Pound 4 Pound. The meaning?

I usually just take it as meaning who would be the best if everyone were the same size. I don't take it so seriously.

The term really wasn't invented for Sugar Ray Robinson. That claim is bull****.

 

Skill/achievement regardless of size.

For instance, Wladamir Klitschko would probably kill Floyd Mayweather if they met in the ring. But p4p Floyd is by far the better boxer.

 

It is a completely subjective term which tries to accomplish the impossible: figure out who is truly the best boxer. Some people will view it as a qualifier of skill alone, in which case Wlad does not rate high. Others include consistency or dominating a division (no matter the strength) and Wlad rates higher.

I tend to think it is a matter of skillset (speed, agility, power, footwork, defense, chin) with a little consideration of intangibles (heart, "wow" factor when in the ring) and as a result have Wlad ranked a lot lower than many.

Your top ten list should be a testament to what you believe is important in boxing. It is a debate that is never meant to be resolved. It will be going on, in one forum or another, as long as boxing is around.

 

NICE....:happy:happy boxing fans every have hope !!!!

But really though... good post :good

 

I think of it as being about a boxer's standing relative to a) what could realistically be expected of them and b) the achievements of their peers.

This explains Floyd and Pac topping the list, as well as Wlad being featured in the Top 10.

Thinking of it this way makes sense in a P4P ATG sense too.

 

Oki but how does that work when we take boxers into consideration that benefit from size advantages in reach and height over their opponent?
If you say the if they were the same size stuff then their advantages they mostly benefit of would be gone?

 

I just usually base it off resume tbh

 

Hence a lot of people not rating the Klitschkos so highly.

 

it really should jsut be called your top 10 boxers these days. Its purely based on personal opinion/preferences and what people rate/dislike. I mean its all relative you cant be the size of a HW and have the speed of some of the 118 sized guys. So when you compare them with HWs do you reduce their speed, and how much do you increase their power??? Its an impossible topic to agree on thats why its pretty meaningless IMO.

 

No, but everything is relative.

If for example Thomasz Adamek has a poor k/o rating at heavyweight, and Manny Pacquiao has a better one at 'welter', then p4p he hits harder, because he knocks out his opposition in his chosen weight class, whereas Adamek does not.

In reality, Adamek, hits harder than Pacquiao, but p4p he does not.

 

Most people doesnt have a list that makes sense but you still find Manny and Floyd on 1st and 2nd place tho i dont think Floyd should be on anyones p4p list as he has been inactive for more than a year

 

Weighing your personal view of the importance of a fighters' ACCOMPLISHMENT + SKILL.

Essentially, a pound for pound list is a: "List the best boxers in the sport in order."

I do take pound for pound pretty serious. We have been in the pound for pound era for about 20 years now...


3. Martinez
4. Donaire
5. JMM
6. W. Klitschko
7. Hopkins
8. Bradley
9. Segura
10. Ward

 

Dont see the sense in taking it serious...

Esp when your list is **** like that. Imo

 

Comparing peoples skill levels when their physiques are massively different it truly idiotic. If a man reaches his potential at 5'6 there is now way in hell that he has the same skill set if he all of a sudden becomes 6'6. People develop their skill-sets to suit their physique.