How should P4P be determined?

[BattlingNelson]

The options in this poll............ LMAO.

It's wins obviously. The more wins, the higher you should be ranked p4p.

[gmc_rfc_06]

To me, the main thing is easily 'how good is the fighter?'

Resume, activity and all this other stuff is cool, but how good the fighter is tops them all. Obviously top P4P guys need good wins to show that they are still great at the highest level, but once they are at that level, it's all about how good the fighter is IMO.

[DosRounds]

Ain't is supposed to be of weight didn't matter in a fight, who would win the fight based on skill alone.

Accomplishments and what you have done as a pro should matter in my opinion. Bit it's not anything really important to me. Thy just use it to hype the fighters eg Broner and all those other people

[hugh grant]

It should be what have you done for me lately, so boxers dont coast and take it easy and live off of past glories.

Otherwise Pac would still be no1 if resume made you no1. Cos Pac lost recently im guessing he isnt no1. So if you dont fight much and only beat the likes of SSM and Miguel Cotto (god bless Miguel, i love him) then you dont deserve no1, especially when Trout beat Cotto more convincingly than Floyd.

So to make Floyd no1 is beyond comprehension.

[LacedUp]

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.

lol. because p4p wasn't used before the klitschkos.

P4P should be determined on a simple basis: If everyone was the same size, who is the best. That's it.

[gmc_rfc_06]

It should be what have you done for me lately, so boxers dont coast and take it easy and live off of past glories.

Otherwise Pac would still be no1 if resume made you no1. Cos Pac lost recently im guessing he isnt no1. So if you dont fight much and only beat the likes of SSM and Miguel Cotto (god bless Miguel, i love him) then you dont deserve no1, especially when Trout beat Cotto more convincingly than Floyd.

So to make Floyd no1 is beyond comprehension.

Not even close.

Cotto-Trout was a close fight heading into the final rounds, Cotto-Mayweather was never close.

[techliam]

Not even close.

Cotto-Trout was a close fight heading into the final rounds, Cotto-Mayweather was never close.

I don't agree there. I scored them both the same, 116-112

[gmc_rfc_06]

I don't agree there. I scored them both the same, 116-112

I had Cotto-Mayweather 117-111.

Cotto Trout was even after 8 for me, then Cotto tired as always down the stretch. Generally though, I thought it was a much closer fight.

[Weltschmerz]

lol. because p4p wasn't used before the klitschkos.

P4P should be determined on a simple basis: If everyone was the same size, who is the best. That's it.

Which is highly hypothetical and really a useless way of comparing fighters. p4p is not of any great use.

[techliam]

I had Cotto-Mayweather 117-111.

Cotto Trout was even after 8 for me, then Cotto tired as always down the stretch. Generally though, I thought it was a much closer fight.

I had it even after 8 too. I had it like this (Trout/Cotto):

1. Trout
2. Trout
3. Cotto
4. Cotto
5. Cotto
6. Cotto
7. Trout
8. Trout
9. Trout
10. Trout
11. Trout
12. Trout

Cotto tired during the Floyd fight too. I think Trout beat him just as convincingly. A lot of people scored it 116-112 for Trout, many had it 117-111 Trout too. Just as many people scored it 116-112 for Mayweather, and 117-111 Mayweather. In all, I believe the fights were scored mostly the same way from what I saw in the scoring patterns for those fights