Comments Thread For: BoxingScene Pound for Pound: April 2019 Update

[Santa_]

Any P4P list without Donnie Nietes on it is trash.

[aboutfkntime]

are you out of your ****ing mind? How on earth is Lomachenko ahead of Canelo? By defeating nobodies and getting bullied by Orlando Salido?

same as Crawford, and Canelo, and Spence

style / skills / form

I can do this all day long

if all things were equal (both fighters naturally the same size)..... head-to-head..... I would pick Lomachenko to beat Canelo

I would only pick Crawford to beat Loma..... and then only reluctantly, without too much conviction

you guys need to stop with the resume-comparing, because that is NOT P4P..... that is current ATG.....

[BoxingIsGreat]

are you out of your ****ing mind? How on earth is Lomachenko ahead of Canelo? By defeating nobodies and getting bullied by Orlando Salido?

Exactly. There's no resume to speak of. He hasn't beaten anyone. Rigo was tiny and 100 years old in boxing age, so that win means nothing. Most decent boxer he fought was Russell, and Russell hasn't proven anything since. Plus, the biggest hole, a loss to a journeyman with 12 losses.

As far as skills are concerned, his aren't even developed to the fullest pro level yet and won't be, given the couple of years he has left in boxing. If you watch closely, he still fights totally one dimensional, robotical, and amateurish.

P4P is one of the biggest BS in boxing, followed by the corrupt belt orgs, and Boxrec.

[aboutfkntime]

I can do this all day long

* SIGH *

IF resume is sooooo important, then Pacquiao is P4P..... right?

he clearly has the best resume in boxing, and he is active..... right?

now Golovkin, he has a shlt resume..... so, IF resume is sooooo important, then Golovkin is NOT a P4P fighter..... right?

IF you think that resume' is sooooo important when it comes to P4P consideration..... then hop to it..... add Pacquiao at the top of your list, and completely remove Golovkin..... right?

RIGHT..... ?

or is resume only one small (not major) factor, in determining P4P?

it comes down to style/skills/form..... nothing else

P4P was originally ALLLLL about style..... it was a theoretical conversation for comparing styles between fighters that would never meet either because of weight disparity or because they fought in different era's

it comes down to style/skills/form..... which means you need to have a clue about this sport..... rather than demand a paint-by-numbers list of opponents that a certain fighter beat before you perform a completely irrelevant comparison..... because that comes down to styles/matchmaking, which will not help you against a true P4P opponent

[aboutfkntime]

many of you casuals don't know how to score a fight, and would not know a good fighter if he walked up and punched you in the face..... so, how the hell are you qualified to comment on P4P?

come on

guys, if you did not know that Lomachenko was going to be a top P4P fighter when he first stepped onto the world stage..... then that proves my point exactly, because he was clearly a special fighter

clearly

[Removed Now]

he is number one because of " ceteris paribus "

which is the original criteria for P4P

nowadays, " P4P " is confused with " current ATG ".....

..... which is actually an oxymoron

ceteris paribus is..... " if all things were equal, who would win "

the " all things ", in boxing..... is weight..... so, TRUE P4P is based on style/skills/form..... nothing else..... not even resume'

resume' does count, because it adds that proven factor to what is a purely hypothetical debate..... but it most definitely is not essential for TRUE P4P consideration, because MANY unproven fighter have beaten great champions.....

P4P IS theoretical..... as-in, it is supposed to be theoretical..... so, P4P..... if ALL things were equal..... and both guys were naturally the same size (NOT moving up or down)..... I say that Crawford would win against all/most fighters in the world today..... including possibly even my boy Loma

I think Crawford could be too well-rounded, and have too tight a game, for the mercurial Lomachenko..... who would give him absolute fits all night long

wouldn't bet a dollar on it, but Crawford has the best argument because of style/skills/form..... which are the only 3 things that should count..... Loma is right there with him, and is right in that same argument

I have no issue with guys ranking Loma ahead of Crawford because they are both right there, but there are still question marks over both.....

but yea..... insisting upon resume, is demanding that someone paint you a picture..... rather than deciphering how the individual styles would mesh in a purely theoretical fight that will never happen anyway because of weight disparity

insisting upon resume is also wrong because triangle theories do not work in boxing

the problem comes down to two differing questions..... who would win, if all things were equal..... vs..... who has achieved the most within the current boxing landscape..... but they are two completely different questions..... Crawford is a TRUE P4P fighter, no question..... if all things were equal

you're telling me if you can look good fighting tomato cans, you can make a case for you to be #1. because it's not about the resume it's about your skill sets that you show case against bums. Chavez must had been your favorite fighter.

[aboutfkntime]

you're telling me if you can look good fighting tomato cans, you can make a case for you to be #1. because it's not about the resume it's about your skill sets that you show case against bums. Chavez must had been your favorite fighter.

no, I am saying that if you did not know that Lomachenko was going to be a top P4P fighter when he first stepped onto the world stage..... it proves my point exactly, because he was clearly a special fighter

now..... it is the same with Crawford, and with Canelo

those particular fighters are clearly special, and on a different level than just about everyone else in the top 10

it is obvious

if you rate resume soooooooooo highly..... then add Pacquiao #1 on your list, and completely remove Golovkin

[aboutfkntime]

if you rate resume soooooooooo highly..... then add Pacquiao #1 on your list, and completely remove Golovkin

this seems to happen every month

guys, you cannot have it both ways.....

is resume the determining factor in P4P consideration..... ?

..... or, is it just a consideration..... ?

a consideration that may not even be relevant when it comes to determining the winner in a hypothetical fight between completely different opponents?

come on now..... should Pacquiao be included because of his outstanding resume, or not?..... and should Golovkin be excluded for his shltty resume, or not?

yes, resume adds that proven factor..... but no, unproven fighters beat good/great champions all the time

style / skills / form

the form element, and erosion of skills, is why Pacquiao cannot be included..... and the style/skills/form element, is why Golovkin must be included

Golovkin's recent drop on the P4P list, indicates his recent drop in form..... when struggling with Jacobs/Canelo

it makes perfect sense, and is obviously a MAJOR factor in the writers reasoning..... with style/skills/form being the primary criteria, and resume being less-relevant

I agree that is is more difficult to get an accurate guage on unproven/untested fighters, which is why they almost never make the list..... but we have seen plenty enough of Crawford Lomachenko and Canelo

it comes down to common-sense

so, I rate Crawford over Spence..... both P4P, and if they fight head-to-head

but Crawford's resume, or Spence's lack of resume..... will not help Terrence Crawford (or any man) when they get in there with Errol Spence..... he is a bad baaaaad man

[Motofan]

Not a bad list. People ***** as always but it's pretty good. Anyone asking where the heavyweights are is out of their mind. The best in that class is at about a C level in most lower classes. GGG may be a little high (as much as it pains me) and Garcia is a tough call considering how he lost and what weight he's going to be fighting at in the future.

[Removed Now]

no, I am saying that if you did not know that Lomachenko was going to be a top P4P fighter when he first stepped onto the world stage..... it proves my point exactly, because he was clearly a special fighter

now..... it is the same with Crawford, and with Canelo

those particular fighters are clearly special, and on a different level than just about everyone else in the top 10

it is obvious

if you rate resume soooooooooo highly..... then add Pacquiao #1 on your list, and completely remove Golovkin

I rate canelo and Loma ahead of Crawford because they showcase their talents against legit opponents.

When you go on a job interview they don't look at all the jobs you ever had. They look at your most job experience. In that case pacman , GGG would not be high on my P4P because their last 3-4 fights weren't that good.