When was the last time the P4P lists were so weak?

[them_apples]

He is a four-time, three-weight World champion. Also currently holds the Lineal/RING Lightweight title. Holding titles in multiple divisions is the definition of a P4P fighter. These days the lists consist of one weight champions.

These days you got twice as many weight classes and multiple titles per weight class. It's not hard to do what Linares has done.

[sunny31]

I think Loma and Crawford are the only fighters who represent the talent you typically see in top 5 p4p fighters.

The rest of the guys to me are more representive of 5-10 type fighters, including GGG and Canelo, in most other recent eras, those guys would be back half of the top 10. They don't have the versatility or are as well rounded as the above two

[chrisJS]

These days you got twice as many weight classes and multiple titles per weight class. It's not hard to do what Linares has done.

Yeah, it's why I never take the claims like "Oh, he's beaten more champions than anyone" or "he's won more belts than anyone" or "he's won titles in X amount of divisions" when in reality for the last 20 years or so there's been 4 belts (plus super champions) so it's possible at one time there's 85 world champions at one time comparing to even the early 80's where there was 12 divisions and 2 champions so a max of 24 or in era's even prior of 8 divisions 1 champion.

Mayweather fan logic is that Broner is better than Hagler and Danny Garcia is better than Sal Sanchez. In reality being the majority title holder (2 titles of the 3 in the late 90's early 00's or 3 of the 4 titles today) in one division can and often is more impressive than going the 1 title in 3 or 4 division route (due to watered down opposition).

[W1LL]

Jorge Linares vs. Vasyl Lomachenko; a cracking P4P matchup.

[them_apples]

Yeah, it's why I never take the claims like "Oh, he's beaten more champions than anyone" or "he's won more belts than anyone" or "he's won titles in X amount of divisions" when in reality for the last 20 years or so there's been 4 belts (plus super champions) so it's possible at one time there's 85 world champions at one time comparing to even the early 80's where there was 12 divisions and 2 champions so a max of 24 or in era's even prior of 8 divisions 1 champion.

Mayweather fan logic is that Broner is better than Hagler and Danny Garcia is better than Sal Sanchez. In reality being the majority title holder (2 titles of the 3 in the late 90's early 00's or 3 of the 4 titles today) in one division can and often is more impressive than going the 1 title in 3 or 4 division route (due to watered down opposition).

You read my mind.

Hell back in Robinsons era if you were a world champ you were a serious bad mother****er.

[ELHITMAN606]

He is a four-time, three-weight World champion. Also currently holds the Lineal/RING Lightweight title. Holding titles in multiple divisions is the definition of a P4P fighter. These days the lists consist of one weight champions.

Who cares? He's beaten nobody and only reason hes ring champion is because He's with Golden Boy who owns that title is Broner a P4P Fighter? He's accomplished 4 division titles and has a better resume than Linares I think not

[TheCell8]

I think P4P lists are fine it's just that there isn't a clear cut no.1

Many have either Crawford or Lomachenko as no.1 and there isn't a lot that separates one from the other. When Floyd was on top, he was the clear cut no.1. Ward also made it there as well. Now it's wide open. But I think the fighters that are ranked are the best fighters in the world.

TRBR has a solid list.

[german12johnson]

I think it's a transitional phase right now. The great fighters (Marquez, Mayweather, Hopkins, Pacquaio, Chocolatito, Jones, Toney etc and the very good ones (Cotto, Mosley, Wladimir, Ward etc have not long since either retired or are out of pound for pound relevancy and was a different generation for the most part.

For the most part the generations didn't really mix with the next one on a consistent basis and all the political and promotional divides are bigger than ever so it's been hard for the current generation to get great scalps. Also, I think the talent pool is taking some turns like more elite level sub 118 guys than previous (so go unrecognized over here) hence why so many lost their **** at Chocolatito getting recognition when if you followed boxing closely you'll have known for years he was mad underrated and doing great things.

Perhaps we have to give more merit to certain fights and not just look at the names because that can be misleading. For example when De La Hoya beat Chavez and Whitaker (sort of a gift) he didn't really get a ton of credit despite both being the two best fighters of the post-Leonard era but in this generation Mayweather got more credit for defeating Mosley who was nowhere near the level they were as fighters and much further removed from his prime than they were. I think the name value carries more weight these days and it's not always correctly so.

Perhaps it's better to judge when the era's are complete. For example Hatton and even Judah popped up on lists in 2006 and I think there's 10-15 fighters better than both of those now. Jermain Taylor is another one too.

Also, hard to define a "great win". Is it a win over a great fighter in his prime? If that's the case few even in modern memory can claim that (Pacquaio, Marquez, Barrera, Morales, Hopkins, Jones but it's a stretch after that) or is it relevant to what the match meant at that time for example Calzaghe-Lacy, Calzaghe-Kessler, Trinidad-Vargas, Mayweather-Corrales, Mosley-Margarito wins where the loser ended up to be not great but still great wins for the victors (Lacy and Margarito ended up as just good, the other three very good but nowhere near great).

If it's as simple as todays guys suck compared to guys from ___ well, I'd say how is that measured and perhaps judge them at the end of an era as greatness is defined at the peak or end of a career and a lot of the current guys we don't know are peak yet.

Mayweather was great quit trying to slick dis most of paqq best wins we're guys after may got em Mayweather best last 20 years top ten all time and as of the top ten now ggg crawford after that it's a debate

[John Locke]

He is a four-time, three-weight World champion. Also currently holds the Lineal/RING Lightweight title. Holding titles in multiple divisions is the definition of a P4P fighter. These days the lists consist of one weight champions.

Like Adrien Broner and Ricky Burns?

[chrisJS]

Mayweather was great quit trying to slick dis most of paqq best wins we're guys after may got em Mayweather best last 20 years top ten all time and as of the top ten now ggg crawford after that it's a debate

Pacquaio has wins over great(s) in their prime. Mayweather doesn't. Not saying he's better (where did I say that?). Where did I say Floyd isn't great? Why so defensive? Top 10 all-time? Really? What does your 10 look like?