I always wondered why in the few sports that have weight classes, it tends to be overlooked what a huge concessions this is to smaller athletes. There are countless sports where size matters, from basketball and football to the shot put or discus throw. Nobody would call a 5'5 football player a "better" player than a 6'5 player who will always starch the small guy in any head to head comparison, no matter how elegant the small guy may be. Yet in boxing, a small fighter A who would lose 10 out of 10 fights against big fighter B can be called the better boxer. I like weightclasses, because we get to see more interesting fights and fighters, but there is no p4p champion, it is all purely imaginary. The Klitschkos right now are the best boxers in the world, because in the actual sport of boxing, they would beat anybody. Pacman (whom I admire a lot) Mayweather etc. are simply not as good at the sport of boxing as the Klitschkos, because in this sport in any direct confrontation they would lose. A 150 pound athlete may have the most beautiful technique for throwing the dicuss but will never be considered "better" than the 280 pound world champion.
You say mayweather is not as good at the sport of boxing as say, valuev, because valuev would beat him. But mayweather IS better at boxing, but valuevs physical advantages will propel him to victory... And since this is so glaringly obvious, people DO make these p4p lists to give recognition to those they feel are the best at what they do. Im not quite sure how you dont understand that. If you put gloves on lebron james, he would probably beat up Rafael Marquez.... that doesnt make him a better boxer or fighter.
hmm says . . . I don't think it's BS. It does reap benefit to the fighter's merit and the sport itself.. ie. ppl will want to pay to see top p4p fighters face off. The only thing that can be BS is how and where some of the fighters are ranked where it is open to debate.
I honestly think that Valuev would BEAT Floyd in the sport of boxing. Boxing is about results, it's not about artistry like figure skating. A runner may have an awful stlye but run faster than a more elegant runner, who would be the BETTER runner in this case? John Ngugi comes to mind, 1988 Olypmic champion in the 5k, absolutely horrible style, but BETTER runner than most others.
So if person A BEATS person B in boxing or fighting, that DOESN'T make them better at boxing or fighting???? This kind of logic only holds up in a sport with artificially created weightclasses. Size is a huge advantage in fighting, as in many other sports. Shaq is better at basketball than some 5'5 guy who can move better and with more elegance.
I don't see the logic of Mosley going form 5 to 3 position P4P when he is not fighting for so long. I don't know what Ishy and Rafa are doing there with all my respect for them. The current p4p list of Ring is very strange
if "person A" was klitchko and "person B" was mayweather, then NO, that doesn't make him better at boxing or fighting. It just means he had physcial advantages.