I was reading a post on another forum about the whole P4P debate...especially about the HW vs all other divisions. One guy logically concluded: "This is one of the biggest problems with the P4P idea of blowing up a 150 pound guy to 250 pounds ... he'd get slower and less agile because of the extra weight he has to move. Strength goes up with cross section, weight goes up with volume ... ie weight increases faster than strength as size increases" By default , wouldn't that make all HW > than the rest ? The idea of P4P is to look at the skills and how the lighter guys would fare under the same / equal conditions. But obviously that would be ****ing stupid since they wouldn't be the same if they'd be heavier. (perfect example of this...James Toney.) The term "Pound for Pound" was invented when a discussion arose about Sugar Ray Robinson's chances as a Heavyweight. "How would he fare at heavyweight". Well obviously if he'd be the same than it would be quite interesting but the reality is that "hypothetically or not" his skills wouldn't be the same if he'd be much heavier. I think people often forget to realise how incredible it is for some of these guys (concidering how physically huge some of them are) , to perform like they are in combat. I know , i know...a HW fight can be extremely boring to watch at times. It can be slow too. But it's not always like that (thankfully). But i think it's too easy to constantly add this P4P "joker" card... Because it doesn't translate well to reality.
I dont mind hearing it because its not how I view the P4P discussion.. I believe P4P is based on this type of criteria, atleast its what I judge the fighters on: -Accomplishments (who they have beaten, title belts, wins, losses, etc.) -Skills .. -physical makeup.. -mentality in the ring.. I know this is hard to think of for some people.. but I look at a fighters attitude and there mentality when they are in the ring.. how they react to pain.. to being hit.. to incoming punches.. how quick there reflexes are.. there involuntarymuscle body responses to defending themselves againstpunches.. aggresiveness.. defensiveness.. everything..
Yeah, it's not exactly as if Pacquiao became a 6'7" monster and carried all his strengths with him to superheavyweight. It's more about taking the respective strenghs of fighters as they apply to their divisions and matching those strengths, losely speaking, against the strengths of fighters of different divisions. Fast and powerful at WW is not fast and powerful at HW. It's relative. And probably a bit of nonsense as well. We need to talk and compare and debate in boxing: there's so much time between big fights, there's not much else to do.
I think t is not that ridiculous to use it as an argument, if all the factors in p4p4 rankings are met. (quality of opposition, how they fared against, intangibles, talent, strength, weakness). Now, if you use it to argue for a certain fighter without considering all those criteria would be somehow foolish.
It's a concept that has a lot of troubling issues, not least of which is the lack of a clear understanding, or agreement, on the meaning of the term. And just about all senses of the term have some problematic issues. And yet, folks argue and post long tomes, attempting to justify their sense of what it means. Not utterly ridiculous, but not too far from it !
This whole concept of a heavyweight in a p4p top 10 list being ludicrous is total bull****. Not everyone can be a featherweight and throw 150 punches a rd dont intangibles and power count for anything doesnt dominating a divison while fighting the best it has to offer mean anything. people want tp leave out Joe louis and Ali out of P4P all-time great list I think thats total bulll****.
I see what you mean , but that's another issue... I'm talking about the direct comparisons. The basic logic behind it seems a bit...absurd.
