BoxRec

Good afternoon guys, I've just saw the Ring P4P ranking and I would like to know from you how much do you agree with it and if possible what would be yours.

http://www.ringtv.com/ratings/?weightclass=251

I agree with most fighters on the list just in different positions

Frampton is too low. Flip him with Rigo. I would drop Chocolatito below Ward and Krusher.

No complaints really, wouldn't have Canelo in there though

Lomachenko needs to be there

Lomachenko is there.

Luis Ortiz

please

hey that rhymes

It's more or less fine. I'd have found a space for Inoue (debating with myself if it would be for Canelo, Frampton or Yamanaka), and I'd have to have a hard thought on whether Gonzo still deserves #1 after his struggles with Cuadras (a fine fighter but not on the level of GGG, Ward, Kov, Crawford etc). I think Inoue is better at the weight so though RG rates high on overall resume and still recently demonstrated skillset it is hard to overlook that black mark when his rivals for #1 don't have anything similar.

I haven't actually watched Ward-Kovalev yet so I can't reasonably make a list of my own.

But at least their list is better than Boxing News'. Tim Bradley at #5?

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/pound-for-pound/

I have no problem with the list. I'd probably have the same names in a slightly different order, but it's fine.

its a list only based on record, not ability.

gonzales has the best record so he is #1, nobody can convince me roman a better boxer than lomachenko or rigondeaux.

yamanaka and frampton, i dont have them in my top 10. usyk, canelo at the bottom of the top 10. but i would have pacquiao or lara in it instead of those 2.

ward at #2 is a joke. from the ring magazine, a magazine supposed to know boxing, to be boxing experts i want more expertise, they saw the fight, they know who won, who lost. otherwise they aint experts. damn even a non experts knows. ward shouldnt be in a top 5. to many ilegal stuff he does, to much clinching, wrestling, fights very rarely.didnt look impressiv in years.

in no particular order

rigo
loma
___________
crawford
ward
kovalev
inoue
ggg
gonzales
___________
usyk
canelo

I don't agree with it but everyone to their own.
How they leave Danny Garcia out of it ?

The top 7 all have to be in there - although I can see why people could omit Rigo based on his recent opposition and performances.

Canelo's inclusion is questionable, his resume is strong, but he has received several questionable decisions. Yamanaka I don't know enough about to comment. Frampton is a good inclusion.

Jip wrote:its a list only based on record, not ability.

gonzales has the best record so he is #1, nobody can convince me roman a better boxer than lomachenko or rigondeaux.

yamanaka and frampton, i dont have them in my top 10. usyk, canelo at the bottom of the top 10. but i would have pacquiao or lara in it instead of those 2.

ward at #2 is a joke. from the ring magazine, a magazine supposed to know boxing, to be boxing experts i want more expertise, they saw the fight, they know who won, who lost. otherwise they aint experts. damn even a non experts knows. ward shouldnt be in a top 5. to many ilegal stuff he does, to much clinching, wrestling, fights very rarely.didnt look impressiv in years.

Ring's lists always go on the official result, not their own opinion of the fight. I saw the fight live and was hoping Kovalev would win, but I scored it 114-113 to Ward. Rewatching the fight, I had it for Kovalev by a point. I said after the fight that Ward should be p4p #1, but upon rewatching and taking into account the questionable nature of the decision (I know the majority scored the fight to Kovalev and the judges definitely screwed him with their scoring of the 10th round), I've changed my mind. For me, p4p is vacant - there's no clear #1.

I mostly agree with who is in it, not necessarily the order. I'd have Frampton higher. Ward and Rigo lower. I'd probably consider switching Yamanaka out for Usyk.

It mostly has the right players, but I really can't agree with Yamanaka being in and Pacquiao being out. That is totally nonsense.

The list is recycled BS... Gonzalez looked terrible in his last fight. He lost on my card and he was almost crying because he was expecting to lose -- and I don't agree with quite a few names on the list. Frampton doesn't have the skills of an elite fighter and Gary Russell would knock him out. Rigondeaux doesn't seem interested anymore. Ward got floored and beaten up in his last fight... Alvarez is too much of a ducker to be a Top-10 guy.

1. Lomachenko... 2. Golovkin... 3. Joshua... 4. Kovalev... 5. Russell... 6. Usyk... 7. Ortiz... 8. Spence... 9. Crawford... 10. Eubank... 11. Brook... 12. M. Garcia

Kalan wrote:The list is recycled BS... Gonzalez looked terrible in his last fight. He lost on my card and he was almost crying because he was expecting to lose -- and I don't agree with quite a few names on the list. Frampton doesn't have the skills of an elite fighter and Gary Russell would knock him out. Rigondeaux doesn't seem interested anymore. Ward got floored and beaten up in his last fight... Alvarez is too much of a ducker to be a Top-10 guy.

1. Lomachenko... 2. Golovkin... 3. Joshua... 4. Kovalev... 5. Russell... 6. Usyk... 7. Ortiz... 8. Spence... 9. Crawford... 10. Eubank... 11. Brook... 12. M. Garcia

Wow - really? If the Ring list is BS, what the hell is that!?

Rob3_142 wrote:

Kalan wrote:The list is recycled BS... Gonzalez looked terrible in his last fight. He lost on my card and he was almost crying because he was expecting to lose -- and I don't agree with quite a few names on the list. Frampton doesn't have the skills of an elite fighter and Gary Russell would knock him out. Rigondeaux doesn't seem interested anymore. Ward got floored and beaten up in his last fight... Alvarez is too much of a ducker to be a Top-10 guy.

1. Lomachenko... 2. Golovkin... 3. Joshua... 4. Kovalev... 5. Russell... 6. Usyk... 7. Ortiz... 8. Spence... 9. Crawford... 10. Eubank... 11. Brook... 12. M. Garcia

Wow - really? If the Ring list is BS, what the hell is that!?

It's the biggest pile of shit since Jurassic Park, that's what it is.

Kalan wrote:1. Lomachenko... 2. Golovkin... 3. Joshua... 4. Kovalev... 5. Russell... 6. Usyk... 7. Ortiz... 8. Spence... 9. Crawford... 10. Eubank... 11. Brook... 12. M. Garcia

Wow. Making lists really isn't your thing.

jezzamundo wrote:

Jip wrote:its a list only based on record, not ability.

gonzales has the best record so he is #1, nobody can convince me roman a better boxer than lomachenko or rigondeaux.

yamanaka and frampton, i dont have them in my top 10. usyk, canelo at the bottom of the top 10. but i would have pacquiao or lara in it instead of those 2.

ward at #2 is a joke. from the ring magazine, a magazine supposed to know boxing, to be boxing experts i want more expertise, they saw the fight, they know who won, who lost. otherwise they aint experts. damn even a non experts knows. ward shouldnt be in a top 5. to many ilegal stuff he does, to much clinching, wrestling, fights very rarely.didnt look impressiv in years.

Ring's lists always go on the official result, not their own opinion of the fight. I saw the fight live and was hoping Kovalev would win, but I scored it 114-113 to Ward. Rewatching the fight, I had it for Kovalev by a point. I said after the fight that Ward should be p4p #1, but upon rewatching and taking into account the questionable nature of the decision (I know the majority scored the fight to Kovalev and the judges definitely screwed him with their scoring of the 10th round), I've changed my mind. For me, p4p is vacant - there's no clear #1.

based on record i found the list with a clear #1. undefeated in so many fights, against such good opposition, only can be roman. based on skills its vacant cause both loma and rigo are on a league of their own, nobody touches their athletiscm and overall skill set.

Jip wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Jip wrote:its a list only based on record, not ability.

gonzales has the best record so he is #1, nobody can convince me roman a better boxer than lomachenko or rigondeaux.

yamanaka and frampton, i dont have them in my top 10. usyk, canelo at the bottom of the top 10. but i would have pacquiao or lara in it instead of those 2.

ward at #2 is a joke. from the ring magazine, a magazine supposed to know boxing, to be boxing experts i want more expertise, they saw the fight, they know who won, who lost. otherwise they aint experts. damn even a non experts knows. ward shouldnt be in a top 5. to many ilegal stuff he does, to much clinching, wrestling, fights very rarely.didnt look impressiv in years.

Ring's lists always go on the official result, not their own opinion of the fight. I saw the fight live and was hoping Kovalev would win, but I scored it 114-113 to Ward. Rewatching the fight, I had it for Kovalev by a point. I said after the fight that Ward should be p4p #1, but upon rewatching and taking into account the questionable nature of the decision (I know the majority scored the fight to Kovalev and the judges definitely screwed him with their scoring of the 10th round), I've changed my mind. For me, p4p is vacant - there's no clear #1.

based on record i found the list with a clear #1. undefeated in so many fights, against such good opposition, only can be roman. based on skills its vacant cause both loma and rigo are on a league of their own, nobody touches their athletiscm and overall skill set.

skills no good without results

Evander wrote:I don't agree with it but everyone to their own.
How they leave Danny Garcia out of it ?

you mean the guy who is gonne get wrecked by thurman and would lose to spence and brook?

i'll make 2 lists, 2 top 5 lists p4p based on record and based on skills/athletiscm!

record

1. pacquiao
2. gonzales
3. kovalev
4. canelo
5. crawford

s/a

1. lomachenko
2. rigondeaux
3. inoue
4. spence
5. gonzales


so if you wanna mix both lists, than roman gonzales is the standing p4p king. he has the best record in all of boxing and is athletic with great skills.

I'd swap Yamanaka for Pacquiao and probably change the order a bit. But 9/10 is a decent list.