How is even even a debate that Lomachenko is P4P#1?

[Citizen Koba]

Relative quality / Strength of a division also matters to some people. Even if George Groves becomes the most proven boxer in his own weight division at 168 pounds, I still won't have him ranked number 1 over other boxers who have shown better level of skills in their own weight division against more skilled boxers.

Mmmm. This is one of the many reasons I keep ****ing on about P4P being a bunch of dolphin droppings, though... just how do you go about about proving, with any degree of objectivity, which divisions are better and which worse?

[RussB23]

He lost to Salido. That loss counts no matter how many bull**** excuses his fanboys think up. Anytime a fighter tries to step up and fight at the highest level a loss counts. If he wasn't ready his promoter shouldn't have put him in the ring. End of. Don't even talk to me about that old midget Rigo. That was a mismatch. He won a fight he was supposed to win.

There are fighters with equal or better resumes to Loma and y'all do is sit around trying to discredit them. Now if Loma moves up and beats someone like Mikey Garcia, then I will give him full props. Until then, he's just a guy with potential, he's beaten some solid fighters and looked good doing it, but he hasn't really tested himself against another all-time great or elite fighter.

Ever since Floyd retired there hasn't been a P4P#1 fighter. No one has done enough to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. I guess Crawford is closest but I still wouldn't give him that title.

Who gives a **** if he lost. Hes gotten even better since and is doing big things now. Just because he has one loss to a tough fighter in his second pro fight, really means nothing. He can still be p4p#1.

He arguably won that fight anyway. Lots of fans think he did.

[Mr Objecitivity]

But we're not talking about becoming the most proven boxer at your own weight, we're talking about becoming more proven at your weight than anybody else is at their weight. Hence, when we compare everybody's accomplishments at their own weight, earning the ranking of #1 "pound for pound."

Lomachenko has the weakest belt at his weight. A belt Top Rank can give to anyone they want. He's mainly picked on fighters coming up from lower weight classes. He hasn't faced any of the other champions in his division. He's done nothing to prove that he deserves to be ranked #1 in a list of rankings of who is most dominant at their weight. He hasn't been dominant at his weight at all. He barely fights people from his own weight, he hasn't unified, etc. He's a great fighter, but I don't see any logic in ranking him #1 P4P.

First off, I don't even have Vasyl Lomachenko ranked pound for pound number 1 in my ranking. I have Oleksandr Usyk ahead of him.

Secondly, Vasyl Lomachenko has only fought two or at most, three opponents significantly lighter. The rest were all the same weight as him on fight night, with no more than 5 pounds of weight difference.

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=768409

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=768409&page=5

Lomachenko being a 'weight bully' is a common myth, easily refutable.

Thirdly, I was also initially comparing a boxer's accomplishments in their weight division to the accomplishments of another boxer in their weight division.

To me, the quality of a weight division matters too. Being the undisputed champion at super middleweight isn't the same as being the undisputed champion at cruiser weight. Since the cruiser weight division is a better division with better boxers at the top level. Which means being undisputed at cruiser weight is lot more of an impressive accomplishment than being undisputed at super middleweight. Which is why I would have the undisputed cruiser weight ranked higher than the undisputed super middleweight.

And for me, who you beat (how good your opponent's record is and how high your opponent's ranking is) > what alphabet titles you hold.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Mmmm. This is one of the many reasons I keep ****ing on about P4P being a bunch of dolphin droppings, though... just how do you go about about proving, with any degree of objectivity, which divisions are better and which worse?

That's a fair point and a question. I agree, P4P rankings are extremely difficult to ascertain objectively with a high degree of accuracy. And I have my own rankings. Which, most of the time contradicts the official pound for pound rankings. And the official pound for pound rankings doesn't seem like it's based on the accomplishments / feats of a boxer, but rather on their hype and popularity.

For me, the way I determine which division is relatively better than another is through the following means:

1) The division with boxers from more parts of the world competing is better than a division which has boxers from fewer countries competing.

2) I do a film study on the top boxers of different weight divisions that are being compared and see how good they are offensively (at landing punches on their opponents) and defensively (at not getting hit by opponent's punches). And see how versatile their boxing abilities are in comparison.

For example, I think it's fair to say that the top cruiser weights are clearly better than the top super middleweights. The knockout percentage of the top cruiser weights for the most part, is higher than that of the top super middleweights (proving better offensive skills). The top cruiser weights in general, also have more versatile abilities and skills. They generally have better stamina. They have a better control game. They have better movement and etc. They have better accuracy and etc.

These are the things I look at. How the top 5 boxers in a weight division compare to the top 5 boxers in another weight division in terms of their skill and abilities offensively and defensively.

[Citizen Koba]

That's a fair point and a question. I agree, P4P rankings are extremely difficult to ascertain objectively with a high degree of accuracy. And I have my own rankings. Which, most of the time contradicts the official pound for pound rankings. And the official pound for pound rankings doesn't seem like it's based on the accomplishments / feats of a boxer, but rather on their hype and popularity.

For me, the way I determine which division is relatively better than another is through the following means:

1) The division with boxers from more parts of the world competing is better than a division which has boxers from fewer countries competing.

2) I do a film study on the top boxers of different weight divisions that are being compared and see how good they are offensively (at landing punches on their opponents) and defensively (at not getting hit by opponent's punches). And see how versatile their boxing abilities are in comparison.

For example, I think it's fair to say that the top cruiser weights are clearly better than the top super middleweights. The knockout percentage of the top cruiser weights for the most part, is higher than that of the top super middleweights (proving better offensive skills). The top cruiser weights in general, also have more versatile abilities and skills. They generally have better stamina. They have a better control game. They have better movement and etc. They have better accuracy and etc.

These are the things I look at. How the top 5 boxers in a weight division compare to the top 5 boxers in another weight division in terms of their skill and abilities offensively and defensively.

That's cool, man, I like it. I still can't buy into P4P and your system obviously still relies to an extent on the good 'ol eye test but at least you have a coherent and consistent methodology. Cognitive biases are essentially unavoidable but we can do our best to minimise their effects or at least be aware of them... Mr Objectivity, huh? Not bad..

[N/A]

For example, I think it's fair to say that the top cruiser weights are clearly better than the top super middleweights.

The problem with your method is that you could have a weight class where, for whatever reason, #15 is pretty competitive with #4, while in another class, #4 is light years ahead of #15. Is it because the top of the division is so special or is it because the division is thin? We'll never know.

So with the criteria you're using, hitting and not getting hit, etc, there's no way to know if it's a top heavy division and they're beating up on lower competition or if another division is stacked 1-15 with incredible talent and that's why nobody looks great.

Taking that into consideration, the most logical way to compile P4P rankings is to still judge who is being most dominant at their weight. Who has the most control over their weight class. Etc. It's the only sensible way to compare AJ, GGG, Thurman, Loma, etc. To sit their and try to analyze their techniques and guess what a bigger or smaller version of that fighter would be, or try to judge which weight classes are strong or weak to try to discredit those having success, is a futile exercise.

[The Big Dunn]

Loma is ahead of Crawford on sites like espn and the ring. Crawford is #1 onaites like TBRB and this one. We can see who the real boxing people see is the best and who casuals see is the best.

[Zaroku]

I like Loma and I agree he's a bad azz, but I need to see him fight more top quality guys.

As Lillie damage as he's received, his team should get three fights a year for him if they can.

[Raggamuffin]

He is the clear cut p4p#1. There shouldnt even be a debate, yes there is crawford who is also deserving. But lomachenko has only had 11 fights. And this guy has beat Russell Jr,Walters, and one of the greatest skilled cubans of all time.

He made 2 of them look absolutely clueless and like they didnt belong in the ring with him, and all the other guys he fought except salido he pretty much stomped. He is only 11 fights in and is seeking the biggest challenges he can like jumping up and fighting linares, and its obvious he is the most skilled fighter in the sport.

Crawford is the only guy you can argue over him because he became undisputed at 140 and is also very skilled. But lomachenko still gets the nod because of resume and how he beats his opponents.

deal with it salty haters, loma is king of boxing

Lomas resume isn’t better, he’s already lost and he doesn’t possess the skill set that Bud has. Loma isn’t in my top 5 pfp.

[Banderivets]

Lomas resume isn’t better, he’s already lost and he doesn’t possess the skill set that Bud has. Loma isn’t in my top 5 pfp.

As a big Loma fan I do not see him as the p4p #1 at the moment, but I really have to question why, since who has Crawford beat? Postol? Postol is a bush fighter whose claim to fame was a single fight, he's a very limited fighter.

People argue same way against Loma saying he is beating up on smaller guys etc. But Loma has some legit names in Walters, Martinez, Russell and Rigo.

But now back to you.

You DKSAB if you don't have Loma in your TOP5.

Did you watch his loss?

You must be trippin' off that bush weed you're smoking if you say that Terence has a better skill set. No one has a better skill set than Loma in the game today. Doesn't make him the "best" but his skill set in unquestionably #1

Or is skill set the new athleticism? You know some vague word that no one can clearly define yet pulls out of their ass every time people compare fighters.