BoxRec

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:

world ranked wrote:
Good try but really who has he really beat to be considered p4p. In what capcity him or Lebedeev is p4p for again just because your #1 in a division. I don't believe he the best bantamweight in the world imo let alone be p4p. Not p4p resume or talent just because they made a lot defenses means nothing I pretty sure you would have name Uchiyama too right? Too bad you can't and didn't even lose to a guy who was top of the division just calling out names just to be different knowing these guys aren't P4P

Out of curiosity what's your P4P top 10?

In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:

world ranked wrote:
Good try but really who has he really beat to be considered p4p. In what capcity him or Lebedeev is p4p for again just because your #1 in a division. I don't believe he the best bantamweight in the world imo let alone be p4p. Not p4p resume or talent just because they made a lot defenses means nothing I pretty sure you would have name Uchiyama too right? Too bad you can't and didn't even lose to a guy who was top of the division just calling out names just to be different knowing these guys aren't P4P

Out of curiosity what's your P4P top 10?

In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote: Out of curiosity what's your P4P top 10?

In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

That list is even more laughable than an average one. I like "no order" concept, but excluding Golovkin while including his duckers Canelo and Cotto is just plain ridiculous.
Including Bradley, D Garcia and S Porter and excluding Thurman and Brook (who defeated Porter) is also laughable.

PredatorHayds wrote:

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote: Out of curiosity what's your P4P top 10?

In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

No way Porter is higher than Yamanaka

PredatorHayds wrote:

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote: Out of curiosity what's your P4P top 10?

In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

No way Porter is higher than Yamanaka

world ranked wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:
In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

That list is even more laughable than an average one. I like "no order" concept, but excluding Golovkin while including his duckers Canelo and Cotto is just plain ridiculous.
Including Bradley, D Garcia and S Porter and excluding Thurman and Brook (who defeated Porter) is also laughable.

Brook like Fury and GGG has really one legit win against top five guys in there division. I rate of who beat not hype and projections resume means more than one win or who you guys think would win resume is proof opinion is not.

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
That list is even more laughable than an average one. I like "no order" concept, but excluding Golovkin while including his duckers Canelo and Cotto is just plain ridiculous.
Including Bradley, D Garcia and S Porter and excluding Thurman and Brook (who defeated Porter) is also laughable.

Brook like Fury and GGG has really one legit win against top five guys in there division. I rate of who beat not hype and projections resume means more than one win or who you guys think would win resume is proof opinion is not.

That just proves how ridiculous p4p lists are if you base just on resumes.

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:

world ranked wrote:
In no order Gonzalez, Ward, Canelo, Rigo, Bradley, Crawford, D Garcia, Kovelev, Cotto, Klitschko/S Porter

No way Porter is higher than Yamanaka

Yamanaka has done nothing but a spilit decision vs Moreno which he really lost. Just because he's #1 on boxrec means nothing watch the Moreno fight he lost. Beside that gift he has beat nobody to even considered top 50. Joke

PredatorHayds wrote:

world ranked wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote: No way Porter is higher than Yamanaka

Yamanaka has done nothing but a spilit decision vs Moreno which he really lost. Just because he's #1 on boxrec means nothing watch the Moreno fight he lost. Beside that gift he has beat nobody to even considered top 50. Joke

Wasn't a gift decision it was a close fight.

He's beat Iwasa, Darchinyan, Tunacao, Rungvisai, Moreno and Solis.
You didn't have GGG in your current P4P top 10?
No problems if you don't have Yamanaka in your top 10 but he's around that sort of level but looking like his best days may be slightly behind him.

world ranked wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:
Brook like Fury and GGG has really one legit win against top five guys in there division. I rate of who beat not hype and projections resume means more than one win or who you guys think would win resume is proof opinion is not.

That just proves how ridiculous p4p lists are if you base just on resumes.

What else would you base it on? Facts right the only facts are in the ring not in opinion. That's called bias I see you have it.

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
That just proves how ridiculous p4p lists are if you base just on resumes.

What else would you base it on? Facts right the only facts are in the ring not in opinion. That's called bias I see you have it.

Golovkin dominates his division, barely loses any rounds and beats multiple top 10 opponents, but you put two guys who ducked him above him ??? Who did Cotto beat in the last 4 years ?

Brook comfortably beats Porter, but you put Porter above him ???

As I said, p4p lists are worthless, because they just reflect opinions. Still, best of those worthless lists are based on resumes in the last few years, fighter dominating their divisions, and yes, in some extent, on eye test.

world ranked wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:
What else would you base it on? Facts right the only facts are in the ring not in opinion. That's called bias I see you have it.

Golovkin dominates his division, barely loses any rounds and beats multiple top 10 opponents, but you put two guys who ducked him above him ??? Who did Cotto beat in the last 4 years ?

Brook comfortably beats Porter, but you put Porter above him ???

As I said, p4p lists are worthless, because they just reflect opinions. Still, best of those worthless lists are based on resumes in the last few years, fighter dominating their divisions, and yes, in some extent, on eye test.

Every fan has got the eye test wrong, so that's just a bias why to support our opinion where again results are facts.GGG hasn't dominated his division he dominated his opponents but the top middleweights the last few years he hasn't fought Martinez, Cotto, Canelo, Jacobs, Quillin, Lee his best win was Lemieux a top 5 middleweight but no where near to the top of division and until he does that (even though its not his fault) but you don't credit of projections actually get it done in the ring.

boxing_rocks wrote:

world ranked wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
Golovkin dominates his division, barely loses any rounds and beats multiple top 10 opponents, but you put two guys who ducked him above him ??? Who did Cotto beat in the last 4 years ?

Brook comfortably beats Porter, but you put Porter above him ???

As I said, p4p lists are worthless, because they just reflect opinions. Still, best of those worthless lists are based on resumes in the last few years, fighter dominating their divisions, and yes, in some extent, on eye test.

Every fan has got the eye test wrong, so that's just a bias why to support our opinion where again results are facts.GGG hasn't dominated his division he dominated his opponents but the top middleweights the last few years he hasn't fought Martinez, Cotto, Canelo, Jacobs, Quillin, Lee his best win was Lemieux a top 5 middleweight but no where near to the top of division and until he does that (even though its not his fault) but you don't credit of projections actually get it done in the ring.

Wow, you are really delusional if you think that Golovkin hasn't dominated the division. End of discussion.