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

[therealpugilist]

BINGO !!


Gennady Golovkin is obviously one of the best fighters on the planet.


But really..... just how good is he ?

I doubt that we will ever know.


He is certainly not ranked on merit, he is ranked on style/skill, with consideration given to form.


I say again..... P4P is waaaaay over-rated..... which shouldn't surprise too many people, considering that it is completely hypothetical.

skill wise, eye test...definitely.....resume wise....hell to the naw

growing up, depth of resume and quality of opposition was weighed heavily...now it seems to be all eye test...how will we know how good he is if he hasn't fought anybody...they did the same crap with Margarito and Paul Williams

[aboutfkntime]

Guys, IF P4P was based on resume, the list would rarely change.

One loss, does not drastically change a resume/fighter.

But the list changes monthly, sometimes drastically.

If you are changing your P4P list regularly, that means you got it wrong earlier, and are in the process of fixing it

And, regarding the " theory " of P4P.....

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 waaaaay over-rated.

[therealpugilist]

Guys, IF P4P was based on resume, the list would rarely change.

One loss, does not drastically change a resume/fighter.

But the list changes monthly, sometimes drastically.

If you are changing your P4P list regularly, that means you got it wrong earlier, and are in the process of fixing it

And, regarding the " theory " of P4P.....

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 waaaaay over-rated.

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

[vortex662290]

If you feel that way, how do you feel about GGG being behind him with his best CAREER win being Martin Freaking Murray...didn't know the eye test took themthat far....supposed to be quality of opposition


Estrada has fought better fighters than GGG and also has a better resume

Estrada is a really good fighter. I enjoy watching Estrada's fights and his style is entertaining, but he is not more skillful than GGG. GGG is looking to unify all titles, but these belt holders avoid him for all kinds of money. He is looking to fight the best of his division. It is just a list put whoever you want in yours to me it is clear who deserves more recognition among boxers.

[SteveM]

" P4P "..... IS, an eye test.

It is completely theoretical.

I will say AGAIN..... Golovkin is ranked COMPLETELY on the " eye test " because he has beaten absolutely nobody.

P4P is waaay over-rated..... especially on this site.

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.

[crold1]

DeGale in the top 10. Bold, but I like it.

It's a little bit of eye test but he impressed me this year. I think he'll validate that.

[royjonesjrKTFO]

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

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

[crold1]

We had this EXACT conversation 1 month ago LMAO

How time flies

Cliff, I asked this question last month, please publish/confirm your criteria ?

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

[baya]

the most surprising thing about this list were the last 5 opponents of andre ward. that abraham fight had to have been five or six years ago, right?

[b00g13man]

It's a little bit of eye test but he impressed me this year. I think he'll validate that.

Nothing wrong with that. I think we're seeing a lot more "eye test" entries when these lists are compiled these days. Much better than having a Kell Brook in there for instance * cough cough Ring cough cough*