A paradox about p4p rankings

[CGM]

To me, what I am about to explain seems obvious, yet it is never been given lip service by the press or boxing pundits.

It relates to what happens to a boxer's p4p status as he moves up in weight.

Let's take Pacquaio. I have seen it written that by moving up and defeating de la Hoya at welterweight, he has solidified his hold on the p4p #1 spot. I would say he has solidified nothing. Now that he is at welterweight, I don't think anyone is going to say that he is the #1 welterweight, that he can beat guys like Cotto, Margarito, Mosely. But it doesn't seem like anyone is going to take away his p4p#1 either.

You could say the same about a lot of guys. Hatton moves up to welterweight and wins against a lesser champ. Suppose he stays for a while. His p4p doesn't go down, even though is is now in a much tougher division, in among a number of fighters that would be favored over him.

Probably one could come with a similar argument for mayweather.

The whole point is, the whole basis for a particular p4p ranking changes when a fighter changes division.

No big deal I guess. The whole concept of p4p ranking is pretty questionable anyway.

[SRR]

Yes, I agree that when a fighter goes up and beats one guy but not the top guys it seems a bit strange that their p4p ranking goes up and stays there. However, I think you're looking at it wrong. Think of it like this: when a guy goes up in weight he is pitting himself against guys who are naturally bigger and stronger than he. Therefore, his p4p rankings goes up because he has proven that he is able to cope with the difference in weight despite being at an inherent disadvantage. This ability to cope with the weight difference can only be explained by the fact that that fighter's skills are so superior to the other fighter that the weight difference becomes immaterial. It's like when an athlete in another sport is dominant in more than one category or event. It's why Arsenal, for example [if you're a football fan] are not currently considered as being up there with the likes of Manchester United and Liverpool - because both of these teams have won the Champions League multiple times, and Arsenal have yet to win it once. It's about stepping out of your comfort zone and yet still prevailing, though the odds might be against you. That's my perspective on it, anyway.

[CGM]

Good points. If you look at it that way, it makes sense.

However, it sounds like you think it is not unreasonable for a boxer to be above another boxer in the same division in p4p rankings, but not in divisional rankings. Not sure I can agree with that. Things just get too messy.

I think the whole concept of the "natural weight" of a fighter is also very ethereal (debatable), you start taking that into account and rankings become even more subjective.

[SRR]

Good points. If you look at it that way, it makes sense.

However, it sounds like you think it is not unreasonable for a boxer to be above another boxer in the same division in p4p rankings, but not in divisional rankings. Not sure I can agree with that. Things just get too messy.

I think the whole concept of the "natural weight" of a fighter is also very ethereal (debatable), you start taking that into account and rankings become even more subjective.

It is, as you said, a tad paradoxical. It's really just about how a fighter copes when he's physically 'out of his depth'. It's kind of like putting a young kid in a swimming pool and seeing how deep they can go. It might be unreasonable to expect them to go right to the end of the pool, but for an older kid it's more than reasonable - in fact, it's expected. However, you might say the younger kid is a better swimmer because they can go deeper than they are expected to. Now, these kids might compete against each other, but the older kid would probably win due to the physical advantage [extra height/muscle]. Yet it is still possible to view the younger kid as the better swimmer, given the circumstances.

As for natural weight, that is probably an even more contentious subject than p4p rankings. Essentially, if a fighter is 'comfortable' at a certain weight, i.e. they find it easy to make that weight, then I would say that is probably their 'natural weight'. But, tbh it's so subjective and open to debate that one might even argue such a thing does not exist as natural weight.

[Kev]

To me, what I am about to explain seems obvious, yet it is never been given lip service by the press or boxing pundits.

It relates to what happens to a boxer's p4p status as he moves up in weight.

Let's take Pacquaio. I have seen it written that by moving up and defeating de la Hoya at welterweight, he has solidified his hold on the p4p #1 spot. I would say he has solidified nothing. Now that he is at welterweight, I don't think anyone is going to say that he is the #1 welterweight, that he can beat guys like Cotto, Margarito, Mosely. But it doesn't seem like anyone is going to take away his p4p#1 either.

You could say the same about a lot of guys. Hatton moves up to welterweight and wins against a lesser champ. Suppose he stays for a while. His p4p doesn't go down, even though is is now in a much tougher division, in among a number of fighters that would be favored over him.

Probably one could come with a similar argument for mayweather.

The whole point is, the whole basis for a particular p4p ranking changes when a fighter changes division.

No big deal I guess. The whole concept of p4p ranking is pretty questionable anyway.

I think you are missing what the p4p idea is based on.

It's evaluated in two ways.

Firstly the idea of a mythical matchup, in which all fighters are exactly equal in weight (i.e no physical disadvantages) then who would be the best on pure boxing ability?

So in this way a Manny Pacquaio can be compared to a Joe Calzaghe for example even though Joe would obviously be too big for Manny in a real fight.

Without the size difference, and if they were both naturally in the same weight class who would win?

The second part of the evaluation concerns acomplishments, i.e who have they beat, what titles have they won, how long have their reigned, and especially what have they done recently.

When Manny beat Oscar he moved up 2 weight classes and beat a shoe in Hall of Famer and one of the best boxers of the last 15 years. It was an amazing acomplishment and of course solidifies his status as p4p number 1.

What weight class he is in is completely and utterly irrelevent.

You are basically arguing about weight rating rankings rather than p4p, for example I don't think Manny is in the top 5 at welterweight let alone number one, however p4p he is clearly the best fighter in the world as no current fighter has acomplished as much and is in as great form as Manny Pacquaio.

[Scrap]

CGM, you are bang on the money, what happens is the pscyhcodynamics change and at the end of the day that means everything does, good thinking. The bigger it gets the more it Hurts.

[Kev]

CGM, you are bang on the money, what happens is the pscyhcodynamics change and at the end of the day that means everything does, good thinking. The bigger it gets the more it Hurts.

This makes no sense at all Scrap, so you think Manny was the best p4p fighter in the world before he fought Oscar, but now he's moved up two weight classes and knocked him out he should drop places?

That's absurd, isn't the idea supposed to be that p4p gives the 10 best fighters in the world at that moment regardless of weight?

[CGM]

Bilbo, I understand the intent of p4p rankings. Your statement "Without the size difference, and if they were both naturally in the same weight class who would win" comes pretty close, however I think we disagree on the significance of the word naturally. Otherwise your argument is good. Also keep in mind I am not talking about all time p4p, I am talking about current p4p.

IMO the word naturally is used too loosely, it means diffeent things to different people, and has different effects for different fighters. Consider Alexis Arguello. I would not say he was a natural featherweight any more than I would say he was a natural lightweight. He looked pretty conmfortable at all three weights he was champ at. If there was a top guy at lightweight bang goes Arguello's p4p ranking. But there wasn't and his p4p is preserved. However he makes another move up to JWW and runs into a dude called Aaron Pryor. He loses twice, and IMO if he was above Pryor in current p4p rankings, he should no longer be. That doesn't diminish what he has accomplished, nor does it ncessarily affect his all time p4p.

In other words. there are some fighters whose effectiveness is not hurt by a reasonable change in weight. And there are some who are.

OK so PAC is currently a welterweight, although maybe not top 5 according to you. If he is a welterweight, and his Ring magazine p4p Ranking is still #1, then guaranteed his Ring welterweight ranking will also be #1. It must be. Things get too subjective otherwise.

It will be interesting to see if Ring Magazine ranks PAC as a welterweight. If they do rank him as a welterweight, it will have to be at #1. Or he loses their p4p #1.

By the very same logic, Floyd has been ranked as #1 welterweight, even though everyone knows he has not proved himself as such. Probably the only reason he is Ring's #1 welterweight is so they can preserve his current p4p #1.

Suppose PAC decides to stay at ww and fight Cotto or Margarito and loses a close decision. Probably another great achievment for PAC, but his current #1 p4p goes by the wayside. Unfair maybe, but that's the way the ball bounces, regardless of his so called natural weight.

You seem to be implying that Pacquaio is not "natural" at welterweight. While that may or may not true, it is open for debate. It is impossible to quantify, nor does at apply to all fighters in the same way.

[Scrap]

Bilbo if you understand it, it makes perfect sense

[TitoFan]

P4p is an attempt to compare, on an even keel, fighters that can't be compared conventionally because of the weight difference. It's a bit like when you say "per capita". For instance, a city like Detroit might have less crime overall than New York City, let's say. But maybe if you compare based on a "per capita" basis, Detroit might have more crime. You need to compare things which have a common denominator.

[Kev]

Bilbo, I understand the intent of p4p rankings. Your statement "Without the size difference, and if they were both naturally in the same weight class who would win" comes pretty close, however I think we disagree on the significance of the word naturally. Otherwise your argument is good. Also keep in mind I am not talking about all time p4p, I am talking about current p4p.

IMO the word naturally is used too loosely, it means diffeent things to different people, and has different effects for different fighters. Consider Alexis Arguello. I would not say he was a natural featherweight any more than I would say he was a natural lightweight. He looked pretty conmfortable at all three weights he was champ at. If there was a top guy at lightweight bang goes Arguello's p4p ranking. But there wasn't and his p4p is preserved. However he makes another move up to JWW and runs into a dude called Aaron Pryor. He loses twice, and IMO if he was above Pryor in current p4p rankings, he should no longer be. That doesn't diminish what he has accomplished, nor does it ncessarily affect his all time p4p.

In other words. there are some fighters whose effectiveness is not hurt by a reasonable change in weight. And there are some who are.

OK so PAC is currently a welterweight, although maybe not top 5 according to you. If he is a welterweight, and his Ring magazine p4p Ranking is still #1, then guaranteed his Ring welterweight ranking will also be #1. It must be. Things get too subjective otherwise.

It will be interesting to see if Ring Magazine ranks PAC as a welterweight. If they do rank him as a welterweight, it will have to be at #1. Or he loses their p4p #1.

By the very same logic, Floyd has been ranked as #1 welterweight, even though everyone knows he has not proved himself as such. Probably the only reason he is Ring's #1 welterweight is so they can preserve his current p4p #1.

Suppose PAC decides to stay at ww and fight Cotto or Margarito and loses a close decision. Probably another great achievment for PAC, but his current #1 p4p goes by the wayside. Unfair maybe, but that's the way the ball bounces, regardless of his so called natural weight.

You seem to be implying that Pacquaio is not "natural" at welterweight. While that may or may not true, it is open for debate. It is impossible to quantify, nor does at apply to all fighters in the same way.

But I don't see why weight is a factor at all. Let's consider the current top 10 as provided by the ring magazine, and then try and work out how they came to pick the fighters that they did.

Well number 1 they have Manny Pacquaio. Why is there? Because he has a total of 6 wins against first ballot hall of famers in Erik Morales, Barrera, Marquez and De La Hoya including a staggering 4 knockouts. He's won belts in I believe 4 divisions and been considered the champ in about 6. He's won fights in three different divisions in 2008 alone winning two world titles and beating the world's most popular and well known fighter, a 6 weight champ by knockout and he moved up two weight classes to do it.

Under any criteria you want to analyse by Manny IS the best fighter in the world on merit right now. Nobody else can rival him.

Then when you consider the other placings, although we can all disagree about exact placings every fighter clearly deserves, based on their acomplishments to be ranked where they are.

I have no idea what moving up or down a weight class has to do with it other than that by winning in another weight class and beating another world champ the winner adds to their acomplishments.

Manny beat Oscar so his reputation increases, if he would have lost his reputation would have decreased, or considering he was expected to lose anyway basically stayed the same. But he did what very few thought he could, he beat Oscar, and not just beat him but beat him up.

Therefore he's even more the p4p number 1 in the world now.

If he fights again at welter and loses he won't be p4p number 1 most likely becuase he won't be acomplishing as much.

Kind of like James Toney, who whilst clearly one of the 10 best fighters in the world in the early part of this millenium wasn't ranked p4p because he had moved to heavyweight and clearly, based on results, wasn't doing so well there.

To be honest I think he still desereved a spot after beating Holyfield and Ruiz because his performances were amazing, but as a heavyweight he wasn't rated, a cruel oversight in my view.

I would like to state that I am talking about the James Toney up until a couple years ago at least, not the obese, slow, blubbery mess of a man we see nowadays

But in short Manny IS p4p number 1 now. If he fights Ricky and loses, or Floyd and loses, or Margarito and loses, he won't be p4p 1 any more but until he loses of course he is

[Kev]

Bilbo if you understand it, it makes perfect sense

You mean like salvation..............and marmite?

[Kev]

P4p is an attempt to compare, on an even keel, fighters that can't be compared conventionally because of the weight difference. It's a bit like when you say "per capita". For instance, a city like Detroit might have less crime overall than New York City, let's say. But maybe if you compare based on a "per capita" basis, Detroit might have more crime. You need to compare things which have a common denominator.

I'm always impressed by people who manage to say in one sentence what it takes me at least a couple paragraphs to articulate

I think I need some kind of bluster control

[CGM]

To be honest Bilbo, I don't disagree with you, and I don't have anything better to offer. I'm just pointing out what I consider to be a flaw in the concept.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see how Ring Magazine handles it. Will they rank PAC as a welterweight, and will they rank him as the #1 welterweight, assuming he still has his p4p #1 status. Same question applies to JWW, seeing as how it looks like he will fight Hatton.

So how do you see it? How do you think Ring magazine will/should rank PAC?

Me, I do not think Ring will rank him #1 p4p without being #1 in a particular division.

[antimoron]

To be honest Bilbo, I don't disagree with you, and I don't have anything better to offer. I'm just pointing out what I consider to be a flaw in the concept.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see how Ring Magazine handles it. Will they rank PAC as a welterweight, and will they rank him as the #1 welterweight, assuming he still has his p4p #1 status. Same question applies to JWW, seeing as how it looks like he will fight Hatton.

So how do you see it? How do you think Ring magazine will/should rank PAC?

Me, I do not think Ring will rank him #1 p4p without being #1 in a particular division.

they will not rank him on welter and jr. welter... they have him on lightweight... Pac defies weight classes that makes him special..