P4P = Talent or Achievement?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • badnewsbrown
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Apr 2007
    • 2308
    • 70
    • 106
    • 10,233

    #11
    Originally posted by bluebeam
    who should be rated above?
    For me anyone who has had more significant wins in RECENT times. The last few years both Ward and Bradley have had more solid wins if we're only talking about undefeated fighters.

    Comment

    • mezoomozaa
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Jan 2011
      • 1105
      • 36
      • 0
      • 7,392

      #12
      Talent then achievement

      Comment

      • Black Barty
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Mar 2010
        • 1497
        • 57
        • 0
        • 7,795

        #13
        Originally posted by 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.
        No it's got to be both resume and current ability.

        If it was all about achievement, guys like Roy and Mosley would be P4P until they retire, and that would be ridiculous.

        Just because some idiots put Canelo or GGG on their P4P list doesn't mean P4P should be all about resume.

        Comment

        • Citizen Koba
          Deplorable Peacenik
          Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
          • Jun 2013
          • 20457
          • 3,951
          • 3,801
          • 2,875,273

          #14
          Originally posted by MODAPHUKA
          Definitely achievement.
          Recent achievement is relevent but P4P lists (IMO) are supposed to represent how good a fighter is now, not how good they were 5 or 10 years ago.

          I voted talent, because that is what is being compared, but realistically how else does one measure talent than by resume? - I suppose you can also take into account how a fight was won (or lost), but ultimately it comes down to who was fought.

          Comment

          • Dirk Diggler UK
            Deleted
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Jun 2008
            • 48836
            • 1,312
            • 693
            • 58,902

            #15
            Combination of both.

            Achievement weighs more because you can be multi-talented but not have the mental game to succeed at the top level - Zab Judah and Andre Dirrell come to mind.

            Comment

            • toshmurph
              Undisputed Champion
              Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
              • Mar 2012
              • 1439
              • 69
              • 122
              • 7,813

              #16
              P4P = Subjectivity

              Comment

              • badnewsbrown
                Undisputed Champion
                Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                • Apr 2007
                • 2308
                • 70
                • 106
                • 10,233

                #17
                Originally posted by Black Barty
                No it's got to be both resume and current ability.

                If it was all about achievement, guys like Roy and Mosley would be P4P until they retire, and that would be ridiculous.

                Just because some idiots put Canelo or GGG on their P4P list doesn't mean P4P should be all about resume.
                The key phrase is Recent Achievement

                Comment

                • badnewsbrown
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                  • Apr 2007
                  • 2308
                  • 70
                  • 106
                  • 10,233

                  #18
                  Originally posted by Dirk Diggler UK
                  Combination of both.

                  Achievement weighs more because you can be multi-talented but not have the mental game to succeed at the top level - Zab Judah and Andre Dirrell come to mind.
                  Yep good points, but let's consider both tangible and intangible skills.

                  Comment

                  • Robbie Barrett
                    Banned
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Nov 2013
                    • 40891
                    • 2,779
                    • 667
                    • 570,921

                    #19
                    70% achievement and 30% talent.

                    Comment

                    • brick wall
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                      • Feb 2008
                      • 6480
                      • 259
                      • 35
                      • 24,574

                      #20
                      Originally posted by mezoomozaa
                      Talent then achievement

                      that's ******...achievements validates talent and not the other way around. without achievements, talent is nothing but a myth.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP