BoxRec

Jip wrote:

littlepug wrote: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.

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

gilgamesh wrote:

TNTHands wrote: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.

Jip wrote: Talent wise rigo is 2.

davie wrote:

Jip wrote: 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.

davie wrote:

Jip wrote: 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.

Covfefe wrote:

davie wrote:

Jip wrote: 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 wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

davie wrote:
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 wrote:

davie wrote:

Jip wrote: 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?

Covfefe wrote:

Jip wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
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 wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

davie wrote:
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

Covfefe wrote:

davie wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
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 wrote: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

TNTHands wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

TNTHands wrote: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.