Is Floyd even top 4 P4P anymore?

Name Names...


REED:Bad:

 

Valuev, Ruiz are two top level that Wlad never fought. Areola would also been more of a threat than most of the crap he fought.

Not saying that wlad ducked them per se, but he can't claim to have cleared the division.

 

P4P is really a who beats who list, not accomplishments. If it was accomplishments, Roy would still be up there, even though he is of course nowhere near the 10 best fighters in the world now.

Can you name 10 fighters you'd pick over Gaybox if they were the same size?

 

It is accomplishments in the sense that how else can you PROVE that you would beat everybody, unless you fight tough opposition. Granted, there is noone for GGG to fight at middleweight but still we don't know how he would do against good opponents since he hasn't beaten them. If we only judge fighters on how they look against inept opponents, it can be misleading. PBF has proven he is still good enough to beat the likes of Canelo

 

I knew someone would post that, and I agree to a point. It's not strictly about accomplishments, but yeah to some extent you have to be proven, to have proved you are worthy to be mythically picked over whoever else.

My point still stands though, given how beastly Gaybox has looked, are there really 10 fighters anyone here would pick over him?

The idea of him being P4P #1 is laughable (as per the Fightnews poll), but he has to be top 10 P4P. It's too hard to believe there's 10 fighters better than him.

 

It's who beats who and that's it. Just because GGG hasn't accomplished as much, if you think he'd beat everyone else, then he should be ranked p4p #1.

 

Agreed. While I would have GGG in the top 10, there is no way I could justify putting him at or near the top.

 

I think it's giving one's self an awful lot of credit to assume he can discern a fighter's skill and ability without respect to the opponents he's faced.

It's like the Harlem globe trotters. They sure look good against a team of aging teachers and alumni. Does that mean they have a chance in hell against even the worst pro team? Of course not.

There's thousands of examples of fighters who appeared flawless until the first time they got in the ring with a truly elite fighter.

So obviously it's fair to pick ggg to beat whomever you think he can. But to substitute actual accomplishment in the ring with a hunch? As a basis for ranking him above fighters who have proven "it" in the ring? To me it goes against everything good about boxing.

 

You guys fancy froch as some sort of possible hofer. Golovkin already beat the guys froch gets hype from

 

Nobody agrees on what P4P even means or how it is measured.

 

word

 

until they do, these debates are pretty pointless