How can anybody be ranked above Usyk pound for pound?

I wouldn't say he's a million miles in front of everybody.

Usyk overall has 13 world title wins.

Crawford has 19 world title wins.

Inoue has 25 world title wins.

So both Inoue/Crawford have considerably more world title wins and over multiple weightclasses aswell as being more dominant overall.

I would have Usyk above both because I'm more impressed with Usyk's resume overall so I think quality edges quantity in this case.

But if Crawford beats Canelo he's undoubtedly P4P number 1.

 

But why are you waiting around for an author to answer a question about queensberry rules?

 

Why would the undefeated 140/147/154 champ whose fighting the 154/160/168/175 champ at 168 be ranked above the CW/HW champ P4P?

 

Clearly you've done zero research as to what Pound for Pound is.

First....even Usyk said himself, in multiple interviews that he feels Crawford is p4p #1......He said it most recently earlier this year..

The pound for pound term was created in spite of someone being the bigger guy being the best. Suggesting that a Heavyweight is hands down the pound for pound king is a lazy analysis and easy way to point out someone who doesn't truly follow boxing, they just follow a specific boxer.

No one will argue how talented Usyk is or knock his accomplishments in the 2 divisions he's competed in.... But people arguing that Crawford or Inoue or Canelo, etc....are p4p Kings are basing it off of what it actually means to be p4p.

In regards to Crawford.... He started his career as a lightweight (135 lbs). Won at least one title in every division he's competed in, which is 4 thus far. And most of those bouts were in dominant fashion regardless of the opponent being undefeated and/or a champion at the time of the bout. Crawford is now attempting to compete against the king of the 168lb division at his weight.....Skipping over the 160lb division.

Crawford was also the first to become undisputed in the 4 belt era since BHop and Taylor....that was a 12 year span. Since he's done it, it became the trend for every great active fighter. Then he became the first in the 4 belt era to do it in 2 different divisions.......And then we saw a couple other elites (including Usyk) follow in his footsteps.

Crawford is a 10x world champ across 4 divisions. 3x Lineal champion with victories over 12 world champions. 2x Fighter of the Year. 2x ESPY Award winner. He definitely has an argument for being the current p4p King. And it's no question if he is to come out on top in September vs Canelo regardless of the excuses some of his doubters are trying to create for Canelo.

He doesn't have to be everyone's or even YOUR p4p king....but to say "the concept is pretty pointless" makes me feel like it's "pretty pointless" to attempt to educate you so that you can use logic in your opinions. It's actually pretty laughable reading your post but hey, I love the entertainment.

 

Well, this was a goofy post. Crawford and Canelo are bums for allowing the media to use an actual ranking THAT EVERY ACTIVE BOXER pays attention to and strives to be on, to advertise the best vs the best. Make it make sense......Nevermind, you tried already.....

p4p rankings are meaningless truthfully, but it does give fans and/or media some way to compare the top tiers against each other both active and retired. You spend way too much energy trying to name call a couple fighters on line when we all know that in person you would probably scream and ask them to sign you breasts..... Calm down lady.

 

HWs the most prestigous division but the point of P4P is to elevate non HWs. CW has historically been part of HW and Usyk isn't fighting these guys at 200 hes around the Bridgerweight limit of 225. a borderline superheavyweight beating superheavyweights. Hes not bloated at that weight hes 6'3 thats his natural weight. He was cutting to make CW where he was always right at the limit.

The only reason Usyks "tens of pounds bigger than him" seems historic is because those puny 7 pound weight differences are the standard for non HW boxing. There are countless better representations of this concept. Chagaev was outweighed 90 by Valuev and Haye(a CW) was outweighed by 100.

The reason guys Furys and Valuev size are so rare historically is not that they didn't exist its because smaller guys, guys like Usyk and guys much smaller than Usyk beat them consistantly.

 

Beating Dubois again, after already demolishing him, does nothing for him, P4P. Let's not forget that Ngannou dropped Fury and nearly beat him on points, and Joshua was a shell of himself after his fight with Ruiz. Usyk's cruiserweight resume is the main reason he's in the top bracket of P4P, in my opinion. But he, Inoue, and Crawford are interchangeable; you can make a strong argument for all of them.

Inoue has moved up more weight divisions and had 25 world title fights, knocking out Fulton, and unifying at super bantamweight is just as impressive as Usyk at heavyweight I think - it depends what you like, P4P is subjective and as long as people have Usyk, Inoue and Crawford in their top three, it's hard to make a strong case for any concrete order between them.

 

Good grief... Just when did you discover boxing? P4P was a big thing long before Pac and Floyd

 

Im starting to believe most people that use p4p just do it to cope with the fact that their favorite boxers will probably lose to an average HW contender lmao.

 

Not even going to address the ulterior motives? I can be more blunt; I do not believe you are this stupid.

I criticized the spread of p4p misinformation through boxing media. I claimed it was not dissimilar to lineal then I cited two authors who frequent and frequently push their work here that are guilty of spreading misinformation about lineal.

 

To claim they are spreading lies you have to prove they are indeed lies.

 

2008

 

I’ve had Usyk p4p number 1 since the first AJ fight, and he’s been in my top 4 since Briedis.

 

I am an Usyk fanboy but would say that Usyk, Crawford, and Inoue are all good picks.

 

Are you a grown adult? I didn't say lies I said misinformation.

Didn't you respond to a quote to kick off this interaction that had a criticism for Matt and Adam? I wouldn't know despite owning both men's complete available works but I am pretty sure they both simply restate the Nat Fleischer perspective on the matter while giving Richard Fox a mention and feeling that's plenty for the world of dissent.

Hate to make y'all cry because you're tipout circlejerk sales absolutely depend on respectability but picking a side of a historical debate and running with it is not history keeping, it's fanboying. Can you even name the man who claimed Sullivan can't be world champion because the world doesn't box? Of course you can't. You learned from men who can't tell you the name, publication, or how popular the opinion was.

A historian who actually earned that title tells the history that happened and does not pick a side. A historian explains both sides of a succession crisis' stances and the outcomes but never who was right. Here we have plenty of "historians" who not only claim one perspective on the happenings is the only legitimate perspective but also claim some level of historical accuracy and authority.

A system of misinformation and shaming to the point where simply pointing out your best, most accurate, most adored, avoiding the obvious questions is greeted with a gatekeeping schlimazel feigning comprehension issues.

Finally, if their goals was good quality history rather than selling books, they'd share the information freely rather than a snippet+buy my book and be happy to answer question most fans do not have the knowledge to even ask. Instead, what we have is Adam will chime in on some super well known debate like Jack Johnson fighting Dempsey in a basement while Matt chimes in about Maher-Corbett as Ivich, and I guess you if you're not him, patrol the forum for any criticism to blow up in some misguided attempt at protection not least of which is motivated by mentions in books.