P4P = Talent or Achievement?

[Black Barty]

The key phrase is Recent Achievement

How recent? That's highly subjective. Take Martinez for example. His breakout year was 2010. Since then he has remained undefeated, but his title reign has been rather underwhelming. Are his wins over Pavlik and Williams recent enough for you, or is he not on your P4P list any more?

[techliam]

Both, neither, one or the other.

P4P = Fantasy

It's effect in the sport only can be seen in the person at the top, the rest hardly matters. Divisional rankings are far more important.

Let's try to shatter the assumption that P4P means anything important

[SthPaw]

Could be hard to say, there are talented guys out there that don't achieve much and there are guys out there that achieve a lot but aren't what you/or themselves call talented. (Look at Marciano, achieved a lot, legendary HW Champion, but P4P worthy 'talent' isn't something you would be in a rush to put next to his name is it?)

But anyway back to the point I would say P4P lists should be down to achievement, but the two kind of go hand in hand, so you could say a little bit of both.

Difficult because everyone has their own way of thinking when it comes to P4P, in general though achievement is what I would say.

[MikeRo1972]

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

So would you say Broner's 3 weight class belts validate his talent? I would disagree with that. I don't need Lomachenko to win 10 more fights to know he's going to whoop Salido like he stole something.