Why are you telling me this? I've stated numerous times, not just in this thread, that I rate fighters according to their era. That's why he's #13-#14 on my list.
Sure. You write things on the forum you want people to read...i write things on the forum that I want people to read...Sweet Pea saw the light as regards Lopez thanks to my wonderful post, after all!
If there's anything I write that I want to be read more often, it's my praise of modern fighters. The amount of times I've been labelled 'biased' towards the old timers...
How do you rate P4P according to their era? I thought the whole point of P4P was to match up this boxer against him regardless of era. Of course, when ranking a fighter under a given criteria in terms of their greatness you should. But not P4P. So modern fighters get more benefits and become bigger and have more muscle... well that's what makes P4P easier to do. H2H is an entirely different story, but P4P is fair when matching different eras. Never entirely fair, but as fair as you can get...
It's just rating how good a fighter was, regardless of weight. Ignore head-to-head matchups for the moment, it's all to do with greatness, and you could say 'Joe Gans was the greatest of his era' therefore he'd end up quite high on one of these lists, despite the fact he may have lost to Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Ah okay. I've always thought P4P was a way to match fighters up H2H without weight advantages/disadvantages. So It's basically a list of ranking the greatest fighters of all time?
Yeah. The actual term 'pound-for-pound' and the weightless matchups that surround it are just useless. 'If Ruben Olivares weighed 210lbs, would he have beaten Muhammad Ali' - that sort of stuff.
i get it aswell basically if you say a current fighter would have lost to anyone befor ethe 80s your biased (thats in the General forum anyway) nope. Its basically just ranking there achievements etc... and organising a list in Greatness.