Official 606V2 Pound for Pound Rankings: RESULTS!

The results are in, please find below the official 606 P4P rankings as at 18th April 2011

# Boxer
1  Manny Pacquciao. (1)
2  Sergio Martinez (3)
3  Nonito Donaire. (5)
4  Floyd Mayweather Jr. (2)
5  Juan Manuel Marquez (4)
6  Yuriorkis Gamboa (T17)
7  Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (14)
8  Timothy Bradley (12)
9  Wladimir Klitschko (7)
10  Carl Froch (13)

11  Giovanni Segura. (23)
12  Bernard Hopkins (8.)
13  Chris John (15)
14  Andre Ward (9)
15  Vitali Klitschko (16)
16  Miguel Cotto (11)
17 Amir Khan (19)
18  David Haye (T17)
19 Robert Guerrero (New)
20  Lucian Bute (New)
21  Toshiaki Nishioka (New)

Legend: (previous ranking)*

Overall I would say this is a solid list. There wasn't much in it between #2 - #4 but this is to be expected given the current climate of boxing.

Most notably PBF has fallen dramatically, which is understandable given his inactivity. It will be interesting to see if he even is in theTtop 10 P4P rankings if he does not fight again this year.

The following fighters have been completely omitted since their previous poor showings: Juanma Lopez, Devon Alexander, Andre Berto, Paul Williams and Shane Mosley.

Notable mention to Carl Froch who has finally been recognised by the 606 contingent as he finally breaks into the top 10 pound for pound rankings!

Many Thanks to all the votes cast, please feel free to discuss!

Good list am surprised Martinez is not at number 2 or 3 though after his performances.Just mine to go

Suprised Bradley is so high up considering most people on here seem to think Khan will beat him.

A think Bradleys higher because he's ranked 1st in the division and people take it on that am sure when they fight it'll be totally different though.

liam_main4 wrote:Good list am surprised Martinez is not at number 2 or 3 though after his performances.Just mine to go

This has now been update. Calculation error Marquez vs Martinez. Top 10 as follows:

1 Manny Pacquciao
2 Sergio Martinez
3 Nonito Donaire
4 Floyd Mayweather Jr
5 Juan Manuel Marquez
6 Yuriorkis Gamboa
7 Pongsaklek Wonjongkam
8 Timothy Bradley
9 Wladimir Klitschko
10 Carl Froch

liam_main4 wrote:A think Bradleys higher because he's ranked 1st in the division and people take it on that am sure when they fight it'll be totally different though.

If Khan wins but that's a different thread.

Pascals probably not in because of the Hopkins fight because many including myself though Hopkins won.

prettyboy1304 wrote:Suprised Bradley is so high up considering most people on here seem to think Khan will beat him.

Bradley would be the bookies favourite going in against Khan. Besides, he's undefeated and has beaten Devon Alexander.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

liam_main4 wrote:A think Bradleys higher because he's ranked 1st in the division and people take it on that am sure when they fight it'll be totally different though.

If Khan wins but that's a different thread.

lets get the Khan debate going on my thread haha

I think he beats Khan and had him at 10 on my list. I did mine based more on ability and record second because of the different weights you have to look at. Some are strong weights like LWW and some are poor like HW. That's why Floyd Mayweather was my #1.

Good list, just a few difference from my list, but I can see how a couple of boxers made it on there.

Glad to see Froch dislodge Ward as the top ranked super middle.

All Time Great wrote:

liam_main4 wrote:Good list am surprised Martinez is not at number 2 or 3 though after his performances.Just mine to go

I was surprised as well. I think there were more 10/9 pointers available given many (understandably) dropped PBF from their lists.

Forgot to say, no Pascal either.... Unforgiving ranking.

I think he suffers because of th scoring system. Not many people would have in the top 10. Most around the 15-20.

Also on the list people put in some of the favourite fighters, perhaps puting them higher than they should be such as Khan and Cotto, who would be at a similar level, if not slightly below him.

All Time Great

Forgot to say great work on compiling the list

If you did this 2 weeks ago Juanma Lopez would be top 20 and Guerrero would be nowhere near it.

prettyboy1304 wrote:If you did this 2 weeks ago Juanma Lopez would be top 20 and Guerrero would be nowhere near it.

Juanma was previously number 6 in the last rankings!! It shows what a defeat can do to yoiyr stock. Sane applies to Paul Wiliams.

Guerrero deserves a shout, I'm expecting great things from him in the near future.

Anyone know how old Robert Guerrero is? he seems to have been around for a while and he had that time off boxing to support his wife when she had cancer.Is he late 20s?

liam_main4 wrote:Anyone know how old Robert Guerrero is? he seems to have been around for a while and he had that time off boxing to support his wife when she had cancer.Is he late 20s?

Just turned 28

Sorpurce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guerrero

All Time Great wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:If you did this 2 weeks ago Juanma Lopez would be top 20 and Guerrero would be nowhere near it.

Juanma was previously number 6 in the last rankings!! It shows what a defeat can do to yoiyr stock. Sane applies to Paul Wiliams.

Guerrero deserves a shout, I'm expecting great things from him in the near future.

Before the weekend I would probably have had Juanma in ahead of Bradley but not anymore. I wasn't arguing the case more just pointing out something I thought was interesting. Nobody else probably would though I just love these kind of lists.

Ah I thought he was late 20s and I thought before the Salido fight that Juanma would beat Gamboa just shows how much things can change.

That is an excellent top ten and I'd have no complaints about the order too much - but gamboa is way too high for me. Quality fighter but still relatively unproven in terms of p4p status. Also, how does that overrated clown Bute get anywhere near? About time he stepped up IMO, by far the most overrated fighter in boxing. Agree with D4 good to see froch ahead of another overrated fighter in Ward.

Good work

I kind I think with Mayweather you either have him 1,2 or not in it at all.

Having him 4th or whatever just doesnt really reflect the reality which is that only Pacquiao can realistic claim to be better.

Also I dont know how Wongjongkam goes from 14th to 7th?

Has anyone actually been following this guy? Hes spent the last year fighting absolute nobodies.

I find it pretty hard to gauge this guy due to the division he in. Havent seen a great deal of him but his level of competiton is all over the place.

Having him so high up strikes me as just giving him the benefit of the doubt for a long record.

Floyd is a tricky one Manos. Think, D4 aside my views probably mirror a lot of others on here in that whilst thinking he is the most talented fighter in the world his inacitivty simply has to count against him. Has been 12 months nigh on since we saw him in the ring and there is no signs on the horizon he will be lacing them up again any time soon, when you couple this with the fact he was hardly maintaining a Harry Greb style schedule before this point it has to count against him, all that differs is the extent to which people mark him down for this

Most lists are too reactionary, and that's why you have someone jumping or falling so many places after a single fight. Froch deserves to be higher, he's had one of the best runs of fights in the sport. One loss and I'm sure people would drop Gamboa 10+ places, yet people say they don't consider an 0 important.

Vitali above Guerrero how other than people not paying attention to the lower divisions?

manos de piedra wrote:Also I dont know how Wongjongkam goes from 14th to 7th?

Has anyone actually been following this guy? Hes spent the last year fighting absolute nobodies.

I find it pretty hard to gauge this guy due to the division he in. Havent seen a great deal of him but his level of competiton is all over the place.

Having him so high up strikes me as just giving him the benefit of the doubt for a long record.

I think its the Kameda fight is the reason why he's so high up and he was the underdog going into that one.

I agree he does fight a lot nobodies but he does keep active and has a big fight in every so many.

Scott, because Vitali has totally dominated for god knows how many years. A win for Guerrero over Katsidis, and a fine performance nonetheless, doesn't quite warrant him ranking above Vitali in my opinion.

rowley wrote:Floyd is a tricky one Manos. Think, D4 aside my views probably mirror a lot of others on here in that whilst thinking he is the most talented fighter in the world his inacitivty simply has to count against him. Has been 12 months nigh on since we saw him in the ring and there is no signs on the horizon he will be lacing them up again any time soon, when you couple this with the fact he was hardly maintaining a Harry Greb style schedule before this point it has to count against him, all that differs is the extent to which people mark him down for this

I would just take him out altogether then.

At the end of the day p4p is trying to reflect who is the best boxer for their size. It not really about who has the better record, recently or otherwise. I understand that this is a tool used to try an gauge but when the overwhelming feeling is that one boxer is better than another then I think that has to count.

I mean we all but know that Mayweather is a better fighter than Marquez for instance. But if Marquez were to beat Guerrero say in his next fight that would probably push him over Floyd? Doesnt seem to make much sense to me if the object is to try and reflect who the best fighter is.

In cases where it becomes hard to tell like with Pacquiao/Mayweather then you have to look outside at other elements and for that reason I have Pacquaio above Mayweather at the moment. My gut feeling is that Mayweather would win but Pacquiao has been accumulating more evidence for his cause. But in something like Mayweather/Marquez then I pretty much know for sure who the better fighter is so putting Marquez above Mayweather just seems pointless to me and not reflecting the reality of the situation. Marquez is not a better fighter than Mayweather whatever way you cut it.

Fists of Fury wrote:Scott, because Vitali has totally dominated for god knows how many years. A win for Guerrero over Katsidis, and a fine performance nonetheless, doesn't quite warrant him ranking above Vitali in my opinion.

Has he? Thought he was one of three champions.

Litzau, Salido and Katsidis are all better than anyone Vitali has beaten since his return.

Soldier_Of _Fortune wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Also I dont know how Wongjongkam goes from 14th to 7th?

Has anyone actually been following this guy? Hes spent the last year fighting absolute nobodies.

I find it pretty hard to gauge this guy due to the division he in. Havent seen a great deal of him but his level of competiton is all over the place.

Having him so high up strikes me as just giving him the benefit of the doubt for a long record.

I think its the Kameda fight is the reason why he's so high up and he was the underdog going into that one.

I agree he does fight a lot nobodies but he does keep active and has a big fight in every so many.

The Kameda fight was long before the last ratings were done. He was rated 14th after the Kameda fight. Now hes fought a host of novices and semi muay thai club fighters without defending his title once and hes moved up 7 places????

manos de piedra wrote:The Kameda fight was long before the last ratings were done. He was rated 14th after the Kameda fight. Now hes fought a host of novices and semi muay thai club fighters without defending his title once and hes moved up 7 places????

Probably a mixture of it being different people's lists and some people finding out more about him/seeing his name on other lists.

Scottrf wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The Kameda fight was long before the last ratings were done. He was rated 14th after the Kameda fight. Now hes fought a host of novices and semi muay thai club fighters without defending his title once and hes moved up 7 places????

Probably a mixture of it being different people's lists and some people finding out more about him/seeing his name on other lists.

They mustnt have done much research on him they have him up challenging for a top 5 spot.

I have no idea what to make of the guy. I give him the benefit of the doubt to an extent but the division hes in and the standard of the guys he faces......Is he really a top ten worthy fighter at all?

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Scott, because Vitali has totally dominated for god knows how many years. A win for Guerrero over Katsidis, and a fine performance nonetheless, doesn't quite warrant him ranking above Vitali in my opinion.

Has he? Thought he was one of three champions.

Litzau, Salido and Katsidis are all better than anyone Vitali has beaten since his return.

Yes he is one of 3 champions, but he hasn't lost a single round, and the lack of competition can't be blamed on him. I think that Vitali has shown enough throughout his career to prove that he could probably have mixed it with many of the better heavyweights. Guerrero has done extremely well of late, but in terms of p4p lists he will need a few more decent wins to climb above a champ with the longevity of and aura of invincibility of Vitali.

Difficult to judge IMO. So many of his fights I haven't bothered watching as they are against nobodies, and I don't really have much context of his ranked opponents. There have been a few boxers he missed, and he hasn't really forced himself into big fights. However, is probably more dominant in his division than holding one belt would suggest, due to the far east only recognising two of the belts, and that being where the quality is. How good that is when there is so little between the divisions is debateable. He has a good mix of skills and power though from the few fights I've seen.

Fists of Fury wrote:Yes he is one of 3 champions, but he hasn't lost a single round, and the lack of competition can't be blamed on him. I think that Vitali has shown enough throughout his career to prove that he could probably have mixed it with many of the better heavyweights. Guerrero has done extremely well of late, but in terms of p4p lists he will need a few more decent wins to climb above a champ with the longevity of and aura of invincibility of Vitali.

My problem is that he's come in after his brother has become the main man, so has no chance of ever beating the champ, beat a poor quality of opposition (not really his fault, but has to be considered) and we are supposed to be impressed by his 'dominance?'

The list is not without it's flaws, but it's decent, and I commend the effort that's gone into putting it together. Someone mentioned above that the p4p list is about finding the best boxer for their size, but for me this highlights the main issue with p4p lists - people judge on different criteria and weightings, making it difficult to be consistent.

Some people place their most of emphasis on perception of skills or potential i.e. it is well accepted that Floyd is either the 1st or 2nd best boxer in the world, so he must be either 1 or 2 on the list. You’ll notice that some guys who look as if they are technically very good will easily make it onto p4p lists without having to prove too much e.g. Chad Dawson (until he got beat) whereas for other guys who are perceived to have flaws then it’s much harder e.g. Carl Froch (he had to put togther a great record to get considered...and he’d really have to prove himself much further to get on, for example, the ring p4p list). One problem with this is that it’s a very subjective way of grading and we start to see the inclusion of boxers that look good/have potential but haven’t actually proved it to a great degree – which is why we see people like Gamboa so high on lists. This is also why someone can be really high on the list one year but will vanish the next – the perception of potential goes really quickly when someone loses – just ask Juama.

Other people favour giving weighting to recent records i.e. Floyd hasn’t been active recently so doesn’t deserve to be on the list. This emphasis is a good bit more objective i.e. you can base your decision not only on who got the ‘W’ but it was recent enough for you to remember the performance and the context of the fight, etc. One problem with this is that lists can maybe tend to get temporary.

So, you can also put emphasis on long-term record e.g. Hopkins has a long and dominating career, so that helps him. People add Manny’s record at the lower weights to his recent run to a 154lb title – that’s what puts him on top.

Added to all this is the emphasis put on different type of win. Some people favour KOs, some people favour boxing clinics. Some people like a fighter to challenge himself at higher weights, some people like them to dominate a single division and clean it out.

These are some of the reasons why p4p lists cause so much discussion. They aren’t compiled on a consistent thought process or grading system. Personally I put most weight on recent record (last 3 to 5 fights) looking for wins over live opponents – I see this as being the most informed and objective starting point. It also gets rid of fighters that are getting old or shot and have began to start losing. After that I consider overall record, to give some sort of historical backing – but obviously fighters with good historical records could only rate highly if their current form was still good (e.g. Hopkins or Marquez). Lastly I put a bit of emphasis (maybe 10%) on my subjective perception of their skills or potential. My opinion of Floyd’s skills is very high, so he would jump in to a high place if he bolstered his recent record with a good win (supported by his historical record). Gamboa could not get on my list until he has a good win over a dangerous opponent or two, but again I think he’s very skilful, so those wins would make him jump up quickly - same goes for Guerrero, whi hasn't done all that much yet, but probably will.

Personally I would not have Mayweather in there since he is not fighting and have no intention of fighting it seems. If I did consider him he would be exactly where he is on the 606v2 list at 4.

Wonjongkam would not make my list has not fought the top guys around and has too many easy defences, doesn't look that special really.

Bradley, maybe slightly ahead of Khan in overall record but in performances and ability I would have Khan ahead of him.

Same reason why I would go for Haye over Wlad.

I had to put Guerrero in, look like a great talent and already a 3 weight world champion, and with his mind right concentrating on boxing we should now see the best of him.

And left Hopkins in there because of the performance he gave against Pascal.

And Cotto still going strong and put in a controlled performance against Mayorga.

Nishioka just missed out for me but a few good performances this year and could break the top ten.

Seems to me people are starting to place too much emphasis on recent record and the lists are starting to become about which fighters have the best win recently.

Too much nit picking over this win and that win means you lose sight of what the objective of the list is which is to try and show who are the best boxers acounting for weight.

If you think a boxer has been too inactive then remove him on the list entirely rather than trying to punish him by ranking him below fighters that are clearly not as good. The object is to reflect who the best are not muddy it by punative measures.

Its fairly obvious to me at least that Mayweather is one of the two best boxers in the world. Someone like Martinez has had a good burst of form but in reality cant really claim to be better than Mayweather. He can claim to have better recent record and bigger wins but its not the same thing.

The margins can be very fine sometimes in which case recent record can and often will be a determining factor but the only way you could put someone like Martinez or Marquez above Mayweather is if you genuinely feel his ability has deteriorated to the point where they are now better fighters. If not then whats it acheiving ranking them higher?

manos de piedra wrote:Seems to me people are starting to place too much emphasis on recent record and the lists are starting to become about which fighters have the best win recently.

Too much nit picking over this win and that win means you lose sight of what the objective of the list is which is to try and show who are the best boxers acounting for weight.

If you think a boxer has been too inactive then remove him on the list entirely rather than trying to punish him by ranking him below fighters that are clearly not as good. The object is to reflect who the best are not muddy it by punative measures.

Its fairly obvious to me at least that Mayweather is one of the two best boxers in the world. Someone like Martinez has had a good burst of form but in reality cant really claim to be better than Mayweather. He can claim to have better recent record and bigger wins but its not the same thing.

The margins can be very fine sometimes in which case recent record can and often will be a determining factor but the only way you could put someone like Martinez or Marquez above Mayweather is if you genuinely feel his ability has deteriorated to the point where they are now better fighters. If not then whats it acheiving ranking them higher?

For my money I would say that Donaire and Martinez are better boxers than Mayweather.

D4thincarnation wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Seems to me people are starting to place too much emphasis on recent record and the lists are starting to become about which fighters have the best win recently.

Too much nit picking over this win and that win means you lose sight of what the objective of the list is which is to try and show who are the best boxers acounting for weight.

If you think a boxer has been too inactive then remove him on the list entirely rather than trying to punish him by ranking him below fighters that are clearly not as good. The object is to reflect who the best are not muddy it by punative measures.

Its fairly obvious to me at least that Mayweather is one of the two best boxers in the world. Someone like Martinez has had a good burst of form but in reality cant really claim to be better than Mayweather. He can claim to have better recent record and bigger wins but its not the same thing.

The margins can be very fine sometimes in which case recent record can and often will be a determining factor but the only way you could put someone like Martinez or Marquez above Mayweather is if you genuinely feel his ability has deteriorated to the point where they are now better fighters. If not then whats it acheiving ranking them higher?

For my money I would say that Donaire and Martinez are better boxers than Mayweather.

Im more than aware

I agree with manos, rather than dropping a fighter down the rankings for a inactivity here, just remove him. Otherwise it looks more like weight class rankings where recent form is what dominates.

D4thincarnation wrote:For my money I would say that Donaire and Martinez are better boxers than Mayweather.

the thing is if a fighter is active then the arguement is there that they are improving whilst if a fighter is inactive then they aren't. so you could argue that in terms of skills other fighters could have surpass mayweather, therefore he would be overtaken in the rankings without actually fighting.

this seems fair to me because if he isn't fighting the he is denying people the chance to challange for the number 1 P4P spot (or number 2 depending on your stance)

eddyfightfan wrote:the thing is if a fighter is active then the arguement is there that they are improving whilst if a fighter is inactive then they aren't. so you could argue that in terms of skills other fighters could have surpass mayweather, therefore he would be overtaken in the rankings without actually fighting.

this seems fair to me because if he isn't fighting the he is denying people the chance to challange for the number 1 P4P spot (or number 2 depending on your stance)

This is a great point. People are gradually removing PBF from their top 10 rankings as a result of his inactivity. It's a matter of time before virtually everyone begins to exclude him.

This is a natural progression of the top 10 P4P list.

PBF has gone from being neck and neck with Pacman post Shane Mosley, to now trailing in the wake of others.

eddyfightfan wrote:the thing is if a fighter is active then the arguement is there that they are improving whilst if a fighter is inactive then they aren't. so you could argue that in terms of skills other fighters could have surpass mayweather, therefore he would be overtaken in the rankings without actually fighting.

this seems fair to me because if he isn't fighting the he is denying people the chance to challange for the number 1 P4P spot (or number 2 depending on your stance)

He isnt really though. The pound for pound list is not some kind of title that you defend or win. Its just a list with the intention of rating who the best fighters are.

It should basically reflect in order who you think the best fighters in the world are. Thats all. If you genuinely think there are 3,4,5 or however many fighters out there that are better fighters than Mayweather then by all means put them ahead of him. If you think he isnt fighting regulalry enough to be included then remove him.

I think Mayweather has done enough to show hes either one or two in the world. Only Pacquiao can stake a claim. Martinez and Donaire are good fighters but to me are clearly not on Mayweathers level. Mayweather is an all time great. Martinez wont be and Donaire has to do a fair bit more. They are in good form but havent really shown anything to say they are up there with Mayweather to be honest. So to rank them as better pound for pound fighters simply because they have better form is completely inaccurate for me.

A seperate list for "current form" would be more desireable to reflect their recent success but this isnt same as pound for pound.

Martinez and Donaire have produced punch perfect performance in the last year, put on great displays of boxing and have done this against top quality opposition, tougher challenge than Mayweather have faced.

Mayweather hasn't faced top opposition? Lay down the crack pipe.

I fully agree Manos, it's meant to rank fighters based on perceived ability pound for pound, at the top of their games Pacquiao and Mayweather are a clear one and two

Boxing must be in great shape if a boxer as good as Mayweather doesn't even make the top 3.