Why do journalists drop fighters lower in P4P ranks as they fight better opponents?

[-Kev-]

Boxing journalists seem to reward younger, up and coming fighters who don't have a lot of fights vs elites and tend to punish more experienced fighters who may not look as good anymore because they're fighting top opposition.

For example, I think everyone knows i'm not a GGG fan, and while I do like Naoya Inoue and his rising career, I disagree that Inoue is #3 P4P and GGG gets dropped to #7. I also disagree with Usyk and Crawford being ranked above GGG. I'm a GGG critic no doubt, but his resume is better than Inoue, Usyk, Spence and Crawford's.

And where is Tyson Fury? Speaking P4P meaning if all were the same weight, Tyson Fury is a highly talented boxer, regardless of size. Dude can box, plain and simple. He's one of the best boxers in the sport right now and he's not in the top 5 P4P list?

Inoue's last win was a competitive fight against a good, but old, fighter. GGG's last win was a competitive fight against a top 5 MW who has given everyone he faces a tough fight.

Yes I know you can get me with "But Pacquiao is #10 and has a better resume than all 9 fighters above him". That is true, but GGG has not been KTFO, is still ranked #2 at MW, has not gotten his ass kicked yet (he has lost competitively), and going by "what they've done lately" GGG has done more than a lot of fighters in the top 10 P4P. Spence has been busy drinking and driving himself to near death. Usyk is going to fight a journeyman next. Crawford's last good win was Postol about 58 million years ago, and while Inoue has been rising quickly, I disagree he's #3 P4P above GGG. GGG should be at least #5 and Inoue should not be in the top 5, neither should Crawford, Usyk, or Spence.

Speaking of Pacquiao, he should be #3-4. His win over Thurman trumps all of the fighters above him except Canelo and Lomachenko.

Top 5 P4P should be:

Canelo
Lomachenko
Pacquiao
GGG
Fury

IMO.

[Rick Taylor]

Boxing journalists seem to reward younger, up and coming fighters who don't have a lot of fights vs elites and tend to punish more experienced fighters who may not look as good anymore because they're fighting top opposition.

For example, I think everyone knows i'm not a GGG fan, and while I do like Naoya Inoue and his rising career, I disagree that Inoue is #3 P4P and GGG gets dropped to #7. I also disagree with Usyk and Crawford being ranked above GGG. I'm a GGG critic no doubt, but his resume is better than Inoue, Usyk, Spence and Crawford's.

And where is Tyson Fury? Speaking P4P meaning if all were the same weight, Tyson Fury is a highly talented boxer, regardless of size. Dude can box, plain and simple. He's one of the best boxers in the sport right now and he's not in the top 5 P4P list?

Inoue's last win was a competitive fight against a good, but old, fighter. GGG's last win was a competitive fight against a top 5 MW who has given everyone he faces a tough fight.

Yes I know you can get me with "But Pacquiao is #10 and has a better resume than all 9 fighters above him". That is true, but GGG has not been KTFO, is still ranked #2 at MW, has not gotten his ass kicked yet (he has lost competitively), and going by "what they've done lately" GGG has done more than a lot of fighters in the top 10 P4P. Spence has been busy drinking and driving himself to near death. Usyk is going to fight a journeyman next. Crawford's last good win was Postol about 58 million years ago, and while Inoue has been rising quickly, I disagree he's #3 P4P above GGG. GGG should be at least #5 and Inoue should not be in the top 5, neither should Crawford, Usyk, or Spence.

Speaking of Pacquiao, he should be #3-4. His win over Thurman trumps all of the fighters above him except Canelo and Lomachenko.

Top 5 P4P should be:

Canelo
Lomachenko
Pacquiao
GGG
Fury

IMO.

boxing journalist do as they are told. most dont know sh%t about boxing tbh

[Combat Talk Radio]

Boxing journalists seem to reward younger, up and coming fighters who don't have a lot of fights vs elites and tend to punish more experienced fighters who may not look as good anymore because they're fighting top opposition.

For example, I think everyone knows i'm not a GGG fan, and while I do like Naoya Inoue and his rising career, I disagree that Inoue is #3 P4P and GGG gets dropped to #7. I also disagree with Usyk and Crawford being ranked above GGG. I'm a GGG critic no doubt, but his resume is better than Inoue, Usyk, Spence and Crawford's.

And where is Tyson Fury? Speaking P4P meaning if all were the same weight, Tyson Fury is a highly talented boxer, regardless of size. Dude can box, plain and simple. He's one of the best boxers in the sport right now and he's not in the top 5 P4P list?

Inoue's last win was a competitive fight against a good, but old, fighter. GGG's last win was a competitive fight against a top 5 MW who has given everyone he faces a tough fight.

Yes I know you can get me with "But Pacquiao is #10 and has a better resume than all 9 fighters above him". That is true, but GGG has not been KTFO, is still ranked #2 at MW, has not gotten his ass kicked yet (he has lost competitively), and going by "what they've done lately" GGG has done more than a lot of fighters in the top 10 P4P. Spence has been busy drinking and driving himself to near death. Usyk is going to fight a journeyman next. Crawford's last good win was Postol about 58 million years ago, and while Inoue has been rising quickly, I disagree he's #3 P4P above GGG. GGG should be at least #5 and Inoue should not be in the top 5, neither should Crawford, Usyk, or Spence.

Speaking of Pacquiao, he should be #3-4. His win over Thurman trumps all of the fighters above him except Canelo and Lomachenko.

Top 5 P4P should be:

Canelo
Lomachenko
Pacquiao
GGG
Fury

IMO.

I can't see a justification for Golovkin being in the Top 5 especially when you still have Errol Spence as a unified champion having beaten two of the best at the time. I can't justify that.

And I can't justify Pacquiao being above Spence when Pacquiao took a loss to Horn and almost did against Thurman, plus holds one belt.

So...if you remove Golovkin from Top 5, put Pacquiao there, and Spence at #3, it's a good list.

Golovkin Top 10? I can see that. He's taken the #1 guy to deep waters twice, I think he's earned it. But they're punishing him for the Dereyvanchenko fight especially given Charlo's performance.

[_Rexy_]

Well, for starters; heavyweights don’t go on P4P lists

[SplitSecond]

Pfp lists are all over the place. Spence went from not in the top 10 to 6/5 after Mikey Garcia. Rungvisai has barely ever gotten any love. Guy beat Gonzalez twice when he was on his roll and Estrada. Barely cracks the top 10 on most lists. Estrada beats him once tho, makes the list everywhere.

Personally wouldn’t have Fury top 5. He’s still a mystery to me. His style has worked very well against essentially the same type of fighter in Wlad and Wilder (wilder a much, much shttier version). But haven;t been too impressed with him in other fights. It could be he only gets up for the big one’s. Lets see him show some consistency or beat Joshua and i’ll have him top 3 as things stand today.

But yea. All over the place.

I think a lot of journalists use it for promotional purposes too. How guys like Broner made it to top 6 or w/e it was.

[-Kev-]

Well, for starters; heavyweights don’t go on P4P lists

I know.

Which is why I mentioned that if P4P lists are really about fighters skills regardless of weight, then Tyson Fury should be up there. Yes he's 6'9" and 260lbs, but that makes his skills, hand speed, and footwork even more remarkable. He is omitted from the rankings of the best boxers in the world because he is a HW. Which doesn't seem fair. I get it, why HW's don't go on there. But Fury is clearly very skilled, no matter the weight class.

[-Kev-]

I can't see a justification for Golovkin being in the Top 5 especially when you still have Errol Spence as a unified champion having beaten two of the best at the time. I can't justify that.

And I can't justify Pacquiao being above Spence when Pacquiao took a loss to Horn and almost did against Thurman, plus holds one belt.

So...if you remove Golovkin from Top 5, put Pacquiao there, and Spence at #3, it's a good list.

Golovkin Top 10? I can see that. He's taken the #1 guy to deep waters twice, I think he's earned it. But they're punishing him for the Dereyvanchenko fight especially given Charlo's performance.

I like Spence more than GGG, but GGG has a better resume right now. Spence will probably end up with the better resume because he started his reign younger than GGG and is on a better pace. But right now, GGG's resume is better.

Also Spence has beaten GOOD fighters in Porter and Brook, but not elite WW's. DSG is also not elite. If we're going to give him credit for Mikey, then we have to give GGG credit for Brook and we have to give Canelo credit for Khan as well.

Crawford, Usyk, Spence, and Inoue should not be placed before GGG imo. That is backwards. And I don't even like GGG one bit. But i'm not going to lie about resumes either.

[QueensburyRules]

Well, for starters; heavyweights don’t go on P4P lists

- -Mike Tyson was R1ng #1 p4p on their first ever p4p rankings.

U noob?

[Shadoww702]

No clue????

[Combat Talk Radio]

I like Spence more than GGG, but GGG has a better resume right now. Spence will probably end up with the better resume because he started his reign younger than GGG and is on a better pace. But right now, GGG's resume is better.

Also Spence has beaten GOOD fighters in Porter and Brook, but not elite WW's. DSG is also not elite. If we're going to give him credit for Mikey, then we have to give GGG credit for Brook and we have to give Canelo credit for Khan as well.

Crawford, Usyk, Spence, and Inoue should not be placed before GGG imo. That is backwards. And I don't even like GGG one bit. But i'm not going to lie about resumes either.

I hesitate to ask.

Name one fighter Golovkin beat clearly that qualifies as elite.