I want an insite into the mind of those rating Bernard Hopkins amongst the top 5 P4P

[China_hand_Joe]

Insight even.

Now we know old Bernardo has some interesting names on his resume.

We also know at 42 years of age, having seen Tarvers last fight, knowing Winky is an old LMW and knowing Bernardo lost to Taylor twice. We know someone outside the top 10 could have potentially done these things.

There are people though giving Bernardo every benifit of the doubt however, and they place him in the top 5 P4P based on his past achievements.






Now what I want to know is, if both of Bernard Hopkins' arms fell off his body and couldn't be reattached, would you still consider him a top 5 P4P fighter, until his next fight where he would be exposed as being armless - based on his past resume?

[MagnificentMatt]

Insight even.

Now we know old Bernardo has some interesting names on his resume.

We also know at 42 years of age, having seen Tarvers last fight, knowing Winky is an old LMW and knowing Bernardo lost to Taylor twice. We know someone outside the top 10 could have potentially done these things.

There are people though giving Bernardo every benifit of the doubt however, and they place him in the top 5 P4P based on his past achievements.







Now what I want to know is, if both of Bernard Hopkins' arms fell off his body and couldn't be reattached, would you still consider him a top 5 P4P fighter, until his next fight where he would be exposed as being armless - based on his past resume?
Seeing as how you're a prophet and what not, whenever i see your name i have to read what you said and pick up on your wisdom..:rofl:rofl:rofl

[Amsterdam]

The bad part is that any young, fit and hungry LHW would have smoked Tarver and the 170 version of Wright in probably more impressive fashion and by that I mean by devastating stoppages. I'm thinking of the Dawson-Diaconu type of younger and hungrier larger men.

Then don't even get me started on the SMW's like Kessler, who'd not only have brutally destroyed Jermain Taylor, but would have massacred Wright moving up in weight and the same to Tarver.

The credit for those wins however over the very same names would have been much less, even though credit in high amount would be deserved.

I really hate this type of garbage mentality when it comes to boxing.

[China_hand_Joe]

Can one of these Americans who do list him that high answer please.

[thesandman]

The bad part is that any young, fit and hungry LHW would have smoked Tarver and the 170 version of Wright in probably more impressive fashion and by that I mean by devastating stoppages. I'm thinking of the Dawson-Diaconu type of younger and hungrier larger men.

Then don't even get me started on the SMW's like Kessler, who'd not only have brutally destroyed Jermain Taylor, but would have massacred Wright moving up in weight and the same to Tarver.

The credit for those wins however over the very same names would have been much less, even though credit in high amount would be deserved.

I really hate this type of garbage mentality when it comes to boxing.

I agree 100%.

Just around the time of the Winky fight, I stated there were about a dozen SMW's or LHW's that could have done what Hopkins did - and was blasted for it.

I cannot believe people that say, and mean, that Hopkins is the best LHW in the world.

[Napoleon]

An old Bernard Hopkins beats any version of Calzaghe.

[Mind Reader]

I agree 100%.

Just around the time of the Winky fight, I stated there were about a dozen SMW's or LHW's that could have done what Hopkins did - and was blasted for it.

I cannot believe people that say, and mean, that Hopkins is the best LHW in the world.

Well he did smoke Tarver......

[China_hand_Joe]

Does anyone rate Bernard Hopkins amongst the top P4P fighters if his arms fall off or not -questionmark-

[Amsterdam]

I agree 100%.

Just around the time of the Winky fight, I stated there were about a dozen SMW's or LHW's that could have done what Hopkins did - and was blasted for it.

I cannot believe people that say, and mean, that Hopkins is the best LHW in the world.

Winky and Hopkins(past prime) both struggled with Jermain Taylor for christ's sakes, a guy who could not even compete among the best of the SMW-LHW crop, who scrapes by LMW competition and falls apart to pressure.

The funny thing is that Wright's going to accomplish nothing at this point, I couldn't realistically pick him over even an Arthur Abraham level large MW hitter and then people will realise what the win meant in hindsight. Then when Pavlik starches Jermain Taylor with relative ease, the entire triad of Winky-Taylor-Hopkins comes to perfect conclusion, but everyone will act like they were of this line of thought all along.:yep

And look, I LOVE Hopkins, he's been a pleasure to watch through his career, I have nothing against the man himself.

I do get heavily annoyed when P4P recognition is kept within a 'set group' of fighters and therefore blocks out many great talents that could even destroy that 'set group' with relative ease.

Hopkins and Wright are still top 10, tied with Jermain Taylor for recent resume at that and Mikkel Kessler is not top 10, or even small guy Ivan Calderon, who highly deserves a top 10 ranking.

The ironic thing is that Kessler has beaten several large SMW's that would have smoked Jermain Taylor, ending that ridiculous fraud, but fighters of Taylor's western earning potential only go after the set of names, they don't theoretically go for avoided challenges.

[Mind Reader]

Although beating Tarver hardly proves he is the best LHW.

[thesandman]

Well he did smoke Tarver......

That's my point. Tarver is nothing special - lots of SMW's and LHW's would have beat Tarver fighting the way he fought Hopkins.

[Amsterdam]

An old Bernard Hopkins beats any version of Calzaghe.

How? His faded timing(his biggest weapon against JC). His necessary conservative pace? His record against larger men with great foot and handspeed?:yep

Give me a break.

[Mind Reader]

That's my point. Tarver is nothing special - lots of SMW's and LHW's would have beat Tarver fighting the way he fought Hopkins.

Gotta agree with you there, Tarver fought like shit... Clinton Woods would have destroyed him that night, along with Kessler, Calzaghe, Dawson just to name a few.

[China_hand_Joe]

None of those lunatics that love old Hopkins so much have answered the question yet.

They have probably all suffered strokes due to the thinking involved in deciding whether an armless Bernard Hopkins is indeed a top 5 P4P fighter.

[Marnoff]

The thing with Wright is that people had him highly regarded before the Hopkins fight. Before that, most would have him even money at least with people around his weight. Or only slight underdog at most. Now he is being talked about like his defense is weak, whereas before it was being touted as the best of his generation.

[Mind Reader]

None of those lunatics that love old Hopkins so much have answered the question yet.

They have probably all suffered strokes due to the thinking involved in deciding whether an armless Bernard Hopkins is indeed a top 5 P4P fighter.

I love Hopkins, but don't guess he deserves to be top 5.

[dave82]

None of those lunatics that love old Hopkins so much have answered the question yet.

They have probably all suffered strokes due to the thinking involved in deciding whether an armless Bernard Hopkins is indeed a top 5 P4P fighter.

Ever thought that people don't have to justify themselves to you?

[China_hand_Joe]

The thing with Wright is that people had him highly regarded before the Hopkins fight. Before that, most would have him even money at least with people around his weight. Or only slight underdog at most. Now he is being talked about like his defense is weak, whereas before it was being touted as the best of his generation.

Lets just ignore hindsight altogether and maintain the validity of clueless American pundits from months ago.

Based on that kind of logic Joe Calzaghe is undisputedly the best fighter in the history of the sport, because people thought Lacy was something very special before that fight. Actually you might be onto something there.

[Amsterdam]

I love Hopkins, but don't guess he deserves to be top 5.

He deserves lower top 10, nothing higher. Even then, a measure of generousity comes into play.

[Mind Reader]

He deserves lower top 10, nothing higher. Even then, a measure of generousity comes into play.

Who is your top 5?

[thesandman]

He deserves lower top 10, nothing higher. Even then, a measure of generousity comes into play.

If he fights and beats a GENUINE SMW or LHW at that weight, I'll withdraw any complaints.

Currently, he appears to be on a seniors tour, that's what frustrates me.

Wouldn't surprise me if he fought the winner of Jones Jr/Trinidad next, in what some people *cough*Americans*cough* will be billing as the fight for #1 P4P spot......

[Amsterdam]

Who is your top 5?

1. Manny Pacquaio
2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
3. Cristian Mijarez
4. Joe Calzaghe
5. Juan Manuel Marquez

It varies though, this is for the next two months.

[Mind Reader]

If he fights and beats a GENUINE SMW or LHW at that weight, I'll withdraw any complaints.

Currently, he appears to be on a seniors tour, that's what frustrates me.

Wouldn't surprise me if he fought the winner of Jones Jr/Trinidad next, in what some people *cough*Americans*cough* will be billing as the fight for #1 P4P spot......

Thats a little too far, Tarver was a genuine LHW... I don't care how he fought. Winky Wright was a great win also. It's impressive for a MW to beat Tarver, even if the worst Tarver in years showed up, its still impressive.

[Mind Reader]

1. Manny Pacquaio
2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
3. Cristian Mijarez
4. Joe Calzaghe
5. Juan Manuel Marquez

It varies though, this is for the next two months.

Why Pac over PBF?

[Amsterdam]

Why Pac over PBF?

Aside from an old, inactive DLH. Name me Pbf's last 5 fights in terms of competition and then compare it to Pac's last 5.

I find Pac's slightly superior, as with the way he dealt with them(PBF struggling early with Judah for example).

[Marc]

well, my p4p criteria is split on career accomplishments (taking heavier basis on recent ones) and skill.

one can make the case that bernard is probably the most accomplished fighter of this generation. he may not be the youngest nor most athletic but his ring wizardry is what makes him one of the best today.

so based on my p4p criteria, bernard is a top 5 lock.

[Amsterdam]

well, my p4p criteria is split on career accomplishments (taking heavier basis on recent ones) and skill.

one can make the case that bernard is probably the most accomplished fighter of this generation. he may not be the youngest nor most athletic but his ring wizardry is what makes him one of the best today.

so based on my p4p criteria, bernard is a top 5 lock.

If you seriously take 'skill' into the equation. Then guys like Kessler and Mijarez are in there also, because both are extremely finely skilled at their craft.

How about Calderon? Good accomplishments at his weight level and one of the most skilled boxers around.

[DanePugilist]

Great thread, CHJ.

Its great what Hopkins can do at 42, but being top p4p'er is ridiculous, while beating an absentminded Tarver, but hardly had been in training. Beating past prime smaller guys. Well the list goes on...

I have said it before - the circle jerking matchups with the great reward vs risk fights are sickening.

[China_hand_Joe]

There is only one grey area for me with P4P listings.

135 lb Floyd is P4P superior to 150-154 lb Floyd.

Floyd hasn't fought at 135 in...a while.
Strictly speaking whilst weighing 154 lbs Floyd Mayweather is nowhere near P4P number one (only a split decison over Oscar who).

Should we still rate him at #1/#2/#3 at the present time, based on what he used to do at 135?

[China_hand_Joe]

well, my p4p criteria is split on career accomplishments (taking heavier basis on recent ones) and skill.

one can make the case that bernard is probably the most accomplished fighter of this generation. he may not be the youngest nor most athletic but his ring wizardry is what makes him one of the best today.

so based on my p4p criteria, bernard is a top 5 lock.

If his arms fell off would you still rate him top 5?

[DanePugilist]

You have to take Hop seriously cuz he beat Winky. I thought he lost but it was very close....very close.

But at some point Hop needs to fight a young top guy because that is what really counts.

And that means:

Dawson, Dicanau, etc.Wright looked like shit vs Sam Soliman. A guy that Mundine thrashed and KO'd. Wright is overrated at this point. Not only that, he was pulled way above his natural weight to fight Hopkins.

Dont get me wrong, they are class fighters, but its getting ridiculous, and as you say, they need to fight prime fighters soon.

[Carlos Primera]

1. Manny Pacquaio
2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
3. Cristian Mijarez
4. Joe Calzaghe
5. Juan Manuel Marquez

It varies though, this is for the next two months.
out of topic, but i noticed you have mijares among your top 5. who do you think wins in a potential christian mijares - martin castillo fight?? imo the no.s 1 & 2 at super fly. castillo is among my favorite fighters right now, and this is among my potential great match ups at super fly (one of the best deep divisions today imo).

[Marc]

There is only one grey area for me with P4P listings.

135 lb Floyd is P4P superior to 150-154 lb Floyd.

Floyd hasn't fought at 135 in...a while.
Strictly speaking whilst weighing 154 lbs Floyd Mayweather is nowhere near P4P number one (only a split decison over Oscar who).

Should we still rate him at #1/#2/#3 at the present time, based on what he used to do at 135?

grabbing a title in a 5th weightclass whilst remaining undefeated should mean something. skillswise nobody touches floyd (uh.... ok. maybe except calzaghe:D ). so with those factors he is p4p number 1 in my eyes.

pacman did look bad against marquez, larios and solis. plus he lost to morales in their first encounter. sure he knocked out morales in the succeeding fights but there is a strong indication that pac fought a shot morales.

[Mind Reader]

Aside from an old, inactive DLH. Name me Pbf's last 5 fights in terms of competition and then compare it to Pac's last 5.

I find Pac's slightly superior, as with the way he dealt with them(PBF struggling early with Judah for example).

I still give PBF great credit for beating Oscar even out of his prime. They are both 5-0 in their last 5 fights, even though he struggled early with Zab I like that because it shows you how he can adjust to something. Pac had impressive victories against Morales, but I don't think it was the best Morales, taking nothing away from Pac I still give PBF the edge as pfp king.

[Marc]

If his arms fell off would you still rate him top 5?

if bernard manages to dominate an opponent even without his arms then he should definately be top 1.:good

[China_hand_Joe]

if bernard manages to dominate an opponent even without his arms then he should definately be top 1.:goodNot if that opponent is Tarver.

But seriously though, would you rate Hopkins top 5 if his arms fell off today? Or would you need to wait to see him lose his next fight via 1st round TKO? He'd be stopped as he'd be unable to defend himself and would have stopped throwing punches back at his opponent.

[Marc]

amsterdam i think mijares is way too high at #3. hes done absolutely nothing if you take away that arce fight.

[Amsterdam]

out of topic, but i noticed you have mijares among your top 5. who do you think wins in a potential christian mijares - martin castillo fight?? imo the no.s 1 & 2 at super fly. castillo is among my favorite fighters right now, and this is among my potential great match ups at super fly (one of the best deep divisions today imo).

Don't know if Castillo will fight him to be honest. Mijarez is scary.

But I'd go Mijarez stoppage on cuts(Castillo gets opened up easy).

[Mind Reader]

bernard aint gonna fight no young buck. he aint stoooopid! he is gonna fight all the older dudes who are faded like him. the tarver win was good, and at 42 he is still dam good, and i love how hw still has the fire to stay in the game. but to put him in the top 10 p4p is wee-todd-did, and i am unbiased, not a hater, like the dude alot, yet i refuse to wear blinders like many. gotta keep it real.


He is in the top 10 easy, some have him in the top 5, I would probably put him right outside of the top five... But top 10 for sure.

[China_hand_Joe]

He is in the top 10 easy, some have him in the top 5, I would probably put him right outside of the top five... But top 10 for sure.

Imagine resumes don't exist for a moment.

Do you consider Hopkins one of the 10 best boxers in the world today. In terms of his overall combination of fitness, skill, talent, physical gifts (less than they used to be).

[Mind Reader]

i may give him the 10 spot but thats it. way to many great fighters for him to go any higher.

Still, how many of those great fighters have accomplished what he has?? As long as he is still pulling off wins against elite fighters, I don't see why not.:yep

[Carlos Primera]

Don't know if Castillo will fight him to be honest. Mijarez is scary.

But I'd go Mijarez stoppage on cuts(Castillo gets opened up easy).
i like castillo, but i figured as much. close fight, but 6-4 on the cards. mijares is too long for castillo to outbox, even with his good boxing techniqe. still a fight i'd like to see

[Napoleon]

Just by looking at resumes you could see Calzaghe can't hold Hopkins' jockstrap.

[Mind Reader]

Imagine resumes don't exist for a moment.

Do you consider Hopkins one of the 10 best boxers in the world today. In terms of his overall combination of fitness, skill, talent, physical gifts (less than they used to be).

Well thats why P4P and H2H are different.... He has still got one of the best resumes, and pulling off wins against great fighters. That is above the people who havn't fully proven themselves.

[Marc]

Imagine resumes don't exist for a moment.

Do you consider Hopkins one of the 10 best boxers in the world today. In terms of his overall combination of fitness, skill, talent, physical gifts (less than they used to be).

take resume away and i do admit bernard hopkins wont make top 10. but thats not the way p4p works. because if thats the case floyd and joe calzaghe (:D ) are top 1 and 2 unanimously.

[Mind Reader]

Roy Jones isn't inside the top 20 p4p greatest of all time, but H2H he is easily a top 10.

[DanePugilist]

Just by looking at resumes you could see Calzaghe can't hold Hopkins' jockstrap.Resumes are names. Well known names doesn't necessarily equal the same amount of quality.

Just the fact that Tarver is glorified as a big win tells this story.

[Amsterdam]

Roy Jones isn't inside the top 20 p4p greatest of all time, but H2H he is easily a top 10.

He's #1 H2H for 160-175, no doubt. But you'll get in guys who argue that Harry Greb would beat him, so why bother?:lol:

[Marc]

He's #1 H2H for 160-175, no doubt. But you'll get in guys who argue that Harry Greb would beat him, so why bother?:lol:

roy jones wouldnt catch willie pep with a punch either. remember he did win a round without throwing a punch. he was a featherweight? who cares. old school fighters are superhuman and are the shiat.

[China_hand_Joe]

Ok. I disagree, on the definition of P4P here. I consider P4P and H2H pretty interchangable. I consider that both purely based on the reality of good boxers actually are.

A list of the 10 greatest fighters around today would be highly dependant on resume, so Hopkins would fair well.



Now imagine Hopkins' arms have fallen off. We cannot legitimately claim he is still a top 10 P4P fighter in this situation. No resume will change that, he simply isn't an elite fighter anymore. Getting old should be considered the same as your arms falling off where P4P is concerned.

Now again imagine Hopkins' arms have fallen off and he (somehow) continues fighting, what we can still do is list him as is one of the 5 greatest active fighters around. He resume places him that high in a list of the 10 greatest active fighters.

The dimensions of the term P4P do not include resume, only weight and how good a boxer someone is, it is purely about how good a boxer is at their respective weight. Resume can sometimes indicate quality, but it is not the deciding factor, the quality of the fighter is, regardless of their resume.




P4P and P4P greatest are very different things. The P4P lists in RING are supposedly attempt at the P4P best - which is why the high placement of Hopkins is incredibly dubious indeed.

[The Whaler]

Hopkins would be the greatest armless fighter in history amongst all armless fighters.

[KO Boxing]

Just by looking at resumes you could see Calzaghe can't hold Hopkins' jockstrap.
Well Kessler is the first top TWENTY p4per Calzaghe is facing... Lacy woulda been, what? Top 20/30 in the world at the time? So how is a fighter in the top ten without actually beating anyone good, i.e. top ten p4p? Let alone being subtely argued as no. 1 (all time by some, now for others).

Cause guys like Reid, Mitchell, Brewer, and Lacy were no where near top ten p4p in the world.

But anyway, Hopkins is rated highly because he beat other top p4pers (both Wright [top 5, whose only blemish in recent times was a controversial draw to Taylor] and Tarver [top 10], following two controversial losses to Taylor [who's now universally ranked in the top 10]. Top 5 may be stretching it a bit, but a p4p list is purely subjective and having him ANYWHERE in the top 10 is arguable...

One thing that's NOT arguable is Calzaghe being p4p no. 1... :D :bbb Bring it!

[China_hand_Joe]

Hopkins has never beaten a top 10 P4P fighter.

Whilst weighing 160 lbs Oscar was not a top 10 P4P fighter, he isn't good at that weight.

Whilst weighing 160, Trinidad was not a top 10 P4P fighter, he was far from his best at that weight.

Whilst weighing 170, Wright was not a top 10 P4P fighter. Wright at LMW would be a top 10 P4P fighter a few years ago, so beating him at that weight would prove you P4P credentials.


They were all names with greatness associated with them, so by beating them Hopkins gained greatness, he did not prove himself to be rated right at the top of the P4P rankings.

[MSTR]

Does anyone rate Bernard Hopkins amongst the top P4P fighters if his arms fall off or not -questionmark-
No because then he would be retired. I believe he deserves his spot. I know the point you are trying to make, but unfortunatley to judge p4p lists on ability alone would leave it far to open to bias and interpretation. The only "fair" way to really go about it is to judge performaces against top opponents. The only major thing I disagree with in regards to how the ring chooses its rankings, is that I think more credit should be given for defeating good fighters in impressive fashion e.g. Totally dominating a number 1 contender, instead of focusing too much on victories over boxings elite.

[Mind Reader]

roy jones wouldnt catch willie pep with a punch either. remember he did win a round without throwing a punch. he was a featherweight? who cares. old school fighters are superhuman and are the shiat.

:lol:

[Mind Reader]

No because then he would be retired. I believe he deserves his spot. I know the point you are trying to make, but unfortunatley to judge p4p lists on ability alone would leave it far to open to bias and interpretation. The only "fair" way to really go about it is to judge performaces against top opponents. The only major thing I disagree with in regards to how the ring chooses its rankings, is that I think more credit should be given for defeating good fighters in impressive fashion e.g. Totally dominating a number 1 contender, instead of focusing too much on victories over boxings elite.


I can see your point.

[Amsterdam]

No because then he would be retired. I believe he deserves his spot. I know the point you are trying to make, but unfortunatley to judge p4p lists on ability alone would leave it far to open to bias and interpretation. The only "fair" way to really go about it is to judge performaces against top opponents. The only major thing I disagree with in regards to how the ring chooses its rankings, is that I think more credit should be given for defeating good fighters in impressive fashion e.g. Totally dominating a number 1 contender, instead of focusing too much on victories over boxings elite.

Yes, it would be a biased hell land, but in the end, a lot of guys would get ranked and more fights made to truly see who is the best.:yep

Couldn't happen of course, but CHJ's line of thinking in this area goes along with the match making that we all want.

[China_hand_Joe]

I know the point you are trying to make, but unfortunatley to judge p4p lists on ability alone would leave it far to open to bias and interpretation.


That could only be a good thing.

The current format is open to incredible bias, that is quite apparent, with Tarver being top 10 last year! With resumes ignored, people would be more free from the American Boxing medias opinion to pick more genuine lists, not pressured to pick fighters like Tarver for fighting past prime names like Jones.

[MSTR]

Hopkins has never beaten a top 10 P4P fighter.

Whilst weighing 160 lbs Oscar was not a top 10 P4P fighter, he isn't good at that weight.

Whilst weighing 160, Trinidad was not a top 10 P4P fighter, he was far from his best at that weight.

Whilst weighing 170, Wright was not a top 10 P4P fighter. Wright at LMW would be a top 10 P4P fighter a few years ago, so beating him at that weight would prove you P4P credentials.


They were all names with greatness associated with them, so by beating them Hopkins gained greatness, he did not prove himself to be rated right at the top of the P4P rankings.
An undefeated Trinidad who had just KO'd William Joppy in brutal fashion at 160 would most definitely have been p4p material.

[MagnificentMatt]

None of those lunatics that love old Hopkins so much have answered the question yet.

They have probably all suffered strokes due to the thinking involved in deciding whether an armless Bernard Hopkins is indeed a top 5 P4P fighter.

Either that or you went into their heads with your powers and made them believe otherwise. :thumbsup

[China_hand_Joe]

An undefeated Trinidad who had just KO'd William Joppy in brutal fashion at 160 would most definitely have been p4p material. I don't usually like to use crude curse words but, William darn Joppy?


At that point in time Joe Calzaghe at 168 was superior to the Welterweight Trinidad when he was fighting at 160 right?

[MSTR]

That could only be a good thing.

The current format is open to incredible bias, that is quite apparent, with Tarver being top 10 last year! With resumes ignored, people would be more free from the American Boxing medias opinion to pick more genuine lists, not pressured to pick fighters like Tarver for fighting past prime names like Jones.
I would love to see resume examined, but more emphasis placed on both the dominace of the victory and the ability of the opponent as well. For instance, the way Calzaghe demolished Manfredo cemented the fact that JC is a top level fighter, and a level above most guys at SMW. Manfredo being in the Ring top 10 for that division at the time. Now i don't think Manfredo is a great fighter by any stretch, but the way he was beaten was still impressive. This is purely an example. The same could be said for how Cotto beat fighter like Quintana or Judah. Neither are top p4p fighters, whoever emphasis should be placed on the way the victory occured, especially in the case of Quintana.

[KO Boxing]

I don't usually like to use crude curse words but, William darn Joppy?


At that point in time Joe Calzaghe at 168 was superior to the Welterweight Trinidad when he was fighting at 160 right?
Why? Cause of Charles darn Brewer? Or Richie bloody Woodhall? Or Omar fuckin' Sheika?

Only reason Calzaghe was superior to Trinidad at THAT time, was because of size... But we're talking about POUND FOR POUND lists, aren't we?

Pound for Pound, at the time Trinidad fought Hopkins, he was FAR suprior to Calzaghe.

And for a WHAT IF:

Calzaghe beats Kessler Nov 3rd, then loses to Hopkins March 08'? What then?

[DanePugilist]

Ok. I disagree, on the definition of P4P here. I consider P4P and H2H pretty interchangable. I consider that both purely based on the reality of good boxers actually are.

A list of the 10 greatest fighters around today would be highly dependant on resume, so Hopkins would fair well.



Now imagine Hopkins' arms have fallen off. We cannot legitimately claim he is still a top 10 P4P fighter in this situation. No resume will change that, he simply isn't an elite fighter anymore. Getting old should be considered the same as your arms falling off where P4P is concerned.

Now again imagine Hopkins' arms have fallen off and he (somehow) continues fighting, what we can still do is list him as is one of the 5 greatest active fighters around. He resume places him that high in a list of the 10 greatest active fighters.

The dimensions of the term P4P do not include resume, only weight and how good a boxer someone is, it is purely about how good a boxer is at their respective weight. Resume can sometimes indicate quality, but it is not the deciding factor, the quality of the fighter is, regardless of their resume.




P4P and P4P greatest are very different things. The P4P lists in RING are supposedly attempt at the P4P best - which is why the high placement of Hopkins is incredibly dubious indeed.I agree, but the problem can be that anybody can look better than they are vs lesser fighters, and thats where resume comes in. But basing it all on resume is ridiculous also. Furthermore and more importantly - for some reason people continue to rate elites as elites no matter what happens and how old they are, or whom they meet(guess thats where your no arms comes in). Peoples' views should be more dynamic, instead of static.

[Rock0052]

1. Manny Pacquaio
2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
3. Cristian Mijarez
4. Joe Calzaghe
5. Juan Manuel Marquez

It varies though, this is for the next two months.
Solid list. I agree with yours, DanePugilist's, MSTR's, and China's overall take on this.

[Amsterdam]

I would love to see resume examined, but more emphasis placed on both the dominace of the victory and the ability of the opponent as well. For instance, the way Calzaghe demolished Manfredo cemented the fact that JC is a top level fighter, and a level above most guys at SMW. Manfredo being in the Ring top 10 for that division at the time. Now i don't think Manfredo is a great fighter by any stretch, but the way he was beaten was still impressive. This is purely an example. The same could be said for how Cotto beat fighter like Quintana or Judah. Neither are top p4p fighters, whoever emphasis should be placed on the way the victory occured, especially in the case of Quintana.

You're on the right track here, I agree. The way the fight was won needs to become a large part of rankings, not just a win itself.

This would reduce legacy points off of gift wins.

[MSTR]

I don't usually like to use crude curse words but, William darn Joppy?


At that point in time Joe Calzaghe at 168 was superior to the Welterweight Trinidad when he was fighting at 160 right?
Head 2 head or pound 4 pound? With recent wins over Vargas and Oscar, and dominating victories over contenders like Thiam and Joppy then IMO Trinidad was AT THE TIME, the better fighter p4p before the Hop fight. Head 2 Head is a different story. I think Joe should get more credit then he does though for the WAY he beats the guys put in front of him though. Looking at it this way, p4p it was actually much closer between the two then boxing "experts" would have liked to admit at the time.

[China_hand_Joe]

Why? Cause of Charles darn Brewer? Or Richie bloody Woodhall? Or Omar fuckin' Sheika?

Only reason Calzaghe was superior to Trinidad at THAT time, was because of size... But we're talking about POUND FOR POUND lists, aren't we?

Pound for Pound, at the time Trinidad fought Hopkins, he was FAR suprior to Calzaghe.

And for a WHAT IF:

Calzaghe beats Kessler Nov 3rd, then loses to Hopkins March 08'? What then?

No, we are talking about literal P4P here. Which is why we would give Wlad no credit for beating P4P #1,2,or 3 Floyd Mayweather at HW.

Trinidad the 147/154 was easily P4P top 10, the 160 version only 10-25 ish. Which is why Bernard absolutely smashed him to pieces at that weight.

Of course that performance was so impressive by Hopkins, that you ccould place him top 10 back then, despite Trinidad not beinga top 10 literal P4P opponent.

[Napoleon]

Resumes are names. Well known names doesn't necessarily equal the same amount of quality.

Just the fact that Tarver is glorified as a big win tells this story.

Wright was top 10 P4P when Hopkins beat and also hasn't been beaten in like 8 years.

What exactly did Calzaghe do except beat Lacy, who was nowhere near top 30 P4P.

I can't believe people actually compare them.
Hopkins>Wright>Taylor>Calzaghe

[KO Boxing]

No, we are talking about literal P4P here. Which is why we would give Wlad no credit for beating P4P #1,2,or 3 Floyd Mayweather at HW.

Trinidad the 147/154 was easily P4P top 10, the 160 version only 10-25 ish. Which is why Bernard absolutely smashed him to pieces at that weight.

Of course that performance was so impressive by Hopkins, that you ccould place him top 10 back then, despite Trinidad not beinga top 10 literal P4P opponent.
:good

Okay, I see...

And for my what if?

[Lance_Uppercut]

I don't usually like to use crude curse words but, William darn Joppy?
Tito was NOT ranked P$P simply BECAUSE of William Joppy. His prior fights were taken into consideration. Did you not realize that? And the Joppy Tito beat was much more accomplished, and a better skillwise then Jeff Lacy, who happens to be one of Joe's best opponents to date. Tito earned his spot atop the P4P ranking and stayed there till Hopkins TKO's him.


At that point in time Joe Calzaghe at 168 was superior to the Welterweight Trinidad when he was fighting at 160 right?
:patsch What the hell kind of question is this? Are you asking if a WW (or MW) Tito would beat a 168 Joe C? There are different divisions for a reason.

That said, that Tito was WAAAAAY superior to Joe C in terms of accomplishments AS WELL AS resume. You cannot dispute that no matter what bullshit criteria you make up or whatever hypotheticals you ask.

[MSTR]

Roy Jones isn't inside the top 20 p4p greatest of all time, but H2H he is easily a top 10.
Exactly. IMO head 2 head based on p4p match ups, Roy Jones JR is hands down the best of all time.

[China_hand_Joe]

Head 2 head or pound 4 pound? With recent wins over Vargas and Oscar, and dominating victories over contenders like Thiam and Joppy then IMO Trinidad was AT THE TIME, the better fighter p4p before the Hop fight. Head 2 Head is a different story. I think Joe should get more credit then he does though for the WAY he beats the guys put in front of him though. Looking at it this way, p4p it was actually much closer between the two then boxing "experts" would have liked to admit at the time. See below post about only an opponents literal pound for pound rating being relavant when they are above their best weight.

Smashing Joppy to pieces isn't enough in my opinion.

[MSTR]

See below post about only an opponents literal pound for pound rating being relavant when they are above their best weight.

Smashing Joppy to pieces isn't enough in my opinion.
I don't really understand the point you are making here. Can you elaborate further?

[China_hand_Joe]

Tito was NOT ranked P$P simply BECAUSE of William Joppy. His prior fights were taken into consideration. Did you not realize that? And the Joppy Tito beat was much more accomplished, and a better skillwise then Jeff Lacy, who happens to be one of Joe's best opponents to date. Tito earned his spot atop the P4P ranking and stayed there till Hopkins TKO's him.



:patsch What the hell kind of question is this? Are you asking if a WW (or MW) Tito would beat a 168 Joe C? There are different divisions for a reason.

That said, that Tito was WAAAAAY superior to Joe C in terms of accomplishments AS WELL AS resume. You cannot dispute that no matter what bullshit criteria you make up or whatever hypotheticals you ask.

You have missed the point completetly, wins at welterweigth don't count at 160 lbs.

For the exact same reason a heavyweight beating Floyd is not impressive.

[KO Boxing]

For the exact same reason a heavyweight beating Floyd is not impressive.
But if Dela Hoya beat Floyd at 154, it would have been DAMN impressive... And Floyd started at 130... So that's 24 pounds.

Trindad started at 147... Making it 13 pounds...

Trinidad at middleweight is nothing like Floyd at heavyweight. It's more like Floyd at 140 or 147, where if you win over him, you become p4p.

Straight up.

[China_hand_Joe]

I don't really understand the point you are making here. Can you elaborate further?

Imagine a list of the 10 best fighters in the world at their respective weights.

Calzaghe was better at 168 than Trinidad at 160.
Morales at his weight.
Barrera at his.
Jones at his.
Hopkins at his (despite the fight odds)
this list can go on listing many names

A 160 lb version of Trinidad wouldn't break the top 10. He may have been in RINGS list, but the 160 lb wasn't one of the literal P4P ten best fighters in the world.

[Lance_Uppercut]

You have missed the point completetly, wins at welterweigth don't count at 160 lbs.

For the exact same reason a heavyweight beating Floyd is not impressive.
No shit wins @ 147 don't count @ 160 in reality. But this is P4P we're talking. And it's the SAME FIGHTER none the less. So in a P4P sense, they do count. It's highly doubtful you were even watching boxing then, from the way you post.

And thankfully, NO ONE uses the ridiculous criteria you employ. Guys do NOT move off the P4P list because they move to another division. If they did that, there would be no P4P lists. It would be full of guys who sat in their weak divisions their whole career's living off one or two wins.

[China_hand_Joe]

But if Dela Hoya beat Floyd at 154, it would have been DAMN impressive... And Floyd started at 130... So that's 24 pounds.

Floyd (at 154) is a hell of a lot better than Trinidad (at 160), and Oscar was way past prime and had no chance anyway.

[KO Boxing]

By removing resumes and accomplishments from pound for pound talks, he is simply trying to use a criteria where Calzaghe's non-existent resume can be considered pound 4 pound. IMO.

[KhanB]

No, we are talking about literal P4P here. Which is why we would give Wlad no credit for beating P4P #1,2,or 3 Floyd Mayweather at HW.

Trinidad the 147/154 was easily P4P top 10, the 160 version only 10-25 ish. Which is why Bernard absolutely smashed him to pieces at that weight.

Of course that performance was so impressive by Hopkins, that you ccould place him top 10 back then, despite Trinidad not beinga top 10 literal P4P opponent.

Got to this debate late. Damn. How can Trinidad have it both ways? He was a starved, malnutritioned WW and then he was a blown up MW like it would have made any difference that night against Hopkins. What a blatant attempt to bash the old man. Actually, beating Johnson and Echols twice along with the other 20 fighters is what has him ranked so high.

[dave82]

By removing resumes and accomplishments from pound for pound talks, he is simply trying to use a criteria where Calzaghe's non-existent resume can be considered pound 4 pound. IMO.

:happy

[China_hand_Joe]

No shit wins @ 147 don't count @ 160 in reality.

But this is P4P we're talking. And it's the SAME FIGHTER none the less.

So in a P4P sense, they do count.

WHy on earth are you ignoring reality then?

Pacman would be the same fighter at at HW.

So is Wlad beat him it would be a victory over a P4P fighter, it is exactly the same (just more extreme) as Hopkins beating Trinidad at 160.

[China_hand_Joe]

Got to this debate late. Damn. How can Trinidad have it both ways? He was a starved, malnutritioned WW and then he was a blown up MW lik it would have made any difference than night against Hopkins. What a blatant attempt to bash the old man. Actually, beating Johnson and Echols twice along with the other 20 fighters is what has him ranked so high.

I ranked Hopkins top 10 easily back that. I was just pointing out Hopkins has never beaten a real top 10 literal P4P fighter.

Hopkins beat 10-25 P4Per 160 Trinidad in very impressive fashion so deserves a great deal of credit for it, even if Trindiad wasn't great at that weight.

[MSTR]

I don't really understand the point you are making here. Can you elaborate further?
Its okay i read back. I still disagree though. An undefeated multiple weight world champion who just just totally demolished a solid contender at his new weight class. Why would anyone have any reason to doubt his ability or punching power with the increased weight? Boxing experts were fairly unanimous in their picks that he would actually beat Hopkins, because he had really shown no signs of fading at this stage of his career.

[KO Boxing]

Floyd (at 154) is a hell of a lot better than Trinidad (at 160), and Oscar was way past prime and had no chance anyway.
I agree... but its still subjective. How do you HONESTLY know?

The only fight we have is William Joppy... Now you said that Hopkins was the best fighter at 160... Yet he couldn't do to William Joppy what Trinidad did YEARS after Trinindad finished him... So how can that one fight prove that Trinidad at 160 was not as good as the Trinidad at 154, who many AT THE TIME were somehow claiming was one of the best 154 pounders ever (which I do NOT agree with). 6 pounds ain't changing anything, especially when it seemingly didn't effect him in his one and only fight at the weight before Hopkins (Mayorga and Wright were after retirement, hence they don't count).

Beating Trinindad AT 160 pounds was better than anything Calzaghe did... including if he beats Kessler on Nov. 3rd...

Still waiting for your answer to my what if?

[Lance_Uppercut]

By removing resumes and accomplishments from pound for pound talks, he is simply trying to use a criteria where Calzaghe's non-existent resume can be considered pound 4 pound. IMO.

That's 100% right. CHJ and Amsterdam need to change their criteria to justify Joe's placement. They shit on Hopkins, Taylor, and Wright and call them old or overhyped so they can discredit each one.

Look at how CHJ states Hopkins wins of Winky or Tito are meaningless, but they talk about how badley Joe C would beat Winky or Tayor.:huh

Amsterdam is a fine poster when it comes to other fighters, when it's about Joe C, it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind. NO offense Amsterdam. Just lose sidekick. He's shit w/o you there to help him.:deal

Head to head have NEVER been used for determing P4P because ANYONE can justify their list by simply stating, "XXX beats YYY IF they ever fought and that's why XXX is places higher." It's WAY to open to personal bias or hatred.

[DanePugilist]

Wright was top 10 P4P when Hopkins beat and also hasn't been beaten in like 8 years.

What exactly did Calzaghe do except beat Lacy, who was nowhere near top 30 P4P.

I can't believe people actually compare them.
Hopkins>Wright>Taylor>CalzagheIts easier to remain unbeaten, when avoiding prime fighters, and its hard to become well respected when avoided.

I have alot of respect for Wright, because he has taken the long and hard road to success. But he has no longer prime, he is somewhat worn after so many fights throughout europe and top fights. I have alot of respect for Hopkins, but rating fights as if they both were in their primes is wrong; Hopkins vs Wright 8 years ago should hold more value than this year. Seemingly it doesn't in peoples minds.

Taylor... I have no respect for him at all. He has been lifting by media to this status on p4p, and what has he done? While in prime: fighting old Hopkins, featherfisted Wright, and small Cory Spinks, and has he sparkled? No, none of them have.

JC beat a prime fighter - Hopkins ditched a contract with him, Taylor dared not despite being offered 6 mil. JC is probably no longer prime either, but he is still more skilled than the other 3.

[dave82]

This is an arguement Ive seen many times China. I am just surprised that you haven't figured out that these arguements only end in stalemate. We don't understand your criteria for P4P, and you don't understand why we have Bhop in our P4P list. Are you that insecure about your opinions that you do your best to convince us otherwise?

[sues2nd]

Insight even.

Now we know old Bernardo has some interesting names on his resume.

We also know at 42 years of age, having seen Tarvers last fight, knowing Winky is an old LMW and knowing Bernardo lost to Taylor twice. We know someone outside the top 10 could have potentially done these things.

There are people though giving Bernardo every benifit of the doubt however, and they place him in the top 5 P4P based on his past achievements.






Now what I want to know is, if both of Bernard Hopkins' arms fell off his body and couldn't be reattached, would you still consider him a top 5 P4P fighter, until his next fight where he would be exposed as being armless - based on his past resume?

Its not going to matter what we say...you wont listen...but I will try.

Lets see.

He was very recently #1.

He lost a highly debatable decision in two straight fights (fights that the majority of press row...the guys that actually MAKE the p4p rankings...had him winning....).

He then jumps two weight classes and takes on the recognized champion of the division without even a tuneup at that weight...and shuts him out.

He then fights a top 5 p4p fighter in Winky and CLEARLY beats him (something noone had done in about 9 years...Vargas and the Taylor draw withstanding, were nothing if NOT CLEAR win/draw).

He hasnt, in most peoples eyes, lost a fight since the Jones one and continues to fight top competition.

If that dont get/keep you in the top 5...well then, I dont know what does.

Again tho, seeing as how his name is being linked to Calzaghe WHEN Joe beats Kessler...I dont expect much of a unbias outlook toward Bernard from you bro.

Maybe after Hop beats him......we shall see.

[China_hand_Joe]

By removing resumes and accomplishments from pound for pound talks, he is simply trying to use a criteria where Calzaghe's non-existent resume can be considered pound 4 pound. IMO.

After Joe Calzaghe beat Lacy where did people place him P4P?

Most people top 10.



The day before Calzaghe beat Lacy, where did people put Joe P4P? Outside the top 10.


Did Joe magically, over 24 hours suddenly become a better fighter than he had been previously, did he do this aged 34? No, of course not. Calzaghe had always been that good. I'd had him my P4P number one for 5 years before than and that didn't change after he beat Lacy, unlike everyone else in world.

Why didn't my list change?

Because it was right in the first place, because I go on the fighters ability not their resume.


Don't hate me because of my superior insight into the sport. My ability to look past resumes and other American rubbish.

[Lance_Uppercut]

WHy on earth are you ignoring reality then?

Pacman would be the same fighter at at HW.

So is Wlad beat him it would be a victory over a P4P fighter, it is exactly the same (just more extreme) as Hopkins beating Trinidad at 160.
And why are you CLEARLY exaggerting to try and justify your point? I was talking about Tito fighting at MW. AFTER he was at 154 for a couple years. THEN moving to MW, where he fought and demolished a very skilled titleholder.

And you repond with nonesense about Floyd, who started at 130, and Pac, who started at 112, fighting at HW and losing to Wlad? :patsch

You are clearly reaching for something, but there's nothing for you to grab.

[KhanB]

I ranked Hopkins top 10 easily back that. I was just pointing out Hopkins has never beaten a real top 10 literal P4P fighter.

Hopkins beat 10-25 P4Per 160 Trinidad in very impressive fashion so deserves a great deal of credit for it, even if Trindiad wasn't great at that weight.

I remember Trinidad ranked #3 by most major boxing publications and so called experts. And Hopkins didnt just beat him, he dismantled him when a LOT of tito nuthuggers were by looking past Hops and thinking Tito could beat RJ. Nobody else molested Joppy before or since tito and that means nothing? Who else at middleweight couldve domintated your boy like that besides hopkins? If it wasnt for hops, tito wouldve been middleweight champ until Winky came along and beat his ass.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Don't hate me because of my superior insight into the sport. My ability to look past resumes and other American rubbish.

You have no superior insight, that's obvious. You're just a stuck up poster looking to ruffle feathers. Rather juvenile for someone who thinks they are above everyone else.:roll:

[DanePugilist]

That's 100% right. CHJ and Amsterdam need to change their criteria to justify Joe's placement. They shit on Hopkins, Taylor, and Wright and call them old or overhyped so they can discredit each one.

Look at how CHJ states Hopkins wins of Winky or Tito are meaningless, but they talk about how badley Joe C would beat Winky or Tayor.:huh

Amsterdam is a fine poster when it comes to other fighters, when it's about Joe C, it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind. NO offense Amsterdam. Just lose sidekick. He's shit w/o you there to help him.:deal

Head to head have NEVER been used for determing P4P because ANYONE can justify their list by simply stating, "XXX beats YYY IF they ever fought and that's why XXX is places higher." It's WAY to open to personal bias or hatred.They are trying to take things into the prober context. Beating RJJ of the now doesn't equate doing it 8 years ago.

[China_hand_Joe]

Abd why are you CLEARLY exaggerting to try and justify your point? I was talking about Tito fighting at MW. AFTER he was at 154 for a couple years. THEN moving to MW, where he fought and demolished a very skilled titleholder.

And you repond with nonesense about Floyd, who started at 130, and Pac, who started at 112, fighting at HW and losing to Wlad? :patsch

You are clearly reaching for something, but there's nothing for you to grab.

I am exagerating my point to make clear to you your massive error.

Trinidad was a world class operator even at 160, but there are usually several dozen such fighters in the world at any time.

[China_hand_Joe]

You have no superior insight, that's obvious. You're just a stuck up poster looking to ruffle feathers. Rather juvenile for someone who thinks they are above everyone else.:roll:

Then why was I am I the only one not needing to change my P4P listings on a weekly basis?

Why was I the only one that didn't suddenly bump Calzaghe up 10 places?

Because I fore-see everything.




Guess what mate. Hopkins is out my top ten (has been for a while due to decline), and as soon as he faces a very good LHW he will lose, and you'll all copy me, months too late.

RINGS P4P list will end up comforming to mine regarding Hopkins. Because I do it correctly based on the present and they are American influenced.

[Lance_Uppercut]

They are trying to take things into the prober context. Beating RJJ of the now doesn't equate doing it 8 years ago.

No shit it doesn't. Who said beating RJJ TODAY would do that? Like, NO ONE?:huh

You want to talk proper context, try using an example IN PROPER CONTEXT. :deal

[Amsterdam]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[sues2nd]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, China hand is in rare form tonight....:lol:

[KO Boxing]

Did Joe magically, over 24 hours suddenly become a better fighter than he had been previously, did he do this aged 34? No, of course not. Calzaghe had always been that good.
I disagree...Fighters, even those on the elite level, are CONSTANTLY improving themselves... So Calzaghe in his PRO debut, would NOT have been the same fighter as Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacy...

[Amsterdam]

Yeah, China hand is in rare form tonight....:lol:

Some of this stuff is just brilliant.:yep :good

[Lance_Uppercut]

Then why was I am I the only one not needing to change my P4P listings on a weekly basis?

Why was I the only one that didn't suddenly bump Calzaghe up 10 places?

Because I fore-see everything.

No, you're exaggerating because that's the best you can do and ALL you can do. You tried to make a point and failed miserably. That's a fact son. :deal

Which P4P lists change on a weekly basis BTW? Please explain, becuase I don't deal in generalizations. Ring Magazine only changes their after a fighter listed fights. And not always then either.

[China_hand_Joe]

I disagree...Fighters, even those on the elite level, are CONSTANTLY improving themselves... So Calzaghe in his PRO debut, would NOT have been the same fighter as Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacy...

He has been that good from about 2000 onwards. The Reid fight was his last big learning experience.

[KO Boxing]

He has been that good from about 2000 onwards. The Reid fight was his last big learning experience.
He wouldn't have won every round off Jeff Lacy in 2000-to about 2003/4 (the guy that fought Reid could have possibly even lost)... And if he doesn't win every round off Jeff Lacy, he ain't in ANYONE's pound 4 pound top ten... ;)

[DanePugilist]

Its not going to matter what we say...you wont listen...but I will try.

Lets see.

He was very recently #1.

He lost a highly debatable decision in two straight fights (fights that the majority of press row...the guys that actually MAKE the p4p rankings...had him winning....). Against Taylor who had had 22 fights priorly.

He then jumps two weight classes and takes on the recognized champion of the division without even a tuneup at that weight...and shuts him out. I guess you are refering to 36 year old Tarver, who fought like shit, and what had he done? Beaten 38 year old RJJ whose greatest assests had been taken away from him by father age.

He then fights a top 5 p4p fighter in Winky and CLEARLY beats him (something noone had done in about 9 years...Vargas and the Taylor draw withstanding, were nothing if NOT CLEAR win/draw).
Winky at a weight class he had never fought in before, and he was featherfisted at 150-160.

He hasnt, in most peoples eyes, lost a fight since the Jones one and continues to fight top competition.

If that dont get/keep you in the top 5...well then, I dont know what does.

Again tho, seeing as how his name is being linked to Calzaghe WHEN Joe beats Kessler...I dont expect much of a unbias outlook toward Bernard from you bro.

Maybe after Hop beats him......we shall see.He has beaten good fighters, no doubt. But you can't live on past glory or painted pictures...

[China_hand_Joe]

He wouldn't have won every round off Jeff Lacy in 2000-to about 2003/4

He would have KO'd Lacy back then instead, he was slightly less skilled but was physically stronger and more comfortable at the weight.

[Lance_Uppercut]

I am exagerating my point to make clear to you your massive error.
I made no error. If you are as big an intellect as you CLAIM :roll:, then you'd have no problem giving an example that fit. Instead, you made a ridiculous exagerration to try and make your point.

Trinidad was a world class operator even at 160, but there are usually several dozen such fighters in the world at any time.
That's simply your opinion. One no on can really prove or disprove. It can only be done in the ring.

[Amsterdam]

He wouldn't have won every round off Jeff Lacy in 2000-to about 2003/4 (the guy that fought Reid could have possibly even lost)... And if he doesn't win every round off Jeff Lacy, he ain't in ANYONE's pound 4 pound top ten... ;)

The Calzaghe of the Byron Mitchell fight for example would have had Lacy out by the mid rounds. Faster, plus more punching power due to less hand problems, skill was about the same, just different styles calling for different game plan's.

[KO Boxing]

He would have KO'd Lacy back then instead, he was slightly less skilled but was physically stronger and more comfortable at the weight.
Well I disagree... Hence the subjectiveness of it all... and hence why you can't place someone in the p4p lists until they PROVE they should be there...

Resumes and accomplishments MUST play a factor...

:hi:

[Amsterdam]

Well I disagree... Hence the subjectiveness of it all... and hence why you can't place someone in the p4p lists until they PROVE they should be there...

Resumes and accomplishments MUST play a factor...

:hi:

Yes,

I use 50% H2H and 50% resume.

[KO Boxing]

The Calzaghe of the Byron Mitchell fight for example would have had Lacy out by the mid rounds. Faster, plus more punching power due to less hand problems, skill was about the same, just different styles calling for different game plan's.
I disagree. If Lacy put Calzaghe down like Mitchell did, Calzaghe gets knocked out... Although I'd always favour Calzaghe over Lacy, just sayin'...

[China_hand_Joe]

That's simply your opinion. One no on can really prove or disprove. It can only be done in the ring.

I think Hopkins proved it for us.

Again you are desperate to ignore hindsight.

Well it was hindsight for you, I knew that elite MW Hopkins would kill him before it happened.



If you had a time machine, you'd probably go back and put money on Trinidad again!

[Amsterdam]

I disagree. If Lacy put Calzaghe down like Mitchell did, Calzaghe gets knocked out... Although I'd always favour Calzaghe over Lacy, just sayin'...

Lacy hits no harder than Mitchell and Calzaghe walked into that shot that put him down. He was up at 3 and by the time the ref called the continue, he was on fire to demolish the guy, that's a show of a good chin.

Mitchell had 1 punch KO power. Lacy had more volume oriented power, where he'd break you down with heavy shots.

[KO Boxing]

You may be right. But at the same time, you COULD be wrong. And I'm just pointing out the subjectiveness of it all. It's all WHAT IF'S, MAYBES and COULD BE'S. We'll never know how Calzaghe would have done against an elite fighter in 2000-2004 because he NEVER FOUGHT ONE... He MAY HAVE, or even better put, PROBABLY WOULD HAVE, done okay and maybe even won... You'll just never know.

And when I say elite figher, I mean a legimate top ten p4per. Guys like Eubank, Reid, Sheika, Woodhall, Brewer... were good supermiddles, no doubt. But in no way shape or form elite

[DanePugilist]

No shit it doesn't. Who said beating RJJ TODAY would do that? Like, NO ONE?:huh

You want to talk proper context, try using an example IN PROPER CONTEXT. :dealSo you can't see the context in naming RJJ? So are you saying that Hopkins is as good as 8 years ago? Is beating Hopkins a great win at 42? Is beating a shot 36 year old Tarver a great win? If you can't see the context, then you are part of the problem.

Yay, lets hope Kessler will get his match vs Hopkins in a couple of years, because he would then jump into top 3 for that win. What a crock.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Yes,

I use 50% H2H and 50% resume.

Then you should have all the bigger guys ABOVE then smaller guys. Floyd should be above Pac because Floyd would BEAT Pac, and guys Floyd beat, would probably beat PAc as well.

Your arrogance blinds you from seeing how flawed your criteria is. I know you LOVE to pretend you're never wrong and such a great fight picker, most pretend to be something or someone they aren't online, but nothing is for sure in boxing unless they actually fight. You can post all day and night your list BASED on who you think wins, but no one, aside from CHJ and some posters on a fanboy friendly message board, will take it seriously.

[Lance_Uppercut]

I think Hopkins proved it for us.

Again you are desperate to ignore hindsight.

Well it was hindsight for you, I knew that elite MW Hopkins would kill him before it happened.



If you had a time machine, you'd probably go back and put money on Trinidad again!

:lol: Yeah, I'm sure you really did.

[China_hand_Joe]

Then you should have all the bigger guys ABOVE then smaller guys. Floyd should be above Pac because Floyd would BEAT Pac, and guys Floyd beat, would probably beat PAc as well.

Your arrogance blinds you from seeing how flawed your criteria is. I know you LOVE to pretend you're never wrong and such a great fight picker, most pretend to be something or someone they aren't online, but nothing is for sure in boxing unless they actually fight. You can post all day and night your list BASED on who you think wins, but no one, aside from CHJ and some posters on a fanboy friendly message board, will take it seriously.He is talking about hypothetical P4P H2H matchups mate. That is why is called a P4P list. Not a best boxers in the world not taking into acount size difference list.

[sues2nd]

Against Taylor who had had 22 fights priorly.

And was the #1 contender for most of the belts. Had WALKED through everyone he has fought before...and has taken on nothing but quality fights since.

I guess you are refering to 36 year old Tarver, who fought like shit, and what had he done? Beaten 38 year old RJJ whose greatest assests had been taken away from him by father age.

Do you even watch boxing?

Tarver has beaten Jones twice, Johnson, Griffin, Harding, etc. He is also a dangerous puncher and was the universally regarded champ at that weight. A weight in which Hopkins had never fought in before.

Winky at a weight class he had never fought in before, and he was featherfisted at 150-160.

So Winky was no threat because he had never fought there before, so Hop gets no credit....but then Hop gets no credit for the Tarver win, even tho he had never fought there before?

Sounds like a little contradiction to me there bro!

As for him being featherfisted...so what? He is also a MASTER defensively (I rank him third active behind Hopkins and Floyd), has a great jab and is an extremely smart fighter.

No Winky wasnt going to KO Bernard (but the man has one of the best chins out there...not many people would), but he was a HUGE threat. And Hop beat him CLEARLY. He also almost at will broke through Winky's defense, something NOONE has done in over a decade.

He has beaten good fighters, no doubt. But you can't live on past glory or painted pictures...

I gave NO evidence from past glory, I spoke of his most recent fights...

[China_hand_Joe]

:lol: Yeah, I'm sure you really did.

This post will show you exactly what happens if Hopkins - Calzaghe ever gets made.

This is what I'd expect to happen.




*Calzaghe - Hopkins is made in 2008.*


American fan: Hopkins is too skilled for Calzaghe.

China_hand_Joe: Hopkins hasn't the stamin, the punch out put to compete with Joe Calzaghe, nor has he the power to hurt Calzaghe. Calzaghe can simply outwork Hopkins, irregardless of any skill diffrential. In short, Hopkins is too old at this point in time to compete with Joe Calzaghe. The thing is it will be Americans shouting out how Hopkins was an old man after the fight.

American fan: Who has Calzaghe ever beat? Hopkins beat Wright! Hopkins is too skilled!



*Calzaghe outworks Hopkins to a comfortable enough decision.*



American fan: Hopkins aged overnight, he was shot, that is how Calzaghe won.

China_hand_Joe: China_hand_Joe did point out Hopkins was too old to really compete before the fight.

*American fan comes to a realistation*

American fan: You were right China_hand_Joe.

China_hand_Joe: China_hand_Joe is always right, agreed?

American fan: Yes, you have a perfect track record.

China_hand_Joe: Then we can agree China_hand_Joe is probably right about Joe Calzaghe been the best fighter of the past decade.

American fan: Yes.

In reality though, the American will ignore the facts again and continue viewing boxing in a trance of ignorant bliss.

[Lance_Uppercut]

So you can't see the context in naming RJJ? So are you saying that Hopkins is as good as 8 years ago? Is beating Hopkins a great win at 42? Is beating a shot 36 year old Tarver a great win? If you can't see the context, then you are part of the problem.

Yay, lets hope Kessler will get his match vs Hopkins in a couple of years, because he would then jump into top 3 for that win. What a crock.


:patsch

And you were giving me a hard tine about context? Since when did RJJ and Hopkins fall in the same category.

[Amsterdam]

Then you should have all the bigger guys ABOVE then smaller guys. Floyd should be above Pac because Floyd would BEAT Pac, and guys Floyd beat, would probably beat PAc as well.

Your arrogance blinds you from seeing how flawed your criteria is. I know you LOVE to pretend you're never wrong and such a great fight picker, most pretend to be something or someone they aren't online, but nothing is for sure in boxing unless they actually fight. You can post all day and night your list BASED on who you think wins, but no one, aside from CHJ and some posters on a fanboy friendly message board, will take it seriously.

H2H in their respective weight region. I don't pretend that I am never wrong, I am wrong at times like anyone else. I don't take offense to boxing discussion though.:yep

I consider Pac better H2H at 130 than I do Floyd at 147-154. Floyd can no longer make 140 in good health, his body has well grown into a welter. You even agree, as a Margarito fan no less, that plenty of WW's would trouble or defeat Floyd.

Right now, the only fighter who I give a real shot at Pac at 130 is JMM, and only because JMM has him figured out stylistically going into the fight. Even then, and with you knowing that JMM is one of my favourites, I still pick Pac to beat him this time around in good logic.

And some people do take what I say seriously, likewise I take seriously what other good posters state on here, because we all want to learn something from each other.

[Lance_Uppercut]

He is talking about hypothetical P4P H2H matchups mate. That is why is called a P4P list. Not a best boxers in the world not taking into acount size difference list.

:patsch

And you claim to be an intellect?

[China_hand_Joe]

Tarver has beaten Jones twice, Johnson, Griffin, Harding, etc. He is also a dangerous puncher and was the universally regarded champ at that weight. A weight in which Hopkins had never fought in before.


Remember Tarver's last fight? We know he is kind of rubbish now, we saw he was inactive and rubbish against Hopkins.

A lot of fighters could have mullered Tarver that night. Hopkins did well for a 40+ year old, I'm not taking his victory away from him. I am completely dismissing the notion it makes him a top P4P fighter though.

It is a great achievement that adds to his greatness, not something to place him on a proper P4P list.

It might get him on one of those American lists that prefer names on resumes to the facts and reality though.

[Lance_Uppercut]

This post will show you exactly what happens if Hopkins - Calzaghe ever gets made.



In reality though, the American will ignore the facts again and continue viewing boxing in a trance of ignorant bliss.

Another clear exagerration to try and make a point. :roll:

You exagerrate and deal with generalizations. Makes your posts meaningless.

Funny thing I like Joe C A LOT more then I like Hopkins, who's kind of a dick.

[Amsterdam]

This post will show you exactly what happens if Hopkins - Calzaghe ever gets made.



In reality though, the American will ignore the facts again and continue viewing boxing in a trance of ignorant bliss.


:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

[sues2nd]

Remember Tarver's last fight? We know he is kind of rubbish now, we saw he was inactive and rubbish against Hopkins.

A lot of fighters could have mullered Tarver that night. Hopkins did well for a 40+ year old, I'm not taking his victory away from him. I am completely dismissing the notion it makes him a top P4P fighter though.

It is a great achievement that adds to his greatness, not something to place him on a proper P4P list.

It might get him on one of those American lists that prefer names on resumes to the facts and reality though.

Sometimes your posts make me do this.....:lol:

Then there are posts like the one above that make me do this....:patsch

Resume has nothing to do with p4p....wow...ummmm, wow.

[China_hand_Joe]

:patsch

And you claim to be an intellect?

You were absolutely grasping at straws mate and have failed to dismiss a single point or adequately defend your own.



In this thread I have Lacy-ed you.

You'll never be the same poster again.

[China_hand_Joe]

Another clear exagerration to try and make a point. :roll:

You exagerrate and deal with generalizations. Makes your posts meaningless.

Funny thing I like Joe C A LOT more then I like Hopkins, who's kind of a dick.

Do you agree Calzaghe would beat Hopkins at this point in time?

[Lance_Uppercut]

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:asskiss :patsch

[sues2nd]

In this thread I have Lacy-ed you.

You'll never be the same poster again.

SEE NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

(I think I just found a quote for my avatar!!! THANKS China!!!!)

[China_hand_Joe]

Resume has nothing to do with p4p....wow...ummmm, wow.

Resumes do not dictate P4P lists, it is a fact.


Lets do some dimensional analysis.

The only two dimensions involved in the term P4P by definition are "weight" and "how good the fighter is" you combine these two dimensions and come up with the list.

[sues2nd]

Resumes do not dictate P4P lists, it is a fact.

The only two dimensions involved in the term P4P by definition are "weight" and "how good the fighter is" you combine these two dimensions and come up with the list.

Could you just stick to the comedy please....:patsch

[Lance_Uppercut]

Do you agree Calzaghe would beat Hopkins at this point in time?

Right now? I would say he has a 50-50 shot, leaning towards Hopkins. You can point to Joe's swarming style all you want. But you need to realize he may very well get discourage by Hopkin's counters. Age doesn't seem to have affected Hopkin's defense, and that's crucial. He may bot have one punch power, but Hopkins is a VERY hard and accurate hitter. And might I remind you, Joe C has no defense.

[China_hand_Joe]

Could you just stick to the comedy please....:patsch

Do you want me to draw a graph to make this clearer?

[Lance_Uppercut]

You were absolutely grasping at straws mate and have failed to dismiss a single point or adequately defend your own.



In this thread I have Lacy-ed you.

You'll never be the same poster again.

Are you dilusional? Or just mad? You've pretty much made it obvious you are the "bigtime9" of the Joe C fans. :deal

You're examples, or should I say exagerrations, didn't prove or show anything. I was able to counter anything you've posted, and all you do is dismiss and ask a hypothetical that can't be proven one way or another. Take your head out of your ass and watch some fights. :deal

[brooklyn1550]

I'm sick of this "American bias" talk from certain posters. As if they aren't biased towards fighters from their region or their ethnicity. Give me a break.

[KO Boxing]

Do you want me to draw a graph to make this clearer?
I'd love it. He said stick to the comedy, and that'll be comedy.

[Amsterdam]

Right now? I would say he has a 50-50 shot, leaning towards Hopkins. You can point to Joe's swarming style all you want. But you need to realize he may very well get discourage by Hopkin's counters. Age doesn't seem to have affected Hopkin's defense, and that's crucial. He may bot have one punch power, but Hopkins is a VERY hard and accurate hitter. And might I remind you, Joe C has no defense.

This is the type of stuff that I can barely debate someone against, because it's just so incorrect to what is going on. It's not even about who picks better or who is an analyst, it's just plainly incorrect.

Calzaghe no defence?

And then you miss the fact that Hopkins' timing has faded and can no longer fire off shots like he could in his prime, this is absolute current fact and most Hopkins fans with sense will agree. His workrate is low, his timing has faded, he has to fight a fight that he can control or at a super conservative pace and his defence means little if you can't get out of the storm's path, in which a swarmer is poison for him at the moment.

This is all 90% stylistic and intangible based facts that I have listed above.

Since you like to poke at me and how I go about analysing boxing, I can't really hold that against you considering you truly believe that Margarito is an elite class Welterweight.

[China_hand_Joe]

Right now? I would say he has a 50-50 shot, leaning towards Hopkins. You can point to Joe's swarming style all you want. But you need to realize he may very well get discourage by Hopkin's counters. Age doesn't seem to have affected Hopkin's defense, and that's crucial. He may bot have one punch power, but Hopkins is a VERY hard and accurate hitter. And might I remind you, Joe C has no defense.

I will tell you right now.

Calzaghe would win.

After the fight it would be apparent it was more like a 90/10 bet your house on it kind of fight.

You would copy me and take Hopkins out of your P4P rankings as would RING magazine. The whole series of events would prove I was right all along.

As it happens though, any highly talented LHW could do it right now. I'll warn you when it is about to happen.

[KO Boxing]

I'm sick of this "American bias" talk from certain posters. As if they aren't biased towards fighters from their region or their ethnicity. Give me a break.
Exactly...

Simple look at posters "location" tag says it all.

Americans are just as bad, if not better, than the Brits (for Calzaghe and Hatton), Filipinos (for Pac et al), Peuto Ricans (for Cotto), Danes (For Kessler) Mexicans, etc...

And I am most certaintly NOT American....

[dave82]

Resumes do not dictate P4P lists, it is a fact.


Lets do some dimensional analysis.

The only two dimensions involved in the term P4P by definition are "weight" and "how good the fighter is" you combine these two dimensions and come up with the list.

Mrs. Krabappel in this thread I have been Lacy-ed and it tastes like burning.

[Lance_Uppercut]

This is the type of stuff that I can barely debate someone against, because it's just so incorrect to what is going on. It's not even about who picks better or who is an analyst, it's just plainly incorrect.

Calzaghe no defence?

And then you miss the fact that Hopkins' timing has faded and can no longer fire off shots like he could in his prime, this is absolute current fact and most Hopkins fans with sense will agree. His workrate is low, his timing has faded, he has to fight a fight that he can control or at a super conservative pace and his defence means little if you can't get out of the storm's path, in which a swarmer is poison for him at the moment.

This is all 90% stylistic and intangible based facts that I have listed above.

Since you like to poke at me and how I go about analysing boxing, I can't really hold that against you considering you truly believe that Margarito is an elite class Welterweight.

You can post what you think of Hopkins till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, it's still simpy your opinion. One not many agree with.

And no, Calzaghe doesn't have much of a defense. It was that as well as his swarming style that made me a fan of his. Those combination make for exciting fights.

So I was wrong about Margarito vs. Williams. All that proves is Williams was better. But you still think Judah's some elite fighter. Go figure.

[Amsterdam]

Exactly...

Simple look at posters "location" tag says it all.

Americans are just as bad, if not better, than the Brits (for Calzaghe and Hatton), Filipinos (for Pac et al), Peuto Ricans (for Cotto), Danes (For Kessler) Mexicans, etc...

And I am most certaintly NOT American....

How about Swiss people currently living in the United States that don't care about nationality?:D

[Lance_Uppercut]

I will tell you right now.

Calzaghe would win.

After the fight it would be apparent it was more like a 90/10 bet your house on it kind of fight.

You would copy me and take Hopkins out of your P4P rankings as would RING magazine. The whole series of events would prove I was right all along.

As it happens though, any highly talented LHW could do it right now. I'll warn you when it is about to happen.

Copy you? :patsch

You're a Joe C nuthugger and would likley pick him vs. anyone. Doesn't make you some kind of expert or prove anything. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Give us your 'expert' pick on other upcoming fights, and lets see how 'right' you are.

[DanePugilist]

And was the #1 contender for most of the belts. Had WALKED through everyone he has fought before...and has taken on nothing but quality fights since.
Still 22 matches is for most too soon, but not all - so who knows. Still prime Taylor won(just not on my cards, but whatever).


Do you even watch boxing?
Not at all. How am I doing considering I have never watched a boxing match?

Tarver has beaten Jones twice, Johnson, Griffin, Harding, etc. He is also a dangerous puncher and was the universally regarded champ at that weight. A weight in which Hopkins had never fought in before.
Yes, since I have never seen a boxing match, I have to guess here: How did Tarver look in that fight? My imaginary mind said untrained, unfocused - maybe post hollywood fever? Still I cheered for B-Hop. But old guy vs old guy dont make me wanna jump up and cheer like it was prime vs prime. And I feel that people like you are labelling it as that.


So Winky was no threat because he had never fought there before, so Hop gets no credit....but then Hop gets no credit for the Tarver win, even tho he had never fought there before?

Sounds like a little contradiction to me there bro!
Of course he should get credit, this is not my point nor CHJs. But flying him up at top p4p for beating Winky at a weight is isn't comfortable with doesn't make it the same feat as doing it at 160. Same would have gone for Tarver if he had beaten B-Hop. Had Hopkins beaten a fit and sharp Tarver, I would have applauded greatly and said it was a very great win - but he wasn't so there it is.


As for him being featherfisted...so what? He is also a MASTER defensively (I rank him third active behind Hopkins and Floyd), has a great jab and is an extremely smart fighter.

No Winky wasnt going to KO Bernard (but the man has one of the best chins out there...not many people would), but he was a HUGE threat. And Hop beat him CLEARLY. He also almost at will broke through Winky's defense, something NOONE has done in over a decade.
Since he is featherfisted, Hopkins would only have to worry about winning on points. Bullying like he usually do with smaller fighters. Hopkins is smart, and likewise a master of defensive. So it's very possible to pull it off, and is then considered great reward less risk.


I gave NO evidence from past glory, I spoke of his most recent fights...Well you said he was #1 by the time he met Taylor - knowing how Ring rate fighters, its based on past glories. I could go on and on. His wins appear to be greater than they are, because people overlook the details such as weight, age, and how that has affected them.

[KO Boxing]

How about Swiss people currently living in the United States that don't care about nationality?:D
:lol: :think

I do think Americans cop a bit much on here, though. What makes them SO MUCH worse than the fans I mentioned above? Or more bias?

IMO, it's fans from other nationalities that wish to make their OWN PERSONAL BIAS sound more knowledgable and correct by downgrading that of the Americans, who at times may possibly disagree with them (yet is possibly more influencial on the masses)

[Lance_Uppercut]

:lol: :think

I do think Americans cop a bit much on here, though. What makes them SO MUCH worse than the fans I mentioned above? Or more bias?

IMO, it's fans from other nationalities that wish to make their OWN PERSONAL BIAS sound more knowledgable and correct by downgrading that of the Americans, who at times may possibly disagree with them (yet is possibly more influencial on the masses)

True.

Or some come off like unsufferable snobs who claim to be superior in intellect.:roll:

LIke I said, most people pretend to be something they aren't online.

[Amsterdam]

You can post what you think of Hopkins till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, it's still simpy your opinion. One not many agree with.


It's difficult to debate with you because you either really don't know what you are talking about here, or you are just simply reading selectively.

What I posted was a good bit of facts -

- His timing is not the same as his prime, it's degraded.

- His workrate is too low to compete with young, ferocious guys at SMW-LHW.

- He's getting slower and slower

- He has to fight his fight, see the Taylor fights for comparison on when he's currently pushed beyond his comfort zone

But this is all expected, he's a 42 year old fighter, I would actually expect less but he still performs better than expected, which is why he's still rated so highly on what he can do.


And no, Calzaghe doesn't have much of a defense. It was that as well as his swarming style that made me a fan of his. Those combination make for exciting fights.


If you say so. Last time I looked though he had a system of excellent footwork, head movement and occassional use of the guard to not get tagged in excess. I've rarely ever seen him eat anything resembling a combination, it's always single shots here and there and he has the timing and footspeed to position himself exceptionally well. His in and out movement also serves well in reducing the opponents offensive abilities vs. him.

Is this not defence? Or is only a standard style of shoulder rolling/high guard a defence to you?


So I was wrong about Margarito vs. Williams. All that proves is Williams was better. But you still think Judah's some elite fighter. Go figure.


When did I say Judah was still elite? I said he could beat some of the top 10 at WW, this does not make him elite by any means.

It proved Williams was better, but if you will note, I had my say in what Margarito's capabilities were for a very long time.;)

[Amsterdam]

:lol: :think

I do think Americans cop a bit much on here, though. What makes them SO MUCH worse than the fans I mentioned above? Or more bias?

IMO, it's fans from other nationalities that wish to make their OWN PERSONAL BIAS sound more knowledgable and correct by downgrading that of the Americans, who at times may possibly disagree with them (yet is possibly more influencial on the masses)

I'm not looking for national bias, I hate nationalistic bias. Most of the top American posters on here are just that, top quality posters and most likely top quality people. There is a lot of knowledge on ESB.

Lance taking personal offense is ridiculous. In the end, it's just boxing discussion.

[sues2nd]

Do you want me to draw a graph to make this clearer?

Thanks...I like the comedy better....:good

:lol:

[Lance_Uppercut]

I'm not looking for national bias, I hate nationalistic bias. Most of the top American posters on here are just that, top quality posters and most likely top quality people. There is a lot of knowledge on ESB.

Lance taking personal offense is ridiculous. In the end, it's just boxing discussion.

I take nothing personal here. If I call you an upitty snob, it's because you come off like one. I doubt I'm th only one who sees that. I said in another post, you're a fine poster. Just not when it comes to certain boxers. And you seem to not give any thought to anyone's opinion but yours and CJH's.

I try to point out how flawed using H2H is for a P4P list, and you either ignore what I said or outright dismiss it.

[Amsterdam]

I take nothing personal here. If I call you an upitty snob, it's because you come off like one. I doubt I'm th only one who sees that. I said in another post, you're a fine poster. Just not when it comes to certain boxers. And you seem to not give any thought to anyone's opinion but yours and CJH's.

I try to point out how flawed using H2H is for a P4P list, and you either ignore what I said or outright dismiss it.

Totally incorrect, that's the way you percieve it from what I would presume as selective reading.

Should I name off the amount of posters who's posts I take into consideration? It's going to be lengthy.

[MSTR]

There are clear problems with the way the current p4p system works. That is the main point being made. If more consideration was given for great performances against top ten opponents within a fighters respective divsion, IMO it would provide a much fairer ranking system. Still, resume and past performances must be taken into accout. A p4p list based solely on percieved ability would be far too open to bias. Regardless, some of you are bagging CHJ quite heavily, but at least he has the initiative to form his own opinion and not just be another sheep. There are so many cliches among boxing fans, and so many "popular" beliefs. Despite the fact that I don't agree with him in this instance, its refreshing to see someone actually using their own analytical ability to look at things, and not just taking the easy road and being agreeable. Surely some of you can see the faults that are present with the current p4p ranking system that he has pointed out?

[Lance_Uppercut]

It's difficult to debate with you because you either really don't know what you are talking about here, or you are just simply reading selectively.

What I posted was a good bit of facts -

- His timing is not the same as his prime, it's degraded.

- His workrate is too low to compete with young, ferocious guys at SMW-LHW.

- He's getting slower and slower

- He has to fight his fight, see the Taylor fights for comparison on when he's currently pushed beyond his comfort zone

But this is all expected, he's a 42 year old fighter, I would actually expect less but he still performs better than expected, which is why he's still rated so highly on what he can do.

I won't deny that's any of that is true. But he's still defeating top guys, so he can't be that far gone. It's like whith Pernell Whitaker (maybe you've seen him?). He lost a lot of speed, and relfexes as he got older, but was still better then most guys inthe game at his weight class. Hopkins is in a similar mold. You can choose not to engage in a discussion with me, that's fine. But when I do discuss any fighters, I throw any favoritism and bias out the door. I really can't say the same for you.



If you say so. Last time I looked though he had a system of excellent footwork, head movement and occassional use of the guard to not get tagged in excess. I've rarely ever seen him eat anything resembling a combination, it's always single shots here and there and he has the timing and footspeed to position himself exceptionally well. His in and out movement also serves well in reducing the opponents offensive abilities vs. him.

Is this not defence? Or is only a standard style of shoulder rolling/high guard a defence to you?

His high output leaves him open a lot. More so then a conventional fighter. Maybe you've rarely seen him eat anything because he's fought VERY weak opponents for 95% of his career. Things change when you go up a level.


When did I say Judah was still elite? I said he could beat some of the top 10 at WW, this does not make him elite by any means.

It proved Williams was better, but if you will note, I had my say in what Margarito's capabilities were for a very long time.;)

Judah's done vs. any top 5 WW, Margarito included. Boxing is more then handspeed.

[China_hand_Joe]

P4P rankings detirmined without the vital need for names on a resume.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I won't bother factoring in any functions into the graph, which bypass the natural P4P advantages WWs and MWs have over minimum weight and HW

[DanePugilist]

:patsch

And you were giving me a hard tine about context? Since when did RJJ and Hopkins fall in the same category.Since they are both old. And both have met Tarver at this old age. Granted Hopkins assets do not wither with age like RJJs, but they still wither.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Totally incorrect, that's the way you percieve it from what I would presume as selective reading.

Should I name off the amount of posters who's posts I take into consideration? It's going to be lengthy.

Selective? If that's what want you think, that's what you'll think. I can't say for anyone else, but I generally read every post in a thread before I engage in a discussion. It would be rude not too.

You can post whatever list you'd like. Me? There are only a handful of posters I think really know their stuff. But perhaps I have higher standards then you. Afterall, you're kissing up to CHJ...:patsch

[Lance_Uppercut]

Since they are both old. And both have met Tarver at this old age. Granted Hopkins assets do not wither with age like RJJs, but they still wither.

Also Hopkins came up from MW and DOMINATED Tarver, that should be taken into consideration. But to be fair, I never thought that much of Tarver to begin with. I just expected him to be too big for Hops.

[sues2nd]

P4P rankings detirmined without the vital need for names on a resume.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I won't bother factoring in any functions into the graph, which bypass the natural P4P advantages WWs and MWs have over minimum weight and HW

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

YOUR THE FUCKING KING!!!!


(I just woke my daughter laughing tho...and now my wife wants to kill me.....thanks....)

[Amsterdam]

:rofl

[Lance_Uppercut]

P4P rankings detirmined without the vital need for names on a resume.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I won't bother factoring in any functions into the graph, which bypass the natural P4P advantages WWs and MWs have over minimum weight and HW

Credit where credit's due, nice job with the graph. Visuals are always welcome. :lol::lol:

[Amsterdam]

Also Hopkins came up from MW and DOMINATED Tarver, that should be taken into consideration. But to be fair, I never thought that much of Tarver to begin with. I just expected him to be too big for Hops.

And I predicted an easy UD for Hopkins. It was not a surprise to me, nor any of the best boxing analysts that I know.

[Lance_Uppercut]

And I predicted an easy UD for Hopkins.

I predicted a win, but a little closer.

It was not a surprise to me, nor any of the best boxing analysts that I know.

Gee, I guess if I wanted to sound like a know-it-all, I should have said that too.

If you could bend over backward, you'd kiss your own ass Amsterdam.:lol:

[KO Boxing]

P4P rankings detirmined without the vital need for names on a resume.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I won't bother factoring in any functions into the graph, which bypass the natural P4P advantages WWs and MWs have over minimum weight and HW
:happy

[China_hand_Joe]

The point is there and very serious.

Dimensional analysis shows us resume is not a factor in deciding P4P ratings.



Imagine you build a robot that boxes. Something that KOs any boxer with one jab and it is so fast and accurate it never misses. It could have a record of 0-0-0 when you come to rank it. Despite the fact it has no resume you can place it at number one as it is clearly a better P4P fighter than any human boxer. Resume can be totally and utterly irrelevant.

[Amsterdam]

Selective? If that's what want you think, that's what you'll think. I can't say for anyone else, but I generally read every post in a thread before I engage in a discussion. It would be rude not too.

You can post whatever list you'd like. Me? There are only a handful of posters I think really know their stuff. But perhaps I have higher standards then you. Afterall, you're kissing up to CHJ...:patsch

Well, I'd hope those posters can spot a hype job like Margarito at first sight then, or I'd credit them very little.

And I don't kiss up to CHJ. I find CHJ's material hysterical, but much of it on the right track in terms of international fairness when regarding underrated fighters, with this having nothing to do with nationality.

I don't attack other posters personally within a boxing debate unless they truly deserve it, in the case of a Carlito32 that knows damn nothing and keeps going on and on, CHJ is different, he really is a knowledgable boxing fan, but you fail to even recognise humorous character.

Then you want to go on about how much you dislike my way of boxing analysation and wish to send personal calls on me, when you know a limited amount, which is pretty much solely based upon what is accepted by most mainstream boxing fans as they eat whatever they are fed. It is not difficult to analyse something to the core and to be correct about 'factors' involved, whether this leads to a correct fight pick or not, calling something out that is dead obvious is not difficult to do... such as old time era fighters being absolutely inferior to modern era fighters.

I don't like when a person wishes to engage in a debate where they think they know what they are talking about and in all reality, they do not and this happens to be your case in this thread and a few others. Things that surprise the hell out of you are dead obvious things to others, not me even per say, but to people who can spot things that you can't and that I can't, or that any other top analyst around can't and if they point something out that is relevant, I am very glad to learn their point of view.

[Amsterdam]

I predicted a win, but a little closer.



Gee, I guess if I wanted to sound like a know-it-all, I should have said that too.

If you could bend over backward, you'd kiss your own ass Amsterdam.:lol:

I was merely making a point and you percieve it how you like, see the post above.

[jecxbox]

An old Bernard Hopkins beats any version of Calzaghe.


loolololololololololollo NOPE SORRY! :nono

[Lance_Uppercut]

I was merely making a point and you percieve it how you like, see the post above.


It was not a surprise to me, nor any of the best boxing analysts that I know.

Oh come on now. If you're going to play the intellect, know-it-all of the board, don't be surprised when you get called on it. It's all good. :good

[KO Boxing]

The point is there and very serious.

Dimensional analysis shows us resume is not a factor in deciding P4P ratings.



Imagine you build a robot that boxes. Something that KOs any boxer with one jab and it is so fast and accurate it never misses. It could have a record of 0-0-0 when you come to rank it. Despite the fact it has no resume you can place it at number one as it is clearly a better P4P fighter than any human boxer. Resume can be totally and utterly irrelevant.
I still don't see how that's clearly explained in the graph...

And no fighter could ever be so fast and accurate they knock every opponent out with a jab, so its a useless extreme you just used.

Whether or not the Robot COULD do something is irrevelant, in boxing, it's what the Robot DOES that actually counts. Hence resume are important. A 0-0-0 robot with all the potential in the world is simply a "highly touted prospect"... Not near p4p recognition...

And the fact that we're talking about fuckin' robots proves all I need to know about this discussion. Resumes MUST be included in any p4p discussion. For me. Bottom line (could be different for others, but each to their own, as CHJ so adquately proves).

[Lance_Uppercut]

Well, I'd hope those posters can spot a hype job like Margarito at first sight then, or I'd credit them very little.

And I don't kiss up to CHJ. I find CHJ's material hysterical, but much of it on the right track in terms of international fairness when regarding underrated fighters, with this having nothing to do with nationality.

I don't attack other posters personally within a boxing debate unless they truly deserve it, in the case of a Carlito32 that knows damn nothing and keeps going on and on, CHJ is different, he really is a knowledgable boxing fan, but you fail to even recognise humorous character.

Then you want to go on about how much you dislike my way of boxing analysation and wish to send personal calls on me, when you know a limited amount, which is pretty much solely based upon what is accepted by most mainstream boxing fans as they eat whatever they are fed. It is not difficult to analyse something to the core and to be correct about 'factors' involved, whether this leads to a correct fight pick or not, calling something out that is dead obvious is not difficult to do... such as old time era fighters being absolutely inferior to modern era fighters.

I don't like when a person wishes to engage in a debate where they think they know what they are talking about and in all reality, they do not and this happens to be your case in this thread and a few others. Things that surprise the hell out of you are dead obvious things to others, not me even per say, but to people who can spot things that you can't and that I can't, or that any other top analyst around can't and if they point something out that is relevant, I am very glad to learn their point of view.

You couldn't be more wrong about me. Maybe you weren't here on the baord when there were a TON more quality posters and thread and genuine discussions on the sport. Those days are gone, and posters like you, while capable of showing some knowlege, choose more often then not to be close minded towards anyone elses opinion you disagree with. I've lost the patience to engage with most people here, and would rather fuck with those who seem to need it the most. ESB is NOT what is used to be. :-(

[jecxbox]

The point is there and very serious.

Dimensional analysis shows us resume is not a factor in deciding P4P ratings.



Imagine you build a robot that boxes. Something that KOs any boxer with one jab and it is so fast and accurate it never misses. It could have a record of 0-0-0 when you come to rank it. Despite the fact it has no resume you can place it at number one as it is clearly a better P4P fighter than any human boxer. Resume can be totally and utterly irrelevant.

honestly the lb 4 lb list has more to do with Accomplishment and how you perform in doing what you're doing. If the lb 4 lb list had to do with physical capabilities of fighters which is ALWAYS a ? in boxing becase you never know if they can use their strengths or not, then we'd have placed Edwin Valero at lb 4 lb number 1 already!...lb 4 lb clearly has to do with accomplishment and not athleticism. Floyd isn't lb 4 lb because he can do his shoulder roll..He is lb 4 lb because he has won titles from 130-154 hasn't lost and has fought decent opponents till then. Same deal goes with Pacquiao, his success with the opponents hes faces puts him there not because of whatever he does. When you rank fighters in the ATG list..You don't rate them for their gifts or power..if that be the case Roy Jones would be number 1 all time or something. Clearly lb 4 lb has to do with Resume.

[China_hand_Joe]

And the fact that we're talking about fuckin' robots proves all I need to know about this discussion. Resumes MUST be included in any p4p discussion. For me. Bottom line (could be different for others, but each to their own, as CHJ so adquately proves).

You idea of a P4P lists completely defies the definition of the term itself.

You produce lists where the criteria can only be decribed using terms like greatness.

[jecxbox]

Imagine a fighter who is 100-0 lb 4 lb the best fighter in boxing fights an unknown boxer with a record of 0-0...And the 0-0 fighter schools the 100-0 fighter...That doesn't make the newly 1-0 fighter lb 4 lb the best fighter in the sport! lb 4 lb isn't about who can beat who or who can do what because those are always question marks and unknowns. the only factual REAL thing in boxing is accomplishments and their resume and thats how you weed out who was greater and who wasn't. It isn't what so and so coulda done its what so and so DID

[Lance_Uppercut]

The whole idea of P4P is pretty meaningless to begin with.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Imagine a fighter who is 100-0 lb 4 lb the best fighter in boxing fights an unknown boxer with a record of 0-0...And the 0-0 fighter schools the 100-0 fighter...That doesn't make the newly 1-0 fighter lb 4 lb the best fighter in the sport! lb 4 lb isn't about who can beat who or who can do what because those are always question marks and unknowns. the only factual REAL thing in boxing is accomplishments and their resume and thats how you weed out who was greater and who wasn't. It isn't what so and so coulda done its what so and so DID

That concept seems to be lost to the Joe C faction. Probably due to the fact his resume and accomlishments are severly lacking compared to others.

[jecxbox]

It is only meaningless if you look at it as a list that states who can beat who. The lb 4 lb list isn't about who can beat who! It is about who's done what! Thats all that matters in this sport not how hard or how fast or how much defense you have...its about who you've beaten thats IT.

[brooklyn1550]

The whole idea of P4P is pretty meaningless to begin with.

Bingo

I will admit that I do make pound for pound rankings every once and a while based on overall accomplishments.

However, unless everybody can agree on a criteria to use, it is virtually meaningless as there are going to be arguments between those who base it on skill level, head to head ability, accomplishments in different weight classes, or resume.

Most people I see base it on accomplishments, but then you will get some posters who base it on skill level and head to head ability between fighters of different weight classes...that's when you get the big and heated arguments!

[DanePugilist]

Also Hopkins came up from MW and DOMINATED Tarver, that should be taken into consideration. But to be fair, I never thought that much of Tarver to begin with. I just expected him to be too big for Hops.Yes he did, but as I said to Sues2nd, Tarver didn't look sharp(of mind) nor fit, and that needs to be taken into consideration also. So plusses for moving up, minus for unfit opponent.

Same goes for JC-Lacy. Had Lacy been competitive in any way, it would have been as great a win as people had expected before the match. He wasn't, so it detracts a bit from JCs gain. Again I am not saying that JC didn't deserve alot of credit for it, just not as much as expected. Same with Tarver vs RJJ. We can't give Tarver the same recognition, when RJJ was a shade of his former self.

[China_hand_Joe]

When you rank fighters in the ATG list..You don't rate them for their gifts or power..if that be the case Roy Jones would be number 1 all time or something. Clearly lb 4 lb has to do with Resume.


There is a huge difference between an "ATG" and "all-time P4P list".

ATG (the great part is key) lists are dominated by fighters from long ago eras. Joe Calzaghe's brilliance means nothing compared to Willie Peps resume, with a load of names on it.

All time P4P lists would be dominated by 1980s onwards fights, as they are simply so much better than those in the 1940s. Harry Grebs resume means shit in comparison with Roy Jones ability.



This flawed definition people have all picked up of P4P needs to be killed off now!

[jecxbox]

I mean we can sit here all we want and say that Roy Jones could beat Ray Robinson but guess what thats a question mark. Nothing is for certain there so you can dream and think about who would beat who all you want but that doesn't mean shit. Roy Jones didn't accomplish a small fraction of what Ray Robinson accomplished therefore Robinson is the greater fighter.

[jecxbox]

The lb 4 lb isn't about whos better its about whos greater. BIG DIFFERENCE

[China_hand_Joe]

It is only meaningless if you look at it as a list that states who can beat who. The lb 4 lb list isn't about who can beat who! It is about who's done what! Thats all that matters in this sport not how hard or how fast or how much defense you have...its about who you've beaten thats IT.

No, you have just defined a boxers greatness.

[DanePugilist]

Imagine a fighter who is 100-0 lb 4 lb the best fighter in boxing fights an unknown boxer with a record of 0-0...And the 0-0 fighter schools the 100-0 fighter...That doesn't make the newly 1-0 fighter lb 4 lb the best fighter in the sport! lb 4 lb isn't about who can beat who or who can do what because those are always question marks and unknowns. the only factual REAL thing in boxing is accomplishments and their resume and thats how you weed out who was greater and who wasn't. It isn't what so and so coulda done its what so and so DIDSo why was PBF no. 1 pre-Oscar? When Pacman had beaten better fighters.

He is simply forgiven because people acknowledge how skilled he is.

[China_hand_Joe]

P4P by definition is "how good a fighter is in relation to their weight."

Purely about how good they are, resume has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it.

The fact the American Boxing media have tried to fuck up the definition to favor American fighter in the Anti-European conspiracy does not change that!

[jecxbox]

the lb 4 lb list works the same exact way as the ATG list. The only difference is that the lb 4 lb list is an ATG list of a small section of time between a group of fighters who have all competed in that same decade or w/e. There really isn't a difference between ATG list and lb 4 lb list.

[Dekkers]

Great thread :lol:, I don't mind people giving Hops a high ranking on achievement but head to head there are a few guys at supermiddle and light heavy I'd confidently pick to beat him atm, Calzaghe being one of them.

[Lance_Uppercut]

the lb 4 lb list works the same exact way as the ATG list. The only difference is that the lb 4 lb list is an ATG list of a small section of time between a group of fighters who have all competed in that same decade or w/e. There really isn't a difference between ATG list and lb 4 lb list.

:good

Ask a poster to name the ATG top 10 fighters and All Time P4P fighters and see how different. Probably not much difference.

[DanePugilist]

The whole idea of P4P is pretty meaningless to begin with.Pretty much, but its fun to toy with at times.

[Carlos Primera]

P4P rankings detirmined without the vital need for names on a resume.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I won't bother factoring in any functions into the graph, which bypass the natural P4P advantages WWs and MWs have over minimum weight and HW
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
this is as good as the tree you put up explaining why jack prescott is a sub concious calzaghe fan

[jecxbox]

lets say Floyd Mayweather never aged and he kept on schooling people to 12 round decisions or w/e..But instead of fighting talented opposition he fights bums and never losses a fight nor deteriorates in athleticism.

On the other hand you got Manny Pacquiao who does slow down with age but he still pulls off the victories against solid opposition and champions at 130lbs... This would put Manny at #1 lb 4 lb and Floyd would move right on down the list.

If you beat great opposition you get bumped up the list theres no other way to put this.

[Lance_Uppercut]

So why was PBF no. 1 pre-Oscar? When Pacman had beaten better fighters.

He is simply forgiven because people acknowledge how skilled he is.

Because you don't move down unoless you lose apparently. Look, P4P lists from different publications and posters often ALL look different, but pretty much have the same criteria. Head to head is NOT a factor because it's too open to bias or opinion. And reallty, P4P is such a pointless item to begin with. It means nothing since everyone and their mother has a different one.

but quick question,if you have one fighter being top guys, champs and PROVEN fighters, but barely, and one beating mere contenders but in an impressive fashion, which do you think should rank higher?

[China_hand_Joe]

:good

Ask a poster to name the ATG top 10 fighters and All Time P4P fighters and see how different. Probably not much difference.

That is because so many have a bad definition of it.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Pretty much, but its fun to toy with at times.

I loved how Maweather fans would say, "He deserves most of the money or to call the shots casue he's P4P..." :lol:

[Lance_Uppercut]

That is because so many have a bad definition of it.

Yours is just as bad, if not worse.

[China_hand_Joe]

I will do another diagram at some point to demonstrate why my definition is vastly superior.

[brooklyn1550]

That is because so many have a bad definition of it.

What makes your definition any better than anyone elses?

[jecxbox]

Ask yourself this why is Pacquiao number 2 if Resume has nothing to do with lb 4 lb? He clearly has his weaknesses and he clearly can be beaten.

Why isn't kessler/Calzaghe/Hatton/Cotto and every other undefeated fighter tied for the #1 spot on the lb 4 lb lists? they all can dispose of B level opposition no problem right? So how the fuck do you separate them? You go to who they fought and who fought more better fighters and thats basically how it works.

[DanePugilist]

Because you don't move down unoless you lose apparently. Look, P4P lists from different publications and posters often ALL look different, but pretty much have the same criteria. Head to head is NOT a factor because it's too open to bias or opinion. And reallty, P4P is such a pointless item to begin with. It means nothing since everyone and their mother has a different one.

but quick question,if you have one fighter being top guys, champs and PROVEN fighters, but barely, and one beating mere contenders but in an impressive fashion, which do you think should rank higher?Firstly I don't understand the concept of H2H, and I never use concepts I don't understand:lol: .

Answer to good question: I can't give a one-dimensional answer, so bear with me. I would say the one that beats top guys. Competing with elites and competing with those below are two different areas. Its easy to look great vs lesser fighters, but fighting elites will most likely be close matches and truely test the fighter.

However, as I have said in the thread, I look at weight, age, and where they are at. I don't rate elites as elites till they hang up their gloves. Some will be elites longer than others - its not static. A contender on the way up could very well be better than a proven elite in his current state(he has just prolonged his stay on the top by handpicking fights, that stylistically won't be nightmares for him or test him).

[DanePugilist]

I loved how Maweather fans would say, "He deserves most of the money or to call the shots casue he's P4P..." :lol::lol: :lol: - yeah, its good sane persons know, who brings the money and attention to a fight.

[MSTR]

lets say Floyd Mayweather never aged and he kept on schooling people to 12 round decisions or w/e..But instead of fighting talented opposition he fights bums and never losses a fight nor deteriorates in athleticism.

On the other hand you got Manny Pacquiao who does slow down with age but he still pulls off the victories against solid opposition and champions at 130lbs... This would put Manny at #1 lb 4 lb and Floyd would move right on down the list.

If you beat great opposition you get bumped up the list theres no other way to put this.
Why does it have to be solely ELITE fighters though. WHy not other world class guys, and base it on how the fighter performs against them. For instance, taking on another world champion or a legitimate contender in the divison and throughly beating them should be worth more in the p4p stakes then it is. An example is Kesslers dominate KO of Marcus Beyer. Beyer is by no stretch great, but surely he deserves credit for KO'ing another world title holder in emphatic fashion?

[China_hand_Joe]

What makes your definition any better than anyone elses?

Lets say you made a graph of a fighters P4P ranking.

Using my way and the RING way of doing things.

This is what the two graphs would very roughly look like:





Which one look nice and continuous and which looks like a pile of yoyo-ing inconsistant crap?

[DanePugilist]

lets say Floyd Mayweather never aged and he kept on schooling people to 12 round decisions or w/e..But instead of fighting talented opposition he fights bums and never losses a fight nor deteriorates in athleticism.

On the other hand you got Manny Pacquiao who does slow down with age but he still pulls off the victories against solid opposition and champions at 130lbs... This would put Manny at #1 lb 4 lb and Floyd would move right on down the list.

If you beat great opposition you get bumped up the list theres no other way to put this.So why did PBF stay at no. 1 when he fought bums like Gatti and Baldomir? Not to mention a weakminded early gassing speedster in Zab Judah?

[MSTR]

:good

Ask a poster to name the ATG top 10 fighters and All Time P4P fighters and see how different. Probably not much difference.
Roy Jones isn't a top ATG... Are you implying that he couldn't beat almost all the top ATG greats head 2 head based on skill and ability? I know for a fact my list would be extremely different.

[DanePugilist]

Lets say you made a graph of a fighters P4P ranking.

Using my way and the RING way of doing things.

This is what the two graphs would very roughly look like:

Which one look nice and continuous and which looks like a pile of yoyo-ing inconsistant crap?Good graphs.

[jecxbox]

So why did PBF stay at no. 1 when he fought bums like Gatti and Baldomir? Not to mention a weakminded early gassing speedster in Zab Judah?

because he has fought from 130-154 with dominance. Never really getting hurt and never appearing that he could lose only once with Castillo and he quickly avenged that. Floyd Defeating Hatton will definitely lock him into the #1 spot.

[China_hand_Joe]

Lets say you made a graph of a fighters P4P ranking.

Using my way and the RING way of doing things.

This is what the two graphs would very roughly look like:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



Which one look nice and continuous and which looks like a pile of yoyo-ing inconsistant crap?fixed

[jecxbox]

basing a list off athleticism makes no sense at all because it is all based of 1 big ass assumption that we will never know. You can only rank fighters by what they have done in the ring and compare that to other boxers. There are too many boxers to rank them in any other way than that.

[DanePugilist]

Ask yourself this why is Pacquiao number 2 if Resume has nothing to do with lb 4 lb? He clearly has his weaknesses and he clearly can be beaten.

Why isn't kessler/Calzaghe/Hatton/Cotto and every other undefeated fighter tied for the #1 spot on the lb 4 lb lists? they all can dispose of B level opposition no problem right? So how the fuck do you separate them? You go to who they fought and who fought more better fighters and thats basically how it works.I have never said that resume should never be considered. I have said it shouldn't govern solely.

Pacman displayed his weaknesses because he faced better fighters than PBF did.

Furthermore is insanely difficult, when none of the mentioned have met elites(as I rate their opposition at time fought, meaning Kostya, Eubank, and Zab)

[Lance_Uppercut]

Firstly I don't understand the concept of H2H, and I never use concepts I don't understand:lol: .

My bad. :good

Answer to good question: I can't give a one-dimensional answer, so bear with me. I would say the one that beats top guys. Competing with elites and competing with those below are two different areas. Its easy to look great vs lesser fighters, but fighting elites will most likely be close matches and truely test the fighter.

However, as I have said in the thread, I look at weight, age, and where they are at. I don't rate elites as elites till they hang up their gloves. Some will be elites longer than others - its not static. A contender on the way up could very well be better than a proven elite in his current state(he has just prolonged his stay on the top by handpicking fights, that stylistically won't be nightmares for him or test him).

I see what you are saying. And that is pretty fucked up for lesser known fighters trying to make a name. I actually thought a while back when Shane and DLH were fighting for the 154 Lb crown, "How are these guys the best 154 when they've barely fought anyone else?" It's a sonofabitch of a situation for some fighters.

That said, while some of these guys are older, they are proven against top fighters. And a fighter who's proven, even older, still is dangerous till knocked off their perch. Look at Fransico Bojado vs. Jesse James Jeija or Mark 'Too Sharp' Johnson vs Fernando Montiel. Both fights the younger guy was supposed to beat the aging fighters, but it didn't happen as it did on paper. I can't say Joe C or anyone beats Hopkins stricly because of his age. When Hopkins very noticably looks like he's an old man that's one thing. But just slowing down compared to his younger version isn't enough. That's where I'm coming from.

[China_hand_Joe]

basing a list off athleticism makes no sense at all because it is all based of 1 big ass assumption that we will never know. You can only rank fighters by what they have done in the ring and compare that to other boxers. There are too many boxers to rank them in any other way than that.

We can use resume as a useful way of eliminating a load of fighters not worth judging.

There are probably less than a hundred truly world class boxers in the world.

[MSTR]

I have never said that resume should never be considered. I have said it shouldn't govern solely.

Pacman displayed his weaknesses because he faced better fighters than PBF did.

Furthermore is insanely difficult, when none of the mentioned have met elites(as I rate their opposition at time fought, meaning Kostya, Eubank, and Zab)
Your posts for the most part have been really good. Definitely the most unbiased Danish poster we have on ESB. Probably the only one who doesn't post solely about Kessler either.

[DanePugilist]

because he has fought from 130-154 with dominance. Never really getting hurt and never appearing that he could lose only once with Castillo and he quickly avenged that. Floyd Defeating Hatton will definitely lock him into the #1 spot.Last elite guy he faced was Castillo 5 years ago(pre-Oscar). Why would he need Hatton when he seemingly has been cemented at no. 1, while beating has-beens for 5 years?

[jecxbox]

Last elite guy he faced was Castillo 5 years ago(pre-Oscar). Why would he need Hatton when he seemingly has been cemented at no. 1, while beating has-beens for 5 years?

I agree with that. I personally think of pacquiao as #1 just because he hasn't taken an easy fight since hes fought Barrera basically. After Castillo (5+ years ago) floyd fought about 8 C+ B level fighters..Then fights Judah baldomir and DLH... Floyd is only LB 4 LB #1 right now because hes moved up in weight but his quality of opposition has been shit for 5 years...He has done just enough to get by and Personally I think he is hanging on his "lb 4 lb #1" spot by a very thin thread.

[China_hand_Joe]

How should these lists be decided? The individual division ratings? It should pointed out no fighters are listed above fighters they are below on the P4P list.

This
week Last
Week Weeks
in
Ratings Fighter Record
C C 228 RICKY HATTON 43-0 (31)
1 1 132 JUNIOR WITTER 35-1-2 (20)
2 2 249 VIVIAN HARRIS 28-2-1 (18)
3 3 11 PAUL MALIGNAGGI 23-1 (5)
4 4 6 GAVIN REES 27-0 (13)
5 5 73 SOULEYMANE M’BAYE 35-2-1 (20)
6 6 99 JOSE LUIS CASTILLO 55-8-1 (47)
7 7 184 LOVEMORE NDOU 45-9-1 (30)
8 8 60 JUAN LAZCANO 37-4-1 (27)
9 9 57 DEMETRIUS HOPKINS 27-0-1 (11)
10 10 43 KENDALL HOLT 22-1 (12)

[jecxbox]

I think it would just be better for the sake of boxing if they made the lb 4 lb list only based on 1 criteria and that is who you face and how many people you beat...(it almost is entirely like that but not quite)

It would work a hell of a lot better if they completely neglected physical talent and ability because it really doesn't matter.

Example: do you think anyone is going to give a shit about Edwin Valero if he keeps knocking out cab drivers in the 1st round? Hell no. Not with a division like that at 130 with people like soto/guzman/JMM/pacman/barrera etc..Sure he has the KO power to KO 1,000 D+ fighters and even if he did KO 1,000 bums i'd still rate Pacquiao higher than him

[DanePugilist]

Your posts for the most part have been really good. Definitely the most unbiased Danish poster we have on ESB. Probably the only one who doesn't post solely about Kessler either.Thank you - flattery always make me blush - I love boxing, and it would be too narrowminded of me to just follow one fighter(what would I do when he retires, we won't get another of such calibre for 20 years:lol: ).

Having said that, I feel that most danes get hammered as being biased, when I feel they are trying to be neutral and levelheaded about things.

Most danes acknowledges JC as a great fighter, and know it will be tough, while I sense a fair share on the other side of the fence don't do the same, but still accuses the danes of incompetence and bias.

[China_hand_Joe]

I think it would just be better for the sake of boxing if they made the lb 4 lb list only based on 1 criteria and that is who you face and how many people you beat...(it almost is entirely like that but not quite)

Do you realise how biased that system of who you beat is?

A system where beating Tarver got Hopkins more credit than Guzman got for beating Barrios in similar fashion.



That is why I like this defintion. Comparing the totatoes to boxers is an interesting point as fruit doesn't have a resume. It makes it quite clear against that there are two dimensions involved, and neither of them are resume.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[DanePugilist]

I agree with that. I personally think of pacquiao as #1 just because he hasn't taken an easy fight since hes fought Barrera basically. After Castillo (5+ years ago) floyd fought about 8 C+ B level fighters..Then fights Judah baldomir and DLH... Floyd is only LB 4 LB #1 right now because hes moved up in weight but his quality of opposition has been shit for 5 years...He has done just enough to get by and Personally I think he is hanging on his "lb 4 lb #1" spot by a very thin thread.What worth has it to move up, when the opposition has been shit at that weight class? TBH I had him at 7th spot pre-Oscar(when just looking at resume). Alot of people have way better resume than PBF had at 130-140, if we go back 5 years. Why isn't Taylor in top spot? Because we all know its on a bleak basis, even if the opposition appear to be great, and he has looked far from convincing in those fights(probably handed a helping hand from a judge or two).

[DanePugilist]

My bad. :good



I see what you are saying. And that is pretty fucked up for lesser known fighters trying to make a name. I actually thought a while back when Shane and DLH were fighting for the 154 Lb crown, "How are these guys the best 154 when they've barely fought anyone else?" It's a sonofabitch of a situation for some fighters.Exactly how I felt, and exactly how I also feel concerning the Taylor-Hopkins, Tarver-RJJ, Tarver-Hopkins, Taylor-Wright, Hopkins-Wright circle-jerking.

That said, while some of these guys are older, they are proven against top fighters. And a fighter who's proven, even older, still is dangerous till knocked off their perch. Look at Fransico Bojado vs. Jesse James Jeija or Mark 'Too Sharp' Johnson vs Fernando Montiel. Both fights the younger guy was supposed to beat the aging fighters, but it didn't happen as it did on paper. I can't say Joe C or anyone beats Hopkins stricly because of his age. When Hopkins very noticably looks like he's an old man that's one thing. But just slowing down compared to his younger version isn't enough. That's where I'm coming from.Very true - some lasts longer than others, but Mark wasn't so old, and Bojado was pretty green, but I understand your point. If they are still beat top guys, age don't matter. However, in the case of Hopkins I feel that looks deceives a bit.

Tito and Oscar seems like great wins and they are of course, as they were both elites and not far from prime, but they played into Hopkins strengths, and wouldn't so likely expose his weaknesses(lower workrate) - he was bigger and could bully them, so the risk lessened, while the reward remained the same.

I reward fighters when they take a challenge they could very well lose. RJJ to a tiny risk fighting at HW, but did so vs the recognized weakest. Hopkins took a tiny risk fighting at LHW, but vs a likewise faded and unstable Milk Dud. Of couse Hopkins couldn't know how bad, Tarver would look, but it was still a great reward vs risk.

As I have said earlier in the thread its hard to gain recognition, when avoided, so we agree there also. JC has been avoided, and especially since he dismantled Lacy; simply too much risk vs reward for the big names.

[DanePugilist]

What a bunch of bullshit in this thread ! All you guys ever do is come on here and ball suck Fagzaghe who's done absolutely nothing ! It's easy to say Tarver or Jones are nothing now , after the fact , but at the time they where beat they where the best ! If Hopkins got his arms cut off I would still rank him ahead of that protected British Fag because he's been avoiding tough fights like he has no arms his whole fucking career !Yes, Jones and Tarver were at their best at 38 and 36. Good Call. Hopkins is at his best at 42. Just wait and see at 45 Fagzaghe will reach his prime.

[KO Boxing]

Yes, Jones and Tarver were at their best at 38 and 36. Good Call. Hopkins is at his best at 42. Just wait and see at 45 Fagzaghe will reach his prime.
Some fighters CAN get better with age, its happened before, and probably will happen again.

And while I DO agree with you, until Tarver beat Jones, Jones was the best 175 pounder in the world EASY. Making Tarver, after knocking him out, clearly the best 175 pounder in the world...

All this *shit* can be blamed on milkdud, who after claiming the no. 1 spot at 175 went on to have 2 fights with Johnson (at the time, one of the best, should of been unification, but were stripped), then after Johnson, waited like a YEAR to have a third fight with a 2 year lay off Jones... That's where the problem started, where already oldish men started waiting a year or so to fight even older men. Then went and did Rocky 6.... So again, all blame on milkdud!

But Roy WAS the man, followed by Tarver... Meaning when Hopkins did beat him, Tarver was still the no. 1 guy.

[Amsterdam]

Yes, Jones and Tarver were at their best at 38 and 36. Good Call. Hopkins is at his best at 42. Just wait and see at 45 Fagzaghe will reach his prime.

Godzaghe has no prime, he is supernatural. It's likely the supernatural being doesn't retire until he's 95-0, with 40 KO's.:smoke

[thesandman]

All this *shit* can be blamed on milkdud, who after claiming the no. 1 spot at 175 went on to have 2 fights with Johnson (at the time, one of the best, should of been unification, but were stripped), then after Johnson, waited like a YEAR to have a third fight with a 2 year lay off Jones... That's where the problem started, where already oldish men started waiting a year or so to fight even older men. Then went and did Rocky 6.... So again, all blame on milkdud!

But Roy WAS the man, followed by Tarver... Meaning when Hopkins did beat him, Tarver was still the no. 1 guy.

I agree 100%. After Johnson and Tarver dropped the belts, it all got ridiculous. There needs to come a time (and The Ring is to blame for this IMO), when enough is enough, and you have to stop fighting the same circle of guys over and over again.

In theory now, Jones-Tarver-Hopkins-Johnson (and now Wright - no doubt 'invited' into the circle of trust because of his GBP relations) could fight each other until they're in their fifties, and still claim to be the #1 LHW.

Yes, the ABC's should have allowed unification, that too was a ridiculous thing that didn't happen.

BUT, enough is enough. These guys can't go on endlessly fighting each other, and claiming to be the #1 guy. It's bullshit.

Call me crazy, but it really wouldn't surprise me to see the winner of Trinidad v Jones Jr fighting Hopkins for the "LHW Championship" :roll:

Why not? Both fights have great marketing angles. A rematch, or a long awaited fight (about 10 yrs too late, but still....)

The thing is. People would buy it, and buy into the fact it was for the LHW championship. And the ring would support it........

[KO Boxing]

Toney beats Calzaghe at 168...:yep

[thesandman]

Toney beats Calzaghe at 168...:yep

You'd have to cut Toneys legs off to make 168 these days.... and even then it would be close :D

[DanePugilist]

Godzaghe has no prime, he is supernatural. It's likely the supernatural being doesn't retire until he's 95-0, with 40 KO's.:smokeMaybe we will experience JC-Kessler XIII

[Amsterdam]

Maybe we will experience JC-Kessler XIII

It'd be a more entertaining old man circle jerk down the line than Wright - Hopkins.:yep

[thesandman]

It'd be a more entertaining old man circle jerk down the line than Wright - Hopkins.:yep

Even with JC's arthritic claws for hands, and Kesslers metal spine......

[Amsterdam]

Even with JC's arthritic claws for hands, and Kesslers metal spine......

Imagine if JC had hands of stone and Kessler had a chin and back of steel.

Imagine if B-Hop took a few chances here and there.

Imagine if Vargas wasn't a cry baby.

Imagine if Jermain Taylor didn't rely on gift decisions.

:think

[DanePugilist]

Imagine if JC had hands of stone and Kessler had a chin and back of steel.

Imagine if B-Hop took a few chances here and there.

Imagine if Vargas wasn't a cry baby.

Imagine if Jermain Taylor didn't rely on gift decisions.

:think:lol: :lol: - perfect.

Imagine if both JC and Kessler would be nicknamed Terminator, for their cybernetic implants. But replace Vargas for Floyd. I like Vargas, haha.

[DanePugilist]

It'd be a more entertaining old man circle jerk down the line than Wright - Hopkins.:yepDefinately, even if the pace of these fights in 2040 equals the circle jerking ones.

[cross_trainer]

Insight even.

Now we know old Bernardo has some interesting names on his resume.

We also know at 42 years of age, having seen Tarvers last fight, knowing Winky is an old LMW and knowing Bernardo lost to Taylor twice. We know someone outside the top 10 could have potentially done these things.

There are people though giving Bernardo every benifit of the doubt however, and they place him in the top 5 P4P based on his past achievements.






Now what I want to know is, if both of Bernard Hopkins' arms fell off his body and couldn't be reattached, would you still consider him a top 5 P4P fighter, until his next fight where he would be exposed as being armless - based on his past resume?

No, because an armless Bernard would be completely unable to carry out the function that he PROVED he could against Tarver.

[cross_trainer]

Godzaghe has no prime, he is supernatural. It's likely the supernatural being doesn't retire until he's 95-0, with 40 KO's.:smoke

Fitz will destroy him after he knocks Marciano out.

[box03]

I gave calazaghe credit when destroyed lacy but if you think about who did calazaghe really ever beat close to the names of hopkins resume theres really no comparison there I hope kessler beats him and deflates this overrated balloon we call calazaghe

[He Hate Me]

hopkins is nearly impossible to beat, he knows every trick in the book.

[psychopath]

Insight even.

Now we know old Bernardo has some interesting names on his resume.

We also know at 42 years of age, having seen Tarvers last fight, knowing Winky is an old LMW and knowing Bernardo lost to Taylor twice. We know someone outside the top 10 could have potentially done these things.

There are people though giving Bernardo every benifit of the doubt however, and they place him in the top 5 P4P based on his past achievements.






Now what I want to know is, if both of Bernard Hopkins' arms fell off his body and couldn't be reattached, would you still consider him a top 5 P4P fighter, until his next fight where he would be exposed as being armless - based on his past resume?

If Bhops becomes armless he could no longer fight shithead, but he would not lose his stature nor his ratings instantly based on his accomplishements.

" . . . based on his past achivements?" . . . yeah because that's how it is in this sports. You don't rate fighters based on fans' hallucinations and based on what he hasn't accomplished yet.

. . . so your thread is a fucki'm trash, :D :lol: :yep

[thesandman]

That's because it would be and that's the way it is . What do you think it was like when there was only one title . You think every Chad Dawson that came along just got a title shot whenever they felt like it . Some guys never got it !

Never get what? the fact that old guys are protecting their earning status by continuing to fight each other, and not having the younger names shattering their illusion of greatness??

[Korn_06]

Insight even.

Now we know old Bernardo has some interesting names on his resume.

We also know at 42 years of age, having seen Tarvers last fight, knowing Winky is an old LMW and knowing Bernardo lost to Taylor twice. We know someone outside the top 10 could have potentially done these things.

There are people though giving Bernardo every benifit of the doubt however, and they place him in the top 5 P4P based on his past achievements.






Now what I want to know is, if both of Bernard Hopkins' arms fell off his body and couldn't be reattached, would you still consider him a top 5 P4P fighter, until his next fight where he would be exposed as being armless - based on his past resume?

I dont really do p4p lists since I think I would be rated a retard if I did, and I have too little knowledge of the lower weight divisions. But the answer to this question is of course NO.

INTERESTING is however, if we imagine a BHOP with 2 arms and 1 head fighting RJJ at LHW for no belt at all. And RJJ wins!!! Where would you rate RJJ P4P and where would you rate BHOP P4P? Also interesting where would you rank Tarver now?

[China_hand_Joe]

I dont really do p4p lists since I think I would be rated a retard if I did, and I have too little knowledge of the lower weight divisions. But the answer to this question is of course NO.

INTERESTING is however, if we imagine a BHOP with 2 arms and 1 head fighting RJJ at LHW for no belt at all. And RJJ wins!!! Where would you rate RJJ P4P and where would you rate BHOP P4P? Also interesting where would you rank Tarver now?

Tarver did just scrape by someone way outside the top 50. There is too many weak fighters around his level to place him exactly. Whereas there are less elite fighters, whom you have seen a lot of, which makes them easier to rank. Tarver could be anywhere from 40-150 now!

[halfamazin1]

hopkins is nearly impossible to beat, he knows every trick in the book.

YUP:thumbsup

[The Whaler]

hopkins is nearly impossible to beat, he knows every trick in the book.

What if Hopkins' head fell off but he still had use of his arms? Would he still be Top 5 P4P?

[China_hand_Joe]

What if Hopkins' head fell off but he still had use of his arms? Would he still be Top 5 P4P?

The question is, why won't they rate him lower because he's old.

Being old is pretty much the same as having no arms. Hopkins is getting as slow as Carl Froch these days.

[China_hand_Joe]

I think China Hand Joe is mad because he knows that Calzaghe will never be greater than B-Hop :deal

Not greater no.

Greatness is overrated anyway and is reserved solely for American fighters. Calzaghe is true P4P material though.

[The Whaler]

I think China Hand Joe is mad because he knows that Calzaghe will never be greater than B-Hop :deal

Wright was pfp #4-6 and hadnt had a loss in 8 1/2 years, Hopkins at 42 still beat him. Also he moved up in weight to beat Tarver and yes I believe alot of other guys could've done that but they didnt. Hopkins was a 3-1 underdog in that fight still and he dominated it (in a way redeeming his loss to Jones). While Hopkins is beating top 10 pfp guys while Joes at his hometown beating up The Contender runner up (not even the winner :lol: ) and getting an early stoppage over him at that.

Teddy "Ultimate Dragon" Atlas KO1 Bernard Hopkins

[brooklyn1550]

Calzaghe is true P4P material though.

Based off his wins over the great Jeff Lacy, Sakio Bika, and Peter Manfredo? Hopkins would still look every bit as good against those guys as Calzaghe did. Hopkins has fought the better opposition, fighters with higher P4P status, and won despite being 40+. Now that is P4P material.

[DanePugilist]

Based off his wins over the great Jeff Lacy, Sakio Bika, and Peter Manfredo? Hopkins would still look every bit as good against those guys as Calzaghe did. Hopkins has fought the better opposition, fighters with higher P4P status, and won despite being 40+. Now that is P4P material.Truth be told, Hopkins have never looked as good as JC did vs Lacy, nor would he be able to.

[Fedor Em]

Hopkins-Trinidad... :-(

Also Hopkins vs Johnson :good