Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: YOUR p4p criteria?
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
KENSOFINE
When people compile a list, its usually based on which items they prefer or deem most important. For instance, some will put Mayweather at the top because of his record with no losses...others will say Pacman because of his level of opposition despite his losses. Others may say Hopkins due to his successful longevity.

Which items do you feel should come into play first, secondly, thirdly, ect when compiling p4p lists?


*EDIT*

I am more interested in your point of view and logic than arguing over how you feel about my opinion. If it is more important for you to create beef based on my opinion, then its not mandatory that you answer my topics. If you feel you have no choice but to create beef based on my opinion, then feel free to come at me and get roasted something aweful. focus.gif

oh, yeah...and be sure to have a nice day.
Method
Skills. Sweet science skills. Period.
D-MARV
QUOTE (Method @ Dec 10 2009, 12:07 PM) *
Skills. Sweet science skills. Period.

Pretty much.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (Method @ Dec 10 2009, 12:07 PM) *
Skills. Sweet science skills. Period.


Andre Berto has skill and no losses. Shane Mosely has skill and several losses. Most people would rank Shane above Berto. How would you rank/prioritize, and why?
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (SmartyBeardo @ Dec 10 2009, 12:37 PM) *
Mosley has more skill and has fought far tougher competition over a much longer period of time.

If Berto somehow manages to defeat Mosley, opinions will shift.


So, then your criteria is level of competition first, wins second? Both have comparable skillsets, which is what makes their fight interesting. Skill at either of their level (speed, head movement, power, etc) is kinda hard to measure, if the differences arent drastic (ie Mayweather vs Arturo Gatti). Upon first look, most assumed Mosely would win a jabbing contest vs Cott...but jab speed was damn near equal in their fight.

In other words, if you have two fighters with similarly impressive skills...(Mayweather, Leonard, Mosley, etc) and you wanted to rank them, what would be your way to go about categorization?
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (Method @ Dec 10 2009, 12:07 PM) *
Skills. Sweet science skills. Period.



Thats an extremely broad statement. Pac and Mayweather both have "skill". That doesnt tell me how you would rank them and why. Whats your overall formula for ranking a competitive top 3, lets say?
KookedKrack
No matter what the response is this dude will try and argue.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (KookedKrack @ Dec 10 2009, 01:42 PM) *
No matter what the response is this dude will try and argue.


No. Arguing would be me telling you to shut the fuck up and go back to dry-humping your favorite Ricky Martin poster. I asked people to elaborate, and give the priority of their criteria. My question is quite simple. Thanks for reading.
Lil-lightsout
It is more than just skills. Damn there are intangibles too. Look what happened to Ortiz last time out, he was supposed to be the next great and he folded when things got tough. So your heart and desire play a part if you really belong. Competition is also a factor. PBF beating an older blown up lightweight does nothing for me. Let him beat other TOP fighters in his own damn weight class and then that is different. I mean no one is invinceable, so stuff needs to be settled in the ring. Roy was P4P king for so long until Tarver changed that with ONE punch. Who really thought Tarver was going to stop Roy? NO one. That could happen to anyone. I just do not think anyone should get a free pass just based off ones skills. If you are to be considered P4P king, you should be fighting the best available opponents to prove your worth.

Box in Hand
I don't care about not having losses on a record. A loss usually makes a great fighter better ala Sugar Ray, Ali, Hopkins, etc. I look for intelligence in the ring, killer instinct (Get em when he's hurt), heart, and a willingness to fight anyone anywhere. A belt also does not matter to me since they don't mean shit.
KookedKrack
QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Dec 10 2009, 01:48 PM) *
No. Arguing would be me telling you to shut the fuck up and go back to dry-humping your favorite Ricky Martin poster. I asked people to elaborate, and give the priority of their criteria. My question is quite simple. Thanks for reading.


dry.gif

lol @ this homotional shock poster/ internet tough guy

I lost for even acknowledging your presence breh go back to your trolling.
D-MARV
I think the level of you're skill is also based on your competition. So you can include level of competition in your assessment.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Dec 10 2009, 02:01 PM) *
It is more than just skills. Damn there are intangibles too. Look what happened to Ortiz last time out, he was supposed to be the next great and he folded when things got tough. So your heart and desire play a part if you really belong. Competition is also a factor. PBF beating an older blown up lightweight does nothing for me. Let him beat other TOP fighters in his own damn weight class and then that is different. I mean no one is invinceable, so stuff needs to be settled in the ring. Roy was P4P king for so long until Tarver changed that with ONE punch. Who really thought Tarver was going to stop Roy? NO one. That could happen to anyone. I just do not think anyone should get a free pass just based off ones skills. If you are to be considered P4P king, you should be fighting the best available opponents to prove your worth.


VERY valid points.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (Box in Hand @ Dec 10 2009, 02:01 PM) *
I don't care about not having losses on a record. A loss usually makes a great fighter better ala Sugar Ray, Ali, Hopkins, etc. I look for intelligence in the ring, killer instinct (Get em when he's hurt), heart, and a willingness to fight anyone anywhere. A belt also does not matter to me since they don't mean shit.


I agree. I would put that last on my list, in the instance where two or three fighters are equal in every other capacity.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (KookedKrack @ Dec 10 2009, 02:06 PM) *
dry.gif

lol @ this homotional shock poster/ internet tough guy

I lost for even acknowledging your presence breh go back to your trolling.


Choice 1: Simply answer the question with some logic of your own.

Choice 2: Simply ignore my posts, since I always seem to hurt your feelings online, thus causing your internet thuggery to expose itself.

Choice 3: Keep directing your WACK-nificent posts toward me, and I will make you my very own personal Rihanna...on your favorite site.

Now, until you have something intellectual to contribute, perhaps you should shut that cock-garage you call a mouth, until further notice.

(bitch.)

Have a nice day.
Box in Hand
QUOTE (KookedKrack @ Dec 10 2009, 01:06 PM) *
dry.gif

lol @ this homotional shock poster/ internet tough guy

I lost for even acknowledging your presence breh go back to your trolling.



LMFBO (Laugh My Fucking Balls Off). Homotional? OMG, I almost swallowed my tounge.
Box in Hand
QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Dec 10 2009, 01:16 PM) *
Choice 1: Simply answer the question with some logic of your own.

Choice 2: Simply ignore my posts, since I always seem to hurt your feelings online, thus causing your internet thuggery to expose itself.

Choice 3: Keep directing your WACK-nificent posts toward me, and I will make you my very own personal Rihanna...on your favorite site.

Now, until you have something intellectual to contribute, perhaps you should shut that cock-garage you call a mouth, until further notice.

(bitch.)

Have a nice day.



Cock Garage? WTF? That is the most bonified funniest shit I heard all week.
DatuLakandula
for me its #of wins from quality opponents. for one to be top from the other, they must fight as long as there are in same weight class. but it would be stupid for a lower weight to fight a heavier opponent (e.g. flyweight vs. middleweight). to settle the weight issue, ranking must be based on how they eliminate their respective "quality" opponent (e.g. SD=low, UD=normal, TKO/KO=high). Also ranking must be base on their last 3 fights , active fighters must be a top priority. in the situation that a lower weight class goes toe 2 toe with a higher weight, handicaps ,like catchweight, is ok as long as both camp agreed and complied to the contracted weight.
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (DatuLakandula @ Dec 10 2009, 03:30 PM) *
for me its #of wins from quality opponents. for one to be top from the other, they must fight as long as there are in same weight class. but it would be stupid for a lower weight to fight a heavier opponent (e.g. flyweight vs. middleweight). to settle the weight issue, ranking must be based on how they eliminate their respective "quality" opponent (e.g. SD=low, UD=normal, TKO/KO=high). Also ranking must be base on their last 3 fights , active fighters must be a top priority. in the situation that a lower weight class goes toe 2 toe with a higher weight, handicaps ,like catchweight, is ok as long as both camp agreed and complied to the contracted weight.


This is close to how I feel. Level of opposition trumps everything else for me. If you are fighting and beating other p4p type guys and provided the weight classes aren't totally manufactured in your favour then to me you've got your p4p king.

Case in point, I believe Floyd to be a far superior boxer to Manny but right now if I look over the last 5 years of each guys careers (lets count the years as ' active' years not the years Floyd was sat on the sidelines) then Manny has taken the consistently tougher fights and won most of 'em.

That's why I have him #1 and Floyd #2.

I understand why you might rank a guy above another guy based on skill, ring smarts etc but to me at the end of the day it's all about the fights. Quality of opposition trumps all.

ROLL DEEP
To me it's based upon their BOXING SKILL and SAVVY and their OPPOSITION (all obviously relating to current form).


People could get into the top 10 with their supposed 'skill', but if they've not fought anyone of note, what skill have they shown?


I don't care about a loss on their record. I think RA the Rugged Man said it best when he said he could fight 40 odd girls and be undefeated, lol.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (ROLL DEEP @ Dec 10 2009, 03:46 PM) *
To me it's based upon their BOXING SKILL and SAVVY and their OPPOSITION (all obviously relating to current form).


People could get into the top 10 with their supposed 'skill', but if they've not fought anyone of note, what skill have they shown?


I don't care about a loss on their record. I think RA the Rugged Man said it best when he said he could fight 40 odd girls and be undefeated, lol.

Domination of one or more weight classes over a considerable period of time is a major criteria.
Keith
I'l go with level of opposition as the clear #1. Who the fuck have you beat to get bragadocious? To be the best you have to beat the best. Case closed.

"Skills" would go #2 imo, and that depends on what you classify as skills. If the dude is a caveman but just beats people up cause he's a beast.... How can you deny him p4p status? Take PWill for example, he doesnt have the total package skill wise but the cat is just a physical beast so he gets pfp status from me.
ROLL DEEP
QUOTE (SmartyBeardo @ Dec 10 2009, 04:36 PM) *
Domination of one or more weight classes over a considerable period of time is a major criteria.



Yeah, that would surely come under opposition though.


If they dominate a weight division, they would have, or SHOULD HAVE beaten the tops dogs. If they haven't beaten the top guys then they haven't dominated the division, so it comes under opposition.
ROLL DEEP
QUOTE (Keith @ Dec 10 2009, 04:39 PM) *
"Skills" would go #2 imo, and that depends on what you classify as skills. If the dude is a caveman but just beats people up cause he's a beast.... How can you deny him p4p status?



Agreed. Thats what I meant by Savvy. How well a boxer uses his attributes and skill.....whether it's caveman strength and throwing a million punches per round, or completely out-boxing your opponent. Depending on how well they can best use their skills, coupled with their opposition makes p4p.
D-MARV
QUOTE (Fitz @ Dec 10 2009, 04:56 PM) *
Skills and resume. You need a combination of the both. You can't have a guy with great skills and nobody worth a shit on there resume high on your p4p list and you can't have a guy with shitty skills and a good name on your resume. You need a mixture of the both.

What he said.
KENSOFINE
I think I am gonna read back over some of these posts. A lot of decent point of views expressed.
mrwigi
basically a combo of skill, power, and speed. and the resume as fitz said.
RollsRoyce
I think it goes a lil deeper than Resume. If u look thru some current fighters, u'll find some pretty impressive resumes of guys not in the top 10 P4P on anyone's lists. Lemme give u some examples:

Roy Jones Jr. has wins over Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Griffin, Virgil Hill, Ruiz, and Tarver.

Evander Holyfield has wins over Qawi x2, Dokes, Douglas, Foreman, Cooper, Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, Mercer, Tyson x2, and Rahman.

So it's not Resume as much as it is recent resume. That would be my main criteria. Skills are hard to judge. Roy Jones was throwing 6 left hooks in a row against Lacy! pretty amazing really even against lower level/shot comp. But I wouldn't even have him in my top 30 p4p list. Skillwise, Floyd Mayweather is superior to Pacquiao. Recent achievementwise, Pacquiao murders Floyd. So I'll give the knod to Pacquiao as being my P4P #1.
STEVENSKI
Key criteria

Shaved chest & ball sack.
Barbed wire armband tattoo.
Short military style hair.
Drinks a litre of pineapple juice daily.

Everything else is just icing on the cake really.
AussieLad
As far as i am concerned, accomplishments ranks far above skill. When people talk of skill, they essentially are making an educated guess. The only way to accurately rate skill is to use a yard stick, who they have faced, the quality of the opposition... in a sense the only true way you can rate skill is to measure it against accomplishment.

Many fighters are praised based on their skills, and then along comes a dark horse or another great fighter to upset them. And then they lose the aura, and they slip in peoples eyes and down the p4p ladder. Sometimes they come back stronger. But they took the chance in search of greatness so they can be accurately measured and ranked. At the end of the day, they may not be as great as people once thought, but they have faced the best available opposition. This is your mosely type fighter, or your manny pac. Battle tested

Some fighters carefully manage their careers. They too have the appearance of invincibility, and they too get praised on their skills. But the carefull management of their career means they have not taken risk. And by not taking a risk, it robs your accomplishment of value. They may appear to have all time great skills, they may have belts, but unless you can measure it against accomplishment your assessment will always be conjecture and flawed. Its like looking at the specifications of a car, and saying based purely on the blueprints that it would beat every other car on the road. But the only way to accurately test its superiority is if you take it on the road against another super car. This is your mayweather type of fighter. Maybe those specifications are right, and it is the fastest... but if you keep it locked and polished in the garage and never take it out for a spin... then you will never truly know.

So accomplishment ranks well over skill in my opinion

ROLL DEEP
Are we talking about making CURRENT p4p rankings or all-time?
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Dec 11 2009, 04:09 AM) *
Key criteria

Shaved chest & ball sack.
Barbed wire armband tattoo.
Short military style hair.
Drinks a litre of pineapple juice daily.

Everything else is just icing on the cake really.


lol...
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Dec 11 2009, 05:09 AM) *
Key criteria

Shaved chest & ball sack.
Barbed wire armband tattoo.
Short military style hair.
Drinks a litre of pineapple juice daily.

Everything else is just icing on the cake really.

You forgot a couple of things:

Rock hard abs.
Bloody knuckles.
A macho name like KENSOFUNNY.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (SmartyBeardo @ Dec 11 2009, 09:56 AM) *
You forgot a couple of things:

Rock hard abs.
Bloody knuckles.
A macho name like KENSOFUNNY.


Your comment reminds me of something William Shakespeare said...(about your mom).
Spyder
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Dec 11 2009, 05:09 AM) *
Key criteria

Shaved chest & ball sack.
Barbed wire armband tattoo.
Short military style hair.
Drinks a litre of pineapple juice daily.

Everything else is just icing on the cake really.

That sounds a lot like Mikkel Kessler.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Dec 11 2009, 10:36 AM) *
Your comment reminds me of something William Shakespeare said...(about your mom).

Don't be talkin' chit about Bill and Juliet.

But seriously, rock hard abs and bloody knuckles? Are you a cartoonist?

Don't get me wrong, BETACAROTENE, nice threads.

By the way, power without timing is George Foreman versus Frazier. Power with timing is Ali versus Foreman. Tsyu had power with timing.

And finally, I'd still knock your ass cold, son.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.