Can only a heavyweight be a true p4p?
Ali is considered the GOAT but not everyones greatest heavyweight boxer.
Only a heavyweight can actually be a real p4p.
Putting the tag on a welter or any lower weight is just fantasy.
Printable View
Can only a heavyweight be a true p4p?
Ali is considered the GOAT but not everyones greatest heavyweight boxer.
Only a heavyweight can actually be a real p4p.
Putting the tag on a welter or any lower weight is just fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
That's one way to look at it for sure, flip side is that if you do entertain the idea of ranking fighters irrespective of size a HW could never be. That's why it doesn't mean much I'd say.
Who is your p4p fighter of the last ten years and state why and how that p4p applies to him (or her!)Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by imp
That's one way to look at it for sure, flip side is that if you do entertain the idea of ranking fighters irrespective of size a HW could never be. That's why it doesn't mean much I'd say.
P4P all depends on how thick someone is or how big a nerd they are. If you're proper thick you probably think there's a P4P title, if you're a nerd you compile a list that you believe contains the worlds best fighters. Eitherr way you're a cunt. Thanks.
Or her, now that is one line that can be drawn imo;D Last ten years easily Mayweather, whatever advantages he gives up now he had in droves at lighter weights and he's been the most complete fighter by a stretch for my money. I wouldn't venture to name a runner up though because it's so subjective and meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by impWho is your p4p fighter of the last ten years and state why and how that p4p applies to him (or her!)Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by imp
That's one way to look at it for sure, flip side is that if you do entertain the idea of ranking fighters irrespective of size a HW could never be. That's why it doesn't mean much I'd say.
Why don't we divide the fighters weight by his or her earnings? Who ever has the best earnings for body weight can be the #1 p4p.
If some of you guys want to add a little extra for belts, that's cool. Haha
Chavez jr would be in the top 10, just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
I don't like it in terms of serious boxing analysis but it's good fun. I have previously said on this forum that weight tourism is not the best thing happening in boxing at the moment and the pound for pound debate should be just fantasy but it's fuelling people like Broner jumping up to welter.
Boxing is a simple sport at it's most basic but if you start examining the variables such as size, speed, power, chin, heart, mental strength, technique it becomes extremely complex and assessing individuals against that criteria as a whole is almost impossible as an accurate comparison.
I think the best way to assess boxers on a pound for pound basis is to make the them fight each other at their current weight class over 15 rounds.
Not as stupid as it sounds as they do it in the gym all the time.
I hear you, it's going to have to be a complex formula, if we want to get it right. Maybe you can talk IamInuit into helping us with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingChavez jr would be in the top 10, just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedI hear you, it's going to have to be a complex formula, if we want to get it right. Maybe you can talk IamInuit into helping us with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingChavez jr would be in the top 10, just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Thanks for the vote of confidence but in the present tense we'd have to do a complete refit lol. Besides I'm most likely the absolute dumbest person on the forum where math is concerned. Plus, there are a lot of people on this forum more wise then I on these matters. In a real way the phrase has become a product of its environment, a buzz word and you first have to remove it from that role.
Trouble is its part of the fabric. Look I don't use the phrase at all unless I find myself in the odd thread such as this. It's ubiquitous and I've accepted that but every once in awhile the elastic breaks and I feel the need to dismiss it as anything relevant other then the fact that its a favourite list. I also think its habitual and even those that agree with me use it because its easier in the world we live in. See there's that damn environment again. It's origins come from a time when there were only 8 divisions and hardship was the norm. A time when you did not lose your title on the scales because you forgot to cut your toenails. When Armstrong weighed 133 and still challenged Ross for his title along with countless other examples I wont bother to list. I'm afraid that history repeating itself may be the only answer.
I hate when people say p4p is meaningless, it's a stupid concept, ect ect.
P4P is the best guy(s) in the sport, regardless of weight class. That should be determined not only by pure skill, but by accomplishment and DOMINANCE. When the viewing public can agree on a consensus top 5, I think that's a very prestigous title to have. To be considered a top p4p fighter by the boxing world is better than all the alphabet soup titles you could possibly win. You transcend belts; you are boxing's ELITE.
Obviously the heavyweight champion is the king of boxing: they make smaller weightclasses to protect smaller guys from bigger guys, so obvious Wlad is the king. The HW champ is the undisputed baddest man on the planet.
P4P is to take away the handicap of size and to judge a fighter based purely on his merit.
And that's not to say a HW can't be a p4p top fighter: Wlad belongs in any top 10 list at least, because he's been as or more dominant in his division than most guys in any other division.
I think that the term is made up and irrelevant from the get. It was made up as a marketing tool to promote Ray Robinson. In this day and age it is meaningless because skill has taken a very very back seat to the ability to manipulate dehydration/rehydration limits to create advantages. Physical advantage has replaced skill.
For what it is worth, I rate Benny Leonard well above Ray robinson as the best, 'pound for pound', because Robinson was a 6 foot tall lightweight,welter, and middle, when the heavy weight champ was barely over 6' tall. In other words, his 'incredible skill' was very much aided by physical advantage. Benny Leonard had no physical edge. he was the most skilled fighter of all time.
The p4p #1 has been fighting guys much larger than him for the past few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
For sure, Pacquiao was to and that's why they are/were so easy to label that way.
The trouble is that ability and achievements actually have nothing to do with each other, there is no common denominator between them. When you combine the two in ranking fighters it is inherently just speculation, then add the fact that men fight differently to suit their natural size/frame and it's left without merit. Is Wladimir Klitschko better than Juan Estrada, or Rigondeaux? It's a ridiculous thing to ask.
How else to compare fighters from different divisions? Just 'cause it's a difficult concept to grasp for some, it doesn't mean it has no merit. You take fighters from different weight categories, and you boil them down to a few common denominators. Dominance in their weight... quality of opponent... ring generalship... power... chin... heart... fan-friendly style... etc. And no, you can't just imagine a 220-pound Mayweather with all his speed and agility in order to compare him with Wlad or any other heavyweight. It doesn't work that way. A heavyweight will rarely, if ever, match a lightweight in hand speed. Physics. We'll always want to compare, so until someone comes up with a better concept than p4p, that's good enough for me.