Ok, what is P4P based on? Like seriously.

[Lomasexual]

It is basically a way to appreciate how good Loma is.

They only include other fighters to make it look more legit. But really, they aren't required.

[IMDAZED]

That's why I don't rank Tyson ahead of Foreman

Neither do I.

[A.K]

Russell jr, Walters, and rigo were all top 10 p4p before they fought him, according to the bcs system Loma is by far #1.

[boliodogs]

My understanding is it is how good you think a boxer is for his weight class today based on very recent fights. It's much different than resume. Resume is what a boxer has actually done. PFP is how good you think a boxer is even if he hasn't done much. For instance I rank Spence higher PFP than Crawford because I think he can beat Crawford and they are both welterweights now. Crawford has the better resume and when he was at 140 I ranked him slightly higher than Spence but he is a welterweight and I must rate him pfp as a welterweight. PFP is just personal opinion and not provable fact unless two boxers are in the same weight class and actually fight each other. You can never prove Loma is better PFP than AJ because they can't fight each other. There really are no right or wrong PFP lists. Everybody's list is perfect for them and no two lists will be exactly alike.

[Rip Chudd]

It is basically a way to appreciate how good Loma is.

They only include other fighters to make it look more legit. But really, they aren't required.

Spot on explanation. It goes well with this era we are in where everyone gets a medal for trying, but it's obvious who the real winner is

[boliodogs]

It is basically a way to appreciate how good Loma is.

They only include other fighters to make it look more legit. But really, they aren't required.

I think you are getting a little carried away there, Lomasexual.

[TheCleaner]

It's based on being successful in moving up in weight, or promising to be.

If that was the case guys who are career heavyweights wouldn't be anywhere near the top. Dominating bigger opponents and so called destroyers does help I imagine.

I've come to understand it as a fighter who at his very best weight, could fight any other fighter at their best weight, and here's the magic, that weight still be made equal, who would win.

If you remove all the inequalities of size, you're only left with skills and ring iq.

That's why loma and Crawford are so high. Why ward and floyd topped it when active. Ability to adapt to and nullify an opponents offense, break through their defences with ease, and to even make another skilled fighter look amateurish. that for me is where pfp is. I think ward did that, floyd sure did, and Crawford and loma are showing that they can so far

It's completely mythical because fighters use their size and weight differently, so removing the traits it's equalizing it ruins their advantage. Such as punching power, and draining an opponent with wrestling/clinching/leaning.

[Joe Beamish]

Actually, heavyweights usually aren't listed at the top of P4P lists. Not that I agree with that.

Anyway, it's a moving up in weight thing. Your best fighters (historically guys like Armstrong, Gans, Robinson, Duran, Floyd) did great things moving up.

This is why you won't see Hagler mentioned in P4P lists, for example. He was insanely good, but never moved up. (And moving up from 160 to 168 is a really huge leap.)

[Lomasexual]

I think you are getting a little carried away there, Lomasexual.

I don't want to diminish the achievements of other fighters. I do believe, though, that the sport of boxing will one day be known as Lomachenkoing.

[BoxingIsGreat]

If that was the case guys who are career heavyweights wouldn't be anywhere near the top. Dominating bigger opponents and so called destroyers does help I imagine.

I've come to understand it as a fighter who at his very best weight, could fight any other fighter at their best weight, and here's the magic, that weight still be made equal, who would win.

If you remove all the inequalities of size, you're only left with skills and ring iq.

That's why loma and Crawford are so high. Why ward and floyd topped it when active. Ability to adapt to and nullify an opponents offense, break through their defences with ease, and to even make another skilled fighter look amateurish. that for me is where pfp is. I think ward did that, floyd sure did, and Crawford and loma are showing that they can so far

It's completely mythical because fighters use their size and weight differently, so removing the traits it's equalizing it ruins their advantage. Such as punching power, and draining an opponent with wrestling/clinching/leaning.

I agree with you. I base it totally on skill. That's why I don't rate GGG top 10. Haven't seen much skill, subtlety, defense, or any special effects. It's mostly brute force. Nothing special whatsoever.

I also agree with your heavyweight observation, and why they aren't ranked. Skill for skill, how would someone like Anthony "The Mummy" Joshua or Deontay "Wind Miller" Wilder compare to guys like Loma and Crawford?