P4P = Talent or Achievement?

[badnewsbrown]

It seems that more and more people are focussing on talent than actual achievement. What i don't understand is how can a guy stay on top of the rankings without fighting top competition?? To stay at the top you need to continue to fight the best, not cherry pick. Otherwise you can have a talented fighter with a few good wins, and then sit on that achievement and pick easy fights for years to come and stay undefeated and on top. How is that justifiable?
There's other guys like Froch, Ward, Mares etc that are fighting everyone and have accomplished a whole lot and should be recognised for it.

[hugh grant]

Its got to be resume, because otherwise it would just be overating someone.
But then its up to the powers that be to give people with potential to prove themselves.

GGG wants to prove himself and we'll find out soon, but he isn't top 10 p4p yet. Once he beats Sergio you can put him there. Same as Canelo he wasn't a top 10 p4p fight cos his resume was weak as well.

So achievement is what p4p is to me. Anything else is just boasting about saying how good you are and people saying how good you but not having to fight anyone good. Looking great against bums anyone can do.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

The reason you are seeing more emphasis on talent is because its harder than ever to get the best in the ring with each other, let alone match emerging fighters with real opposition.

A healthy mix of talent and resume is good for P4P but everyone has their own recipe thats why you cant take it too seriously.

[badnewsbrown]

Its got to be resume, because otherwise it would just be overating someone.
But then its up to the powers that be to give people with potential to prove themselves.

GGG wants to prove himself and we'll find out soon, but he isn't top 10 p4p yet. Once he beats Sergio you can put him there. Same as Canelo he wasn't a top 10 p4p fight cos his resume was weak as well.

So achievement is what p4p is to me. Anything else is just boasting about saying how good you are and people saying how good you but not having to fight anyone good. Looking great against bums anyone can do.

I agree, but I do think you need more than just one good win to be top P4P, so GGG would have to do a bit more imo.

Canelo has a piss poor resume but he's made it to the top 10 in the Ring. I guess we might as well put Gary Russell up there, as he's a good looking talent.

[MODAPHUKA]

Definitely achievement.

[NEETzsche]

false dichotomy. the only reliable way to measure a boxer's talent is from their achievements.

[badnewsbrown]

The reason you are seeing more emphasis on talent is because its harder than ever to get the best in the ring with each other, let alone match emerging fighters with real opposition.

A healthy mix of talent and resume is good for P4P but everyone has their own recipe thats why you cant take it too seriously.

That's the big problem, it's hard to get these guys to fight, but yet they continue to get rated at the top by all the writers. A guy like Floyd who's had wins against good prime fighters many years ago, but he's sitting on these achievements. If you're defending that p4p title against non-prime competition then you can expect to stay undefeated forever. But how can writers continue to give them that title? I appreciate with the saying that "to be the man, you've got to beat him" but if you ain't fighting nobody then you deserve to lose that title - it should be that simple.

There's guys out there that have lost but have got bigger wins against more credible fighters (not just names) that should be rated above.

[MBE]

false dichotomy. the only reliable way to measure a boxer's talent is from their achievements.

False analogy. Many boxers don't achieve anything of note yet are labelled talented or even world beaters (Eg. Spadafora).

[MikeRo1972]

There's a fundamental misunderstanding on these boards that P4P means achievement. It's solely based in the following: weight, reach, height being equal, which of the 2 combatants would win. That's it, period end of story. The problem is when you try and rank a top 5 or 10 you tend to default to achievement to justify the ranking. It's a fictitious list anyway thats at the mercy of the eye of the beholder.

[bluebeam]

That's the big problem, it's hard to get these guys to fight, but yet they continue to get rated at the top by all the writers. A guy like Floyd who's had wins against good prime fighters many years ago, but he's sitting on these achievements. If you're defending that p4p title against non-prime competition then you can expect to stay undefeated forever. But how can writers continue to give them that title? I appreciate with the saying that "to be the man, you've got to beat him" but if you ain't fighting nobody then you deserve to lose that title - it should be that simple.

There's guys out there that have lost but have got bigger wins against more credible fighters (not just names) that should be rated above.

who should be rated above?