Ranking fighters

Who should we follow. the judges or general concensus? Scoring is subjective, but there have been clear cases where the losing fighter did not deserve the loss. Rios/Abril is the obvious exmple. Helenius/Chisora is another. In the Ring's HW ranking, Helenius is ranked at 5. Most had Chisora winning and if the judges had scored it according to concensus, Chis would have won. Would Helenius then be ranked at #5? I doubt that.

Therefore after that 'loss'. How can he be ranked so highly. Ditto the P4P rankings where concensus was that JJM beat Paq yet Paq is still #1 or #2.

Thoughts?

Even if JMM had got the decision over Pacquiao in an official sense I would still have kept Pacquiao ahead of him in the overall rankings. I just think he is the better fighter overall notwithstanding the head to head and he also has the better volume of work in recent times.

Although its sickening when you see blatant robberies, I tend to just follow the official results for rankings. Mainly because there are so many close fights that can go either way that if nobody followed the official results it would lead to chaos.

Fair enough. Were the decision to go with JJM, I doubt Paq would be ranked 1 or 2 in the P4P stakes let alone at WW.

I think if Pacquiao had officially lost he would still probably be no worse than 3rd on the list. With JMM probably overtaking him. But other than that Im not sure Martinez, Donaire, Ward or Wlad would have been seen as doing enough to rank above Paquiao. I wouldnt have placed them higher in any case.

I think Paq would have dropped to 5th with JMM, Martinez and Ward ahead of him. Whether or not Martinez in particular deserved such an elevated status is another matter.

Personally I still rank JMM higher because other than Floyd, he hasn't lost for a while and has beaten some serious fighters.

I just dont think JMM opposition has been the same level as Pacquiao over the last while.

Prior to their fight Marquez had wins over the likes of Diaz x 2 and Katsidas aswell as a one sided loss to Mayweather.

Pacquiao I think deserved to lose to Marquez but prior to it he had beaten the likes of Cotto, Hatton, Margarito, Clottey, Mosley in a similar period over several weight classes which I think was a much more impressive body of work and encapsulated the meaning of "pound for pound".

A loss to Marquez in a head to head would have narrowed that gap substantially I think but it would still be a close run thing I think.

Ultimately notwithstanding the head to heads I cant see Marquez having the same sort of success that Pacquiao had against those oponents at various weights while I would be pretty confident that Pacquiao would make short work of the likes of Diaz and Katsidas.

Its subjective though but I would be very surprised if the Ring for instance dropped him down to 5/6th on the basis of a loss to a fellow top ten pound for pound fighter like Mrquez. Would seem excessive to me.

Marquez recent opposition with the exception of Mayweather and Pacquiao hasn't been that great and of a far lower overall quality than either so based on one 'win' and a very comprehensive loss so hasn't got much grounds to be ranked much higher than he is.

In many ways the system already recognises the winner even if they had lost. Chisora for example got all the plaudits after "losing" to Helenius. He was treated like the de-facto European Champion that's why he got his shot at Vitali and the talentless blond biker from Finland has faded into obscurity since then.

I agree that Paq's opposition has been better than JMM. I doubt JJM could go up and beat the guys Paq did (he'll beat Hatton and Clottey but not Cotto imo). But had the judges scored it correctly Paq would be lower down. An example is Foreman pre retireman. He is always ranked over FGrazier even though Frazier beat the better fighters.

Heavyweight is a bit different to other weights in that the top men in the division were career heavyweights as opposed to men jumping from weight to weight. Even if Marquez had got the rub of the green against Pacquiao he would still come lower for me overall.

Better fighters are better fighters regardless of weight. P4P should consider the difference in weight. You shouldn't punish Marquez because of his genetics.

Just because he beat Pacquiao doesn't mean he deserves to be ranked higher because you are then ignoring half of his career. You then get complicated situations where for instance Taylor beats Hopkins, Pavlik beats Taylor but Hopkins beats Pavlik. Head to heads can help but they aren't the be all and end all.

azania wrote:Better fighters are better fighters regardless of weight. P4P should consider the difference in weight. You shouldn't punish Marquez because of his genetics.

Titles and divisional rankings may change on the basis of head to heads but I dont think pound for pound or acheivement lists are neccessarily going to because its trying to capture a much broader scope.

Pound for pound is a vague and hard to quantify term at the best of times so everyone will have different methods of judging. Head to heads alone are not really sufficient to determine who a better fighter overall or pound for pound is in my view though.

Agreed to a certain extent with the obvious example being Pep and Saddler. But in today's game its more result orientated, hence unbeaten records are protected (see Rios). There is also greater scrutiny of fights and fighters and their records because they fight less often.

Paq may have beaten 'better' fighters only because he moved up and carried his weight. I doubt JMM would fight Marg or Cotto in an month of sundays. He just wasn't big enough and JMM does have the clout to request catchweight contests. So in essense JMM is being punished for not being huge box office, his genetics and for 'beating' the guy who beat those in higher weights.

Personally today, I'd rank JMM higher than Paq but overall I'd have Paq higher.

It's not really genetics but rather Pacquiao having greater ability to beat bigger fighters as they are actually the same size. Catchweights and the like don't really mean much as I don't think Marquez beats Cotto at any weight as he wouldn't be able to overcome the size difference, he's a fabulous fighter who happens to have Pacs number to some extent.

Forrest beat Mosley twice quite easily but I wouldn't for a minute consider rating him higher pound for pound or at welterweight he simply had a style to trouble Mosley without really being a better boxer.

azania wrote:Agreed to a certain extent with the obvious example being Pep and Saddler. But in today's game its more result orientated, hence unbeaten records are protected (see Rios). There is also greater scrutiny of fights and fighters and their records because they fight less often.

Paq may have beaten 'better' fighters only because he moved up and carried his weight. I doubt JMM would fight Marg or Cotto in an month of sundays. He just wasn't big enough and JMM does have the clout to request catchweight contests. So in essense JMM is being punished for not being huge box office, his genetics and for 'beating' the guy who beat those in higher weights.

Personally today, I'd rank JMM higher than Paq but overall I'd have Paq higher.

I wouldnt really agree with that. Marquez and Pacquiao are similarly sized for instance and have been most of their careers when it comes down to what they weigh in the ring on fight night. If anything I thinks its selling Pacquaios acheivements short by saying it was basically size alone that allowed him to compete higher up.

Its not about punishing Marquez for not moving up, its about rewading Pacquiao for moving up and acheiving. Something he did more successfully than than Marquez.

Forrest beat Mosley easily once and then scrapped his way to a decision the second time, think a lot of people underrate Mosleys performance in the second fight, it's not a particularly good fight to watch but it was pretty close in my opinion.

He did better in the second fight but was still beaten fairly comfortably just like he was against Wright, outboxed completely then did slightly better.

I think Marquez has always been something of a favoured son amongst avid boxing fans because hes seen as a great pro, great fighter and something of a hard luck story when contrasted against his peers like MAB, Morales and Pacquaio.

But he definately doesnt seem to have as a high a burden of proof on him as Pacquiao does for instance. Take his fight lat night. It was a professionally done job over a solid but unspectacular opponent. But not really all that impressive for a supposed pound for pound number two. I would bet if that was Pacquaio who had put in that performance people would be criticising it, saying he was on the slide etc etc in a similar way to the lacklustre response he got in the Clottey fight.

Even including the latest Pacquiao/Marquez fight I still think Pacquiao is the better of the two and would be more successful over similar level opposition and higher weights.

I personally don't see Pacquiao losing to Norwood or John at featherweight which does harm Marquez's overall standing than losses to Torrecampo and Singsurat for example.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's not really genetics but rather Pacquiao having greater ability to beat bigger fighters as they are actually the same size. Catchweights and the like don't really mean much as I don't think Marquez beats Cotto at any weight as he wouldn't be able to overcome the size difference, he's a fabulous fighter who happens to have Pacs number to some extent.

Forrest beat Mosley twice quite easily but I wouldn't for a minute consider rating him higher pound for pound or at welterweight he simply had a style to trouble Mosley without really being a better boxer.

It is about genetics to some extend in that Paq carries the weight better. Look at how JMM looked against Floyd and compare that to how Paq looked against Marg. Paq was well muscles whereas JJM looked as though he worked out at KFC. Even when they fought a few months back, Paq looked as though he carried the weight better.

I think JMM is a better boxer that Cotto and if they fought at 145 I'd pick JMM to win. I understand that styles etc, but JMM has beaten some excellent fighters and but for the judging he would have beaten Paq also. That being the case, one can justifiably consider JMM higher than Paq in today's P4P ranking.

manos de piedra wrote:I think Marquez has always been something of a favoured son amongst avid boxing fans because hes seen as a great pro, great fighter and something of a hard luck story when contrasted against his peers like MAB, Morales and Pacquaio.

But he definately doesnt seem to have as a high a burden of proof on him as Pacquiao does for instance. Take his fight lat night. It was a professionally done job over a solid but unspectacular opponent. But not really all that impressive for a supposed pound for pound number two. I would bet if that was Pacquaio who had put in that performance people would be criticising it, saying he was on the slide etc etc in a similar way to the lacklustre response he got in the Clottey fight.

Even including the latest Pacquiao/Marquez fight I still think Pacquiao is the better of the two and would be more successful over similar level opposition and higher weights.

I'm not clouded by nostalgia. I prefer watching Paq than JMM. But yes, JMM has been hard done by. Probably because he is not an in your face, left hooking mexican brawler. Fact is, but for the jusges he would be 2-1 (generous to Paq) against Paq and therefore a different place in history.

Were you impressed with Paq against Mosely? He did what he had to do and did it well. Very uninspired performance. JMM is never going to set lights ablaze. Its just not his style.

I'll add that I dont think Paq is on the slide. Its just that he doesn't do that well against boxers who move and dont stand there to be hit.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I personally don't see Pacquiao losing to Norwood or John at featherweight which does harm Marquez's overall standing than losses to Torrecampo and Singsurat for example.

That's harsh on JMM. Norewood and John were world champions and JMM has improved greately since then. I treat those losses in the manner I treat MAB losing to Jones and Paq's losses.

Marquez handled the weight poorly for the Mayweather fight. He didnt intend to to actually move to the division permanantly so he put on a bit of added flab that he could easily shed off to return to 135 instead of growing into the division.

For the Pacquaio and Fedchenko fights he looked for better at the weight. I dont think its fair to just assume its genetics thats the difference. Pacquiao made the concious choice to move up the divisions and added muscle and weight accordingly. Marquez opted to remain at lightweight for the most part and it hasnt really been until his last two fights he has left the 135 division for good.

Pacquiao went up and achieved deserves recogntion for that. I think its too easy to say Marquez just doesnt carry the weight as well. You are talking about two similarly sized guys who have usually weighed the same amounts when they fight in the ring regardless of the division they are in. Even if you did think Pacquiao handled the weight better its still doesnt diminish the superior acheivements.

manos de piedra wrote:Marquez handled the weight poorly for the Mayweather fight. He didnt intend to to actually move to the division permanantly so he put on a bit of added flab that he could easily shed off to return to 135 instead of growing into the division.

For the Pacquaio and Fedchenko fights he looked for better at the weight. I dont think its fair to just assume its genetics thats the difference. Pacquiao made the concious choice to move up the divisions and added muscle and weight accordingly. Marquez opted to remain at lightweight for the most part and it hasnt really been until his last two fights he has left the 135 division for good.

Pacquiao went up and achieved deserves recogntion for that. I think its too easy to say Marquez just doesnt carry the weight as well. You are talking about two similarly sized guys who have usually weighed the same amounts when they fight in the ring regardless of the division they are in. Even if you did think Pacquiao handled the weight better its still doesnt diminish the superior acheivements.

Paq carried the weight and strength better hence the shadow over him. Yes his achievements are better because he's done something no-one else has done. It doesn't negate the fact (my opinion) that JMM is the better fighter.

It's not really genetics as they are the same size as there third fight showed nor should we rate Marquez higher because he's unable to do what Pacquiao can't.

Is Forrest better than Mosley purely because he beat him?

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think Marquez has always been something of a favoured son amongst avid boxing fans because hes seen as a great pro, great fighter and something of a hard luck story when contrasted against his peers like MAB, Morales and Pacquaio.

But he definately doesnt seem to have as a high a burden of proof on him as Pacquiao does for instance. Take his fight lat night. It was a professionally done job over a solid but unspectacular opponent. But not really all that impressive for a supposed pound for pound number two. I would bet if that was Pacquaio who had put in that performance people would be criticising it, saying he was on the slide etc etc in a similar way to the lacklustre response he got in the Clottey fight.

Even including the latest Pacquiao/Marquez fight I still think Pacquiao is the better of the two and would be more successful over similar level opposition and higher weights.

I'm not clouded by nostalgia. I prefer watching Paq than JMM. But yes, JMM has been hard done by. Probably because he is not an in your face, left hooking mexican brawler. Fact is, but for the jusges he would be 2-1 (generous to Paq) against Paq and therefore a different place in history.

Were you impressed with Paq against Mosely? He did what he had to do and did it well. Very uninspired performance. JMM is never going to set lights ablaze. Its just not his style.

I'll add that I dont think Paq is on the slide. Its just that he doesn't do that well against boxers who move and dont stand there to be hit.

Well what would you have had expected from Pacquiao against Mosley? The guy has a great chin and was unlikely to be stopped by a smaller fighter like Pacquaio. Would you have expected Marquez to do any better? The fight was boring because it was one sided. JMM did a poorer job on Fedchenko than Pacquiao did on Mosley put it that way.

So in essence it seems that Pacquiao is being punished for having more success at higher weights than Marquez because he handles the weight better? I have to say that this is pretty much the opposite as to what I consider measuring fighters acheivements on a pound for pound basis on.

Pacquiao is more successful than Marquez, but he handles the weight better so its not fair? Dont really accept that point. You should be rewarded for moving up and succeeding not as opposed for making excuses for other fighters that dont. Especially when they are basically the same size.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Is Forrest better than Mosley purely because he beat him?

Yes. But in terms of career standings, no. Mosely has achieved more and deserves a higher ranking. In short a better legacy. Ditto Paq over JMM.

When Forrest beat Mosely, the Ring gave Forrest a higher ranking and demoted Mosely.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think Marquez has always been something of a favoured son amongst avid boxing fans because hes seen as a great pro, great fighter and something of a hard luck story when contrasted against his peers like MAB, Morales and Pacquaio.

But he definately doesnt seem to have as a high a burden of proof on him as Pacquiao does for instance. Take his fight lat night. It was a professionally done job over a solid but unspectacular opponent. But not really all that impressive for a supposed pound for pound number two. I would bet if that was Pacquaio who had put in that performance people would be criticising it, saying he was on the slide etc etc in a similar way to the lacklustre response he got in the Clottey fight.

Even including the latest Pacquiao/Marquez fight I still think Pacquiao is the better of the two and would be more successful over similar level opposition and higher weights.

I'm not clouded by nostalgia. I prefer watching Paq than JMM. But yes, JMM has been hard done by. Probably because he is not an in your face, left hooking mexican brawler. Fact is, but for the jusges he would be 2-1 (generous to Paq) against Paq and therefore a different place in history.

Were you impressed with Paq against Mosely? He did what he had to do and did it well. Very uninspired performance. JMM is never going to set lights ablaze. Its just not his style.

I'll add that I dont think Paq is on the slide. Its just that he doesn't do that well against boxers who move and dont stand there to be hit.

Well what would you have had expected from Pacquiao against Mosley? The guy has a great chin and was unlikely to be stopped by a smaller fighter like Pacquaio. Would you have expected Marquez to do any better? The fight was boring because it was one sided. JMM did a poorer job on Fedchenko than Pacquiao did on Mosley put it that way.

I remember commenting that Paq did the same thing over 12 rounds with no plan B when SSM decided he wanted no part of toe to toe fighting.

I also recall SSM saying that Paq was the hardest hitter he had faced (maybe he was being kind). Many commentators have called Paq the hardest hitting WW so I dont buy the small guy stuff.

I would have expected JMM to beat that version of SSM in a boring fight. But a win is still a win regardless of how exciting the fight is.

manos de piedra wrote:So in essence it seems that Pacquiao is being punished for having more success at higher weights than Marquez because he handles the weight better? I have to say that this is pretty much the opposite as to what I consider measuring fighters acheivements on a pound for pound basis on.

Pacquiao is more successful than Marquez, but he handles the weight better so its not fair? Dont really accept that point. You should be rewarded for moving up and succeeding not as opposed for making excuses for other fighters that dont. Especially when they are basically the same size.

The opposite. I'm not punishing him rather contextualising it. It seems that JMM is being down graded because he didn't rise in weight when Paq did.

Would you rank Hagler lower because he didn';t move up to LHW?

So i'm assuming you rate Mayorga higher than Forrest wherein lies the massive problem placing so much emphasise on head to heads.

Marquez has the style to trouble Pacquiao but don't think that makes him a better fighter.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Is Forrest better than Mosley purely because he beat him?

Yes. But in terms of career standings, no. Mosely has achieved more and deserves a higher ranking. In short a better legacy. Ditto Paq over JMM.

When Forrest beat Mosely, the Ring gave Forrest a higher ranking and demoted Mosely.

Thats fair enough and I wouldnt argue with it in that particular case because both guys were unbeaten at the time and the head to head result was significant.

But Pacquiao/Marquez is a different set of circumstances largely because I think Pacquiaos form and record was significantly better than JMM when they fought for third time.

Had JMM officially got the decision I do think the Ring would have put him above Pacquiao. But I think there would have been a arguments for and against.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Is Forrest better than Mosley purely because he beat him?

Yes. But in terms of career standings, no. Mosely has achieved more and deserves a higher ranking. In short a better legacy. Ditto Paq over JMM.

When Forrest beat Mosely, the Ring gave Forrest a higher ranking and demoted Mosely.

Thats fair enough and I wouldnt argue with it in that particular case because both guys were unbeaten at the time and the head to head result was significant.

But Pacquiao/Marquez is a different set of circumstances largely because I think Pacquiaos form and record was significantly better than JMM when they fought for third time.

Had JMM officially got the decision I do think the Ring would have put him above Pacquiao. But I think there would have been a arguments for and against.

Thats why I asked the question. Where should we place offocial results where they were obviously bad. Take Rios/Abril for instance. Rios has the better record but Abril schooled him yet 'lost'. Who should be ranked higher?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So i'm assuming you rate Mayorga higher than Forrest wherein lies the massive problem placing so much emphasise on head to heads.

Marquez has the style to trouble Pacquiao but don't think that makes him a better fighter.

In the Ring ranking, after that fight, who do you think was ranked higher?

Well regardless of result in the Rios/Abril fight i'd have Rios higher based on his previous results and success.

After Mayorga beat Forrest he was the ring magazine welterweight champion I believe which was on the line when Forrest faced Mosley but being rated higher at one point doesn't make you better overall.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:So in essence it seems that Pacquiao is being punished for having more success at higher weights than Marquez because he handles the weight better? I have to say that this is pretty much the opposite as to what I consider measuring fighters acheivements on a pound for pound basis on.

Pacquiao is more successful than Marquez, but he handles the weight better so its not fair? Dont really accept that point. You should be rewarded for moving up and succeeding not as opposed for making excuses for other fighters that dont. Especially when they are basically the same size.

The opposite. I'm not punishing him rather contextualising it. It seems that JMM is being down graded because he didn't rise in weight when Paq did.

Would you rank Hagler lower because he didn';t move up to LHW?

Lower than who or what? Id rank him higher had he successfuly moved to LH.

In the Pacquiao/JMM instance,
1. head to head would have favoured JMM
2. but recent form, opposition and acheivement outside of that would have favoured Pacquiao.
3. Then as to who was the better current fighter would be entirely subjective and down to ones personal opinion.

Would you accept that?

I would have felt that the third part, as in who was the better current fighter would still have rested with Pacquaio because ultimately I place more emphasis on part 2 of the equation than I do on part 1, and my instinct would have been that Pacquiao was just the better fighter still overall. However I would certainly accept an argument that had Marquez placed higher and wouldnt complain too much if that happened.

However had MArquez followed up that win with Pacquiao with other decent wins at the weight then I might be convinced to change.