Printable View
am i the only one who has given up on P4p List. IMO there way to subjective. Boxing fans are so criticle that they bend everything to make fighter they like look good and a fighter they don't like look bad. you would be better off asking whos hot right now or who's your favorite fighter.
i gotta go to work so i'll be back later to respond to the hate replies.
You know when i first started watching boxing I thought pound for pound meant like who would win if you could virtually make all fighters the same wieght. Like for Landmine950, a 105 pound strawwieght Valuev would be the best.
or for me..... a 250 lb Winky Wright.
I gave up because that would force me to put PBF at #1
On paper he is #1 but he has not faced the best. I still can not deny some of the things he has accomplished but I am waiting for something more from him to solidify his statements as the greatest of all times.
Pound-for-pound is the term used in boxing, mixed martial arts and other combat sports to describe a fighter's value in relation to fighters of different weight classes.
Contents
Origin of the term (not verified)
It is often said to have been created to describe world Welterweight and Middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson, the most accomplished fighter of the modern era, by supporters who realized that while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top Heavyweight. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him.
However, this common belief is in fact false, as other fighters were being labelled the 'pound for pound' best before Robinson even turned pro. One such is Tony Canzoneri, a juniorwelterweight great considered the best in the world 'pound for pound' in the early 30s.
Application
Judging the best fighter in the world, pound for pound, is subjective. Some people place most weight on 'quality of opposition', or take into account factors such as how exciting the fighter is, or how famous he is, whereas others simply try to determine who would beat who if all boxers were the same size. The following paragraph will concentrate on the last definition.
Pernell Whitaker, an Olympic gold medalist who won pro titles from 130-154 pounds, adopted the term to describe himself, and gained widespread recognition as the pound for pound best after drawing with the legendary Julio César Chávez in 1993 in a fight most observers believed Whitaker won clearly. After Whitaker, four-weight champion Roy Jones Jr. took over, and was recognized as the best fighter in the world for the better part of a decade. After an aging Jones lost to Antonio Tarver in 2004, the title passed on to Floyd Mayweather Jr.
While very few seriously suggested that there were better fighters than Jones who should be favored to beat him if the two were the same size at any point during his reign, other boxers did claim the 'pound for pound' title based on other factors, such as 'quality of opposition', an exciting style, fame or personality. Among these were:
Oscar de la Hoya, the most famous and glamorous non-heavyweight fighter in the world, who was unbeaten until he lost controversially to...
Felix Trinidad, a powerful and usually exciting puncher who was himself unbeaten until he was KOd by...
Bernard Hopkins, a savvy and tough veteran ex-Jones victim who topped some lists during (and especially after) the Jones era;
Shane Mosley, a speedy boxer who handed de la Hoya his first clear, inarguable defeat;
Floyd Mayweather Jr., a lightning-fast defence artist who remains unbeaten;
While some take this pound-for-pound title seriously, others feel it is a bad rating system and has no real relevance. They feel that it is impossible to say what fighter at what weight is better than what other fighter at another weight. Others would say that it is valid, and that it is possible to say that a fighter fighting at one weight is better than a fighter at a different weight. Ring Magazine features a pound-for-pound list in its monthly rankings. Their list is not a 'who beats who' list but is heavily weighted in favour of factors like quality of opposition, attitude and fame.
"Pound for pound" has also been used in other combat sports; mixed martial artists Fedor Emelianenko, BJ Penn and Matt Hughes have had the label attached to them.
Other uses
It can also be used to describe how any two things compare when bearing in mind their varying quantities. For example, a tin of tomatoes weighing 250 g and costing $2.50 is more expensive, pound for pound, than one weighing 500 g and costing $4 (as the former costs $1 per 100 g and the latter $0.8 per 100 g).
The term has also become something of a cliché, as it is now used to describe numerous other things apart from boxing.
And so.. Knowing this, I think p4p list are sort of g@y but still fun when you look at it and you see how many people agree and disagree. They are just opinion lists.
And I agree, I like threads of who is contending/prospects/upcomers and or who is your favorite fighter and why. But don't let other people discourage you from making a p4p list if that is what you enjoy doing. Just because everyone does not agree with you does not make anyone right or wrong. You know what I mean? What if everyone here agreed with everyone else regarding everything being said? LOL
CC. For the novella on pound for pound rankings.... :o Anyway lets just agree that Winky is number one..... come on guys. as far as opponents, skill, punch output, always fighting on the road. his is a great man.
:coolclick: Danny_G for your interesting thesis. Very impressive to come up with all that, good knowledge my man
Sorry bro but this was not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_for_pound
I am not a good writer and you know it. But that does not mean I don't know what the p4p list is all about. I did not mean to pass this off as my own. That is Plagiarism. My bad.
Was gunna give ya CC for that post, but its not yours, so ill give ya one for not claiming it;) cc^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny_G
Speaking of CC/SC's......I wish that it was like in hockey were it just has one score. For example Star has 200+/1000- so her number would be -800 total or Wacko's would just be 5 million to the good. Wouldnt that be neat?
I wish it was a stat you could follow like all the others. I mean you can pull up a table in the members section showing the current table for number of posts, date joined, rank etc but no most coolclicks, most sadclicks tables.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
As a bit of geek I love all these stats. I've been trying for months to get onto the elite top board for number of posts, currently I'm third on board 2 but some of these relentless post whores who shall remain nameless Ice Cold Boxing, Lords Gym very ungraciously muscled their way past me Vitali Klitschko style :(
I agree with you mate , P4P ranking are bit silly O0 :coolclick:
thats what i used to think also. basicly it seems to be about whoever has been in a good fight lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
Probably the first time I completely agree with you. P4P lists seem very pointless indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'The Boxer'
I like pound for pound lists, they open good debates and you get to see what people value in fighters i.e. quality of opposition, undefeated, exciting to watch.
I think the important thing is that it keeps the debates going, not that you have an end result.
thats true. they do keep the debates going and thats a good thing.
Its so hard to say what a heavyweight would be like if he was small.
He would be a completely different fighter.
I always look at P4P as a COMPARATIVE ranking, that is to say how he ranks compared to other fighters in his weight category.
Roy Jones Jr. is more dominant, or shall we say superior to a larger degree over fighters in his weight category, than a given heavyweight is better that the fighters in his division.
You can't compare a middle to a heavy, head to head, it just doesn't work so you compare them to their peers.
Thats how I see it anyway..
Of course the best way to quantitatively judge a fighter is on how he has done in his division, IE his record. The fighter in ANY weight class with a record that is head and shoulders above any other fighter regardless of weight division must clearly be rated as the best P4P fighter especially if he is undefeated.
Say if a guy had a undefeated record, a long winning streak, a lot of title defenses, maybe setting or breaking some kind of longstanding record of like Rocky Marciano's 49-0 It would be VERY hard to argue that he wasn't the best P4P in the sport. Wouldn't it?
pound for pound for pound list do cause some debate...That is because some people make list in different ways.....Some make it by putting a guy in every weight class and try to decide if he was that weight would he beat everyone in it....Some go by number of wins...others go by quality of opponents faced....
I base mine on a points system...1-10 ten being best of course....Then I rate every skill....EG. Offense, defense,heart,quality of opp,,ability to adapt to every type opponent,,jaw,,speed,,ring general ship,flaws,,overall skill..then I average the score and the fighter with the highest total wins...same for all time p4p list except when considering all time I only go by their prime...This is how I would rate a guy like Ray Robinson
Offense-10
Defense-9
Heart-10
Quality of opp-10
Ability to adapt-9
Jaw-9
speed-9
Ring Generalship-10
Flaws-9
Over all skill--9
Total==95
I use flaws because there is one thing everyfighter no matter how goodalways does that he shouldn't...Be it offense or defense...EG holds hands low at times,,pulls straight back,,lets himself get into situations he shouldn't..like slugfeast when he is a boxer,,allows himself to take unnecessary punishment...Then judge how often it has gotten him in trouble....Pretty much easiest way to do it
I like this method. Let me give this a test run. I'll go with my favorite of all time Aaron Pryor.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Offense-10
Defense-8
Heart-10
Quality of Opp-10
Ability to Adapt-8
Jaw-10
Speed-10
Ring Generalship-10
Flaws-10
Overall skill-8
94. Puts him up there with the greats according to this scale. Innovative and logical Daxx. I think if you throw stamina/conditioning in there it would be perfect. Anyways CC for the breakdown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spekterscript
IMO it just makes it easier to make legit.....base it on actual skill instead of what if situations..and of course you can vary it likeyou said stamina and skill...but in offense and defense, ring generalship the skill angle is covered
no hate here....NOBODY is trying to win every title in their respectful divisions anymore...It's all about winning one of the titles..the claiming you're the best while never really fighting the best out there....iI only really see one fighter worthy of being on a P4P list...PBF....because I believe he could destroy anybody at 135-140-147 so he has to step up to challenge himself...Quote:
Originally Posted by 'The Boxer'
i like think PBF also but he did not prove he was the best fighter at 140. even though i think he would have beaten anybody at that weight he didn't fight kosyta or hatton.
Especially since the sumbitch weighed 184 pounds, and was probably one of the 3 hardest heavyweights in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by landmine950