Narrow losses and their effect/perception

[Nash out]

Keith Thurman, when he was fit was in a lot of people's top 5 P4P list, a few had him as No#1. Obviously he's a good boxer, but a big part of being so high is being unbeaten. Whilst Shawn Porter, a fighter just as good and on the same level, wouldn't be in a lot of top 50 P4P and no top 20, never mind top 5 or number 1.

And why? Just because he lost 115-113 to Thurman and a SD to Brook? With different judges he could have won those very close fights, and then he'd have Thurman's P4P spot.

Another thing I noticed with the Canelo vs Golovkin rematch. I fight I scores 115-113 Golovkin, but accept it could have went either way. Before the fight they were both top 5 P4P with almost everyone, both #1 and #2 P4P with many, and since, after Canelo won a decision that could have went either way, now most have Canelo between #1 and #3 P4P and Golovkin for no apparent reason after an excellent display is rarely seen in a top 10 list?

It makes no sense. I still rank Golovkin higher than Canelo, but however you see it, they should be neck and neck. There are many more fighters here that could be used as examples.

Obviously I know Canelo has 1 official loss, but that was a long time ago, when he was young and against the best of his era, so the effect of that loss has been diluted and is not really considered as far as current P4P goes. But I mean current losses/recent losses, against similar level fighters. Any agree?

[Lion81]

I think its hard to keep GGG in the top 10 p4p after a loss even though its close.

Like college football. You lose, you're out of title contention until you climb back into the rankings.

[Nash out]

But boxing is different though, it doesn't have a clear way of scoring, etc, like other sports, and most critics and fans felt Golovkin won.

[Robbie Barrett]

But boxing is different though, it doesn't have a clear way of scoring, etc, like other sports, and most critics and fans felt Golovkin won.

Golovkin got beat at his own game. The hunter became the hunted. That's embarrassing and shows Canelo is a step above.

[Citizen Koba]

Keith Thurman, when he was fit was in a lot of people's top 5 P4P list, a few had him as No#1. Obviously he's a good boxer, but a big part of being so high is being unbeaten. Whilst Shawn Porter, a fighter just as good and on the same level, wouldn't be in a lot of top 50 P4P and no top 20, never mind top 5 or number 1.

And why? Just because he lost 115-113 to Thurman and a SD to Brook? With different judges he could have won those very close fights, and then he'd have Thurman's P4P spot.

Another thing I noticed with the Canelo vs Golovkin rematch. I fight I scores 115-113 Golovkin, but accept it could have went either way. Before the fight they were both top 5 P4P with almost everyone, both #1 and #2 P4P with many, and since, after Canelo won a decision that could have went either way, now most have Canelo between #1 and #3 P4P and Golovkin for no apparent reason after an excellent display is rarely seen in a top 10 list?

It makes no sense. I still rank Golovkin higher than Canelo, but however you see it, they should be neck and neck. There are many more fighters here that could be used as examples.

Obviously I know Canelo has 1 official loss, but that was a long time ago, when he was young and against the best of his era, so the effect of that loss has been diluted and is not really considered as far as current P4P goes. But I mean current losses/recent losses, against similar level fighters. Any agree?

TBRB have Canelo and GGG #7 and #8 respectively following roughly your logic (ie cos there was little to seperate them). Boxrec ain't a good way of ranking fighters but have them #2 and #5 respectively. Ring have them #3 and #5 and that's a GBP rag. This site has them #4 and #7.

I don't personally do P4P but the evidence suggests that there ain't much separation. Take on top of that that GGG is clearly of an age where he's in decline and that P4P is supposed to be about where a fighter is right now and the lists don't seem too unreasonable. I also had GGG winning both fights - the second debatably, but if asked I'd say Canelo probably wins a trilogy fight without too much controversy.

[MastaBlasta]

And why? Just because he lost 115-113 to Thurman and a SD to Brook? With different judges he could have won those very close fights, and then he'd have Thurman's P4P spot.

No credible judge would give Porter the Brook fight. He pretty clearly lost, though he went out still fighting.

As per P4P, I agree mostly. It's more a popularity contest ... has nothing to do with Power or Danger, like it used to.

If Canelo is in, GGG should be too. Though I had Thurman No. 1 at WW for a time, I wouldn't put him in P4P top ten. Guys in P4P knock you out if you don't knock them out. Wilder belongs, Loma belongs, Usyk belongs, Joshua belongs, Spence belongs, hell even Povetkin and Ortiz belong. If you don't knock them out, they are probably knocking you out.

That said, there are a lot of great fighters who will win most of their fights ... largely on points with a KO here and there. While they are great fighters, and even the No. 1 guy sometimes ... they wouldn't be on my P4P.
Mickey and Swift Garcia's, Thurman, the Fury's, etc.

Mostly ...

[boliodogs]

The only scorecard that effects my opinion of fighters is my own. If I think a boxer won when he officially lost I rank him by my scorecard and not by the official decision. That's why I still rank GGG slightly above Canelo because I thought GGG won both of their close fights. I think Thurman clearly beat both Garcia and Porter so I consider him a bit better than they are. If I thought Porter won then I would rank Porter higher. I go by what my eyes tell me and official decisions don't matter to me especially now when we have more terrible decisions than ever.

[chrisJS]

I've noticed more and more casual fans just accepting results like they are all black and white without putting into context what happened in the ring. Sometimes two elite guys fight and it's close and competitive but if your guy wins you give him all the praise in the world but if the opponent or a guy you dislike loses (even if close and controversially) then it's just a loss and he gains nothing. That's a boxrec fan.

I think Marquez reputation grew through his excellent displays against Pacquaio even though he was on the wrong end of controversial decisions. Barrera gained a lot in the loss to Morales. Hearns showed brilliance in losing to Leonard, today he'd get **** on. Duran gave a great fight against Hagler today he'd be laughed at for losing. Frazier would have been exposed as a loser after Ali III, Taylor would get **** on for Chavez, Arguello for Pryor, Marvin Johnson would be the guy who couldn't beat Archie Moore when it counted etc; etc; in reality BOTH fighters were elevated in all of these examples.

[pillowfists98]

This can happen sometimes. De La Hoya got a narrow loss against Trinidad where most people thought he won and he definitely beat Mosley the second time and got screwed bad. Unfortunately when someone looks at Wikipedia or boxrec those go show up as losses.

[Nash out]

I've noticed more and more casual fans just accepting results like they are all black and white without putting into context what happened in the ring. Sometimes two elite guys fight and it's close and competitive but if your guy wins you give him all the praise in the world but if the opponent or a guy you dislike loses (even if close and controversially) then it's just a loss and he gains nothing. That's a boxrec fan.

I think Marquez reputation grew through his excellent displays against Pacquaio even though he was on the wrong end of controversial decisions. Barrera gained a lot in the loss to Morales. Hearns showed brilliance in losing to Leonard, today he'd get **** on. Duran gave a great fight against Hagler today he'd be laughed at for losing. Frazier would have been exposed as a loser after Ali III, Taylor would get **** on for Chavez, Arguello for Pryor, Marvin Johnson would be the guy who couldn't beat Archie Moore when it counted etc; etc; in reality BOTH fighters were elevated in all of these examples.

Good points, well made.