What should P4P lists be based on?

[damit305]

The work you put in/activity vs top 10 opponents.

How you beat those top 10 guys. Less credit if the style was made for the top 10 pvp boxer.

Catch weights should reduce the status of a top 10 pvp boxer.

Cheating with illegal substances or any other form should disqualify him from the list.

Do you like this sport or not!?

[Mr.Fantastic]

Do you like this sport or not!?

I'm in a boxing forum ain't I?

[puga]

The quality of the win(factor in his opponent's position in the rankings, his resume at that division,and how he looked in that division) ...and the fashion he won it.....

[SeekDaGreat]

You should not be considered if you duck the top fighter in your division for goin on 6-years. It's embarrassing to the sport of boxing.

[damit305]

I'm in a boxing forum ain't I?

respect.

The quality of the win(factor in his opponent's position in the rankings, his resume at that division,and how he looked in that division) ...and the fashion he won it.....

At the end of the day. .. let the best fight the best

[Black Barty]

P4P is all fantasy, so the fighters with the most fantasy wins should be on the list.

#1 Thurman
#2 Rigo
#3 Matthysse
#4 Maidana (in fantasy land all his losses are wins)

These are the must-have's.

And the worst fighter P4P is Amir Khan. He gets brutally KO'd in every fantasy fight.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Level of opposition
Dominance - In the ring
Consistency - With the two above, all whilst being pretty active

That's what it's been for me.

[MBE]

P4P must be based on in ring accomplishments, leading up to and including their last fight. Everything else is speculation.

[Citizen Koba]

I don't really go for P4P much as a concept, but my understanding is that it should be taken to mean who would be the best fighters, should the guys meet H2H today assuming they were the same weight.

Course, where it breaks down is that the only real way you can draw a meaningful comparison is by comparing past achievements, but as a rule of thumb I'd suggest that opinions should be weighted heavily towards achievements over the last year or two, and anything a fighter did more than 3 or 4 years ago should be considered almost irrelevent in most cases.

Furthermore, conceptually, the idea is flawed as the same attributes that make one a great Featherweight for instance, might not make one a great LHW (ie -if you had a magic machine that could make guys the same size so they could actually square off, you still wouldn't have a clear answer) all you can do is compare how they've done against guys in and around their own weightclass.

Ultimately it becomes an exercise in comparing resumes added to a huge dose of the eye test (AKA personal opinion).

FWIW the most realistic way of generating an acceptable P4P list would be by using some kinda points based system that always penalises inactivity or weakness of recent resume (a la Boxrec) but as we all know, such systems are invariably deeply flawed themselves and end up being little (if any) more palateable to most than the most partial personal opinions.

[hugh grant]

Ideally it should be the names you beat, but other than that, you have to look great against bums, and do what you gotta do as the best aren't always willing to fight each other. For instance Floyd didn't look too good beating limited Maidana so should be penalized for it. But I don't want to put Maidana down as I like him. If you cherry pick a opponent you have a responsibility to look absolutely fantastic against them.

Pac should be no1 as he has the best resume and if he were Floyds size he would obliterate him, if Floyd decided to fight him. But if Pac were 5ft8, we know FLoyd wouldn't/