The real p4p top 10

[gilgamesh]

Alright then in no particular order, the no brainers are Loma, Rigo, Crawford, GGG and ward, Pacman gets in on merit, so that leaves 4 more which is where I struggle, the options I can think of would include- Gonzales, Inoue, Garcia, Thurman, Joshua, Spence and probably loads of lower weight fighters I'm missing out so a top six is all can confidently reach

Talent wise rigo is 2. But It is as if he was retired. He just fights nobodys. Pac is not top 10 anymore. How can he be top p4p when he is like 3 in his own weight division. Prime thurman & prime spence have the youth, the power. Pac is old, lost his power. Cant even tko jessie vargas, someone who would get wrecked by spence or thurman. His time is over.

Pacquiao would still be even to beat Thurman in my opinion, and his resume is infinitely better than either one. He's certainly past his prime, but his slipping hasn't been too dramatic just yet. Could be any time now though.

[TNTHands]

I love to watch Loma fight but how does a guy with under 15 fights get to be number 1?

[gilgamesh]

I love to watch Loma fight but how does a guy with under 15 fights get to be number 1?

Do you guys not get that it's not a matter of HOW MANY fighters you've beaten, but rather WHO you've beaten. He's already beaten several top fighters, and already has one of the deeper resumes among active fighters.

[TNTHands]

I love to watch Loma fight but how does a guy with under 15 fights get to be number 1?

Do you guys not get that it's not a matter of HOW MANY fighters you've beaten, but rather WHO you've beaten. He's already beaten several top fighters, and already has one of the deeper resumes among active fighters.

I disagree for the most part, its a little easier to be in your physical prime when you haven't had to go thru 20 or more fights, that's why the fighters with more heart and will such as Andre Ward are able to rise to the occasion in big fights.

[davie]

Talent wise rigo is 2.

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

[TNTHands]

I honestly couldn't call a Rigo vs Loma fight, it would be a spectacular match as they are both masters of pure pugilism.

[Covfefe]

Talent wise rigo is 2.

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

[Jip]

Talent wise rigo is 2.

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

Exactly. Thr ring rank by records. Other rank in a combination of record and skills/physical atributes.

And i like to view p4p as foxusing mostly on skills/physcial atributes.

Rigo beat nobodys and had few fight but easily beat back than p4p top 4 donare. Loma only had a xouple of fights but beat guys with muxh more fights like russell.

Skills wins fights, not resumes

[Jip]

Talent wise rigo is 2.

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

You a non expert. You are not able to see right away a boxer is. Experts can say if someone is the real deal or not.

[Covfefe]

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

You a non expert. You are not able to see right away a boxer is. Experts can say if someone is the real deal or not.

Of course you can.

[davie]

Talent wise rigo is 2.

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

I also remember how a lot of people who knew their shit called him on being a flashy wanker, picking on under-sized, under-talented opposition and that he'd come up short when he stepped up.

Watching Broner dominate weaker opposition and wathcing Loma/Rigo do it is different even to my untrained eye. Many on here, who know the sport better than I do certainly spotted that.

The likes of Rigo and Loma will be less effective when faced with proper p4p opposition but you can just see there is an elite level of talent there

[davie]

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

You a non expert. You are not able to see right away a boxer is. Experts can say if someone is the real deal or not.

Of course you can.

By the way....when I mentioned people who know the sport better

I was of course referring to Boxrec's resident expert, the mighty Jippppaaaaa

[Covfefe]

Talent is how you should rank p4p.
Talent, ability, physical attributes.
The tools you need to win a fight, someone you think beats guys (irrespective of weight) below them on the list.

Not resume. Sure you need to beat good fighter to prove for certain you have the tools.

If you ranked fighter on their record, Lomachenko would not be top of your list.
I don't have the hard-on for Rigo that you do and I'd still find place for him in my top 10, the guy is phenomenal.

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

I also remember how a lot of people who knew their poo called him on being a flashy wanker, picking on under-sized, under-talented opposition and that he'd come up short when he stepped up.

Watching Broner dominate weaker opposition and wathcing Loma/Rigo do it is different even to my untrained eye. Many on here, who know the sport better than I do certainly spotted that.

The likes of Rigo and Loma will be less effective when faced with proper p4p opposition but you can just see there is an elite level of talent there

Of course you can but those two are very much an exception. Few fighters look this good early in their careers against much worse fighters than those two are facing. My point is, lots of up and coming fighters look the business against lesser oppposition and until they've proven those skills I don't think you can rank on simply talent, it's a combination of many things.

[Jip]

If i voted purly on skills/physical a. Than loma and rigo are the 2 best boxers in the world. If id go purly on record than pac and roman.

[davie]

You can't rank talent till they've shown their skills against a top fighter. Remember how good Broner looked against smaller less talented fighters?

I also remember how a lot of people who knew their poo called him on being a flashy wanker, picking on under-sized, under-talented opposition and that he'd come up short when he stepped up.

Watching Broner dominate weaker opposition and wathcing Loma/Rigo do it is different even to my untrained eye. Many on here, who know the sport better than I do certainly spotted that.

The likes of Rigo and Loma will be less effective when faced with proper p4p opposition but you can just see there is an elite level of talent there

Of course you can but those two are very much an exception. Few fighters look this good early in their careers against much worse fighters than those two are facing. My point is, lots of up and coming fighters look the business against lesser oppposition and until they've proven those skills I don't think you can rank on simply talent, it's a combination of many things.

it is, but I always favour ability (or my interpretation of ability) when ranking p4p.
It's a very subjective thing anyway but if we just relied on records we'd be as well letting Boxrec calculate it with an algorithm and tell us what we think.

Sometimes the very best can't fight the very best and you have to trust your judgement. I don't think I'm too bad at judging how good or bad a fighter is , even watching at lower level and don't find myself being drawn in by 'impressive' prospects blowing away opposition.
I often get surprised at the gullibility of UK fans watching the likes of our Olympic stars . I've called bulshit on Luke Campbell being an elite talent for long enough and know that Callum Smith will run out of steam when he can't blast his way to a win. (I expect to be proven right with big Mundo Smith fairly soon)

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Espn knows sh:'×t about boxing. The ring, ones the bible of boxing cant be taken seriously since years. They had a mma girl on a boxing cover . they had ward as p4p#1 after the first kovalev when 80 % of all people/media had kovalev as the winner. The ring should be amongs the biggest experts in boxing and know who truly won and who got a gift descision and in that order do their rankings! How can u rate somebody as p4p 1 when there is video evidence that his last 3 punches that made the fake ko where low blows? Gvozdyk and bertebiev are younger, dont gass out after 6, have equal power to kovalev and would fu;!@(k ward up badly.

Trues must stay trues. Its true that ward is a very goiy boxer. Its true that had he truly won both kovalev fights that in terms of record he would be the boxer with the best record in boxing. I say best record, surely not best boxer cause in terms of speed, footwork, punch variation he is far away from the best boxer in the world which is loma.

1. Lomachenko
2. Crawford
Are 2 clear picks!
3.-10. Are tough choices, thurman & spence have to fight each other. Kovalev's stamina is poor. Ward is juat a dirty boxer, who would get brutalized by bert or gvoz. Canelo, GGG, joshua, wangek and gonzales

OK WE SHOULD JUST LISTEN TO YOU YOUR THE NEW ESPN/THE RING THE EXPERT ON BOXING BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[gilgamesh]

I love to watch Loma fight but how does a guy with under 15 fights get to be number 1?

Do you guys not get that it's not a matter of HOW MANY fighters you've beaten, but rather WHO you've beaten. He's already beaten several top fighters, and already has one of the deeper resumes among active fighters.

I disagree for the most part, its a little easier to be in your physical prime when you haven't had to go thru 20 or more fights, that's why the fighters with more heart and will such as Andre Ward are able to rise to the occasion in big fights.

Trust me, Vasyl Lomachenko has some miles on him after almost 400 amateur fights.