Comments Thread For: Changes in the New Year: BScene Pound-for-Pound Update

[aboutfkntime]

it used to mean something to be rated in the p4p.....now its all diluted and the ring used to have the best list back in the day....especially in the 90s and early to mid 2000s


Now its all a popularity contest, instead of who is the best regardless of size with a great resume

Yea, but the point is that IF P4P rankings were determined by resume, the list would almost never change..... and yet most P4P lists change monthly, sometimes drastically.

P4P is about who is hot today !

Based on that I can understand why Ward is not #1..... the inactivity point is valid, but I am not ****** enough to remove him completely like a certain fanbase would suggest.

[therealpugilist]

Yea, but the point is that IF P4P rankings were determined by resume, the list would almost never change..... and yet most P4P lists change monthly, sometimes drastically.

P4P is about who is hot today !

Based on that I can understand why Ward is not #1..... the inactivity point is valid, but I am not ****** enough to remove him completely like a certain fanbase would suggest.

naw bro....that's what it is to some today.......I was always told by the oldies in the gym that the term was used to say who is the best fighter in the world, skillwise, regardless of size and if all the fighters were the same size who would come out on top with consideration on resume

That's also why they consider fighters whove won titles at multiple weights as well.


Guys like Henry Armstrong, Sam Langford, Jimmy McClarnin, Barney Ross AND Ray Robinson gave the term significance



Looking back though its always been clear who the best in each era was....Now we have it pretty much vacant and the top guys are interchangeable


Before my boy Chocolatito,

before him Floyd(never considered Pac #1 because of results in fight 2-3 fights with Marquez and plus Floyd took a Break, and came back and beat everyone the public demanded)

before him Jones(never considered Hopkins p4p number one after beating Tito considering Jones had a better resume at the time and head to head win, nor was ODLH ever p4p #1 iMO in the 90s, he was popular AF though)


Before him it was Whitaker and so on




9/10 the fighter considered top p4p had the best resume in the sport or one of them...now it seems all people care about is the eye test and knockouts.....we wont know how good the fighters are until they fight elite opponents

[aboutfkntime]

Who says that? You? In the post I replied to you said that it was partly to do with resume and competition. Which are you going to stick with?

You say that P4P is over-rated? What does that mean ... that posters on this side attach too much importance to it? That is just your subjective opinion. Many others are fascinated about it because there is a natural curiosity to more or less come to some (mostly) agreed conclusion as to who is the best boxer in the world. Not only that but people want to know or at least discuss who was historically better in the same weight class.

There may not be an objective way to know but at least certain parameters can be agreed to - for example, eye test, resume and competition and as to how many years you should go back. You should know that many other boxing journalists do factor in resume and competition level. Wilder has a fantastic resume if you ignore the level of competition. Ward has a wonderful resume if you ignore the last 4 years.

Shouldn't be too difficult to agree parameters at least. NSB's parameters are non existent - it's just a flowery description of each fighter's merits. It could be so much more - why is DeGale in but Inoue not for example. DeGale is slick but Inoue is slick and has a devastating punch. Rigo is slick but got knocked down twice against the penultimate opponent.

Nah, I used words to the effect, with consideration given.

P4P = skill/ability, with consideration given to form/resume.

Think about it.

If we were basing this on career resume, then Pac would be #1, and Golovkin would not even be on the list, not even close.

But the fact is, other than Mayweather, it has been a loooong time since Pac fought top opposition..... he has been fighting JWW's at manny-weight for some time now, and even before that he did not fight the top guys.

He was ranked on skill/ability, with CONSIDERATION given to resume.

You are 100% correct about defining the criteria, we had this same discussion last month, and we ended up in the exact same place simply because there is no defined criteria.

I asked Mr Rold to define the criteria for that list last month and I asked again in this thread. Maybe it's in print somewhere.

opinions ftw

The fact that everyone's list is different, proves that P4P is largely irrelevant.

[aboutfkntime]

naw bro....that's what it is to some today.......I was always told by the oldies in the gym that the term was used to say who is the best fighter in the world, skillwise, regardless of size and if all the fighters were the same size who would come out on top with consideration on resume

That's also why they consider fighters whove won titles at multiple weights as well.


Guys like Henry Armstrong, Sam Langford, Jimmy McClarnin, Barney Ross AND Ray Robinson gave the term significance



Looking back though its always been clear who the best in each era was....Now we have it pretty much vacant and the top guys are interchangeable


Before my boy Chocolatito,

before him Floyd(never considered Pac #1 because of results in fight 2-3 fights with Marquez and plus Floyd took a Break, and came back and beat everyone the public demanded)

before him Jones(never considered Hopkins p4p number one after beating Tito considering Jones had a better resume at the time and head to head win, nor was ODLH ever p4p #1 iMO in the 90s, he was popular AF though)


Before him it was Whitaker and so on




9/10 the fighter considered top p4p had the best resume in the sport or one of them...now it seems all people care about is the eye test and knockouts.....we wont know how good the fighters are until they fight elite opponents

Well, that is Pacquiao..... he rarely fights top opposition now, but his body-of-word is outstanding..... but, should he really be ranked #1 P4P today?

And Golovkin has fought nobody, so according to the criteria you mentioned, how could Golovkin even be on the list ?

The fact is, Golovkin likely DESTROYS everyone except 2 guys at 160.

And, he may possibly destroy them as well.

And I don't mean BJS or Jacobs either, I don't give them a shot.

Nobody at his weight looks even close, and he could also be successful at 168.

Pure speculation, but that is what P4P is.

I don't take it too seriously that's for sure.

Whereas the guys you mentioned are PROVEN, they fit on the ATG list.

What did you think of my example earlier, regarding Mayweather?

QUESTION: the year that Floyd Mayweather was first crowned P4P #1..... how much better was he as a fighter that year, than the year before..... when he was not selected as P4P #1?

ANSWER: he was no different whatsoever, he was exactly the same fighter.

Nothing had changed...... oh, except the P4P list, which had been corrected

P4P IS theory..... and sometimes the list catches up with reality.

[Jubei]

Boxrec has a pretty decent p4p list.

BoxRec.com provides Active and All Time boxer ratings, as calculated daily by its computer. These ratings are not influenced by subjective views or opinions but are wholly dependent upon the bouts contained in the BoxRec database.

No room for NSB trolls, hatred, fangirls and racism on boxrec.

Also whoever says GGGs resume is bad. Here you can find a comparison between BHop and GGG at same age/time frame.

[aboutfkntime]

Resume, skill set, who I think would win if everyone was the same size. I try to balance it between those three.

Thanks Cliff.

Just what I thought.

I am the same, except I rate two of those things higher than the other.....

1) skillset/ability
2) ceteris paribus (who would win if all things were equal)
3) resume - important, because it adds that proven factor..... but the least important of the 3 above, for a number of reasons.....

* upsets happen all the time, if we just go by resume, we wouldn't need to watch the fight
* breakout performances happen all the time, young guys step up and meet their potential when finally getting that opportunity

e.g. the year that Mayweather was crowned P4P #1, nothing had changed..... he was the exact same fighter the year before, and the year before that.

The list was not updated, it was corrected.

IF Crawford comes good, and I think he will..... folks will say that regardless I had Crawford ranked P4P prematurely, and I should have waited for him to prove it..... but I will insist that I picked it, and obviously know better than everyone else, even though I likely don't

[aboutfkntime]

Oh, I see no mention of Vasyl Lomachenko. Not even Top 10? Ridiculous!

#7 -#10 don't belong on the list, especially Terence Crawford.

I have them both listed, not high, but listed.

Only a handful of fighters could live with either of those guys "if all things were equal" (ceteris paribus).

Both have skills/talent to burn and they look to be close to the top of their game.