Can People Seriously Get The 'P4P' Meaning Right!

delete

 

OP should post a P4P list so we can point and laugh at it. Lets see if it's even consistent with his own criteria.

 

People have to remember this above post.
It was assumed the fighters would never meet up and so they were ranked the best in imaginary fight match ups.
Anyway, the above is an important posts for people nowadays who care so much about p4p rankings.
Also, p4p was sure as hell not an excuse for talented big man to beat up on talented little men just because they were both on the lists. Divisions are very important and so are the titles.

 

Another way of seeing it is "relative to his size, how good is this boxer" because obviously a heavyweight will be a better fighter than a flyweight in the ring but RELATIVE TO HIS SIZE the flyweight might be better.

The whole concept of pound for pound is a ratio of overall ability / size.

Ability is not just technical ability it includes things like skills, strength, power, chin, etc. which means that of course a bigger fighter has more ability because he is bigger. But relative to his size, its different.

The same way a male boxer might be better than a female boxer due to physical advantages but the female boxer could be better relative to her gender.

 

i think those being successful in actually fighting at different divisions (lower and upper) are supposed to have a more realistic basis to be ranked in the P4P sense. Ofcourse showing dominance in one division is impressive but an actual achievement in getting to fight in different divisions should somehow matter. If they were successful in fighting bigger opponents, what more if they actually were the same size while maintaining the the same skills/attributes.

 

that's true but people have to be careful because just cause a fighter went up in weight does not necessarily mean he is always gonna be smaller than the other guys at his new weightclass. For example I don't think Mayweather could still make 140 so its kind of rediculous for someone to say that Mayweather is a better p4p than Mosley but Mosley is better than Mayweather at 147.

 

Too much emphasis shouldn't be placed on just talent/ability. Level of opposition should be considered as well when doing p4p lists.

 

the way I see it is that level of opposition is a way to determine who has more ability, but the bottom line is still ability.

What i mean is that I can say that "Khan has more ability than Bradley" but since his level of opposition is not as good, my argument is pretty weak. So level of opposition is important but only because that's how a fighter demonstrates his ability.

 

This is how I rate it (obviously everyone does it differently):

25% - Overall record
25% - Current record (last 2 years)
25% - H2H ability
25% - Potential

 

If you look at someone like Nonito Donaire, he clearly is a very talented fighter but the quality of his opposition since the Vic win hasn't been all that. For that reason Donaire has no place on a p4p top 10 list IMO.

edit: See you added a bit on, you're pretty much spot on :good. Level of opposition is needed to prove ability and justify a fighters ranking.

 

Yes, but your success in other weight divisions beside your own is an accomplishment in itself, which if we were to match two fighters (from separate divisions) in equal size while maintaining every attribute, wouldnt you have an advantage of some sort over someone who's been successful only in one division?

 

Huh , well there you go , I figured the phrase was older but I'd always read Sugar was the first one they used it for.

Ach well I guess that how you become an admin


It doesnt stop it being a pointless and foolish way to rank fighters

 

Of course I would consider his overall resume but I would still try to rate the fighter at his present size only, because that's what matters in the ring.

 

yea but there are other factors that can justify a fighters ranking like level of dominance, consistancy, flashes of brilliance during his fights (even if its not against stellar opposition), etc.

 

Thats bull****. Its really not a difficult concept, its just about being able to hypothesise about how fighters would fare at the same weight class.

Thats why you cannot rate a HW, or at least, a HW who is a career HW or one who is not particularly small. Vitali for example, would never beat a Mayweather his size. Its about taking away those intangibles of size and weight.