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

[SteveM]

P4P has nothing to do with resume.

P4P = NOW !

You dont get points for old wins..... why should you?..... that is ATG.

P4P is about, who is the best fighter TODAY.

That is why Manny will have dropped on most relevant P4P lists.

Its more about ability/style/form.

That's your take on it but P4P DOES have something to do with resume. Maybe that is what you call 'form'?

To my mind Spence looks a nailed on cert to be in P4P top 5 by around about late 2017 early 2018 and that is based on the eye test. But he hasn't been proven against even B class fighters so he is not yet on P4P lists. Lack of resume.

GGG passes the eye test and even though he doesn't have an elite opponent on his resume he is smashing fighters that other other opponents can only deliver a UD against - at best (Cotto - Geale excepted) - so he gets on to most people's P4P because of his current resume and because there is a supposed upside to his potential based on proof as opposed to purely visual (Spence / Verdejo).

My question is how far back should the resume go in terms of number of fights or years? Ward is supposedly P4P. He passes all eye tests. He has a great resume from Super Six. Maybe we have to discount a weight drained Dawson victory. So do we still say he is P4P because of his past resume o do we say "nope, he has to show us he is still P4P" ? See where I am coming from?

[aboutfkntime]

That's your take on it but P4P DOES have something to do with resume. Maybe that is what you call 'form'?

To my mind Spence looks a nailed on cert to be in P4P top 5 by around about late 2017 early 2018 and that is based on the eye test. But he hasn't been proven against even B class fighters so he is not yet on P4P lists. Lack of resume.

GGG passes the eye test and even though he doesn't have an elite opponent on his resume he is smashing fighters that other other opponents can only deliver a UD against - at best (Cotto - Geale excepted) - so he gets on to most people's P4P because of his current resume and because there is a supposed upside to his potential based on proof as opposed to purely visual (Spence / Verdejo).

My question is how far back should the resume go in terms of number of fights or years? Ward is supposedly P4P. He passes all eye tests. He has a great resume from Super Six. Maybe we have to discount a weight drained Dawson victory. So do we still say he is P4P because of his past resume o do we say "nope, he has to show us he is still P4P" ? See where I am coming from?

Unproven doesn't mean he wouldn't win.

Case in point, Golovkin.

Golovkin is unproven/untested, a very underwhelming resume.

But he would be 4/5 on my list.

P4P is completely subjective.

I did state that it is highly unlikely that experienced insiders will rank an untested prospect on a P4P list..... and I said that proven fighters should be ranked higher IF they still have the ability/style/form.

But think of it this way..... the year that Mayweather was first ranked #1 P4P...... how much better was he really that year, compared to the year before? or the year before, or the year before that?

Truth be told, he had been the best fighter in the world for some time.