iamasadlittleboy Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 What matters more: Talent (his view) Opponents (my view) IMO you can't be a p4p fighter with out fighting good contemporaries, hence why Calzaghe wasn't a top p4p fighter until late in his reign as he was certainly one of the most talented fighters of his generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapevine241 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 definitely opposition. ive seen raskin's lists before and they are just ridiculous. if its based on skills then rigondeaux is top 10 P4P... which is silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshDevilRob Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 P4P lists are fantasy lists really but I suppose you need to prove yourself and your talent by beating good opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBride Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Talent obviously, there is no contest. It can hardly be your fault if you fight in a division that is full of crap compared to you. All those people who say who they think someone should have fought are only blowing their own trumpets. I will give a perfect example. There were people who slaggedf off Calzaghe for not fighting amongst others James Toney, blissfully unaware in their own opinionated stupidity that James was already fightingh at Cruiser when JC was winning his S / Middle title from Chris Eubank. That right there is enough to convince me that " fans " opinions on who fighters should fight are 99.9 percent recurring horse shit. Here is another slant on it. Was Tyson a highly talented fighter, or was he only alright fighting junkies, alchoholics, C class fighters, and other mentally disturbed types, who totally collapsed when he faced someone who wasn't intimdated, and fought back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapevine241 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Talent obviously, there is no contest. It can hardly be your fault if you fight in a division that is full of crap compared to you. All those people who say who they think someone should have fought are only blowing their own trumpets. I will give a perfect example. There were people who slaggedf off Calzaghe for not fighting amongst others James Toney, blissfully unaware in their own opinionated stupidity that James was already fightingh at Cruiser when JC was winning his S / Middle title from Chris Eubank. That right there is enough to convince me that " fans " opinions on who fighters should fight are 99.9 percent recurring horse shit. Here is another slant on it. Was Tyson a highly talented fighter, or was he only alright fighting junkies, alchoholics, C class fighters, and other mentally disturbed types, who totally collapsed when he faced someone who wasn't intimdated, and fought back? you dont get special points for being in a weak division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBride Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Nor should you, and by the same token criticism for the same is worthless. Then of course there are fighters who are so talented they just make the rest of their division look crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edsel77x Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 It all depends on who is running the poll and owns them. Criteria wise, it can very well be either or and or a combination of both. If the division is weak, then not much you can do but name him tops. But if it is weak, then it should be noted how he wins. Does he tear thru and just destruct his opponents? Does he win convincingly? If the division is stacked.., does he avoid the tops, does he retire conveniently, does he come back and fight a guy two or three weight classes below him??? Past there prime. Then does he go on another Hiatus? If that is the case like it is with mayweather then his proponents would argue talent. I mere assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapevine241 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Nor should you, and by the same token criticism for the same is worthless. Then of course there are fighters who are so talented they just make the rest of their division look crap. then calzaghe doesnt apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edsel77x Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Top P4P Pacman Sergio Martinez Nonito Donaire Juan Manuel Lopez Both Klits JMM Carl "The Cobra" Froch The order of some could be changed around no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheils Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 It has to be a bit of both, but you can only really be measured on what you have stood in front of, rather than what you could stand in front of. Quality of opponents is the ultimate measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapevine241 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Top P4P Pacman Sergio Martinez Nonito Donaire Juan Manuel Lopez Both Klits JMM Carl "The Cobra" Froch The order of some could be changed around no doubt. besides the order which i would have differently... cant see why froch would be there. i dont rank heavyweights, but if i did id probably have wlad around #10 and vitali somewhere around #20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Top Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 The main one for me is talent, opposition also comes into it but talents the one I focus on most. For example pacquiaos got a better record than mayweather, but for me mayweathers more talented so I have him at number 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBride Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Nor should you, and by the same token criticism for the same is worthless. Then of course there are fighters who are so talented they just make the rest of their division look crap. then calzaghe doesnt apply ???????????? Surely you aren't going to claim that Calzaghe wasn't highly talented? And if you are can i ask you to be truthful and answer whether you were one of those who claimed Lacy was gonna do this and do that, only to back track and claim Lacy was crap after Calzaghe showed America some of his capabilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skav Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't do P4P lists, and to borrow McBride's much worn out word, I think they are "worthless." However, I'll go for a combination of three: talent, opposition and activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBride Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 So worn out you copied it. clap// clap// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapevine241 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Nor should you, and by the same token criticism for the same is worthless. Then of course there are fighters who are so talented they just make the rest of their division look crap. then calzaghe doesnt apply ???????????? Surely you aren't going to claim that Calzaghe wasn't highly talented? And if you are can i ask you to be truthful and answer whether you were one of those who claimed Lacy was gonna do this and do that, only to back track and claim Lacy was crap after Calzaghe showed America some of his capabilities? i didnt type that calzaghe wasnt talented. what im saying is that calzaghe doesnt get extra points for being in a weak division. his P4P ranking by RING and others near the end of his career was ridiculous, in some cases top 3. now granted a lot of that depends on the hopkins "win"... as far as lacy goes, that means nothing to me. i never was high on lacy and never really even cared about lacy-calzaghe enough to even have a strong opinion either way. really that's one of those fights the british seem to overplay like it was something miraculous. what i mean by "then calzaghe doesnt apply" to your point "there are fighters who are so talented they just make the rest of their division look crap"... is that calzaghe does not apply, because he didnt make the rest of the division look like crap, it mostly was crap. its not like calzaghe was some kind of dominating force, even mildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBride Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I dont think the British overplay the Lacy win at all. All the mouthing was coming across the Atlantic in an easterly direction, Calzaghe just answered it with his skill. As for Hopkins, i dont think he would've ever overly bothered Calzaghe. Jones was debatable, but seeing as Joe was a fast handed leftie even that isn't a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemurphy Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think it is a decent toy for having a conversation, it's much like the Compu-box stats......they are good for a discussion piece, but you have to keep it in perspective. What concerns me is NOT that fans debate it, that's simply fun talk and obviously subjective, what concerns me is the Fighters THEMSELVES that have taken to worrying about it so damn much. I was never wild about the idea when I saw Ring Magazine started including it in their rankings page (as if it was something tangible, not fictional). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skav Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 So worn out you copied it. clap// clap// Oh, you didn't know, I like damaged goods. Ask my ex's. mlol/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now