the phrase that i do not like at all is...

[powerpuncher]

this or that fighter would give anybody trouble in the history of boxing. thats such a bold statement and its thrown around way too easily. i have heard it too many times with the klit brothers that they would give any HW in history problems but i have also heard it about other fighters.

the problem with the statement is that most fighters wouldnt give most people problems. you have to be very good to give everybody problems that you fight. we can see tons of examples of older fighters that were great, yet they got beat multiple times and didnt always put up a great fight against their opponents. i think that there are only a handful of fighters in history that would really give just about anybody they fought a lot of trouble. most fighters may win more than they lose, but put them in the golden age of their weight class and i guarantee that most would get easily beaten on more than one occasion.

ill use the klits as an example since they are the ones i hear it the most from. you put them in the 70's and whether or not you think they become the champion, do you think that they are going to be undefeated? and if not, do you seriously think that there arent fighters that would easily win because of styles or because they are just better? i mean, look at ken norton. he was a very good fighter but easily got beaten by some big punchers.

so really im just saying that that phrase bothers me because it just isnt true for most cases that its used in. thanks for reading.

[Hulk]

It is a blanket statement for sure. Doesn't really tell us much either.

That said, Montel Griffin would have given anyone pro.... Lol

[beenKOed]

If that pisses you off, you are going to spend most of your pissed off! That is pretty mild compared to some of the things you are going to hear on Boxing Talk.
Hell, you might even say something asinine yourself. I have.

[IamInuit]

I dont find it overused at all and when it is used especially by those who have a sense of history its usually spot on.

The Klits would trouble anyone in history. Neither is Primo Carnera and if people think there size gives an advantage today they would be gobsmacked if they had a time machine and took them back in time.
I dont recall anyone using it in a manner that was wrong.

I'll tell you the phrase I'm actually so sick of that indifference has set in.

p4p. Its the most abused, misunderstood, misrepresented, meaningless, overused term in boxing.

[Beanflicker]

I'll defend it because I've said this about the Klitschko's multiple times.

I've said that about the Klitschko's because a lot of people on here like to talk about old time greats blowing the Klitschkos out of the water in 2 or 3 rounds.

No matter how you slice it, a 6'5-6'7'', 240-250lb guy with the athletic capabilities of a Klitschko is a dangerous night for anyone in the history of boxing. Same with a guy like Mike Tyson, Ali, Holmes, ect. They have skills and attributes that make them hard to beat.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I don't see what the big deal is.

[Bo-Bo24]

I dont find it overused at all and when it is used especially by those who have a sense of history its usually spot on.

The Klits would trouble anyone in history. Neither is Primo Carnera and if people think there size gives an advantage today they would be gobsmacked if they had a time machine and took them back in time.
I dont recall anyone using it in a manner that was wrong.

I'll tell you the phrase I'm actually so sick of that indifference has set in.

p4p. Its the most abused, misunderstood, misrepresented, meaningless, overused term in boxing.

From what I've seen on Saddo its mainly used in talking about the Klitschko's because quite often they're bashed and put down in comparison to heavyweights from other eras. Thats an intresting point you make about the phrase pound-for-pound though, I've always thought it was a bit of a buzz word used to market fighters from lighter weight classes, such as 'Floyd or Manny whose being p4p king'. Why do you think its a misunderstood and meaningless term in boxing?

[Max Power]

In the sense of the Klitschko's it is undisputably true if that's where this thread is being aimed.

Sometimes I see nostalgic or elderly fans of the sport using it to prop up olden days fighters against much stronger modern opponents. Whilst this may hold true for some examples of the past, it is certainly not true for many others.

[IamInuit]

I dont find it overused at all and when it is used especially by those who have a sense of history its usually spot on.

The Klits would trouble anyone in history. Neither is Primo Carnera and if people think there size gives an advantage today they would be gobsmacked if they had a time machine and took them back in time.
I dont recall anyone using it in a manner that was wrong.

I'll tell you the phrase I'm actually so sick of that indifference has set in.

p4p. Its the most abused, misunderstood, misrepresented, meaningless, overused term in boxing.

From what I've seen on Saddo its mainly used in talking about the Klitschko's because quite often they're bashed and put down in comparison to heavyweights from other eras. Thats an intresting point you make about the phrase pound-for-pound though, I've always thought it was a bit of a buzz word used to market fighters from lighter weight classes, such as 'Floyd or Manny whose being p4p king'. Why do you think its a misunderstood and meaningless term in boxing?

Oh its marketing alright. Today and by that I especially mean the last decade its an easy application for favourite list. As connectivity has grown on forums the word has become much more widely used.
Today it really has no basis and especially not after division expansion. Add to that the fact that most people are fighting 2 divisions south of where they should be and you have a meaningless term based on the historic definition and how it translated in the Traditional eight era and early expansion. Smaller men were always fighting bigger men. The dashing young man in my avatar routinely beat up and knocked out bigger men. Armstrong never asked for a catch weight and weighed 133 when he challenged for the welter title. Greb never asked Tunney for anything. The original Joe Walcott feasted on big guys. Jimmy Wilde probably never outweighed anybody. These are just a few known guys but what they did was common place.That's what pound for pound is. You think you can beat me then you show up at your best weight and I'll show up at mine. Today a Middle could not even challenge a light-heavy when many of them are in fact light heavies fighting at middleweight. The term has been bastardized beyond belief. You wont see Roman Gonzalez on a list but you will see Wlad on one. Yes sir I'd imagine a 7 foot bantamweight with an 80 inch reach would be a little tough to beat. I think Manny and Floyd are pound for pound guys but even they have tainted that claim by agreeing or demanding silly catch-weights for title fights. Not only that but the ped thing I'm afraid also comes into play.

I want to say though that Saddo members dont use it even a fraction of the amount that other places do. In fact many veterans here rarely use it.

[Max Power]

Even though I am a proponent of the modern era and turn in disgust when I hear romantic buildup of a fantasy past... I completely agree we should have same day weigh ins. I don't really care about the number of divisions but I think the WBO belt should be amalgamated with one of the other major bodies and go back to having just 3 belts again and with only 1 champion per belt and division (none of this regular and super champ shit).

And also there should be mandatory unification after certain criteria to avoid keeping the belt separate for reasons of money.

Some things were better in the past. Particularly the weigh ins. They leave fighters dangerously dehydrated and the weights can be grossly disproportionate to actual fight weight. I like 12 rounds better though. I feel it lends to more explosive fights and 15 rounds leads to more featherfists and pacing.

[beenKOed]

I dont find it overused at all and when it is used especially by those who have a sense of history its usually spot on.

The Klits would trouble anyone in history. Neither is Primo Carnera and if people think there size gives an advantage today they would be gobsmacked if they had a time machine and took them back in time.
I dont recall anyone using it in a manner that was wrong.

I'll tell you the phrase I'm actually so sick of that indifference has set in.

p4p. Its the most abused, misunderstood, misrepresented, meaningless, overused term in boxing.

What do you think p4p means?

[Spicoli]

Really unless your talking about a live fight or one that took place it does come down to hypothetical and speculation on both ends of the spectrum, a record shown and a record that might be. At the very least when thinking about a fighter already finished you have an idea given the styles, sizes and class he competed against and as long as you've actually seen a variety of his matches it has legitimacy. It kills me today when we are fed some kid who hasn't done a lot and shows a fair amount of talent but people are ready to say he cleans out a division or blows away others. It's a work in progress and promise and proof are disturbingly blurred at times. 'Living' a fighter at present is more revealing and we often stick with what we know, but as long as you have seen different eras...the fighter at his best and worst...not highlights, not magazine articles etc...then hypothetical on I say. To dismiss a guy because he's not today is missing an opportunity to learn something. Same holds true with yesterday talking now. It's a boxing forum. It's what we do.