look lesser, saying that there are really much better fighters out there.

[A-Wolf]

'How good the fighters are' with a splash of common sense. Primarily, it isn't fair to base everything in boxing on resume and/or opposition because the best are generally avoided. For the guys who are dangerous that don't come from nationalist boxing nations or who don't have the kinds of qualities the Arum's and the HBO's of the world are interested in there should be greater consideration.

[RA-Box]

It is basically, if all fighters were the same weight which fighter out of all fighters would come out on top. Therefore, it should be based on on whose latest performance was the most impressive and dominant against the highest level of opposition.

If I'd have my way, it would be between Ward and Rigondeaux for number 1 right now. Past resumes should not weigh in at all if there have been impressive displays by other boxers after.

[Rome-By-Ko]

It's hard to vote for one thing imo,I think it's a lil of everything..I believe the strongest things to look at when determining a list,is resume and wins and loses..Accomplishments comes next..Everyone has their way tho,and seeing how any list would be nothing more then opinion..There's really no rhyme or reason,it's how ever the person fills who is making the list..

[RightJab]

By arguing and speculating on boxing forums, then after reading through all the troll s.h.i.t The Ring comes up with a 'general consensus'. It's how things work isn't it?

[Pain~Lucy]

They don't need p4p because they are the best in reality. They beat anyone you put in the ring with them, from the lightest to the heaviest division.

I determine p4p by thinking if I took 10 fighters at the weights at which they at their best and used a special upscale/downscale machine to make all the fighters the same weight, who would do the best.

THIS!!