Golovkin is not P4P top 5

[New England]

chocolatito, kovalev, ward, lomachenko, and crawford are all higher ranked pound for pounders at the moment. but he used to be in any reputable top 5. lomachenko had to come into his own, ward had to beat somebody other than a tune up to get back to the top, crawford needed postol, etc.

[LoadedWraps]

chocolatito, kovalev, ward, lomachenko, and crawford are all higher ranked pound for pounders at the moment. but he used to be in any reputable top 5. lomachenko had to come into his own, ward had to beat somebody other than a tune up to get back to the top, crawford needed postol, etc.

I feel it's pretty generous of you. I'm a big Lomachenko fan but I can't put him into my top 5 yet, the man just hasn't done enough imo, volume wise. The quality for a small sample size is great, I just want more fights under his belt, I want to see that consistency. I always had trouble ranking Rigo for the same reason.

On another note, Golovkin can't move down for me because he has been active and hasn't lost. I'd rather he have names like Jacobs and Canelo on his resume over this last year but I don't really punish a guy on a p4p list for guys he hasn't fought, only for losses and eye test regressions. Guys moving past him, I can accept that take, but I wouldn't move Lomachenko past him, might not pass him up with Crawford either, but I have to think about Crawford. I like the guy a lot and have high expectations of him but I need to do a Crawford analysis before I move him around.

[cork]

We all know fights get made on popularity, politics, money etc. P4P isn't a pissing contest (who's got the best resume) as it's not fair. P4P is about who is the best boxer, irrespective of size and weight.
▪Just because your the more popular/bigger star, it doesn't mean you are a better boxer.

The word 'duck' gets used very loosely on this site but we should only refer to a duck when its VERY clear the fighter has been avoided (obviously in same weight division).

If you are adamant a p4p list requirement is a fighters resume, its only fair that fighters who have ducked them should be taken into consideration also.

A p4p list should take into consideration
resume as a factor but not the main factor.
Overall record, resume, how they won, qaulity of opposition, moving weight divisions to fight best (not because you've outgrown it), and getting ducked are all factors.

I think most org's give GGG some leniency when factoring in his resume, given the amount of people who have avoided him. After all, if he had fought these people, more than likely we wouldn't be having this debate, as his resume would be solid (why avoid him if you/your promotor and/or manager think you could beat him).

GG's resume would look ok:

DUCKS: Sturm, Cotto, Conelo, Eubank Jn, Hassan N'Dam
AVOIDED: Martinez, Barker, Saunders, Sylvester, Quillin

Notable mention: Pirog (career ending injury), Jacobs (looking doubtful)

He's talking about p4p list with credibility with resume but I bet you he can't find a credible list that doesn't have ggg in the top 10.

From what I understand p4p from what I understand is if they were the same size who would be the best boxer and not who they beat so it's all subjective anyways.

[satiev1]

Grrrr Gennady I hate you why can't you just lose and retire already. Grrrrrrr.

[just the facts]

We all know fights get made on popularity, politics, money etc. P4P isn't a pissing contest (who's got the best resume) as it's not fair. P4P is about who is the best boxer, irrespective of size and weight.
▪Just because your the more popular/bigger star, it doesn't mean you are a better boxer.

The word 'duck' gets used very loosely on this site but we should only refer to a duck when its VERY clear the fighter has been avoided (obviously in same weight division).

If you are adamant a p4p list requirement is a fighters resume, its only fair that fighters who have ducked them should be taken into consideration also.

A p4p list should take into consideration
resume as a factor but not the main factor.
Overall record, resume, how they won, qaulity of opposition, moving weight divisions to fight best (not because you've outgrown it), and getting ducked are all factors.

I think most org's give GGG some leniency when factoring in his resume, given the amount of people who have avoided him. After all, if he had fought these people, more than likely we wouldn't be having this debate, as his resume would be solid (why avoid him if you/your promotor and/or manager think you could beat him).

GG's resume would look ok:

DUCKS: Sturm, Cotto, Conelo, Eubank Jn, Hassan N'Dam
AVOIDED: Martinez, Barker, Saunders, Sylvester, Quillin

Notable mention: Pirog (career ending injury), Jacobs (looking doubtful)

Yada, yada, yada. I'll say it again, the #1 criteria when compiling any CREDIBLE P4P list always has been and always will be resume.

[just the facts]

Grrrr Gennady I hate you why can't you just lose and retire already. Grrrrrrr.

Given that g string only fights 2nd and 3rd rate fighters, it might be a long time before he loses.

[Mike D]

I feel it's pretty generous of you. I'm a big Lomachenko fan but I can't put him into my top 5 yet, the man just hasn't done enough imo, volume wise. The quality for a small sample size is great, I just want more fights under his belt

Quality over quantity, bro.

What he did to one of the most elite blue chip prospects in and around the weight class (Gary Russell Jr.), and the most feared knockout artist in and around the weight class (Walters), was nothing short of phenomenal.

Loma is unquestionably in the conversation. The guy has did more in just 8 (EIGHT!!) career fights than 95% of aspiring professional boxers will do in entire careers.

[Citizen Koba]

Yada, yada, yada. I'll say it again, the #1 criteria when compiling any CREDIBLE P4P list always has been and always will be resume.

And what makes your opinion on what's credible more credible than anyone else's? Are you like the P4P police or something? And anyway who judges what resume is best? How do you decide if, say, one Salido is worth 2 Trouts or vice versa? How do you prove this or that division sucks or is particularly strong? How much is a good win worth 5 years later?

Nah man. Either you go down the computerised route (a la Boxrec) to remove bias or you just admit that the whole P4P concept is a subjective pile of BS and acknowledge that the informed eyetest is the only honest way. You simply can't 'prove' any of this ish, so why bother pretending that you can?

[j0zef]

Donaire literally had just been named fighter of the year and then went up to Rigo and got demolished. He's not an ATG obviously but he's no question better than what's on GGG's resume.

Fighter of the year by who? And without boxrecing, name 2 guys that Donaire beat that people would know. I basically can't. Montiel? Yeah, Donaire was on a P4P list and looked good for awhile, but his resume is lacking, and Rigo's resume basically consists of Donaire.
To make a comparison, let's say Danny Jacobs beats Golovkin next year. Golovkin has a spot on a p4p list. Are people gonna walk around calling Jacobs a HOF and putting him on a p4p list for 5 years after that? No, they'll say "who has Golovkin beaten?"

I also have a serious problem with people claiming that Donaire "got demolished". That's so far from the truth it's not even close. Donaire dropped Rigo, but got outjabbed and lost a relatively close fight. Saying he got "demolished" is absolute BS.

And yes GGG's opponents aren't all Alexander Brand level but that doesn't mean they are all that great. I had made a poll regarding one of GGG's premiere wins over Daniel Geale and the average rating of the quality of that win, as voted by members of the forum, has been hovering around a 6/10. I'd be shocked if anyone on GGG's resume garnered a substantially higher score.

Again, two problems with that statement. "aren't all Alexander Brand level" is a loaded statement in itself. Brand was a 40th ranked, 40 year old fighter from 1 weight class below. Unless you go back to the first 10 fights of his career, NOBODY that Golovkin has fought is Alexander Brand level.

We're basically having a discussion ITT whether a fighter with a few 6/10 quality wins is worthy of being in the top 5 P4P. I mean, is that even a question that needs to be asked?

Correct. Let's say I agree with you in that Geale was a 6/10. And let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt that Donaire was an 8/10. Golovkin has ~10 wins that are in the 5-7 range. Rigondeux has one 8/10 and one other win that maybe makes a 5/10. All of his other wins hover between 2-3.

And yeah, that question absolutely should be asked. Rigo has ONE name on his resume - a guy that just lost to Jesse Magdaleno.

EDIT: To be clear though, I'm not necessarily suggesting that Rigo should be higher P4P than GGG right now. But I am definitely saying that GGG's resume lacks substance consistent with his high standing and that Rigo's win was obviously enough to move him deep into the P4P list at the time.

P4P is NOT a measure of a resume. It's a quality of the fighter. Golovkin dominated everyone they put in front of him. Rigo got dropped but won a decision in his only good win. He's also gotten dropped several other times by guys who shouldn't be able to touch him. People talk about Rigo's reusme like it's amazing, when it has 1 name. They also put his name up there with Flyod as best defensive fighter of the generation, which is an insult to Floyd. Floyd didn't yoyo when fighting C level opposition.

[j0zef]

But you just slammed Donaires resume and are now trying to praise GGG's...HOW DOES THAT WORK?

I did not praise Golovkin. I said that when people say that his resume are 'cab drivers', 'bum of the month', 'alexander brand level' they are low life trolls who are obsessed over a guy who they don't like.

Be objective, don't be a troll.