Can People Seriously Get The 'P4P' Meaning Right!

I thought 'P4P' was actually IN THE NAME meaning 'Pound for Pound' so you only fit in the rankings if you've dominated in multiple weight classes, yet I see names like:

David Haye
Froch
Direll
Edwin Valero
Timothy Bradley- How?? He's been at the same weight class his whole proffessional career.
AND MANY MORE.

Can people PLEASE get the meaning of P4P RIGHT. You aint P4P if you just beat one credible opponent in your division. God.

---Correct me if I'm wrong (y)

EDIT: Changed a few offensive wording as I had a rage moment. Sorry, no damage intended ;D

 

Pound for pound has nothing to do with weight jumping. It's just like saying, if everyone was the same size, who would be the best? For example, Hopkins was P4P #1 for a while, even though he'd only fought at middleweight.

 

This.

 

Hmm. I see. But I always thought the meaning was in the title. Thanks :thumbsup

 

Do they not weigh up how much better and dominating someone is at their weight and compare this against fighters from other weights and call the most gifted and dominant the P4P best of all? That's how I've always understood it.

 

i think that it can be done in either of two ways:

1. your skills are recognised, no matter what your weight is. ricky hatton was an excellent fighter at light-welterweight, but not so good at welterweight. in this kind of P4P rating system, you could say say that hatton at light-welterweight, is a better fighter than froch is at super-middleweight, but, it's all hypothetical, because you can't prove it. hatton can't go super-middleweight, and froch can't go to light-welterweight

2. you are rated on moving around weight divisions, such as mayweather and pacquiao have done succesfully, where, a flyweight, such as pacquaio, can move up the weight classes and beat the bigger men, such as cotto, clottey, de la hoya etc...

so, thats my understanding of it, feel free to put me right

 

It's about who's got the best skills, who is the best boxer if weight advantages are taken out of the equation.

Not about who's been at the most weights

 

Yeah! I've always thought of it in the second way. Thanks for that :good

 

Exactly but its also why Pound for pound rankings are utterly pointless

Would Wlad Klitschko fight the way he does if he wasnt the size he is ? Would a HW Pac be as fast sa he is ? Size and boby type has a huge effect on the style somone employs so saying make them all the same size is madness and unfair on the higher weights.

the term P4P should be banned !!!

 

I regard it to mean if every fighter was middleweight and skill, power, speed etc was proportionate then who's the best.

You can hardly say Hagler ain't a pound for pound great because he stayed at 160??

 

p4p was invented basically for SRR. The HWs were the real starts back then so to give more recognition to the smaller men P4P was invented. its irrelevant , its open to bias , its unprovable , its a waste of time.

 

Absolutely spot on, including the origin of the p4p debate.

 

P4P rankings are meant to rank the best fighters in the world regardless of weight class. Weight jumping should not have anything to do with it.

 

i ve seen so many different definitions for different p4p lists.

 

:thumbsup