Is this what P4P means to some people? If it is.. that's moronic.

Also, Ability /=/ Skills necessarily. George Foreman didn't possess a lot of skill per se, but he had the ability to dominate fighters and win the vast majority of his bouts. Lucas Matthysse isn't by any means the 'most skilled', but he's probably the best light welterweight on the planet and thats to do with his fighting ability in general, his power is a massive equalizer. It's about getting the job done. Abner Mares - Most skilled? No, but he's beaten a level of opposition to deserve P4P status.

 

It just comes down to private speculation at that point. Rankings should be about who you beat in and around your division.

 

It doesn't mean anything, it's all useless. The most subjective and speculative lists with absolutely no factual basis in all of boxing are those Top 100 ATG lists. Its so full of BS.

 

How much do you love the fact that it was Marquez - and not Floyd - who schooled and then KTFO Pacquiao? He took the glory

 

Not everyone agrees with boxrec rankings.

 

Mayweather is still better then both Marquez and Pacquiao.

:hi:

 

And you think I have a problem with that somehow? I used to be what was considered a *****. That standard has been redefined with a status quo I can't get down with.

 

I do the same thing . . . only if fighters are close in size do I consider a match-up the TS suggests but it would have to be against the whole weight-class. i would do it say 2 maybe 3 weight-classes difference. For HW I tend to think how would they fare if they were LHW. Right now I would favour Dawson and Bhop over anyone in a heavier weight-class if there was an adjustment in size, physical traits and athletic ability.

you have to capture some measure of weight in a pound for pound comparison or else it is not p4p. What i mean is you cannot weigh longevity or domination that heavily because what if they fought a bunch of bums or the division is weak . . . all though you can put that in the mix.

also for me record does not weigh as heavy because you may have beaten EVERYONE and the BEST fighters in the world but if you barely get by a d class fighter than it will drop you down. that being said if you totally outclass a top 10 ranked guy it will rise your stock but you do not necessarily take their spot.

So for me i rank fighters based on in order;

1) Skill . . . ring IQ, ring generalship, technical ability, footwork, ability to set up punches . . . etc.

2) Physical ability . . . power, stamina, speed, quickness, punch resistance etc.

(I weigh Skill slightly over physical ability, because a skilled fighter can overcome a lot of disparity in physical ability)

3) Mythical H2H match-up (adjustment as stated above).

4) their last performance (unless there are mitigating factors)

4) record


In the end it all comes down to it, it personal criteria based on your own understanding of boxing.

Also P4P is a spot or extremely short term measure. ATG status is complete different than P4P and i think the starter is mixing up with the inter-generational part of the question he asked.

 

Boxrec method is flawed . . . if a fighter looks great for 11 rounds and gets KOed in the last minute . . . it should not drop him more if he is thoroughly outboxed (should have been shout out across the board) and loses by a split decision. Boxrec is garbage in - garbage out

 

It's all his. All of it.

Depends how you define "better". He's more versatile than both, beat JMM head to head, but never fought his greatest test in Manny, who JMM fought 4 times and beat at least twice with the odds against him, and Manny's a bit more accomplished in his resume.

Most consider Floyd better because of the way he looks on film and his 0, and that's cool, but in terms of ranking, his actual accomplishments (while impressive) have a hole or two that work against him.

I'll never boost a fighter based on what I think he'd do-only on what he's done.

 

that is why PBF maybe consider a greater P4P fighter throughout both their careers but Pac maybe considered higher up in the ATG status . . . at least that is what could be argued. Right now I would say they are pretty close ATG but I try not to rank for about 5 years after they call it a day.

 

This is exactly what pound-for-pound is. Like HoldMyBeer said, it has to be mythical.

 

stop being so stupid. Every real boxing fans know that smaller guys generally will be more skilled, they take that into consideration, Wladimir's Jab is P4P one of the best out there, P4P best fighter in the world after you consider how good they are in their own division after considering all the factors, e.g. Wlad is top 6/7 fighter on the planet in most peoples views.

So comparing say a floyd to wlad, you compare there speeds in there own divisions, so how fast wlad is for a Heavyweight to how fast Floyd is for a WW, not who is faster in a direct comparison