Tweet
I'm missing something cause Crawford is many people #1 p4p fighter. But if I go around an beat up on Larry Moe an Jack does that make me the best? I don't care how u look beating a fighter it's who u beat. An this isn't about bud I just used him as an example. So what in the blue hell makes a p4p fighter now days cause I'm confused.
-
-
Skin color/ethnicity for the most part. Most posters here can't take it if a certain ethnicity gets acclaim so shuts down and goes the other way without trying to entertain logical rationale. -
It should be quality of the opposition you’ve beaten.Comment
-
Four Things
Record: W/L/D + KOs
Resume: Names. Meaning “who” or better, “what” caliber of opponents
I’ll interlude here to to explain the difference. Fight A can be 13 n 0 (record) against nobodies (resume). Fighter B can be 12-4 with 3 elite names; of those names he lost to and one he beat. Fighter A has the better record but Fighter B has the better resume.
Accolades/Accomplishments: What have they accomplished in the sport. How many times have they been champion or have they never lost? How many divisions? We’re they unified? Undisputed? What this doesn’t include is arbitrary and irrelevant things like FOTY or How much money they make...that’s personal bias or promoter concerns.
Performance: This isn’t about if you like a certain style or find a fighter boring or exciting. It’s about what it says- Performances. Do they struggle with every opponent or do they make it look easy?
I’ll give an example here too. Fighter A gets knocked down three times against Jim but comes back to end the fight in the 10th by KO. Fighter B breezes through every round against Jim, winning the fight by UD- there were no Knockdowns. Fighter B performed better. You preferring A because he got up 3x and it excited you is irrelevant and personal. Fighter B performs much better at his job.
That’s the best way to gauge p4p and that’s how I do so. It’s unbiased and touches all bases.Comment
-
Some lad batters another lad then people say he’s the greatest ever
It’s called the recency effectComment
-
You really are confused and have PFP best mixed up with resume. Resume is who a boxer fought and if they won or lost. Resume is fact. PFP best is how good for his weight class you THINK a boxer is based on recent fights. He doesn't have to beat everybody to be ranked high. You only hav to think he is the best to put him there. It's based on opinion and rarely on fact. You are comparing boxers of different weights who will never fight each other so you have to guess who is better PFP. It's not just who Crawford beat that gives him a high PFP rating but how good he looked beating them. If you don't think Crawford is that good pfp hen don't rank him that high. It's your list.Comment
-
Sounds like u read one sentence of my post. I said it doesn't matter how u beat someone it's who u beat. If I rag doll choke slam a 10 year old kid r u gonna b like wow he can wup some @$$. I know pfp is never factual I'm just trying to figure how u kids now days r raking them cause u sound strange to meComment
-
based on recent skill/performance, resume, recent wins. easy. my top 5:
1. lomachenko
2. usyk
3. tyson fury
4. ggg
5. pacquiao
crawford doesn't belong anywhere near #1 p4p. truth.Comment
-
Your problem is pretending he didnt beat good fighters.Comment
Comment