p4p, what is your definition?

[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.

[IamInuit]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[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.
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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[p4pking]

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.

[TitoFan]

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.