Comments Thread For: Hopkins: No Debate, Gonzalez is One and GGG in Top 3

[aboutfkntime]

Come on Hopkins, first you were backing Lemieux, saying he'll knock Golovkin out in 8, then you criticize Lemieux, now you think he's top 3 P4P?

Golovkin is not in top3 since he needs more scalps.

Dude, I am NOT a huge Golovkin fan...... I like him, he is obviously an outstanding fighter, no question..... he is just very-well managed to the point of flying under his OWN radar at the moment

You bet that Golovkin is one of the best P4P fighters in the world today.

Hopkins is not wrong on this one..... it's about understanding P4P criteria.

Golovkin is WRECKING the people they put in front of him, and he passes the eye test.

We just want a bit more from a guy who is supposed to be great

But I dont want to talk about Golovkin on this thread.

[aboutfkntime]

I looked at his last 10 fights (dating back to 2009), and what I saw wasn't amazing. The loss to Bradley, KOBY Marquez, and loss to Mayweather all greatly overshadow his win over Cotto. Bradley II was a solid win, and then there's not much to look at. That said, his last 10 still features appearances by 3 ATG fighters, 2 of which he defeated. Coupled with the fact that he would likely beat all of the new 147 guys even in his diminished state, I think that puts him around #5. If you put him in front of Rigondeaux on my list, I wouldn't complain.

You have a great point, not arguing.

And Pacquiao has been very well-managed.

That is my current issue with Golovkin.

But Kovalev only has a couple of wins, same as Gonzales, same as GGG.

If considering resume, they dont even get close to Pacquiao.

I dont think about resume when thinking P4P, not at all.

Pac makes the list because he is still elite.... he is fading, but not yet faded.

[aboutfkntime]

Cliff Rold..... help ?

OFFICIALLY define P4P criteria please..........

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* P4P has NOTHING to do with resume

* Fighters with a good resume will OBVIOUSLY be ranked higher, because they have proven that they are a better fighter

* P4P = skill/style/form..... that's it !

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[aboutfkntime]

Cliff Rold..... help ?

OFFICIALLY define P4P criteria please..........

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* P4P has NOTHING to do with resume

* Fighters with a good resume will OBVIOUSLY be ranked higher, because they have proven that they are a better fighter

* P4P = skill/style/form..... that's it !

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh fk !

Now I understand the ****storm over the Ring ranking Ward P4P #2 despite 18 months of inactivity.

Right.

Guys..... when I stated that Ward only had to put on a tracksuit and announce his comeback for the Ring to rank him accordingly..... I wasn't joking AT ALL.

They ranked him based on standard P4P criteria which has NOTHING to do with resume/inactivity.

They ranked Ward..... because he has proven he is that good.

* P4P = skill/style/form..... that's it !

If Ward was standing upright when he announced his comeback, you bet they would rank him

[darius45]

Hopkins is a good HBO lapdog now... No one in their right mind puts Roman 'Chocalatito' Gonzalez above Rigo in a p4p list...

[aboutfkntime]

Hopkins is a good HBO lapdog now... No one in their right mind puts Roman 'Chocalatito' Gonzalez above Rigo in a p4p list...

I didn't think there would be too many people that would agree with me on that one The forgotten man. Imagine if he was a welter, or even a feather right now? Leo would have no problem making 122

Definitely top 3.

[doom_specialist]

You have a great point, not arguing.

And Pacquiao has been very well-managed.

That is my current issue with Golovkin.

But Kovalev only has a couple of wins, same as Gonzales, same as GGG.

If considering resume, they dont even get close to Pacquiao.

I dont think about resume when thinking P4P, not at all.

Pac makes the list because he is still elite.... he is fading, but not yet faded.

I use the resume as more of a gauge. If a fighter has been in with, and consistently defeated elite fighters, it shows his skills and pedigree. When a guy spectacularly crushes a can, it leaves question marks. Given Pacquiao's last 10 assignments, he's still better than most skill wise. I don't believe him to be better than Rigondeaux though.

[aboutfkntime]

I use the resume as more of a gauge. If a fighter has been in with, and consistently defeated elite fighters, it shows his skills and pedigree. When a guy spectacularly crushes a can, it leaves question marks. Given Pacquiao's last 10 assignments, he's still better than most skill wise. I don't believe him to be better than Rigondeaux though.

Hes probably the best fighter in the world mate if I had to pick.

[aboutfkntime]

rigo i mean

[Tobi.G]

rigo i mean

I agree! Its a shame hes not fighting more often.
Rigo is really Special.
To me he ist not boring at all. i admire his skills.