Who Makes The P4P List for Ring Magzine

[New England]

and finally, i'll add this:

i cancelled my ring mag sub a couple of years ago. i had been a subscriber for 15 years.


it is garbage. boxing journalism is garbage.

[HEND]

p4p lists consider greatly a fighter's ability. you don't consider the resume in its entirety. you consider their last fights primarily, and the recent body of work. bernard hopkins has one of the best resumes in boxing right now. he's not a p4p fighter based on not only his recent run of wins / losses, but also the eye test.

really, you're trying to handicap fighters as if they were all the same size. you have to go beyond comparing resumes to do that.

Recent resumes, not all time, that's true but other than that I disagree.
The judgement of resumes are at least fairly objective, eye tests are as subjective as they are. If a guy comes next and say that Errol Spence Jr. is P4P top 10 based on his eye test it will be a fair reasoning? I doubt it.

[HEND]

You could argue Crawford's resume isn't that great either

The Gamboa fight was a hotly contested fight against a MUCH smaller fighter. The fact Gamboa had the amount of success he did is quite a shocker. I'm not sure why you listed that win above really

The fact that he was smaller is true, but I think even if he was smaller, Gamboa is a world class fighter who is skillwise better than anybody than Golovkin fought.
It's a shame that Gamboa is so inactive. I think he could easily rule the super feather weight class and even this weak light weight but tbh I would like the best if he would move down to featherweight which is his original weight class and challenge the top guys there such as Loma, Walters or Haymon guys. It would be very interesting.

[Weebler I]

It amazes me to see Ring put Golovkin so high on their list.

Theoretically then, once Mayweather retires in September, it's between Golovkin, Gonzalez and Klitschko for Ring's PFP #1.

I'm guessing Ward might nick it though.

[New England]

Recent resumes, not all time, that's true but other than that I disagree.
The judgement of resumes are at least fairly objective, eye tests are as subjective as they are. If a guy comes next and say that Errol Spence Jr. is P4P top 10 based on his eye test it will be a fair reasoning? I doubt it.

comparing the resume of fighters in different weight classes is inherently subjective.


a p4p list is inherently subjective.


and there's a big difference between what lomachenko is doing and what spence is doing. big difference. i wouldn't have lomachenko on my p4p list, but you shouldn't mention them as if they are a direct comparison.

[DoktorSleepless]

Actually, a panel does not do the p4p rankings. They only do the divisional rankings. Only one person is charge of the p4p list, and that's Chuck Giampa. This guy.

[New England]

Actually, a panel does not do the p4p rankings. They only do the divisional rankings. Only one person is charge of the p4p list, and that's Chuck Giampa. This guy.

do you have a link for that?

i'm not seeing it made explicit anywhere on the website that the p4p list differs from the regular ratings. the "ratings chairman," "editorial board," and a panel of writers all have input, according to the website.

[HEND]

comparing the resume of fighters in different weight classes is inherently subjective.


a p4p list is inherently subjective.


and there's a big difference between what lomachenko is doing and what spence is doing. big difference. i wouldn't have lomachenko on my p4p list, but you shouldn't mention them as if they are a direct comparison.

Both of them hold by many people as future P4P stars and super talents, that's why I made the comparison.
Other than that the difference is really just a Gary Russell fight for Loma and while Russell is fine I don't see that as huge-huge difference. So for me no way that someone can be P4P top 10 with basically one valuable win and a 4-1 record. Sorry, just no. I don't say he can't be a P4P star in the future I just don't go overboard and don't say that he belongs there already.


Yes P4P lists are subjective but I always thought that there's a bigger consensus on fighters' resumes than on who is the best talent by "eye tests".

[New England]

Both of them hold by many people as future P4P stars and super talents, that's why I made the comparison.
Other than that the difference is really just a Gary Russell fight for Loma and while Russell is fine I don't see that as huge-huge difference. So basically for me no way that someone can be P4P top 10 with basically one valuable win and a 4-1 record. Sorry, just no. I don't say he can't be a P4P star in the future I just don't go overboard and don't say that he belongs there already.


Yes P4P lists are subjective but I always thought that there's a bigger consensus on fighters' resumes than on who is the best talent by "eye tests".

neither do i. you're talking about a fighter in spence who isn't close to contention, and lomachenko, who is a top contender, and not really recognizing the difference.

[Pigeons]

The RING became a joke a long time ago. Golovkin does not belong in the P4P top 10. When TBRB's list comes out today, he won't be there.