-
p4p, what is your definition?
The first thing I think about when I see p4p is skill set.
Floyd is often rated #1 p4p and I agree with that, to a point. If you added a hundred pounds to Floyd's body, left him with the same body type, SKILL SET, work ethic and desire I'm sure he would he the champ. That's going up in weight.
Going down in weight I'm not so sure about.
A lot of you say p4p is misused, overused and misunderstood so please tell us what you think it means.
There's always the chance I'm wrong again or may change my mind again.
Haha! Should I have Googled it first.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
I hate to answer with my stupid name, but it doesn't actually mean much of anything to me. It's a rough way to rank guys that are generally seen as the best fighters in the sport regardless of weight class, nothing more. Obviously the entire mechanics of fighting are completely different when you're talking about a Heavyweight and a lightweight, to compare them "p4p" is retarded. Guys like Floyd and Manny are naturally small men and moved up mega weight classes consistently beating everyone who started out there, that makes it easy to put them at the top. It doesn't take into account the fact that they have changed and adapted in doing so, the advantages they gave up, whether they actually became any better essentially. Some fighters aren't successful in giving up size to their opponents, that doesn't mean they are lesser than those that are neccesarily. I really need a coffee, can't be bothered to decide whether that makes any sense to myself right now.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Present application judging by the masses on countless forums and media alike I'm stuck between this,
Quote:
a substance that gives another substance flavor, altering the characteristics of the solute, causing it to become sweet, sour, tangy, etc.
and this,
Quote:
something regarded with special favour or liking; preferred above all others and treated with partiality
Perhaps a mixture of the two ;D
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
I keep it simple. It's pure resume and achievements(belts won). Sadly even fabricated achievements (BradleySDPacquiao) still count because they are standing with the official record.
I won't delve too far into fantasy match ups. I just see p4p being pure ranking of boxers achievements.
-
I always took it as though if the chosen boxer was at any weight he would be the best.
A massive floyd mayweather with the same skillset against the heavyweight brothers or a tiny floyd mayweather with the same skillset against flyweight jhonny gonzalez.
Any fantasy weight the p4p wins.
Thats how great "they" rate him.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
The problem then becomes that you could say that about any world class welterweight ever. If they were 6'5 250 pounds and fought exactly the same way it would be completely inhuman and of course they'd beat anybody who ever fought. If Lennox Lewis or Wlad were only 5'9 147 lbs by the same token they would be a KO victim every time, it just doesn't work like that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
The problem then becomes that you could say that about any world class welterweight ever. If they were 6'5 250 pounds and fought exactly the same way it would be completely inhuman and of course they'd beat anybody who ever fought. If Lennox Lewis or Wlad were only 5'9 147 lbs by the same token they would be a KO victim every time, it just doesn't work like that.
Thats YOUR opinion not mine.
Vitali or oliver mcCall would never be knockout victims..
No one will ever know what a real p4p is thats why its fantasy in the first place!
A p4p can work anyway you want it to be thats why sugar ray robinson, roy jones and floyd were some of the examples given this amazing title because the majority believe they are the best of the best at that time.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
The problem then becomes that you could say that about any world class welterweight ever. If they were 6'5 250 pounds and fought exactly the same way it would be completely inhuman and of course they'd beat anybody who ever fought. If Lennox Lewis or Wlad were only 5'9 147 lbs by the same token they would be a KO victim every time, it just doesn't work like that.
Im sure others will bring up many examples of other world class welterweights that was not given this title because they couldnt be at any weight and beat everyone!
As a p4p king that doesnt make sense.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
I've always said that apart from working out the best boxer in the World at any weight and maybe the next best , it means nothing. All this "top 10 p4p" talk is ridiculous. A perfect example is Adrien Broner . He's about #8 on the "Ring" p4p rankings based on what he did at the lower weights, but he's only #8 in the division he's boxing in with the same magazine! So what about people like Klitschko, Ward and Martinez who are rated higher than him p4p . Then believe it or not, Alexander, Brook (who is rated above Alexander?) and Guerrero are all ranked above him at Welterweight, but nowhere to be seen in the p4p list. Like I said, it serves no sensible purpose whatsoever.
That is why it should never be used to make fights.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
The problem then becomes that you could say that about any world class welterweight ever. If they were 6'5 250 pounds and fought exactly the same way it would be completely inhuman and of course they'd beat anybody who ever fought. If Lennox Lewis or Wlad were only 5'9 147 lbs by the same token they would be a KO victim every time, it just doesn't work like that.
Im sure others will bring up many examples of other world class welterweights that was not given this title because they couldnt be at any weight and beat everyone!
As a p4p king that doesnt make sense.
Yeah, it doesn't seem to work when you try to imagine Floyd from 105 to 118, maybe because the athletic ability goes up as you go down in weight. I'm talking about hand and foot speed.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Defining p4p has to be similar to describing what's its like to trip on acid to someone who's never done it.
Or, marketing tag. In an ideal world...skills. That's it. Not number of trinkets, not beating a 'p4p' and then taking his place or entering the conversation. Skill set. It's extremely objective. The holiday Fruitcake of boxing rankings. Big, all over the place and very colorful but I don't want any thanks.
-
Ricky hatton kept using p4p in every other sentance when he fought floyd and then manny.
If he would have won would he have been p4p?
Its all fantasy talk really. A certain group of people decide who the best seem to be and give them this fantasy tag.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
In my mind it is a fighter who with the same skill set, power, height, reach ect at his weight could be cloned with the exact same proportions into another weight. So Floyd at heavyweight would beat the crap out of Wlad. :)
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
The problem then becomes that you could say that about any world class welterweight ever. If they were 6'5 250 pounds and fought exactly the same way it would be completely inhuman and of course they'd beat anybody who ever fought. If Lennox Lewis or Wlad were only 5'9 147 lbs by the same token they would be a KO victim every time, it just doesn't work like that.
Im sure others will bring up many examples of other world class welterweights that was not given this title because they couldnt be at any weight and beat everyone!
As a p4p king that doesnt make sense.
You're not following. I'm saying it's completely impossible for a heavyweight to fight like a welterweight, and vice versa, nothing more. Lighter men are generally more skilled than giants, they have to be, and they obviously fight at a higher pace. There has never been a natural heavyweight as technically sound as a Mayweather or Ricardo Lopez, nor any as high octane and relentless as say Pacquiao. It's physically impossible to fight that way when you have the stature.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Defining p4p has to be similar to describing what's its like to trip on acid to someone who's never done it.
Or, marketing tag. In an ideal world...skills. That's it. Not number of trinkets, not beating a 'p4p' and then taking his place or entering the conversation. Skill set. It's extremely objective. The holiday Fruitcake of boxing rankings. Big, all over the place and very colorful but I don't want any thanks.
Ditto.
Urban Dictionary: P4P
LOL
In some ways its bang on. You have your pimps, top earners, hoes etc. Roach claims there are only 8 ppv fighters. 17 weight divisions or maybe 25 if one includes catch weights. Some fighters mixing it up 2 and even sometimes 3 divisions south of where they should be for a shot at glory in an extremely limited pay market. There are probably only a handful of actual pound for pound fighters out there today and yet the term is used as a blanket. I much prefer top ten fighters today. People and broadcasters alike have flipped it to p4p because it’s simpler and in so doing mocked the origin and meaning of the phrase by watering it down to simply mean the favourites of the day.
That second definition on the page also has merit lol.
-
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
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.
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
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.
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!)
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
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.
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!)
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.
-
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
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
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.
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
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.
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.
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
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.
The p4p #1 has been fighting guys much larger than him for the past few years.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
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.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Its pretty pointless really. Floyd has been most peoples P4P#1 for a long time. But has what he has done been any more impressive then either of the Klits who have beaten everyone in their divs while floyd hasnt really fought the best.
-
Re: p4p, what is your definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Its pretty pointless really. Floyd has been most peoples P4P#1 for a long time. But has what he has done been any more impressive then either of the Klits who have beaten everyone in their divs while floyd hasnt really fought the best.
How about going 17 years without a loss? How about being a world champion since 1998 and fighting world class opposition ever since? Not impressive enough for you?
I don't understand why people say p4p is pointless. P4P is probably the most significant title you can have. It means you are considered the best fighter in the sport (or in the history of the sport, if you're talking about all time p4p). What could be more important (besides making a lot of money) than being considered the greatest in your sport by the boxing community?
There's nothing wrong with the concept. It's the bias and ignorance of those casting their p4p opinions that fucks with the concept.
It makes me shake my head to see guys on here claiming that some old timer who they've never seen fight is one of the greatest of all time. A guy like Benny Leonard, who lost a fuck load of fights in his prime and got KO'd half a dozen times.
-
P4P is not real but i feel we need it.
I think if you ask what makes a floyd mayweather or anderson silva a p4p of their respected sports then you would get alot of varied positive answers.
Its not a real thing but its a great sign of respect to give soneone that tag who is so much better than everyone else.
