The most respected P4P list TBRB moves Ward to #2 P4P

[Canelo and GGG]

Which one is based on solely on resume then? The Rings? TBRB? The only ones based solely on resume are computerised ones like Boxrec - and even they are dependent on algorithms which are inherently fail to represent the nuances of wins and losses. And then there's always arguments over the relative 'strength' of divisions, the weighting given to historical wins and how well they represent how good a fighter is 'right now'.

What you don't seem to get is that P4P isn't a real thing, except in the rare cases of elite guys in the same division there is no real way of comparing fighters so everyone's list is different. Why, for instance do the Ring have Loma and Rigo right up there when they're nowhere to be seen on the TBRB list?

How, exactly, do you define P4P? That is probably the best way of starting a discussion. In general the question I'm asking is 'who would win, right now, if the two guys were the same size?', although this is by no means the only way to look at the debate. What's your take?

If you have solid criteria you can make good lists ,i agree it very objective and im not Deep in P4P lists

[Citizen Koba]

If you have solid criteria you can make good lists ,i agree it very objective and im not Deep in P4P lists

Having clear criteria and spelling out what those are is a good start of course, but it still won't lead to much agreement. Resume itself is open to question - how good for instance was Donaire when Rigo beat him, or Martinez when Cotto beat him, is say the LHW of 2 or 3 years ago better or worse than the LW division of today? There's just too much of this stuff that ain't quantifiable - that's why I just prefer to go with the eye test. Any resume based system gives the illusion of being objective but is in fact filled with pitfalls like exposure bias (eg. has a fighter been on SHO or HBO much or have they been fighting under the radar in Europe) and confirmation bias (ie we look for information that'll support the views we already hold), and the only real way to eliminate these is with a Boxrec style impartial computerised system which carries it's own failings.

Urgghh. Anyway, that's why I just say fuck it - like with most things in life you can always select information and arguments to support almost any POV you choose, but I'd rather just go for the eye test, at least it's an honest admission of partiality - I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'These are who I think are the greatest talents in the sport because my eyes tell me so' and if anyone doesn't like it I challenge them to actually prove me wrong

EDIT: For these reasons I think the best and really only useful P4P lists are those compiled from many, many individual takes, like the TBRB lists, without too much questioning over the individual methodology or quibbling over exactly how or why people pick the way they do. Someone - can't remember who it was - polled NSB not so long ago and the results were satisfactory even if no-one agreed with every name or position.