P4P & PBC

[Enlightened-One]

It intrigues me that so many fighters are granted an honorary rite of passage to membership of the mythical top-ten pound-for-pound elite, simply because they manage to remain unbeaten, whilst passing the proverbial “eyeball test” by appearing “impressive” against second-tier opposition, without having faced genuine talent…

Whereas those fighters with strong resumes’ that appear less dominant and having incurred a few losses, due to the fact that they regularly face top-drawer opposition, are usually excluded from consideration.

And people often wonder why certain fighters are protected, whilst also questioning the reason why casual fans over emphasize the significance of losses on resumes? Where’s the mystery?

The second that guys like Miguel Cotto, Wladimir Klitschko, Timothy Bradley, Manny Pacquiao etc. suffer a loss, they’re automatically disqualified from being a pound-for-pounder, whereas fighters that were previously rated below them are subsequently elevated to a higher position without having fought and despite having faced weaker opposition.

The pound-for-pound top ten list and comments in this thread seem to almost exclusively support unbeaten fighters, with a respectful mention to a couple of boxers that have suffered only one defeat very early on in their careers.

Hypothetically-speaking, if Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin and Terence Crawford all lose their very next fights, does this mean that they should be immediately placed on the proverbial “scrapheap”?

[BAD INTENTIONS]

It intrigues me that so many fighters are granted an honorary rite of passage to membership of the mythical top-ten pound-for-pound elite, simply because they manage to remain unbeaten, whilst passing the proverbial “eyeball test” by appearing “impressive” against second-tier opposition, without having faced genuine talent…

Whereas those fighters with strong resumes’ that appear less dominant and having incurred a few losses, due to the fact that they regularly face top-drawer opposition, are usually excluded from consideration.

And people often wonder why certain fighters are protected, whilst also questioning the reason why casual fans over emphasize the significance of losses on resumes? Where’s the mystery?

The second that guys like Miguel Cotto, Wladimir Klitschko, Timothy Bradley, Manny Pacquiao etc. suffer a loss, they’re automatically disqualified from being a pound-for-pounder, whereas fighters that were previously rated below them are subsequently elevated to a higher position without having fought and despite having faced weaker opposition.

The pound-for-pound top ten list and comments in this thread seem to almost exclusively support unbeaten fighters, with a respectful mention to a couple of boxers that have suffered only one defeat very early on in their careers.

Hypothetically-speaking, if Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin and Terence Crawford all lose their very next fights, does this mean that they should be immediately placed on the proverbial “scrapheap”?

You are enlightened.
The first paragraph has been a point I've been coming back to for a while.

Rabid fans don't realize they are setting up their fighters for failure. I did it to Jeff Lacy.
Once you lose, people look further than how you won, and finally look at who you beat.

If Crawford fought Garcia next somehow and lost somehow, his resume would become:
Postol (Solid win)
Gamboa (Got hurt by a smaller guy)
A bunch of guys who almost every top fighter beats.

That doesn't hold up to #4 p4p.

I think it's clear that p4p has shamelessly become about promotion.
Less than 10 years ago, you had to have resume that proved you were the goods to be p4p.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Danny Garcia has one bad decision win.
In a fight rife with distractions, against a sloppy guy.
Most fighters have this happen to them.

Besides that, clear wins:
2012 Morales SUPER ROIDS + coming off a TKO win and a good loss to Maidana
2013 Khan
2014 Mattysse
2015 Peterson
2016 ________

In between all that, you have solid wins against
2013 Zab Judah Zab's last stand
2015 Malinaggi To this day, only very good fighters stop Paulie
2016 Guerrero Fights everyone tough

To me the big difference is if Crawford/Postol got him #4, Mattysse/Garcia should have gotten Danny the same thing.
It's ridiculous how everyone just stopped the Mattysse hype after the Garcia fight.
I manned up and transferred my Mattysse hype to Garcia.
No one else seemed to do the same.
Instead many people resented Garcia for his greatest accomplishment.

Wish we could have had Garcia/Crawford in 2016 to solve this.
But no, because Arum and Haymon said so ... what a world.

[Boxing Prospect]

Garcia has 3 bad wins, Theophane, Herrera and Peterson