Can People Seriously Get The 'P4P' Meaning Right!

Brickhaus got it right. P4P has nothing to do with weight hopping. The meaing has been perverted by people who never really understood the original intent of the term.

 

He wouldn't beat a Mayweather but he would beat the **** out of a Timothy Bradley. Vitali is a very good fighter, don't get it twisted.

 

I never understand this approach?

Why would you hypothesise about a Mayweather 'the same size' as Vitali?

What do you imagine a 6"7 heavyweight Mayweather to be like? Really fast, but completely featherfisted? Doesn't use his height at all?

 

I felt that I would just be stating the obvious.

P4P Rankings aren't about winning titles at many weights, otherwise guys like Hopkins at MW or Trinidad at WW or Lewis at HW or Hamed at FW would never have been ranked as P4P elite when they were only dominating (or prominent in) a solitary division (before they retired or moved up). Hell, using that criteria Marvin Hagler would never have been regarded as an elite P4P fighter!

P4P rankings are simply a way to subjectively compare fighters regardless of their weight.

 

P4P means exactly what it says.

Pound for Pound... blah vs blah.

Has absolutely nothing to do with weight jumping.
A HW can be a P4P fighter.

 

Well, no. You've correctly identified the "right" and "wrong" way of interpreting the term, not two "right" ways.

1 is right.

2 is wrong, yet most idiots think it's 2.

What's funny is that the thread starter is all indignant in his ignorance, beseeching people to get the meaning right when he has it wrong. :yep

 

Brickhaus's definition for the most part, but I would add 'relativity' to that.

Talent + skills divided by weight would equal your P4P ranking. (Just an example, obviously)

Styles will change as weight changes. The higher up in weight you go the more 'one punch' can take you out so this will change fighting style. This makes who fights 'better' even harder to figure out. People like to see more punches, but heavy weight frames just aren't going to allow for that like a bantam weight. Bodies just don't scale in a linear fashion. Why are all of the best gymnasts so small? A two hundred pound man might be able to do a back flip but the landing is going to be much harder on his joints and bones.

 

I think this thread shows that most people understand p4p pretty clearly but I just think too many people think its about ranking accomplishments when in fact its about ranking ability, and although accomplishments are the greatest testament to a fighter's ability, they are not the only one.

Rigondeaux is a good example of a fighter who is alot better and should be rated alot higher than his professional accomplishments would suggest

 

Burt Sugar claims Jimmy Mclarnin was the first fighter that was called the best pound for pound.

It was in a 1930's edition of ring magazine, long before SRR.

 

this one....

 

I don't know why people are jumping on this post as the correct definition of pound-for-pound. It isn't. The part highlighted in red is laughably ludicrous, in spite of it being widely believed. Think about it FFS - if you have to decide who is better between Vitali Klitschko and Ivan Calderon, then you either have to imagine a 6ft 7in, 17st Calderon, or a 5ft 2in, 8st Vitali? Absurd, impossible, pointless. Pound-for-pound means who is the greatest for their size, in comparison to those they compete against, ie Floyd Mayweather is better at his weight than Carl Froch is at his weight, so he ranks higher. It has nothing to do with imagining what a 12st Floyd would be like. If you change a fighter's physical dimensions, you would change him completely as a fighter, so it doesn't work and can't work. An 8st Vit Klit could not fight like Vit Klit actually does. A 6ft 7in Ivan Calderon could not fight like Calderon actually does. Think about it.

 

It's the same as saying inch for inch
or ounce for ounce...


It's like "gold is worth 93$ a lb" "platinum is worth 200$ a lb"

Then, P4P platinum is better.

This **** is super simple.

 

It gets overcomplicated by silly definitions.

You want a definiton of 'P4P'? You have one right there.

It cant usually apply to HW's because a huge HW being ranked P4P is a contradiction in terms.

 

You'd have to have a very strange definition to automatically exclude someone of any weight.

 

No it's not. It's just relative to the big guy's effectiveness 'per pound'. It doesn't matter if he is 12ft tall and 7000lbs. If he is proportionally that much better in the ring, for whatever reason, then he could be ranked highly pound for pound.