Golovkin is not P4P top 5

[Cinci Champ]

ya really depends how u do ur p4p mine has nothing to do with resume personally mine is all about literal p4p best in the world regardless of weight not best resume p4p. i have rigo in my p4p for example but ya the thing about ggg tho most people that have him top 5 have to go against their own criteria for deciding p4p. one of the many enigmas with ggg many one day loughler will be able to get him a big fight against the likes of jacobs let alone a mega fight but im not holding my breath unless ggg decides to take less then hes worth.

my guess is ggg will continue to fight journeyman and people smaller then him and keep saying hes being ducked instead of moving up and taking a real challenge like every other great fighter in history has done i just cant see him taking less then hes technically worth to get a canelo fight not that i blame him or moving up to fight even a degale or ward i just cant see it happening. my worry is he stays at 160 forever which is beyond a weak division (tho hopefully charlo is the real deal which will ****e up 160). at some point ggg gonna have to make a decision tho cause hes not getting any younger

[New England]

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.

p4p lists are inherently subjective. you're handicapping guys based on their size and ranking them in order based on accomplishments and ability, and you have to make conclusions based on incomplete evidence. i think we've got a better idea at this point of what golovkin has or what he can be in his next fihgt. with lomachenko i see constant improvement. i think he's already the more able fighter at present, and i see him improving in his next fight. golovkin's taken punches for a living for a long time now and he's likely as good as he'll ever be, so we are assuming less about how good he is than we are with lomachenko.

that said, lomachenko's W over walters isbetter than anything golovkin has done. walters was a good fighter wtth power who proved that he could beat an aging great in donaire. lomacheko was able to so thoroughly outclass him that i've got him ranked higher on my list. he was also totally dominant against rocky martinez, who was an ok fighter and certaily no less than the dominic wade's of the world.


i think lomachenko might be the best fighter on the planet, actually. the best. i just don't have enough to go on to say that with certainty and confidence. i'm fairly confident that he'd box circles around golovkin if they were the fight size. there'd be a puncher's chance got golovkin, but i think that lomachenko's tools would totally offset his only glaring weakness in the match on paper [punching power in proportion to golovkin, arguably the biggest p4p hitter in boxing.]
in a year or so i think it's goign to be obvious who the bst fighter on the planet is, and it will be a litle ukranian kid named vasyl

[Rock&Roll]

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?

I think 'just the facts' has got several distorted views as i remeber thinking once before about how his name should be changed as it doesn't represent his opinions.

But you know what they say - don't argue with an idiot, or he'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

[Rock&Roll]

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.

My father told me never try to teach a pig to sing, as it will only waste your time and annoy the pig.

He was right.

[JAB5239]

Come on now, he most certainly is. Smh.

[just the facts]

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?

If the #1 criteria for making P4P lists isn't resume (bullshyte) but this "informed eye test" you speak of, why aren't Errol Spence and Anthony Joshua #1 and #2? That's right, you can say it. They lack the resume. Nuff said

[Citizen Koba]

If the #1 criteria for making P4P lists isn't resume (bullshyte) but this "informed eye test" you speak of, why aren't Errol Spence and Anthony Joshua #1 and #2? That's right, you can say it. They lack the resume. Nuff said

Well they can be if you want. Nobody agrees on this BS anyways. Closest thing you get is stuff like TBRB when you take an broad sample and average it out, or the poll done on NSB not so long ago. Resume of course informs the judgement, but for me it's just about who seems the best. Purely subjective, and my list has no better claim to be accurate than anyone elses... well except yours of course since you seem to think you have some kind of handle on this rubbish.

[Lords]

Wrong. Golovkin is definitely pound for pound top 3. Its not his fault Ward and Canelo ducked him hard.

He's top 3 over fighters like Ward, Gonzalez, Crawford? Idiot.

[Mr. Objectivity]

He's top 3 over fighters like Ward, Gonzalez, Crawford? Idiot.

No you're the idiot. I never said over Gonzalez and Crawford.

[Lords]

No you're the idiot. I never said over Gonzalez and Crawford.

So over Ward? Dumba$$.