TBRB Crowns A New P4P King! TERENCE CRAWFORD!

[Pigeons]

I don't have a problem with him sitting at the top but winner of Loma/Rigo deserves top honors in December.

Depends on how the winner gets it done. If Loma stops Rigo, I agree. If it's an ugly, boring fight, I don't think the winner will get elevated to #1.

But yeah, Loma-Rigo and Golovkin-Canelo II are the two to keep an eye on for P4P supremacy. With that said, if Crawford can get Pacquiao in the ring in 2018 and win by KO, that would stamp his place as the best in the game as well.

[Citizen Koba]

Why?

Cos there's absolutely no way of objectively comparing guys in different weightclasses. How do we actually know which divisions are weak or strong? How do you compare a flyweight to a LHW... the qualities required for success at one are massively different to another, How does one rid oneself of exposure bias (the propensity to rate up that which one sees most often or is advertised strongest)... There's a multitude of reasons why it's an utterly meaningless exercise... Hell. Boxrec might well have as credible list as anyone cos at least their algorithms remove bias, and they're utter ****.

Now that said, it doesn't mean it can't make for entertaining discussion or banter, but people talking about it like it's some actual real thing with any actual meaning need to get a grip.... most especially those who try to rope it to some agenda.

If it can't be decided in the ring it's just subjective fantasy.

[Pigeons]

Cos there's absolutely no way of objectively comparing guys in different weightclasses. How do we actually know which divisions are weak or strong? How do you compare a flyweight to a LHW... the qualities required for success at one are massively different to another, How does one rid oneself of exposure bias (the propensity to rate up that which one sees most often or is advertised strongest)... There's a multitude of reasons why it's an utterly meaningless exercise... Hell. Boxrec might well have as credible list as anyone cos at least their algorithms remove bias, and they're utter ****.

Now that said, it doesn't mean it can't make for entertaining discussion or banter, but people talking about it like it's some actual real thing with any actual meaning need to get a grip.

I judge it based on resume. Who you beat and how you beat them.

I look at Crawford. His most significant fights have been 3 undefeated fighters; Gamboa, Postol, and Indongo. He stopped Gamboa, dominated Postol, and stopped Indongo. He's a 2-weight lineal champ and formerly undisputed at 140.

I look at Golovkin. His most significant fights have been have been his last two; Jacobs and Canelo. He beat Jacobs by 1 point and drew Canelo. He's a unified champ at 160.

I look at Lomachenko. His most significant fights have been Salido, Russell, and Walters. He lost a close fight to Salido, dominated Russell, and stopped Walters. He's a 2-weight champ.

Crawford > Loma > Golovkin

Let's see what Loma does vs. Rigo. It could elevate him to P4P #1.

[Citizen Koba]

I judge it based on resume. Who you beat and how you beat them.

I look at Crawford. His most significant fights have been 3 undefeated fighters; Gamboa, Postol, and Indongo. He stopped Gamboa, dominated Postol, and stopped Indongo. He's a 2-weight lineal champ and formerly undisputed at 140.

I look at Golovkin. His most significant fights have been have been his last two; Jacobs and Canelo. He beat Jacobs by 1 point and drew Canelo. He's a unified champ at 160.

I look at Lomachenko. His most significant fights have been Salido, Russell, and Walters. He lost a close fight to Salido, dominated Russell, and stopped Walters. He's a 2-weight champ.

Crawford > Loma > Golovkin

Let's see what Loma does vs. Rigo. It could elevate him to P4P #1.

Well, I suppose it's helpful to have a definition. Problem you get is establishing just how good the wins really are - then it just dissolves into a morass of subjectivity. Let me pose a question to you... exactly how many 2014 Yaegashis is one 2016 Troyanovsky worth? Surely you need to know this to rate Indongo and Gonzalez and hence the value of these wins. You see the problem? You could go on ad infinitum.... and that's even before you bring in issues like temporal weighting (the 'what have you done for me recently' factor). You mention resume but most would argue that, say, Danny Garcia and Shawn porter (or Jacobs and Canelo) were better than Indongo and Diaz - so you're clearly attributing value to the style of the win (which is absolutely fair enough) but how do you do this objectively and consistently? Is a KO over a 2015 Lemieux better or worse than a KO over a 2017 Indongo for instance.

Look, I ain't saying don't do it... for a bit of fun... I'm just pointing out that there's no way it should be taken seriously because any list will be full of bias and subjective judgements (except Boxrecs which is merely full of ****).

Myself? I don't really subscribe to it (obviously) but when I do I wholeheartedly embrace the utter subjectivity of it - I'm an unapologetic eye-test guy, though I curb myself in a little so as to appear more knowledgeable and less biased than I actually am.

[Jubei]

Yeah beating 15:1 underdogs and total nobodies surely makes him p4p #1. ESPN and Ring both have GGG #1 unanimously. Let Crawford beat somebody with a pulse and then praise him, but not for beating absolute nobodies or underachieved featherweights in Gamboa.

140 is by far the worst division in the sport, shouldnt even be taken seriously. Both Indongo and Postol should have never held any titles.

[The Big Dunn]

This was expected. I appreciate the tbrb rankings. It’s refreshing to see rankings made by objective, unbiased boxing diehards rather than fake rankings from en****** corporately aligned with hbo or owned by GBP.