Consensus p4p (based on TBRB, Ring & ESPN)

[Eff Pandas]

The list has severe flaws IMO.

The whole concept of ranking a bunch of guys who'll never fight largely has severe flaws + P4P in general is a bunch of speculation with strength of opponent x how good you beat said opponents = P4P ranking.

Some of you guys take this stuff wayyyyyyyyyy too seriously. And OP just seemed like he took the rankings of 3 more respected mainstream sources & come to a consensus to see what it'd come up with. Its just a lil thing the guy thought was interesting...and it is interesting, but idk if he personally is trying to say anything with these facts based on P4P rankings of others in the boxing industry.

[Eff Pandas]

A fans individual p4p is almost useless because a lot of fans have crazy biases

This lol.

Although in fairness I think if you took a "wisdom of crowds" approach with this like you did the 3 P4P ranking sites you likely come up with a overall similar P4P.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Funny thing is I think Broner has gotten to the #1 in more divisions than Garcia and has made more title defenses than Garcia who's only made a total of ONE across all four of his reigns.

Garcia is clearly a superb talent but his 4-weight stuff is simply a manipulation tactic. I think a solid reign would have been better for him than the cherry picking title grabbing and dropping that he's been doing. He didn't move up because nobody would fight him or he ran out of challenges. He moved around to collect the easy belts (he did outgrow 126 I'll give him that). Call me old fashioned but I'll take Tszyu/GGG/Hagler/Monzon style domination of one division over the multi-weight stuff which can be be manipulated through savvy and opportunistic matchmaking.

Broner did that too but not to the degree of Garcia though Garcia is clearly the better fighter.

It all comes down to resume at the end of the day, the level of opponents you fight/beat is what really matters IMO. You obviously have to be talented to be a multi weight champ but with good management you don’t exactly have to face the very best in each division.

I only brought up Broner cause that idiot was callling Broner, Linares etc “bums”, and saying the fact they are multi division world champions doesn’t change that. I was just proving he contradicted himself in what he said about Mikey.

[chrisJS]

It all comes down to resume at the end of the day, the level of opponents you fight/beat is what really matters IMO. You obviously have to be talented to be a multi weight champ but with good management you don’t exactly have to face the very best in each division.

I only brought up Broner cause that idiot was callling Broner, Linares etc “bums”, and saying the fact they are multi division world champions doesn’t change that. I was just proving he contradicted himself in what he said about Mikey.

Yeah, I'm no Broner fan and was never at any point high on his talent or skill level to the point others were but if you are one of the top 50-60 boxers in the world which he's been over a stretch of time too then you clearly aren't a bum. Linares being a bum is hilarious too. He's a fantastic fighter with a ton of skill.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Yeah, I'm no Broner fan and was never at any point high on his talent or skill level to the point others were but if you are one of the top 50-60 boxers in the world which he's been over a stretch of time too then you clearly aren't a bum. Linares being a bum is hilarious too. He's a fantastic fighter with a ton of skill.

Yeah exactly, half of these guys calling top level boxers “bum” have probably never sparred a round in their lives.

I was pretty high on Broner until the Paulie fight, Malignaggi really exposed a lot of his fundamental flaws that night. After that I sort of realised he was more a B than A level fighter, especially considering his lack of dedication and discipline.

[bluebeam]

So mikey deserves P4P consideration for winning titles in 4 weight classes.

Yet Broner has won titles in four weight classes and he is in your words “a bum”.

Looks like someone’s just CONTRADICTED themselves��������������������������

You’re saying Canelo is above Loma cause he has a “better resume”��������
Well Sor Rungvisai has a far better resume than Mikey, so it looks like you’ve CONTRADICTED yourself AGAIN������������������

YDKSAB����

Ignore list...

Mikey beat your precious broner remember? mikey is undefeated through 4 weight classes remember?

i said loma has lost more recently than canelo so how can he be ranked higher than canelo

and i said rungvisai cant be top 3 p4p based off of 1 year of work. and 2 of the 3 wins were debatable in that 1 year

you gotta learn how to read better fanboy.

[bluebeam]

Yeah, I'm no Broner fan and was never at any point high on his talent or skill level to the point others were but if you are one of the top 50-60 boxers in the world which he's been over a stretch of time too then you clearly aren't a bum. Linares being a bum is hilarious too. He's a fantastic fighter with a ton of skill.

who has linares beat that makes you say he is a fantastic fighter?

[bluebeam]

Yeah exactly, half of these guys calling top level boxers “bum” have probably never sparred a round in their lives.

I was pretty high on Broner until the Paulie fight, Malignaggi really exposed a lot of his fundamental flaws that night. After that I sort of realised he was more a B than A level fighter, especially considering his lack of dedication and discipline.

gtfoh, its plenty of fighters that have been titlist that the boxing world has considered bums.

charles martin ring a bell?



but keep telling us about that 1 time you sparred at band camp

[Citizen Koba]

This lol.

Although in fairness I think if you took a "wisdom of crowds" approach with this like you did the 3 P4P ranking sites you likely come up with a overall similar P4P.

One of the posters on here (Skills' perhaps - can't remember) did a P4P list based on the combined lists of posters on here and came up with a remarkably agreeable consensus a year or two back. Firstly I think the majority of posters on here are actually pretty savvy and fair underneath all the banter, and secondly the more extreme biases tend to balance each other out.

Like you I think P4P is just an utterly flawed concept, and it never ceases to amaze how caught up in it some folk get, but if you are gonna buy into it the best way to go is by taking an average of as many lists as possible IMO.

EDIT: My bad. It was HanzGruber (currently BuffordTannen I think)

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=725405

[The Big Dunn]

So all three panels do their p4p and it's based upon the lists of multiple experts. Going by the three lists being combined on average here is their combined consensus top 10 p4p which is likely to be most accurate as individually each may have a bias or political reason (i.e Ring having Canelo still ranked)

1. Lomachenko
2. Golovkin
3. Crawford
4. Rungvisai
4t. Garcia
6. Inoue
6t Spence
8. Kovalev
9. Canelo
10. Santa Cruz


http://www.tbrb.org/p4p/
https://www.******.com/ratings/
http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/i...omachenko-no-1

It went as follows

Loma - 1, 1, 2
Golovkin 1, 4, 2
Crawford 2, 3, 3
Garcia 5, 5, 5
Rungvisai 3, 6, 6
Inoue 6, 9, 7
Spence 4, 8, 10
Kovalev 7, 9
Canelo 4
Santa Cruz 7
Usyk 8
Wilder 8
Joshua 9
Rigondeaux 9
Thurman 10

Ring and Espn rankings are not valid imo because they have the appearance of impropriety because of corporate ownership and partnerships. Very hard to trust either. I remember a few months ago when atlas was forced to change his top 5 such that they had Errol Spence listed as a Cuban.

If go with the TBRB rankings because they seem to be the least influenced by business relationships and corporate ties.