Comments Thread For: Big Fights Coming: P4P Competition Index Update

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

Boxing is seeing real results again. After a dry series of months related to the COVID pandemic, in recent weeks we've seen the crowning of new lineal kings at cruiserweight (Mairis Briedis) and Jr. middleweight (Jermell Charlo), an excellent clash at middleweight (Jermall Charlo-Sergey Derveyanchenko), and a violent spectacle that will be in the running for fight of the decade in 2030 (Jose Zepeda-Ivan Baranchyk).
[Click Here To Read More]

[Shadoww702]

Teraji #6 over Crawford???

[Combat Talk Radio]

Teraji #6 over Crawford???

Yup. And here's the valid reason why.

Win or lose against Kell Brook, he’s likely to fall out of the top ten here after his next bout because Brook is unrated by TBRB or Ring and the Indongo win will cease to be a scoring factor.

This is a good - not great - list. Way better than the previous version. The top 5 are good picks for a change.

[crold1]

Yup. And here's the valid reason why.

Win or lose against Kell Brook, he’s likely to fall out of the top ten here after his next bout because Brook is unrated by TBRB or Ring and the Indongo win will cease to be a scoring factor.

This is a good - not great - list. Way better than the previous version. The top 5 are good picks for a change.

This is the exact same top six as the last one. I do think including unique wins works ok to improve it.

Worth noting, this isn't meant to be a P4P list in any standard sense. The only thing that fits that thinking is it compares across weights. It's more a strength of schedule measure relative to what's available in weight classes. Folks who think Crawford is the ace can go on doing it. This just points to his last few years of actual results not being as strong as perceptions of his talent.

[ShoulderRoll]

It's almost a perfect system.

The only thing that is needed is a number to factor in the strength of each division as some are inevitably tougher than others.

A simple way to do this might be to count up how many fighters in a division are in BoxRec's computerized top 100 P4P. Then assign each division a score based on that.

I bet Teraji doesn't come above Crawford or Joshua if that is taken into account.

[crold1]

It's almost a perfect system.

The only thing that is needed is a number to factor in the strength of each division as some are inevitably tougher than others.

A simple way to do this might be to count up how many fighters in a division are in BoxRec's computerized top 100 P4P. Then assign each division a score based on that.

I bet Teraji doesn't come above Crawford or Joshua if that is taken into account.

Thought about it. Here's why I won't: that math doesn't account for runs in divisions. 115 has 'less fighters' overall but it has had as good a top ten as any class in the last few years. Fighters can only fight who is in their class. The best fighters should be facing the legit top ten around them. This tracks that in a way I don't see elsewhere. Debating whose top tens are tougher I'll leave to the readers. Part of the fun IMO.

[ShoulderRoll]

Thought about it. Here's why I won't: that math doesn't account for runs in divisions. 115 has 'less fighters' overall but it has had as good a top ten as any class in the last few years. Fighters can only fight who is in their class. The best fighters should be facing the legit top ten around them. This tracks that in a way I don't see elsewhere. Debating whose top tens are tougher I'll leave to the readers. Part of the fun IMO.

It's true that fighters can only fight who is in their class. But you are punishing the fighters who have to go through a tougher gauntlet by not acknowledging that somehow. In my opinion.

If less fighters is a problem in divisions like 115 then just count up how many of the top 10 in a division are in BoxRec's top 100. That should still work to rank the weight classes against each other I think.

[Combat Talk Radio]

This is the exact same top six as the last one. I do think including unique wins works ok to improve it.

Worth noting, this isn't meant to be a P4P list in any standard sense. The only thing that fits that thinking is it compares across weights. It's more a strength of schedule measure relative to what's available in weight classes. Folks who think Crawford is the ace can go on doing it. This just points to his last few years of actual results not being as strong as perceptions of his talent.

It may be the same Top 5 as the last of this type of list but the last "BoxingScene Pound for Pound" I read had Crawford Top 3 for no logical reason other than him continuing to feast on his 140 accomplishments from almost a decade ago and not giving Spence or Carnelo proper credit for beating top guys recently.

Loma being #1 is the only one that I can even question. That's not a ding against him, but I get where you're trying to attribute credible rankings of the opponent to the appreciable value in ranking who beat them. Which I think is a good measure.

In other words, it shouldn't matter in perpetuity that you unified X division ages ago when others around you are fresh off beating highly ranked (TBRB/lineal and The Ring) opponents.

Which is exactly what we should be doing to properly measure where a fighter stands.

Resume.

The only complaint I can see you guys getting is people who say, "but it's not their fault/they're being ducked!". Ultimately, the only way to really go up on this type of calculated list is to take on threats, possibly for lower paydays. Which the majority of prize fighters won't do.

[crold1]

It may be the same Top 5 as the last of this type of list but the last "BoxingScene Pound for Pound" I read had Crawford Top 3 for no logical reason other than him continuing to feast on his 140 accomplishments from almost a decade ago and not giving Spence or Carnelo proper credit for beating top guys recently.

Loma being #1 is the only one that I can even question. That's not a ding against him, but I get where you're trying to attribute credible rankings of the opponent to the appreciable value in ranking who beat them. Which I think is a good measure.

In other words, it shouldn't matter in perpetuity that you unified X division ages ago when others around you are fresh off beating highly ranked (TBRB/lineal and The Ring) opponents.

Which is exactly what we should be doing to properly measure where a fighter stands.

Resume.

The only complaint I can see you guys getting is people who say, "but it's not their fault/they're being ducked!". Ultimately, the only way to really go up on this type of calculated list is to take on threats, possibly for lower paydays. Which the majority of prize fighters won't do.

You're either fighting the fights or you aren't.

[LoadedWraps]

This is the exact same top six as the last one. I do think including unique wins works ok to improve it.

Worth noting, this isn't meant to be a P4P list in any standard sense. The only thing that fits that thinking is it compares across weights. It's more a strength of schedule measure relative to what's available in weight classes. Folks who think Crawford is the ace can go on doing it. This just points to his last few years of actual results not being as strong as perceptions of his talent.

Strength of schedule is a good description.

A fighter (for the most part) can only fight who you put in front of him, thus I'm not a fan of criticizing opposition, or penalizing fighters for a lack of, should I say.

I do like how you concede that the GGG/Canelo decisions weigh his ranking heavily and I think Golovkin deserved the first nod but water under the bridge at this point.

I expect Fury to make that list once he takes AJs belts and becomes undisputed.